E ns , Fabian; Bendig, Da id; Puechel, Lea
A icle — Published Ve sion
Religion in Family Fi ms: A Socioemo ional Weal h
Pe spec i e on Top-Le el Execu i es wi h Pe cei ed
Religiosi y
Jou nal o Business E hics
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: E ns , Fabian; Bendig, Da id; Puechel, Lea (2024) : Religion in Family Fi ms: A
Socioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e on Top-Le el Execu i es wi h Pe cei ed Religiosi y, Jou nal o
Business E hics, ISSN 1573-0697, Sp inge Ne he lands, Do d ech , Vol. 194, Iss. 3, pp. 707-730,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-023-05606-7
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/315223
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Vol.:(0123456789)
Jou nal o Business E hics (2024) 194:707–730
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10551-023-05606-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e
onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi hPe cei ed Religiosi y
FabianE ns 1 · Da idBendig1· LeaPuechel1
Recei ed: 10 June 2022 / Accep ed: 18 Decembe 2023 / Published online: 10 Feb ua y 2024
© The Au ho (s) 2024
Abs ac
The ex en and mechanisms h ough which eligion in e wines wi h decision-making p ocesses in amily i ms emain
inadequa ely unde s ood. Family i m owne s, d i en by hei commi men o e hical business p ac ices and he sa egua ding
o hei socioemo ional weal h, ac i ely seek cues o in o m hei decision-making p ocesses. This esea ch demons a es
ha , among hese guiding cues, op-le el execu i es’ pe cei ed eligiosi y eme ges as a ele an ac o . Building upon
he socioemo ional weal h pe spec i e and conduc ing a longi udinal analysis based on lis ed amily i ms be ween 2009
and 2018, ou indings e eal a posi i e associa ion be ween amily o ing igh s and he p esence o boa d membe s
pe cei ed o be eligious. Fu he mo e, his ela ionship is less p onounced i amily i ms ope a e in indus ies wi h high
esea ch and de elopmen in ensi y. Ou s udy con i ms ha boa ds wi h high sha es o eligiously pe cei ed di ec o s a e
posi i ely associa ed wi h he appoin men o chie execu i e o ice s pe cei ed o be eligious du ing succession e en s.
We he eby p esen a unique pe spec i e ha acknowledges pe cei ed eligiosi y as a mic o-le el cons i uen shaping boa d
membe ship and successo selec ion. This in es iga ion cap u es he in ica e in e play be ween eligion and amily i ms
unde a socioemo ional weal h umb ella, o e ing impo an insigh s o he amily business e hics discou se. Ou esea ch
also o e s p ac ical implica ions o boa d and leade ship di e si y managemen in amily i ms.
Keywo ds Family i ms· Socioemo ional weal h· Religious manage s· Boa d o di ec o s· Chie execu i e o ice ·
Religious di e si y
In oduc ion
Di e si y wi hin amily i m boa ds has ecen ly been asso-
cia ed wi h subs an ial digi al ans o ma ion and g ow h
(PwC, 2023), ye di e si y in hese boa ds emains limi ed
(Muba ka & Kamme lande , 2022). This lack o di e si y
can be a ibu ed o he desi e o os e us wi hin he amily
coali ion and p omo e a sha ed e hical unde s anding among
leade s (PwC, 2023; So enson & Milb and , 2023), which
esul s in usingcogni i e il e s’ and alues’ inexecu i e
decision-making (Ca pen e e al., 2004). Al hough exis ing
boa d di e si y measu es ocus on obse able a iables (e.g.,
gende ), deepe -le el a iables like eligion and spi i uali y
could also play a ole in os e ing his p edominan ly homog-
enous leade ship pa adigm. A e all, eligious di e si y has
gene ally been acknowledged as one aspec o wo kplace
and leade ship di e si y (Co ing on e al., 2020; Gebe
e al., 2014), despi e emaining empi ically unde ec ed in
amily i m li e a u e hus a (Anglin e al., 2023; As achan
e al., 2020; Ca pen e e al., 2004; Gebe e al., 2014).
I we unde s and he implici mechanisms h ough which
eligiosi y en e s amily i m businesses, knowledge gained
in his domain holds p omise o cul i a ing di e se leade -
ship wi hin amily i ms, pa icula ly in e ms o he in ica e
ace o eligion as a deepe -le el a iable. We aim o ill his
gap by empi ically explo ing amily i ms’ leade ship pe -
cei ed eligiosi y h ough he lens o socioemo ional weal h
(SEW), a amewo k pa icula ly p one o illumina e aci
amily i m p ocesses.
Fo well-discussed easons, eligion as a di e si y dimen-
sion is no widely epo ed in he US (Alewell & Ras e e ,
2020), and ye , i s ill somehow en e s and a ec s business
choices due o i s na u e as an in o mal a iable (Migheli,
2022). A g owing body o esea ch ecognizes ha eli-
gious and spi i ual conce ns a e an impo an denomina o
* Fabian E ns
[email p o ec ed].de
1 Uni e si y o Müns e , Müns e , Ge many
708 F.E ns e al.
o business choices (Alewell & Ras e e , 2020; Alsheh i
e al., 2021; Gebe e al., 2014; Shen & Su, 2017) as well as
e hical wo k p ac ices (Fa hallah e al., 2020). To illus a e,
ollowing a pe iod o misconduc , i ms a e mo e likely o
choose chie execu i e o ice s (CEOs) wi h deg ees om
eligiously a ilia ed uni e si ies (Connelly e al., 2020).
S udies ha e, howe e , yielded incohe en empi ical knowl-
edge ega ding he impac o eligion on amily business
ope a ions, hus lea ing a signi ican gap in unde s anding
how eligiosi y in eg a es in o he ab ic o amily i ms
(As achan e al., 2020; Reck e al., 2022; Shen & Su, 2017),
pa icula ly due o he elusi e cha ac e o eligion (Alshe i
e al., 2021). Despi e his agueness, one salien unde s and-
ing emains: By i ue o hei con olling powe , amily
membe s can mo e eadily and e ec i ely in eg a e hei
spi i uali y o eligiosi y han o he s akeholde s (As achan
e al., 2020; Fang e al., 2013; Piepe e al., 2020; So enson
& Milb and , 2023), especially when membe s pa icipa e
in s a egic decision-making h ough o ing igh s (Smi h
& Rönnega d, 2016).
Family i ms main ain s ong iden i ies and a e alue-
d i en, wi h a p onounced desi e o e hical beha io
(As achan e al., 2020). Pe sonal eligious belie s a e
obse able and closely linked o pe cei ed e hical beha io
(Connelly e al., 2020; Pa bo eeah e al., 2008); indi idual
eligiosi y could he e o epo en ially be used by amily i m
membe s as a a o able cue du ing choice p ocesses o boa d
membe s and succession e en s. Religion, de ined as “any
sha ed se o belie s, ac i i ies, and ins i u ions p emised
upon ai h in supe na u al o ces” (Iannaccone, 1998, p.
1466), is a sou ce o o ien a ion o alues and belie s upon
which amily i m iden i y and business beha io can be
based (Abdelgawad & Zah a, 2020). Albei i is no di ec ly
isible (Gebe e al., 2014), amily i m membe s ely on
hose disclosed elemen s o an o he wise in isible iden i y,
hence o h called pe cei ed eligiosi y.
This s udy aims o e eal why pe cei ed eligiosi y could
play such an impo an ole in amily business beha io
by looking o explana ions wi hin SEW, one mechanism
h ough which amily membe s wea e ou non-economic
wo h (Chen e al., 2022; Gomez-Mejia e al., 2007,
2010), assuming ha amily i ms do no ocus solely on
maximizing inancial e u ns, bu also aim o p o ec hei
a ec i e endowmen . Fo example, succession choices ha e
p e iously been a ibu ed o di e ences in amily membe s’
SEW conside a ions (Minichilli e al., 2014). D awing om
SEW li e a u e (e.g., Chen e al., 2022; Gomez-Mejia e al.,
2010) and eligiosi y in amily businesses (e.g., As achan
e al., 2020), we concei e he ela ionship be ween amily
i ms and eligion as one way o conse e SEW. We
empi ically in es iga e how he amily coali ion’s ela i e
powe as a sha eholde in a amily i m, as p oxied by amily
o ing igh s, a ec s pe cei ed boa d and CEO eligiosi y.
We also conside indus y esea ch and de elopmen
(R&D) in ensi y as a con ingency ac o , gi en ha an
en i onmen al push o inno a ion may in luence decision-
making and appe i e o isk(e.g. Jiang e al., 2015).
This pape esponds o he call o mo e esea ch on he
in e sec ion o amily business, SEW, and eligion (C uz,
2013; Lu e al., 2021; Madison & Kelle manns, 2013;
Pa e son e al., 2013; Shen & Su, 2017) by in es iga ing (1)
he ela ionships be ween amily o ing igh s and pe cei ed
boa d eligiosi y as well as pe cei ed boa d eligiosi y and
CEO eligiosi y du ing succession e en s; (2) o he ex e nal
and con ex ual de e minan s o he ela ionship be ween
amily o ing igh s and pe cei ed boa d eligiosi y, namely,
indus y R&D in ensi y; and (3) how and why eligion
wea es i sel in o amily i m business mechanisms. We
ely on a c oss-indus y sample o mo e han 900 i m-yea
obse a ions o US lis ed amily i ms be ween 2009 and
2018. Ou indings indica e ha s onge amily o ing
igh s ha e a posi i e ela ionship wi h boa d membe s’
pe cei ed eligiosi y, and his ela ionship is a enua ed by
he indus y’s R&D in ensi y. By ex ension, boa d membe s’
pe cei ed eligiosi y posi i ely a ec s he CEO’s pe cei ed
eligiosi y in succession e en s.
Ou wo k ad ances h ee esea ch s ands: (1) eligiosi y
in connec ion wi h SEW in amily i ms, (2) mic o-le el
componen s o successo choice in amily i ms, and (3)
bounda y condi ions o eligiosi y in amily i ms. Family
i m and SEW li e a u e has p oposed ha SEW and
eligiosi y a e ela ed (Vazquez, 2016). We con ibu e o
his s eam by empi ically showing mani es a ions o his
ela ionship h ough pe cei ed boa d and CEO eligiosi y.
The SEW li e a u e u he seeks g ea e knowledge abou
he mechanisms unde lying he ela ionship be ween amily
go e nance and eligion (As achan e al., 2020; Chen
e al., 2022; Shen & Su, 2017). We ill his esea ch gap
by showing ha pe cei ed eligiosi y plays a ole in amily
business p ac ices h ough i s impac on successo choice.
We complemen dynas ic succession esea ch (Cai e al.,
2019; Connelly e al., 2020; Dama aju & Makhija, 2018)
by empi icallyun eiling ano he an eceden o successo
choice: pe cei ed eligiosi y among boa d membe s (Lu
e al., 2021). We u he show ha indus y R&D in ensi y
se es as a bounda y condi ion o he ela ionship be ween
amily o ing igh s and he p esence o boa d membe s
wi h pe cei ed eligiosi y, he eby explaining he nume ic
di e ences o indi iduals pe cei ed as eligious in amily
i ms. On he p ac ical side, he empi ical e idence o how
eligion wea es i sel in o succession mechanism con ibu es
o he deba e on he in eg a ion o eligion as a dimension in
di e si y managemen (Alewell & Ras e e , 2020; Bendig
& E ns , 2023). Ou s udy sugges s ha leade s’ inc eased
awa eness and sensi i i y o he in luence o hei eligiosi y
on business decisions can os e e hical managemen
709
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi h…
compe encies and p omo e e hical alignmen among
employees wi hin amily i ms (Beugelsdijk & Klasing,
2016; Fa hallah e al., 2020).
Theo y andConcep ual Backg ound
Family Fi ms, heSocioemo ional Weal h
Pe spec i e, andReligion
Theo e ically de i ing he unde lying easons o amily
i ms’ dis inc beha io , Gomez-Mejia e al., (2007, 2011)
in oduced he seminal SEW pe spec i e. SEW p esc ibes
ha amily i ms end o ocus on “non- inancial aspec s
o he i m ha mee he amily’s a ec i e needs, such as
iden i y, he abili y o exe cise amily in luence, and he
pe pe ua ion o he amily dynas y” (Gomez-Mejia e al.,
2007, p. 106). Be one e al., (2012, p. 259) poin ed o
“gains o losses in SEW [as] he pi o al ame o e e ence
ha amily-con olled i ms use o make majo s a egic
choices and policy decisions.” Building on Gomez-Mejia
e al.’s (2007) ini ial SEW concep and esea ch om he
social sciences, Be one e al. (2012) p oposed ha SEW
is likely a mul idimensional cons uc . They consequen ly
in oduced he FIBER scale, comp ising “ amily con ol
and in luence, iden i ica ion o amily membe s wi h he
i m, binding social ies, emo ional a achmen o amily
membe s, and enewal o amily bonds o he i m h ough
dynas ic succession” (Be one e al., 2012, p. 259). These
SEW dimensions a e help ul because hey e lec amilies’
di e en alues on some a ec i e ou comes compa ed
o o he s (Debicki e al., 2016), leading o amily i m
he e ogenei y (Li & Daspi , 2016), including boa d
membe s’ di e en choices. In ac , amily i m beha io
depends on he deg ee o amily in ol emen in go e nance
and he ypes o SEW objec i es (Li & Daspi , 2016).
Al hough one app oach o unde s anding amily i m
beha io —namely, SEW—has been es ablished (Gomez-
Mejia e al., 2007, 2011), he mani es a ion o SEW in
amily i ms emains only pa ially unde s ood (Chen e al.,
2022;Ch isman & Pa el, 2012; Chua e al., 2012; Li e al.,
2021; Ng e al., 2019).
Meanwhile, eligion as a o ma i e in luence in amily
i ms in in e play wi h SEW has a ac ed g owing a en ion
(e.g., Ba be a e al., 2020; Shen & Su, 2017). Religious
iden i y has been desc ibed as one key sou ce o SEW, which
lends suppo o he idea ha eligion could also lead o
di e ences in amily i ms. Ye , he mechanisms unde lying
he ela ionship be ween amily go e nance and eligion
(As achan e al., 2020; Ba be a e al., 2020; Shen & Su,
2017) should be cla i ied. Knowledge abou he ela ionship
be ween eligion and amily business beha io is jus
s a ing o de elop, bu u he esea ch in his a ea has
been in demand o some ime (C uz, 2013; Fa hallah e al.,
2020; Madison & Kelle manns, 2013; Pa e son e al., 2013;
Piepe e al., 2020). This esea ch gap is closely ela ed
o a second one seeking o unde s and he an eceden s o
successo choice, pa icula ly o op-le el execu i es (Smi h
e al., 2021), h ough mic o-le el analysis (Lu e al., 2021).
Explo ing hese wo in e connec ed lacunae, as in he p esen
pape , may o e aluable insigh s o heo izing abou amily
i ms. Table1 summa izes he esul s o p e ious wo k and
p esen s insigh s in o he esea ch ques ions, me hodological
app oaches, key indings, and emaining esea ch gaps.
When decons uc ing SEW and unde s anding i s
psychological unde pinnings, se e al simila i ies be ween
SEW-led and eligious beha io become appa en : a high
(need o ) social capi al (G anq is , 2014, o eligion;
Be one e al., 2012, Chen e al., 2022, and So enson &
Milb and , 2023, o SEW), a high sense o sha ed ci ic
esponsibili y o al uis ic o ecogni ion pu poses
(McGui e e al., 2012, and Monsma, 2007, o eligion;
Chen e al., 2022, and Li e al., 2015, o SEW), he c ea ion
o in e gene a ional weal h (Keis e , 2008, o eligion;
Habbe shon & Pis ui, 2002, o SEW), and esilience
and empowe men (Piepe e al., 2020, o bo h eligion
and SEW). Jus as he e a e mixed esul s on amily i ms
and e hical beha io (e.g., Vazquez, 2016), he esul s on
eligiosi y and e hical beha io a e mixed (e.g., Pa bo eeah
e al., 2008). This unde sco es he need o mo e esea ch.
Successo Selec ion andPe cei ed Religiosi y
Managemen and e hics li e a u e does no o e a cohesi e
pic u e o eligious belie s’ e ec s on indi idual beha io
(Alsheh i e al., 2021). When conside ing only i s posi-
i e impac , people pe cei e eligiosi y as an indica o o
mo e e hical beha io (Alsheh i e al., 2021; Connelly e al.,
2020; Hunge man, 2014) and g ea e spi i ual capi al, e e -
ing o human and social capi al, and de o ion o a mission
(Abdelgawad & Zah a, 2020). Fu he mo e, eligious people
end o be mo e empa he ic (Ma ks om e al., 2010), epo
highe eelings o lo e and compassion (Smi h, 2008), a e
less impulsi e (F ancis, 1992), and p omo e he conse a-
ion o social o de (Schwa z, 1992).Ac i a ing guil on an
emo ional basis could explain why eligious p iming leads o
e hical beha io (Sulaiman e al., 2022). Hence, e hical deci-
sion-making p ocesses can esul om, among o he in eg al
ac o s, an indi idual’s eligiosi y in p i a e, in public, and
in he wo kplace (Singhapakdi e al., 2000). Di e ences in
e hical judgmen can also occu be ween eligiously pe -
cei ed leade s. Cu en knowledge ela es hese di e ences
o he p inciple o ela i ism among manage s, which is a
pe son’s belie abou whe he mo al p inciples should be
ollowed i espec i e o ci cums ances (Oumlil & Balloun,
2009) and di e en iews o God (hope, ea , and balanced)
710 F.E ns e al.
Table 1 Key li e a u e on he in e sec ion among SEW, eligion, and succession mechanisms in he amily i m con ex
Topic A icles Me hodological app oach(es) Resea ch ques ion Key indings Iden i ied esea ch gap
Key li e a u e on SEW,
succession, and eligious
cha ac e is ics
Cui e al. (2015) Quan i a i e empi ical Conclusi e e idence o ad an-
ages o di e si y? (in e ed)
Religion in luences a i m’s
posi ion on wo k o ce di e -
si y and co po a e social
esponsibili y conce ning
di e si y ini ia i e in es -
men
Iden i y (dis-)ad an ages o
di e si y impac ; es ablish
an empi ical ela ionship
be ween dis inc eligious
a ilia ions o op manage-
men eams and hei i ms’
di e si y engagemen
Dama aju & Makhija (2018) Quan i a i e empi ical Wha is he ole o cas e/
eligion in CEO selec ion in
India? (in e ed)
Cas e/ eligion ela es o CEO
selec ion (i.e., as a o m
o in o ma ion o posi i e
disc imina ion)
In es iga e he e ec s o cas e/
eligion on CEO compensa-
ion
Lu e al. (2021) Quan i a i e empi ical Wha is he ela ionship
be ween CEO adi ionalism,
pe sonali y cha ac e is ics,
and successo choice?
(in e ed)
Family i m ounde s’ eligios-
i y is conduci e o hei
succession in en ion
Unde s and mic o- ounda ions
(e.g., CEO indi idual
cha ac e is ics) in ela ion o
in a amily succession
Key li e a u e on amily i ms,
SEW, and eligion
Abdelgawad and Zah a (2020) Quan i a i e empi ical Wha is he ole o eligious
iden i y in s a egic enewal
in p i a ely held ounde
amily i ms? (in e ed)
Religious iden i y de e mines
amily i ms’ spi i ual capi al
Condi ions ha make eligious
iden i y bene icial o he am-
ily; unde s and he connec ion
among eligion, pe o mance,
and SEW; esea ch how he
amily imbues he i m wi h
eligiosi y; in eg a e SEW
and i m pe o mance in o
eligiosi y in amily i ms
Minichilli e al. (2014) Quan i a i e empi ical How do amily owne s’
conce ns abou p o ec ing
hei SEW endowmen ela e
o he ela ionship be ween
CEO succession and inan-
cial pe o mance? (in e ed)
Ou side, non- amily CEO
choice ep esen s mecha-
nisms h ough which SEW
and inancial conce ns a e
balanced
Analyze la ge and longi udi-
nal da ase s; heo ize along
FIBER dimensions; unde -
s and cha ac e is ics ha lead
o successo choice
Reck e al. (2022) Quali a i e empi ical How does employees’
iden i ica ion wi h a amily
i m shape in e nal e hical
decision-making p ocesses?
(in e ed)
Iden i y p ocesses in luence
how employees cope wi h
e hical si ua ions
Unde s and aspec s o iden i y
in amily i ms and e hical
beha io be e
Key li e a u e on amily i ms
and eligion
Ba be a e al. (2020) Quali a i e empi ical “How did a single, mul igen-
e a ional business amily
success ully enac hei
eligious alues in hei busi-
ness?” (p. 661)
Religious alues enhance am-
ily cohesion, a e mani es ed
in leade ship s yle, and a e
ansmi ed h ough in e -
gene a ional succession
Cla i y he p ocesses h ough
which e hical beha io and
eligious alues a e associa ed
in amily i ms; ad ance wi h
quan i a i e s udy
711
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi h…
Table 1 (con inued)
Topic A icles Me hodological app oach(es) Resea ch ques ion Key indings Iden i ied esea ch gap
Jiang e al. (2015) Quan i a i e empi ical “Do amily i ms wi h eli-
gious ounde s ha e less isk
han o he amily i ms?”
(p. 260)
Fi ms in China ha adhe e o
Wes e n eligions in es less
in ixed and in angible asse s
and ha e less le e age. Con-
ibu ions o he li e a u e on
eligion and isk-a e sion
Unde s and he link be ween
eligiosi y and in es men
beha io in s udies ou side
he Chinese con ex ; map ou
he channels h ough which
eligiosi y comes in o e ec
Piepe e al. (2020) Quan i a i e empi ical “How does eligiosi y a ec
amily business goals?” (p.
759)
Highe eligiosi y leads o
sho - e m and long- e m
goal o ien a ion. G ea e
e ec on and g ea e a i-
ance in he long e m
Explo e how o employ accu-
a e measu es o eligios-
i y; accoun o e ec s on
business ac i i ies; show
how eligiosi y impac s o he
o ganiza ional s akeholde s
Shen and Su (2017) Quan i a i e empi ical “Will SEW a ec succession
in in e ac ion wi h eligion?”
(p. 151)
“(F)i ms wi h eligious ound-
e s ha e highe in en ions
o owne ship succession
and managemen succes-
sion, mo e in angible asse s,
longe i m age, la ge i m
size, and highe e u n
on equi y, and a e mo e
le e aged han i ms wi hou
eligious ounde s.” (p. 156)
Explain he ela ionship
be ween eligion and succes-
sion ou side o he Chinese
con ex
So enson and Milb and
(2023)
Quali a i e empi ical “How do amily business own-
e s s eng hen amily social
capi al?” (p. 702)
Family i m owne s use amily
ai h o sus ain and es ablish
e hical no ms as well as
social capi al
Resea ch he ole o amily ai h
in p omo ing amily business
e hics wi h a quan i a i e
app oach
712 F.E ns e al.
(Alsheh i e al., 2021). Ye eligious indi idualsalso end
o be mo e isk-a e se (Mille & Ho mann, 1995) and less
inno a i e (Bénabou e al., 2015) han non- eligious people.
Bendig and E ns (2023) obse e a co ela ion be ween he
p e alence o eligious di ec o s on co po a e boa ds and
a dec ease in bo h he iling and ci a ion o digi al pa en s.
The mani es a ion o eligion in indi iduals is
mul idimensional. Howe e , “mos o hese dimensions
a e a ian s o cogni i e (knowing), a ec i e ( eelings),
and beha io al (doing) componen s” (Pa bo eeah e al.,
2008, p. 389). Pa bo eeah e al. (2008) ound ha a ec i e
and beha io al componen s we e linked o indi iduals’
willingness o jus i y une hical beha io , while he cogni i e
componen did no e eal di e ing esul s; meanwhile, belie
in chu ch au ho i ies e ealed mo e e hical beha io while
belie in eligion did no . Hence, he beha io al aspec
o eligion, as measu ed in his esea ch, is pa icula ly
impo an when unde s anding e hically a o able beha io .
I also elabo a es on he idea ha beha io is pe cei able and
allows amily membe s o iden i y mic o-cha ac e is ics on
which boa d membe choice can be based (Connelly e al.,
2020). Religiosi y as pe cei ed h ough beha io may mo e
eadily iden i y iden ical in e es s, make mo al beha io
mo e p edic able, and help es ablish goal alignmen (Piepe
e al., 2020).
“Recognizing ha social psychological app oaches
can p o ide g ea e unde s anding o he human na u e
behind SEW phenomena” (Jiang e al., 2018, p. 141), he
obse a ion ha pe cei ed eligiosi y can be a ma ke in
decision-making p ocesses has been p e iously explained
h ough se e al di e en app oaches: a ibu ion heo y
(Jiang e al., 2018; Weine , 1985), de eloped o explain
pe cep ions o esponsibili y; expec ancy heo y (Li
e al., 2015), asse ing he pe cei ed p obabili y ha
pe cei ed eligiosi y in successo s will lead o a posi i e
ou come; social us heo y (Qiu e al., 2022), sugges ing a
mechanism in decision-making p ocesses a o s momen s o
us ; and image heo y (Connelly e al., 2020), which is he
idea ha , in decision-making e en s, schema ic knowledge
s uc u es help choose he bes - i ing op ion acco ding o
alue, ajec o y, and s a egy. Likely, all o hese social
psychological explana ions in luence amily coali ions’
decision-making and lead o all bu he same ou come: a
g ea e numbe o eligiously pe cei ed op pe sonnel in
amily i ms.
In e play o Family Coali ions andBoa d Membe s’
Pe cei ed Religiosi y
One o he mos impo an s akeholde g oups in a i m
is he boa d o di ec o s, which “moni o [s] manage s
on behal o sha eholde s” (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003, p.
384). Choosing boa d membe s ca e ully is impo an
o he amily’s link o he business, bu also o amily
sha eholde s, because boa d ea u es may a ec bo h i m
and social pe o mance (Tenu a & Camb ea, 2022) and
can se he one o o e all e hical beha io (Di Miceli da
Sil ei a, 2022).
P e ious esea ch has discussed he link be ween e hical
and ai h-based alues. This sec ion p o ides a b ie
o e iew o eligious indi iduals’ endency owa d e hical
and isk-a e se beha io . Fi s , eligious manage s a e
expec ed o beha e mo e e hically han hei non- eligious
coun e pa s, while amily i ms wan o ensu e ha hey a e
no “pe cei ed by o he s as beha ing une hically o agains
he bes in e es s o he communi y” (Adams e al., 1996,
p. 161). The public pe cei es e hical beha io posi i ely,
and ounding amilies a e “qui e sensi i e abou he
ex e nal image hey p ojec o hei cus ome s, supplie s,
and o he ex e nal s akeholde s” (Be one e al., 2012,
p. 262). The e o e, amily i ms may pe cei e any public
condemna ion as pa icula ly ha m ul (Wes head e al.,
2001). G ullon e al. (2010) demons a ed ha a eligious
en i onmen p e en s co po a e misbeha io among i ms.
Fi ms in eligious geog aphies a e “less likely o backda e
op ions, p ac ice agg essi e ea nings managemen , and be
he a ge o class ac ion secu i ies lawsui s” (G ullon e al.,
2010, p. 1). Mo eo e , Du (2013) indica ed ha eligiosi y
is posi i ely ela ed o i ms’ endencies o engage in
philan h opic gi ing. So enson and Milb and (2023) ound
ha amily businesses a end o communi y ou each and
ca e.
Religious manage s a e also gene ally less likely o
engage in isky beha io ha could nega i ely a ec he
SEW o he owne amily. Cai e al. (2019) in es iga ed
ea nings managemen isks, Callen and Fang (2015)
ocused on s ock p ice c ash isk, Ma e al. (2020) explo ed
accoun ing isks, Amin e al. (2021) s udied wo kplace
inciden s isks, and Connelly e al. (2020) examined isks
o co po a e misconduc . All hese s udies ound a nega i e
ela ionship be ween he le el o eligiosi y, ei he a he i m
o indi idual le el, and he p opensi y o ake undesi able
isks. Taken oge he , a boa d’s composi ion and beha io
can a ec he amily’s SEW.
Al hough employing amily membe s on he boa d
o di ec o s is conside ed a success ul s a egy o p o ec
a amily’s SEW, amily coali ions may also endo se non-
amily boa d membe s i such di ec o s beha e consis en ly
wi h he expec a ions o he ounding amily. Boa d membe s
and CEOs pe cei ed o be eligious could be conside ed an
aspec o SEW low, meaning ha he hi ing o eligiously
pe cei ed CEOs and boa d membe s can be adjus ed o
main ain and c ea e SEW as a s ock (Chua e al., 2015;
Gómez-Mejía e al., 2007).
To ully unde s and he e ec o eligiosi y, we e e o
he i e FIBER scale dimensions – namely, “ amily con ol
713
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi h…
and in luence, iden i ica ion o amily membe s wi h he
i m, binding social ies, emo ional a achmen o amily
membe s, and enewal o amily bonds o he i m h ough
dynas ic succession” (Be one e al., 2012, p. 259). Fig-
u e1 o e s an o e iew o he i e SEW dimensions based
on Be one e al.’s (2012) wo k and highligh s which o
he i e dimensions a e pa icula ly impo an as a mecha-
nism o he ela ionship be ween amily o ing igh s and
boa d eligiosi y as well aswhich dimensions a e less o a
mechanism and mo e o an assump ion.
Pe cei ed eligiosi y he e ac s as a p oxy o he iden-
i ica ion o cha ac e is ics connec ed o he h ee mid-
dle dimensions (i.e., iden i ica ion o amily membe s
wi h he i m, binding social ies, emo ional a achmen ).
These h ee dimensions desc ibe he dominan coali ion’s
“willingness” o pu sue SEW (Swab e al., 2020), he eby
e e ing o ac i e p ac ices h ough which SEW can be
secu ed. We posi ha he mechanisms in hese h ee
dimensions pa icula ly connec he occu ence o eli-
gious boa d membe s wi h amily owne ship, as eligious
boa d membe s likely s eng hen a amily’s iden i ica ion
wi h he i m, enhance binding social ies, and p o ec he
amily’s emo ional a achmen o he i m. We posi ha
amily coali ions a o boa d membe s wi h pe cei ed
eligiosi y, because “ eligion is signi ican ly nega i ely
(posi i ely) associa ed wi h expense a io (asse u iliza-
ion a io), he posi i e ( e e se) p oxy o owne -manage
agency cos s” (Du, 2013, p. 1). The eadiness o social
us , as an in o mal mechanism in social sys ems, appea s
highe due o his associa ion (Lu e al., 2021; Qiu e al.,
2022).
Conce ning he i s ( amily con ol and in luence) and
las ( enewal o amily bonds o he i m h ough dynas ic
succession) FIBER scale dimensions, we posi ha he
p esence o eligious boa d membe s may no se e
any p o ec i e o des uc i e pu pose bu posi ions he
amily’s “abili y” h ough which he dominan coali ion
ac s and con ols. Howe e , his does no imply ha he
amily is willing o do so (Swab e al., 2020). We ollow
ecen esea ch (Swab e al., 2020) posi ioning hese
wo dimensions less as a mechanism and mo e as a co e
assump ion sugges ing ha hese mus exis o amilies
o exe con ol o e SEW conce ns. Hence, we expec he
endency o amilies o ha e eligious execu i es on hei
boa ds o be s onge when hei equi y owne ship allows
hem o subs an ially impac he boa d’s composi ion.
Taken oge he , we conclude ha ha ing eligious
execu i es on a boa d can help amilies p o ec hei SEW.
We p opose ha he amily owne ’s choice o boa d
membe s is in luenced by he pe cei ed p obabili y ha
selec ing eligious indi iduals will lead o a posi i e
ou come o SEW and ha s ong amily owne ship ends
o place highe alues on such ou comes (Li e al., 2015).
The e o e, we posi :
Hypo hesis 1 Family o ing igh s a e posi i ely associa ed
wi h a highe p esence o boa d membe s wi h pe cei ed
eligiosi y.
Socioemo ional weal h dimensions Rela ionship wi h pe cei ed boa d eligiosi y
Family con ol and in luence
Iden i ica ion o amily membe s wi h he i m
Binding social ies
Emo ional a achmen
Renewal o amily bonds
F
I
B
E
R
No o e y limi ed ela ionship be ween pe cei ed boa d
eligiosi y and amily con ol and in luence.
No o e y limi ed ela ionship be ween pe cei ed boa d
eligiosi y and enewal o amily bonds.
Expec a ion, ha pe cei ed boa d eligiosi y esul s in
e hical and isk-a e se beha io , he eby s eng hening
amilies’ iden i ica ion wi h he i m, building up social
ies, and inc easing hei emo ional a achmen .
Fig. 1 O e iew o he i e FIBER scale i ems (Be one e al., 2012) and ole o pe cei ed boa d eligiosi y in amilies’ SEW conside a ions
714 F.E ns e al.
Mode a ing Role o anIndus y’s R&D In ensi y
on heRela ionship Be ween Family Vo ing Righ s
andPe cei ed Boa d Religiosi y
P e ious esea ch unde sco es he ele ance o bounda y
condi ions o s a egic decision-making (Ca pen e e al.,
2004; Coope e al., 2014; E oglu & Ho e , 2014; Feng
e al., 2017; McNama a e al., 2008; Sha man, 1991) and
ha pa icula ly indus y condi ions a ec i m ou comes
(Ca pen e e al., 2004). We expec ha he main ela ionship
pu o h in his esea ch, based on changes in mic o-le el
leade ship cha ac e is ics (Lu e al., 2021), could also be
impac ed by occu ences wi hin he su ounding indus y.
Mo eo e , hose indus y cha ac e is ics—in his case,
indus y R&D in ensi y—a e expec ed o play a ole in
he ela ionship be ween amily o ing igh s and boa d
eligiosi y ha a e con a y o hose cha ac e is ics o en
connec ed wi h eligious indi iduals.
In e es ingly, p e ious esea ch desc ibes eligious
indi iduals as isk-a e se (e.g., Jiang e al., 2015).
R&D in es men goes owa d in angible asse s and has
unce ain payo s, which is di icul o uni e wi h isk-
a e se eligious indi iduals (Jiang e al., 2015). Insula
and non-plu alis ic eligious amily iden i ies can u n in o
beha io al igidi y, leading o he ejec ion o inno a i e
de elopmen s (Abdelgawad & Zah a, 2020; Gilbe ,
2005). Analogously, when i comes o op pe sonnel’s
oppo uni y-seeking beha io , in coun ies wi h p e ailing
Ch is ian alues, in e na ional ma ke en y modes end o
be less oppo unis ic (Li, 2008) and show lowe in es men
a es (Hila y & Hui, 2009). Indeed, Shen and Su (2017)
desc ibed eligious i m ounde s as po en ially isk-
a e se, p e e ing succession inside he amily o a leas
successo s hey can us . Recen esea ch u he indica es
ha CEOs who a ended a eligious college end o ake
ewe isks; his e ec is e en s onge in i ms wi h boa d
membe s p e-exposed o eligion (Chen e al., 2023). S udies
uni o mly show ha i ms loca ed in eligious geog aphies
o employing eligious CEOs a e gene ally less p one o
isky beha io s ela ed o in es men s and end o emphasize
business e hics as a co po a e p io i y (Jiang e al., 2015).
Uni ing he SEW pe spec i e wi h eligion, we p opose
ha indus y R&D in ensi y weakens he ela ionship
(Hypo hesis 1) because eligiosi y is associa ed wi h
limi ed inno a ion ocus (Bénabou e al., 2015) and wi h
alues such as social capi al, adi ionalism, and secu i y
(Sa oglou e al., 2004). On one hand, due o he con ingency
ela ionship (Ca pen e e al., 2004), an indus y wi h g ea e
R&D in ensi y should a ac a smalle sha e o indi iduals
wi h pe cei ed eligiosi y. On he o he hand, amily i ms
ope a ing in an indus y cha ac e ized by g ea e R&D
in ensi y migh p io i ize leade s wi h isk-posi i e beha io
o e hose wi h pe cei ed eligiosi y. The e o e, we posi :
Hypo hesis 2 The posi i e ela ionship be ween amily o -
ing igh s and he sha e o boa d membe s wi h pe cei ed
eligiosi y is a enua ed by g ea e indus y R&D in ensi y.
The Boa d–CEO Rela ionship: In luence o Pe cei ed
Religiosi y Du ing Succession E en s
CEO succession in amily i ms is mo e han a business
decision because o he possible implica ions on amily
membe s’ SEW (Minichilli e al., 2014). In e es ingly,
CEO succession om ou side he i m o igin shows
a pe o mance ad an age when he CEO is socio-
demog aphically and socio-psychologically simila o
incumben execu i es (Geo gakakis & Ruig ok, 2017;
Zajac & Wes phal, 1996). Boa d membe s appoin CEOs
simila o hemsel es in e ms o social cas e (Dama aju
& Makhija, 2018). Especially when he amily’s ole
and hei wish o c ea e a amily dynas y a e s ong, a
CEO’s “ ole and beha io can be iewed as e lec ion
o he amily’s goals” (Lu e al., 2021, p. 228). Value
cong uence mus he e o e be pa icula ly high (Lu e al.,
2021). Conside ing pe cei ed eligiosi y as a p oxy o
alue cong uence, we expec o see a posi i e ela ionship
be ween a boa d o di ec o s wi h highe pe cei ed
eligiosi y and eligious CEOs, as he boa d o di ec o s
is also esponsible o ini ia ing and conduc ing CEO
succession i equi ed (Pi che e al., 2000). Execu i es’
decisions migh be biased in his ega d (Ca pen e e al.,
2004) acco ding o a ibu ion, expec ancy, and social us
heo y.
Ano he eason o biased choice lies in sociopoli ical
conside a ions. Mos p ominen ly, boa d membe s u ilize
go e nance s uc u es o ensu e o e sigh con ol. Fo
example, boa ds es ablish app op ia e epo ing cycles and
emune a ion s uc u es. Boa d membe s can also p e en
po en ial ope a ional issues by appoin ing CEOs whom
hey expec o minimize unlaw ul and une hical beha io .
As p e iously elucida ed, eligiosi y is gene ally associa ed
wi h mo e e hical and isk-a e se beha io . Speci ically,
Connelly e al. (2020) showed ha eligious CEOs a e
less likely o engage in co po a e misconduc while Cai
e al. (2019) demons a ed ha eligious CEOs less o en
pa icipa e in ea nings managemen . Conside ing he
social psychological and sociopoli ical mechanisms, we
an icipa e ha eligious boa d membe s a e mo e likely
o appoin eligious CEOs du ing succession e en s.
The e o e, we posi :
Hypo hesis 3 In amily i m succession e en s, boa d
membe s’ pe cei ed eligiosi y is posi i ely ela ed o he
appoin men o CEOs also pe cei ed as eligious.
721
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi h…
Table 6 Empi ical esul s o boa d membe s’ pe cei ed eligiosi y
Explana o y a iables a e lagged by one yea and winso ized a he 1% le el
IV independen a iable
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, †p < 0.10; Communi y eligiosi y omi ed by STATA in ixed e ec s model when using x eg, e command
Main analysis Robus ness checks
Model 1
Con ols only
Model 2
IV & con ols
Model 3
2-yea lag
Model 4
Fixed e ec s
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
(z- alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
(z- alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
(z- alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Boa d membe s’ pe cei ed eligiosi y 3.42***
(1.03)
0.001
(3.34)
2.08*
(0.93)
0.025
(2.24)
4.86***
(1.16)
0.000
(4.18)
Fi m size − 0.03
(0.10)
0.760
(− 0.31)
− 0.01
(0.10)
0.890
(− 0.14)
− 0.03
(0.11)
0.778
(− 0.28)
0.80*
(0.37)
0.033
(2.16)
Capi al in ensi y − 0.23†
(0.14)
0.100
(− 1.65)
− 0.23†
(0.13)
0.073
(− 1.79)
− 0.29*
(0.12)
0.017
(− 2.38)
0.98
(0.73)
0.186
(1.33)
Le e age a io − 0.08
(0.09)
0.368
(− 0.90)
− 0.12
(0.09)
0.173
(− 1.36)
0.10†
(0.05)
0.072
(1.80)
− 0.10*
(0.04)
0.013
(− 2.52)
Fi m pe o mance − 0.04
(0.09)
0.655
(− 0.45)
− 0.05
(0.09)
0.570
(− 0.57)
0.02
(0.09)
0.861
(0.18)
0.10*
(0.04)
0.020
(2.35)
Fi m age 0.01
(0.01)
0.569
(0.57)
0.00
(0.01)
0.854
(0.18)
0.01
(0.01)
0.207
(1.26)
− 0.03**
(0.01)
0.001
(− 3.58)
Communi y eligiosi y − 2.29
(1.42)
0.106
(− 1.62)
− 2.87*
(1.44)
0.046
(− 2.00)
− 2.53†
(1.52)
0.096
(− 1.67)
− −
Boa d size − 0.03
(0.08)
0.716
(− 0.36)
0.02
(0.08)
0.771
(0.29)
0.01
(0.07)
0.905
(0.12)
0.00
(0.05)
0.995
(0.01)
Boa d independence − 1.14
(1.79)
0.524
(− 0.64)
− 1.44
(1.84)
0.432
(− 0.79)
− 0.53
(1.74)
0.762
(− 0.30)
17.63***
(3.60)
0.000
(4.90)
Boa d a e age age 0.01
(0.04)
0.689
(0.40)
0.01
(0.04)
0.846
(0.19)
− 0.03
(0.03)
0.428
(− 0.79)
0.04
(0.04)
0.288
(1.07)
Cons an 0.55
(2.98)
0.853
(0.19)
0.04
(2.80)
0.988
(0.01)
0.90
(3.16)
0.776
(0.29)
− 21.1***
(2.40)
0.000
(− 8.77)
Yea - ixed e ec s Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pseudo R20.1603 0.2334 0.2265 –
R2– – – 0.8925
N 126 126 128 126
722 F.E ns e al.
R-squa ed compa ed o a eg ession wi hou he ins umen
(0.84 s. 0.69). The C agg-Donald Wald F- alues o 638.46
exceed he S ock-Yogo c i ical alue o 16.38. Re unning
ou eg ession models wi h his new ins umen p o ided
compa able esul s, o e ing con idence ha omi ed a iable
bias is likely no an issue.
Gene al Discussion
Ou indings sugges ha amily i ms wi h s ong amily
coali ions, as measu ed h ough amily o ing igh s, a e
mo e likely o employ eligious boa ds o di ec o s. Reli-
gious boa ds a e subsequen ly mo e likely o appoin eli-
gious CEOs, cascading he p esence o eligious op-le el
execu i es. The ela ionship be ween s ong amily coali ions
and eligious boa ds o di ec o s is less p onounced when
indus y R&D in ensi y is highe .
We illumina e he ole o SEW and he ac o s leading
o eligious belie s in bo h boa d membe s and CEOs. In
doing so, we es ablish a concep ual unde s anding, backed
by empi ical da a, ha explains how he eligiosi y o boa ds
and CEOs can be in e p e ed om he pe spec i e o SEW.
This allows us o unde s and he mic o- ounda ions o
CEO succession o a g ea e deg ee. Pe cei ed eligiosi y,
as a cha ac e is ic o boa d membe s and CEOs, ela es
o inc eased eligious successo selec ion, i espec i e o
amily a ilia ion. Thus, we iden i ied an addi ional me ic
in which amily leade ship is undi e si ied.
Al hough academic deba es show he complex ela ion-
ship be ween indi idual cha ac e is ics and a i m’s con ex
and indus y (Coope e al., 2014; Feng e al., 2017; McNa-
ma a e al., 2008), ou esul s gene ally suppo he no ion
Table 7 Empi ical esul s o CEO’s pe cei ed eligiosi y, mainline P o es an s, and Ca holics in ela ion o inancial pe o mance
Explana o y a iables a e lagged by 1 yea and winso ized a he 1% le el
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, †p < 0.10
Model 1a
Re u n on asse s
Model 1b
Re enue (log)
Model 1c
Ma ke sha e
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
CEO pe cei ed eligiosi y (all) − 0.01
(0.01)
0.555
(− 0.59)
− 0.01
(0.05)
0.833
(− 0.21)
− 0.00
(0.01)
0.517
(− 0.65)
Con ol a iables included Yes Yes Yes
Yea - ixed e ec s Yes Yes Yes
Numbe o i ms 124 124 124
N 862 862 862
Model 2a
Re u n on asse s
Model 2b
Re enue (log)
Model 2c
Ma ke sha e
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Mainline P o es an CEOs − 0.01
(0.02)
0.790
(− 0.27)
0.03
(0.09)
0.739
(0.33)
− 0.00
(0.01)
0.856
(− 0.18)
Con ol a iables included Yes Yes Yes
Yea - ixed e ec s Yes Yes Yes
Numbe o i ms 124 124 124
N 862 862 862
Model 3a
Re u n on asse s
Model 3b
Re enue (log)
Model 3c
Ma ke sha e
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Ca holic CEOs − 0.01
(0.01)
0.579
(− 0.56)
− 0.02
(0.06)
0.750
(− 0.32)
− 0.01
(0.01)
0.388
(− 0.87)
Con ol a iables included Yes Yes Yes
Yea - ixed e ec s Yes Yes Yes
Numbe o i ms 124 124 124
N 862 862 862
723
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi h…
a connec ion exis . Theyclea ly shows ha mo e in ensi e
indus y R&D a enua es he ela ionship be ween s ong
amily o ing igh s and he sha e o boa d membe s wi h
pe cei ed eligiosi y. One possible explana ion o his is
ha amily i ms s ongly o ien ed owa d he social needs o
he amily membe s p io i ize amily sa is ac ion and SEW
as well as c ea i i y in long- e m business o ien a ion o e
in es ing in o he ac i i ies connec ed wi h isk a e sion
(Chen e al., 2022; So enson & Milb and , 2023).
Religion and amily in e ac in a nuanced way when
conside ing di e en eligions (Fa hallah e al., 2020),
which is why ou pos -hoc analysis p oduced di e ging
esul s. Religion is a double-edged swo d when i comes
o economic e ec s (Abdelgawad & Zah a, 2020) and
is always ela ed o he complexi y o he makeup o a
eligious g oup (Pa bo eeah e al., 2008). Conside ing ha
E angelical P o es an ism has i s oo s in Pie ism, known
o i s de ou wo k and long wo king hou s as well as good
in as uc u e, Spenkuch’s (2017) explana ions in his s udy
o he connec ion be ween eligious alues and ma ke
ou comes in Ge many could o e insigh s in o why only
E angelical P o es an CEOs a e associa ed wi h g ea e
inancial pe o mance in ou US sample.
Theo e ical Implica ions
Ou s udy con ibu es o he amily i m and e hics li e a u e
in se e al impo an ways and add esses p e ious esea ch
gaps in ou unde s anding o how eligiosi y pe mea es
amily i m business ac i i ies (As achan e al., 2020). Fi s ,
by inco po a ing pe cei ed eligiosi y in o he ela ionship
be ween amily i m o ing igh s and boa d membe s, we
unco e ed a mechanism h ough which he ela ionship
be ween SEW and eligiosi y is mani es ed in amily i ms.
We a gue ha employing eligious manage s is an addi ional
a enue o ensu ing SEW s ock because eligiously
pe cei ed pe sonnel a e hough o beha e e hically and
engage in ewe unnecessa y isks (Bénabou e al., 2015;
Cai e al., 2019; Connelly e al., 2020). Pe cei ed eligiosi y
seems o be an indica o o ela ed ai s, which con i ms
p e ious obse a ions (Alshe h i e al., 2021; Connelly e al.,
2020; Pa bo eeah e al., 2008). This heo e ical de elopmen
is impo an because mos pas esea ch ocused on he
ounding amily’s eligious iden i y a he han on how ha
eligiosi y is impa ed h ough he amily business.
The mixed esul s on inancial pe o mance make i na u-
al o conjec u e ha changes in pe cei ed boa d and CEO
Table 8 Empi ical esul s o
E angelical P o es an CEOs
and inancial pe o mance
Explana o y a iables a e lagged by one yea and winso ized a he 1% le el
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, †p < 0.10
Model 1
Re u n on asse s
Model 2
Re enue (log)
Model 3
Ma ke sha e
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
E angelical P o es an CEO 0.08***
(0.02)
0.000
(3.63)
0.18**
(0.07)
0.008
(2.69)
0.15***
(0.02)
0.000
(6.67)
Fi m size 0.01
(0.02)
0.611
(0.51)
0.82***
(0.05)
0.000
(15.12)
0.04***
(0.01)
0.000
(4.63)
R&D in ensi y − 0.61†
(0.32)
0.062
(− 1.89)
− 1.18
(1.20)
0.329
(− 0.98)
0.08
(0.13)
0.554
(0.59)
Capi al in ensi y 0.01
(0.01)
0.376
(0.89)
− 0.23*
(0.10)
0.019
(− 2.38)
0.00
(0.01)
0.967
(0.04)
Le e age a io 0.00
(0.00)
0.590
(0.54)
− 0.00
(0.00)
0.195
(− 1.30)
0.00†
(0.00)
0.085
(1.74)
Fi m age 0.00
(0.00)
0.613
(0.51)
− 0.00*
(0.00)
0.015
(− 2.46)
− 0.00†
(0.00)
0.088
(− 1.72)
CEO sala y 0.00
(0.00)
0.167
(1.39)
0.00†
(0.00)
0.064
(1.87)
− 0.00
(0.00)
0.576
(− 0.56)
CEO age 0.00
(0.00)
0.212
(1.26)
0.00
(0.00)
0.153
(1.44)
− 0.00
(0.00)
0.763
(− 0.30)
Cons an 0.00
(0.07)
0.957
(0.05)
5.93***
(0.28)
0.000
(21.55)
0.07
(0.06)
0.289
(1.06)
R2 0.0014 0.6458 0.1870
Indus y- ixed e ec s Yes Yes Yes
Yea - ixed e ec s Yes Yes Yes
Numbe o i ms 124 124 124
N 862 862 862
724 F.E ns e al.
eligiosi y a e connec ed o SEW conside a ions (Mille &
Le B e on-Mille , 2014). The SEW dimensions “iden i i-
ca ion o amily membe s wi h he i m,” “binding social
ies,” and “emo ional a achmen ” (see Be one e al., 2012,
p. 263) appea pa icula ly impo an in his ega d as hey
a e alued and a ibu ed ia means o pe cei ed eligiosi y.
In o he wo ds, pe cei ed eligiosi y a o ds amily mem-
be s o pu sue a s ong sense o belonging (binding social
ies), in e nal con ac ual ela ionships based on us , ex e -
nal ela ionship building wi h o he s akeholde s (binding
social ies) as well as o inc ease a ec i e decision-making
(emo ional a achmen ). This esea ch he eby ex ends am-
ily business li e a u e by p o iding an explana ion o how
pe cei ed eligiosi y a ec s SEW. Also, we p o ide ini ial
empi ical e idence on he eligious con ic ions o non- am-
ily s akeholde s as a de e mining ac o o he p o ec ion o
SEW in amily i ms.
Second, we p opose a new an eceden o amily i ms’
successo choice: pe cei ed eligiosi y. This ai can be
hough o as p ese ing a amily’s SEW and poin ing
owa d mo e e hically sound beha io . Despi e he ecen
in e es in he mic o-le el componen s o amily business
succession (e.g., Lu e al., 2021) and he i s insigh s in o he
appoin men s o eligiously pe cei ed CEOs (Connelly e al.,
2020; Dama aju & Makhija, 2018), he analysis o pe cei ed
eligiosi y and i s o ganiza ional con ingencies has hus a
no a ec ed amily i m esea ch. By connec ing sha eholde
cha ac e is ics and CEOs pe cei ed as eligious, his s udy
Table 9 Complemen a y es s:
Family o ing igh s & boa d
membe s’ pe cei ed eligiosi y
Explana o y a iables a e lagged by one yea and winso ized a he 1% le el
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, †p < 0.10
1 Religious non- amily boa d membe s
a) We include indus y- and yea - ixed e ec s in all o ou models, esul ing in a la ge numbe o con ol
a iables. The e o e, Chi2 is no epo ed in STATA. The Chi2 he ein ep esen s Wald- es s conduc ed on
a iables o in e es exclusi ely
Model 1
Sha e o RNF-BM1
Model 2
FLR
Model 3
2-yea lag
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
(z- alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
(z- alue)
Coe
(S . E .)
P- alue
( - alue)
Family o ing igh s 0.08**
(0.02)
0.001
(3.35)
1.61***
(0.21)
0.000
(7.69)
0.14**
(0.05)
0.002
(3.11)
Indus y R&D in ensi y – – − 2.65*
(1.09)
0.016
(− 2.42)
− 0.21
(0.26)
0.410
(− 0.82)
Family o ing
igh s × Indus y R&D
in ensi y
– – − 16.9***
(3.70)
0.000
(− 4.57)
− 1.75*
(0.83)
0.034
(− 2.12)
Fi m size 0.00
(0.00)
0.893
(0.13)
0.12**
(0.04)
0.002
(3.09)
0.01
(0.01)
0.278
(1.09)
Capi al in ensi y 0.00
(0.01)
0.884
(0.15)
− 0.25***
(0.04)
0.000
(− 6.42)
− 0.02
(0.01)
0.103
(− 1.63)
Le e age a io − 0.00*
(0.00)
0.018
(− 2.38)
− 0.01
(0.01)
0.227
(− 1.21)
− 0.00
(0.00)
0.359
(− 0.92)
Fi m pe o mance 0.00**
(0.00)
0.008
(2.65)
0.01
(0.03)
0.692
(0.40)
0.00
(0.00)
0.220
(1.23)
Fi m age 0.00
(0.00)
0.814
(0.24)
0.01*
(0.00)
0.023
(2.27)
0.00
(0.00)
0.427
(0.79)
Communi y eligiosi y 0.10
(0.07)
0.119
(1.56)
2.89***
(0.42)
0.000
(6.95)
0.43**
(0.15)
0.005
(2.80)
Sha e o eligious
boa d membe s
0.87***
(0.05)
0.000
(27.96)
– – – –
Cons an − 0.05
(0.05)
0.309
(− 1.02)
− 3.31***
(0.31)
0.000
(− 10.83)
− 0.06
(0.10)
0.532
(− 0.62)
Chi2 a) 965.73 – 17.41
Pseudo R2 – 0.0651 –
Indus y- ixed e ec s Yes Yes Yes
Yea - ixed e ec s Yes Yes Yes
Numbe o i ms 147 147 146
N 986 986 966
725
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi h…
p o ides e idence o “how and why […] eligious alues
in luence he pu ely economic e alua ion o po en ially
p o i able cou ses o ac ions” (Smi h e al., 2021, p. 5).
Thi d, ou s udy con ibu es o he g owing li e a u e
on amily i m he e ogenei y by highligh ing he bounda y
condi ion indus y R&D in ensi y o he ela ionship
be ween amily o ing igh s and boa d membe s pe cei ed
as eligious. Indus y R&D in es men appea s o dec ease
he in luence o pe cei ed eligiosi y and, hus, he
con ingency o eligiosi y in amily i ms. The e o e, we
go beyond p io wo k indica ing ha amily membe s’
SEW conside a ions shape he ou comes o i m-le el
R&D (Bendig e al., 2020), bu in addi ion—indus y-le el
R&D in ensi y shapes he p ocesses h ough which SEW is
p ese ed.
Fou h, his s udy is also a di ec esponse o he call o
esea ch a he in e sec ion o business e hics and amily
businesses (Vazquez, 2016). Ou esea ch p o ides “answe s
ega ding ques ions as o how […] business-owning amilies
[can] inco po a e hei amily alues and e hical beha io
in o he go e nance o he amily business when amily
in ol emen is low” (Vazquez, 2016, p. 706). Ou s udy
p o ides a no el a ionale o why amily i ms wi h s onge
amily coali ions employ mo e execu i es pe cei ed o be
eligious, he eby se ing SEW and e hical conside a ions
o he owning amily. Recen hough -p o oking esea ch
indings ha e highligh ed ha g ea e cohesion among
amily membe s can lead o g ea e sec e -hiding d i ing
une hical beha io (Jiang & Min, 2023). Families’ e hical
conside a ions ha ini ially lead o he choice o boa d and
CEO can he eby s and in con as o subsequen une hical
beha io .
Manage ial Implica ions
The esul s expose he ole o pe cei ed eligiosi y in boa d
composi ions. The eby hey b ing in a new con ingency
in he explana ion o boa d and leade ship di e si y in
amily i ms; which leads o he ques ioning o equali y in
amily i m ec ui ing p ac ices. Wo king wi h he esul s
o his esea ch could mo e he amily i m managemen
ield beyond ep esen a ional di e si y based on eadily
iden i iable ca ego ies such asgende o a deepe -le el
unde s anding o he p ac ices ha hinde o suppo
di e si y, including pe cei ed eligiosi y in combina ion
wi h SEW conside a ions. The e a e wo ob ious easons
why amily i m managemen should ca e: Fi s , amily i m
boa d di e si y—which includes a iables al eady unde
obse a ion such as age and disabili ybu also implici ,
deepe -le el a iables such as eligion—is seen as a ca alys
o p ospe i y and digi al ans o ma ion (PwC, 2023).
Second, socie al p essu e o enhance inclusion, equi y, and
di e si y e o s has led o judicial sc u iny, pa icula ly
in e ms o gende , acial, and eligious disc imina ion.
Regula o y guidelines (e.g., NASDAQ Boa d Di e si y
Rule) inc easingly equi e i ms o appoin op pe sonnel
om unde ep esen ed mino i ies, making i impo an o
unde s and he p ac ices ha in o m, suppo , o hinde
op pe sonnel’s di e si y. Al hough eligion has no been
o icially included as a di e si y me ic, h ough his
esea ch, we show how eligiously pe cei ed op pe sonnel
ma e o his end, as ela ed powe mechanisms esul
in eligious leade ship homogenei y. The e a e conc e e
s eps helping i ms o ensu e ha a ional decision-making
p ocesses a e no biased by boa d membe s’ pe sonal
p e e ences such as e hics awa eness ainings o leade ship
sel - e lexi i y as well as he implemen a ion o di e si y
managemen o ac upon sel - e lec ion.
This sugges ion is especially impo an conside ing
ha ou pos -hoc analysis indica ed a posi i e ela ionship
be ween highe o ing igh s and pe cei ed eligiosi y in
non- amily boa d membe s. Family i ms can ecognize he
po en ial in luence o eligiosi y e en among non- amily
boa d membe s and conside i as an implici ac o in hei
go e nance s uc u es. Manage s and o he amily i m
pe sonnel could bene i om unde s anding his in luence,
and conside ing he eligious and e hical ideologies when
de eloping e hics and di e si y policies o codes o conduc
could help p e en misin e p e a ion o hese alues.
Including eligious mino i ies as a pilla in a i m’s in e nal
di e si y policies is an app op ia e managemen s ep o
acili a e a common unde s anding among employees om
di e en eligious backg ounds ul ima ely, in eg a ing
di e se eligious pe spec i es can con ibu e o a b oade
e hical unde s anding and decision-making p ocess. A he
same ime, eligion in he wo kplace should no be igno ed,
bu disclosu e should be absolu ely olun a y (Alewell and
Ras e e , 2020).
I is impo an o no e ha amily i m di e si y
managemen can only uly be p io i ized, when amily
i m owne s o e come hei o e eliance on ela ional
us mechanisms du ing succession choices and boa d
appoin men s. Family i m owne s consis en ly iden i y
ea o con lic and dis us as p e en ing hem om making
changes o a us ul, ins i u ional cul u e, as hey expec
us o be highe be ween hose simila o hemsel es
(Beugelsdijk & Klasing, 2016; Jiang & Min, 2023; PwC,
2023). I amily i m owne s conside ela ional us
o be a supe io cha ac e is ic in he wo kplace due o a
ea o con lic esul ing om human di e ences, o mal
go e nance s uc u es (sha eholde ag eemen s, amily
p o ocols, e c.) should be es ablished o inc ease he chance
o mino i ies en e ing he ci cle o us .
F om a ma ke pe spec i e, ou indings could in o m
sha eholde s’ and s ock ma ke analys s’ isk assessmen s, as
he endency o isk-a e se and e hical business ope a ions is
726 F.E ns e al.
ampli ied h ough mo e eligiously pe cei ed op pe sonnel
in amily i ms. Fu he mo e, i in es men po olios a e
inc easingly guided by di e si y (Mi chandani, 2023) and i
eligious mino i ies a e included as a ( olun a y) di e si y
me ic as sugges ed (see, e.g., Alewell & Ras e e , 2020),
hen hose companies who unde pe o m on his me ic will
be a a disad an age in he ma ke place.
Limi a ions andFu u e Resea ch A enues
Ou measu e o op-le el execu i es’ pe cei ed eligiosi y
aces some s uc u al cons ain s. Especially o esea ch
wi h seconda y da a, inding app op ia e p oxies o
indi iduals’ eligious con ic ions is challenging, esul ing
in a ious app oaches, such as name (Dama aju & Makhija,
2018), place o bi h (Ma e al., 2020), o unde g adua e
uni e si y (Connelly e al., 2020). Ou measu e p o ides
addi ional beha io al in o ma ion on leisu e ac i i ies, ye
we canno p eclude he possibili y ha execu i es may be
eligious bu no co e ed by ou da a. Howe e , ollowing
Cai e al., (2019, p. 197), we a gue ha “ he measu emen
e o is no sys ema ically ela ed o he co po a e ou come
ha we examine, he noise in he measu e wo ks agains
inding a s a is ically signi ican e ec o CEOs’ eligiosi y-
ela ed ai s.” Acco ding o p e ious esea ch, p aye and
a endance a eligious se ices a e “nega i ely ela ed o
jus i ica ions o e hically suspec beha io s” (Pa bo eeah
e al., 2008, p. 390). Resea che s could explo e o he
a enues o app oxima e he eligiosi y o op-le el execu i es
based on al e na i e da a sou ces, such as non-sec a ian
app oaches (e.g., uni e si ies no associa ed wi h a pa icula
eligion) (Piepe e al., 2020) and using o he me hodologic
app oaches (e.g., in e iews).
Second, amily i m classi ica ions di e signi ican ly
ac oss s udies. We used an expansi e de ini ion o amily
i ms (Gomez-Mejia e al., 2011; Zellwege , 2017).
Fu u e esea che s could in es iga e he in e play o boa d
eligiosi y wi h amended amily i m de ini ions (Jiang &
Min, 2023; Villalonga & Ami , 2006). They could also
empi ically es o he dependen a iables, such as long-
and sho - e m goals (Piepe e al., 2020). Simila ly, SEW
measu emen has been subjec o some deba e; as SEW’s
di e en dimensions migh p o ide mo e nuanced knowledge
abou he ela ionship be ween s ong amily coali ions and
eligious boa ds and CEOs, i would be in e es ing o see
SEW ope a ionalized and add ess some esea che s’ eques s
in his a ea (e.g., Swab e al., 2020).
Finally, ou esea ch design only allowed us o measu e
whe he a gi en op-le el execu i e is pe cei ed as one
o h ee Ch is ian denomina ions. Fu u e esea ch should
o e come he da a limi a ion o include eligious g oups
such as Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism o Islam, which we
belie e a e also impo an ac o s in amily i ms in he US
and o he geog aphies.
Mo i a ed by he limi ed di e si y obse ed in amily
boa ds and he unexplo ed connec ion be ween eligion
and SEW conside a ions wi hin his con ex , his esea ch
in es iga es he mechanisms and unde lying easons o
he in eg a ion o eligion in amily i ms. Collec i ely,
ou indings indica e ha eligion signi ican ly in luences
SEW conside a ions, mani es ing h ough boa d membe s’
and CEOs’ pe cei ed eligiosi y, he eby ein o cing
he p e alence o mono- eligious leade ship in amily
en e p ises. We us ha hese ou comes will s imula e
u u e in es iga ions in o he implica ions o eligion in
amily businesses.
Funding Open Access unding enabled and o ganized by P ojek
DEAL.
Decla a ions
Con lic o in e es Ou manusc ip has no been published o accep ed
o publica ion. I is no unde conside a ion a ano he jou nal. An
ea lie e sion o his manusc ip has been accep ed o p esen a ion
a Babson con e ence in June 2022. The da a is seconda y da a, bu
used in a unique combina ion o his s udy. Should you selec ou
manusc ip o pee e iew, we ha e no con lic o in e es o disclose.
Many hanks o you ime and conside a ion. We look o wa d o you
esponse.
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A i-
bu ion 4.0 In e na ional License, which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a-
ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long
as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce,
p o ide a link o he C ea i e Commons licence, and indica e i changes
we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle a e
included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed
o he wise in a c edi line o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in
he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is no
pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will
need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a
copy o his licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/.
Re e ences
Abdelgawad, S. G., & Zah a, S. A. (2020). Family i ms’ eligious iden-
i y and s a egic enewal. Jou nal o Business E hics, 163(4),
775–787.
Adams, J. S., Taschian, A., & Sho e, T. H. (1996). E hics in amily and
non- amily owned i ms: An explo a o y s udy. Family Business
Re iew, 9(2), 157–170.
Alewell, D., & Ras e e , D. (2020). On he (i ) ele ance o eligion
o human esou ce managemen and di e si y managemen : A
Ge man pe spec i e. Ge man Jou nal o Human Resou ce Man-
agemen , 34(1), 9–31.
Alsheh i, F., Fo aki, M., & Kause , S. (2021). The e ec s o spi i uali y
and eligiosi y on he e hical judgmen in o ganiza ions. Jou nal
o Business E hics, 174, 567–593.
Amin, M. R., Kim, I., & Lee, S. (2021). Local eligiosi y, wo k-
place sa e y, and i m alue. Jou nal o Co po a e Finance, 70,
102093.
727
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi h…
Ande son, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003a). Founding- amily owne ship,
co po a e di e si ica ion, and i m le e age. The Jou nal o Law
and Economics, 46(2), 653–684.
Ande son, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003b). Founding- amily owne ship
and i m pe o mance: E idence om he S&P 500. The Jou nal
o Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328.
Ande son, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2004). Boa d composi ion: Balanc-
ing amily in luence in S&P 500 i ms. Adminis a i e Science
Qua e ly, 49(2), 209–237.
Anglin, A. H., Milano , H., & Sho , J. C. (2023). Religious exp es-
sion and c owd unded mic o inance success: Insigh s om ole
cong ui y heo y. Jou nal o Business E hics, 185, 397–426.
Ang is , J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mos ly ha mless econome ics:
An empi icis ’s companion (pp. 13–220). P ince on Uni e si y
P ess.
As achan, J. H., Binz As achan, C., Campopiano, G., & Baù, M.
(2020). Values, spi i uali y and eligion: Family business and he
oo s o sus ainable e hical beha io . Jou nal o Business E hics,
163(4), 637–645.
Bailey, R. C., & Young, M. D. (1986). The alue and ulne abili y o
pe cei ed eligious in ol emen . The Jou nal o Social Psychol-
ogy, 126(5), 693–694.
Bammens, Y., Voo decke s, W., & Van Gils, A. (2008). Boa ds o
di ec o s in amily i ms: A gene a ional pe spec i e. Small Busi-
ness Economics, 31(2), 163–180.
Banke , R. D., Wa al, S., & Plehn-Dujowich, J. M. (2011). R&D e -
sus acquisi ions: Role o di e si ica ion in he choice o inno a-
ion s a egy by in o ma ion echnology i ms. Jou nal o Man-
agemen In o ma ion Sys ems, 28(2), 109–144.
Bansal, N., Joseph, K., Ma, M., & Win oki, M. B. (2017). Do CMO
incen i es ma e ? An empi ical in es iga ion o CMO compen-
sa ion and i s impac on i m pe o mance. Managemen Science,
63(6), 1993–2015.
Ba be a, F., Shi, H. X., Aga wal, A., & Edwa ds, M. (2020). The am-
ily ha p ays oge he s ays oge he : Towa d a p ocess model o
eligious alue ansmission in amily i ms. Jou nal o Business
E hics, 163, 661–673.
Bénabou, R., Ticchi, D., & Vindigni, A. (2015). Mo al alues and eco-
nomic beha io : Religion and inno a ion. Ame ican Economic
Re iew: Pape s & P oceedings, 105(5), 346–351.
Bendig, D., & E ns , F. (2023). Be e sa e han so y? Religious di ec-
o s and digi al inno a ion. In e na ional Jou nal o Inno a ion
Managemen , 26(10), 1–26.
Bendig, D., Foege, J. N., End iß, S., & B e el, M. (2020). The e ec
o amily in ol emen on inno a ion ou comes: The mode a -
ing ole o boa d social capi al. Jou nal o P oduc Inno a ion
Managemen , 37(3), 249–272.
Be one, P., C uz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemo ional
weal h in amily i ms: Theo e ical dimensions, assessmen
app oaches, and agenda o u u e esea ch. Family Business
Re iew, 25(3), 258–279.
Beugelsdijk, S., & Klasing, M. J. (2016). Di e si y and us : The ole
o sha ed alues. Jou nal o Compa a i e Economics, 44(3),
522–540.
Cai, Y., Kim, Y., Li, S., & Pan, C. (2019). Tone a he op: CEOs’
eligious belie s and ea nings managemen . Jou nal o Banking
and Finance, 106, 195–213.
Callen, J. L., & Fang, X. (2015). Religion and s ock p ice c ash
isk. Jou nal o Financial and Quan i a i e Analysis, 50(1–2),
169–195.
Ca pen e , M. A., Gele kanycz, M. A., & Sande s, W. G. (2004). Uppe
echelons esea ch e isi ed: An eceden s, elemen s, and conse-
quences o op managemen eam composi ion. Jou nal o Man-
agemen , 30(6), 749–778.
Chang, Y. Y., Dasgup a, S., & Hila y, G. (2010). CEO abili y, pay,
and i m pe o mance. Managemen Science, 56(10), 1633–1652.
Chen, G., Luo, S., Tang, Y., & Tong, J. Y. (2023). Back o school:
CEOs’ p e-ca ee exposu e o eligion, i m’s isk- aking, and
inno a ion. Jou nal o Managemen , 49(3), 881–912.
Chen, W., Zhou, A. J., Zhou, S. S., Ho man, P. S., & Yang, X. (2022).
Decons uc ing socioemo ional weal h: Social weal h and emo-
ional weal h as co e p ope ies o amily i ms. Managemen and
O ganiza ion Re iew, 18(2), 223–250.
Ch isman, J. J., & Pa el, P. C. (2012). Va ia ions in R&D in es men s
o amily and non amily i ms: Beha io al agency and myopic
loss a e sion pe spec i es. Academy o Managemen Jou nal,
55(4), 976–997.
Chua, J. H., Ch isman, J. J., & de Massis, A. (2015). A close look
a socioemo ional weal h: I s lows, s ocks, and p ospec s o
mo ing o wa d. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 39(2),
173–182.
Chua, J. H., Ch isman, J. J., S eie , L. P., & Rau, S. B. (2012).
Sou ces o he e ogenei y in amily i ms: An in oduc ion.
En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 36(6), 1103–1113.
Claessens, S., Djanko , S., & Lang, L. H. P. (2000). The sepa a ion
o owne ship and con ol in Eas Asian co po a ions. Jou nal
o Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 81–112.
Connelly, B. L., Shi, W., Walke , H. J., & He sel, M. C. (2020).
Sea ching o a sign: CEO successo selec ion in he wake o
co po a e misconduc . Jou nal o Managemen , 48(4), 1–32.
Coope , D., Pa el, P. C., & Tha che , S. M. (2014). I depends: En i-
onmen al con ex and he e ec s o aul lines on op man-
agemen eam pe o mance. O ganiza ion Science, 25(2),
633–652.
Co ing on, A., Hebl, M., S ewa , D., Made a, J., Ng, L., & Wil-
liams, J. (2020). Di e si y and inclusion o unde s udied pop-
ula ions: A call o p ac i ione s and esea che s. Consul ing
Psychology Jou nal: P ac ice and Resea ch, 72(4), 303–323.
C uz, A. D. (2013). Ch is ian amily businesses: Oppo uni ies o
u u e esea ch. Jou nal o Biblical In eg a ion in Business,
16(2), 7–28.
Cui, J. (2007). QIC p og am and model selec ion in GEE analyses.
The S a a Jou nal, 7(2), 209–220.
Cui, J., Jo, H., & Velasquez, M. G. (2015). The in luence o Ch is ian
eligiosi y on manage ial decisions conce ning he en i on-
men . Jou nal o Business E hics, 132(1), 203–231.
Dama aju, N. L., & Makhija, A. K. (2018). The ole o social p oxim-
i y in p o essional CEO appoin men s: E idence om cas e/
eligion-based hi ing o CEOs in India. S a egic Managemen
Jou nal, 39(7), 2051–2074.
Daspi , J. J., Ch isman, J. J., Sha ma, P., Pea son, A. W., & Mah o, R.
V. (2018). Go e nance as a sou ce o amily i m he e ogenei y.
Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 84, 293–300.
Debicki, B. J., Kelle manns, F. W., Ch isman, J. J., Pea son, A. W.,
& Spence , B. A. (2016). De elopmen o a socioemo ional
weal h impo ance (SEWi) scale o amily i m esea ch. Jou -
nal o Family Business S a egy, 7(1), 47–57.
Miceli, Di., & da Sil ei a, A. (2022). Co po a e go e nance and e hi-
cal cul u e: Do boa ds ma e ? Re iew o Manage ial Science,
16(4), 1085–1116.
Du, X. (2013). Does eligion ma e o owne -manage agency cos s?
E idence om China. Jou nal o Business E hics, 118(2),
319–347.
Dye , W. G., J ., & Whe en, D. A. (2006). Family i ms and social
esponsibili y: P elimina y e idence om he S&P 500. En e-
p eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 30(6), 785–802.
Ehie, I. C., & Olibe, K. (2010). The e ec o R&D in es men on
i m alue: An examina ion o US manu ac u ing and se ice
indus ies. In e na ional Jou nal o P oduc ion Economics,
128(1), 127–135.
728 F.E ns e al.
E oglu, C., & Ho e , C. (2014). The e ec o en i onmen al dyna-
mism on e u ns o in en o y leanness. Jou nal o Ope a ions
Managemen , 32(6), 347–356.
Fang, H., Randolph, R. V. D. G., Ch isman, J. J., & Ba ne , T.
(2013). Fi m eligiosi y, bounded s akeholde salience, and
s akeholde ela ionships in amily i ms. Jou nal o Manage-
men , Spi i uali y & Religion, 10(3), 253–270.
Fa hallah, R., Sidani, Y., & Khalil, S. (2020). How eligion shapes
amily business e hical beha io s: An ins i u ional logics pe -
spec i e. Jou nal o Business E hics, 163(4), 647–659.
Feng, H., Mo gan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2017). Fi m capabili ies and
g ow h: The mode a ing ole o ma ke condi ions. Jou nal o
he Academy o Ma ke ing Science, 45, 76–92.
Finkels ein, S., & Hamb ick, D. C. (1996). S a egic leade ship: Top
execu i es and hei e ec s on o ganiza ions. Wes Publishing
Company, Minneapolis and S .
F ancis, L. J. (1992). Religion, neu o icism, and psycho icism. In J.
F. Schumake (Ed.), Religion and men al heal h (pp. 149–160).
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Gebe , D., Boe ne , S., Kea ney, E., King, J. E., J ., Zhang, K., &
Song, L. J. (2014). Exp essing eligious iden i ies in he wo k-
place: Analyzing a neglec ed di e si y dimension. Human Rela-
ions, 67(5), 543–563.
Geo gakakis, D., & Ruig ok, W. (2017). CEO succession o igin and
i m pe o mance: A mul ile el s udy. Jou nal o Managemen
S udies, 54(1), 58–87.
Ge ais, W. M., Sha i , A. F., & No enzayan, A. (2011). Do you
belie e in a heis s? Dis us is cen al o an i-a heis p eju-
dice. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 101(6),
1189–1206.
Gilbe , C. G. (2005). Unbundling he s uc u e o ine ia: Resou ce
e sus ou ine igidi y. The Academy o Managemen Jou nal,
48(5), 741–763.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., C uz, C., Be one, P., & de Cas o, J. (2011).
The bind ha ies: Socioemo ional weal h p ese a ion in amily
i ms. Academy o Managemen Annals, 5(1), 653–707.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.
J. L., & Moyano-Fuen es, J. (2007). Socioemo ional weal h and
business isks in amily-con olled i ms: E idence om Spanish
oli e oil mills. Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly, 52(1), 106–137.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Mak i, M., & Kin ana, M. L. (2010). Di e si ica-
ion decisions in amily-con olled i ms. Jou nal o Managemen
S udies, 47(2), 223–252.
González, M., Guzmán, A., Pombo, C., & T ujillo, M.-A. (2013). Fam-
ily i ms and deb : Risk a e sion e sus isk o losing con ol.
Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 66(11), 2308–2320.
G anq is , P. (2014). Men al heal h and eligion om an a achmen
iewpoin : O e iew wi h implica ions o u u e esea ch. Men-
al Heal h, Religion & Cul u e, 17(8), 777–793.
G ullon, G., Kana as, G., & Wes on, J. (2010). Religion and co po a e
(mis)beha io . Hous on: Rice Uni e si y.
Habbe shon, T. G., & Pis ui, J. (2002). En e p ising amilies domain:
Family-in luenced owne ship g oups in pu sui o ansgene a-
ional weal h. Family Business Re iew, 15(3), 223–237.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selec ion bias as a speci ica ion e o .
Econome ica: Jou nal o he Econome ic Socie y, 47(1),
153–161.
Hensele , J., Ringle, C. M., & Sa s ed , M. (2015). A new c i e ion
o assessing disc iminan alidi y in a iance-based s uc u al
equa ion modeling. Jou nal o he Academy o Ma ke ing Sci-
ence, 43(1), 115–135.
Hila y, G., & Hui, K. W. (2009). Does eligion ma e in co po a e
decision making in Ame ica? Jou nal o Financial Economics,
93(3), 455–473.
Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boa ds o di ec o s and i m pe -
o mance: In eg a ing agency and esou ce dependence pe spec-
i es. Academy o Managemen Re iew, 28(3), 383–396.
Hunge man, D. M. (2014). Do eligious p osc ip ions ma e ? E idence
om a heo y-based es . The Jou nal o Human Resou ces,
49(4), 1053–1093.
Iannaccone, L. R. (1998). In oduc ion o he economics o eligion.
Jou nal o Economic Li e a u e, 36(3), 1465–1495.
Jaskiewicz, P., Block, J. H., Mille , D., & Combs, J. G. (2017). Founde
e sus amily owne s’ impac on pay dispe sion among non-CEO
op manage s: Implica ions o i m pe o mance. Jou nal o
Managemen , 43(5), 1524–1552.
Jaskiewicz, P., & Klein, S. (2007). The impac o goal alignmen on
boa d composi ion and boa d size in amily businesses. Jou nal
o Business Resea ch, 60(10), 1080–1089.
Jensen, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2004). Co po a e eli es and co po a e
s a egy: How demog aphic p e e ences and s uc u al posi ion
shape he scope o he i m. S a egic Managemen Jou nal,
25(6), 507–524.
Jeong, S.-H.H., & Ha ison, D. A. (2017). Glass b eaking, s a egy
making, and alue c ea ing: Me a-analy ic ou comes o women
as CEOs and TMT membe s. Academy o Managemen Jou -
nal, 60(4), 1219–1252.
Jiang, D. S., Kelle manns, F. W., Munyon, T. P., & Mo is, M. L.
(2018). Mo e han mee s he eye: A e iew and u u e di ec-
ions o he social psychology o socioemo ional weal h. Fam-
ily Business Re iew, 31(1), 125–157.
Jiang, F., Jiang, Z., Kim, K. A., & Zhang, M. (2015). Family- i m
isk- aking: Does eligion ma e ? Jou nal o Co po a e
Finance, 33, 260–278.
Jiang, S., & Min, Y. (2023). The abili y and willingness o amily
i ms o b ibe: A socioemo ional weal h pe spec i e. Jou nal
o Business E hics, 184, 237–254.
Jones, C. D., Mak i, M., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2008). A ilia e
di ec o s and pe cei ed isk bea ing in publicly aded, amily-
con olled i ms: The case o di e si ica ion. En ep eneu ship
Theo y and P ac ice, 32(6), 1007–1026.
Kancs, A., & Sili e s o s, B. (2016). R&D and non-linea p oduc i -
i y g ow h. Resea ch Policy, 45(3), 634–646.
Keis e , L. A. (2008). Conse a i e p o es an s and weal h: How
eligion pe pe ua es asse po e y. Ame ican Jou nal o Sociol-
ogy, 113(5), 1237–1271.
Li, N. (2008). Religion, oppo unism, and in e na ional ma ke en y
ia non-equi y alliances o join en u es. Jou nal o Business
E hics, 80(4), 771–789.
Li, Z., & Daspi , J. J. (2016). Unde s anding amily i m inno a ion
he e ogenei y: A ypology o amily go e nance and socioemo-
ional weal h in en ions. Jou nal o Family Business Manage-
men , 6(2), 103–121.
Li, W., Au, K. Y., He, A., & Song, L. (2015). Why do amily-con-
olled i ms dona e o cha i y? The ole o in a amily succes-
sion in en ion, social s a us, and eligiosi y. Managemen and
O ganiza ion Re iew, 11(4), 621–644.
Li, X., Li, C., Wang, Z., Jiao, W., & Pang, Y. (2021). The e ec o
co po a e philan h opy on co po a e pe o mance o Chinese
amily i ms: The mode a ing ole o eligious a mosphe e.
Eme ging Ma ke s Re iew, 49, 100757.
Lins, K. V., Volpin, P., & Wagne , H. F. (2013). Does amily con ol
ma e ? In e na ional e idence om he 2008–2009 inancial
c isis. The Re iew o Financial S udies, 26(10), 2583–2619.
Lu, F., Kwan, H. K., & Zhu, Z. (2021). The e ec s o amily i m
CEO adi ionali y on successo choice: The mode a ing ole
o socioemo ional weal h. Family Business Re iew, 34(2),
213–234.
729
Religion inFamily Fi ms: ASocioemo ional Weal h Pe spec i e onTop‑Le el Execu i es wi h…
Ma, L., Zhang, M., Gao, J., & Ye, T. (2020). The e ec o eligion on
accoun ing conse a ism. Eu opean Accoun ing Re iew, 29(2),
383–407.
Madison, K., & Kelle manns, F. W. (2013). Is he spi i ual bond bound
by blood? An explo a o y s udy o spi i ual leade ship in amily
i ms. Jou nal o Managemen , Spi i uali y & Religion, 10(2),
159–182.
Ma ks om, C. A., Huey, E., S iles, B. M., & K ause, A. L. (2010).
F amewo ks o ca ing and helping in adolescence: A e empa hy,
eligiosi y, and spi i uali y ela ed cons uc s? You h and Socie y,
42(1), 59–80.
McGui e, S. T., Ome , T. C., & Sha p, N. Y. (2012). The impac o
eligion on inancial epo ing i egula i ies. The Accoun ing
Re iew, 87(2), 645–673.
McNama a, G. M., Haleblian, J., & Dykes, B. J. (2008). The pe o -
mance implica ions o pa icipa ing in an acquisi ion wa e: Ea ly
mo e ad an ages, bandwagon e ec s, and he mode a ing in lu-
ence o indus y cha ac e is ics and acqui e ac ics. Academy o
Managemen Jou nal, 51(1), 113–130.
Mille , A. S., & Ho mann, J. P. (1995). Risk and eligion: An explana-
ion o gende di e ences in eligiosi y. Jou nal o he Scien i ic
S udy o Religion, 34(1), 63–75.
Mille , D., & Le B e on-Mille , I. (2014). Decons uc ing socioemo-
ional weal h. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice, 38(4),
713–720.
Minichilli, A., No dq is , M., Co be a, G., & Amo e, M. D. (2014).
CEO succession mechanisms, o ganiza ional con ex , and pe -
o mance: A socio-emo ional weal h pe spec i e on amily-con-
olled i ms. Jou nal o Managemen S udies, 51(7), 1153–1179.
Mi chandani, B. (2023). Pilla one o he pa h o inclusi e capi alism:
Inco po a e di e si y, equi y, and inclusion in o go e nance.
Fo bes. Re ie ed om h ps:// www. o bes. com/ si es/ bhak imi c
handa ni/ 2023/ 01/ 01/ pilla - one- o - he- pa h- o- inclu si e- capi
alism- inco po a e- di e si y- equi y- and- inclu sion- in o- go e
nance/? sh= 585 d e7359 6
Monsma, S. V. (2007). Religion and philan h opic gi ing and olun-
ee ing: Building blocks o ci ic esponsibili y. In e disciplina y
Jou nal o Resea ch on Religion, 3, 1.
Muba ka, K., & Kamme lande , N. H. (2022). A close look a di e si y
and pe o mance in amily i ms. Jou nal o Family Business
Managemen , 102, 178.
Ng, P. Y., Dayan, M., & Di Benede o, A. (2019). Pe o mance in am-
ily i m: In luences o socioemo ional weal h and manage ial
capabili ies. Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 102, 178–190.
Osbo n, R. N., & Baughn, C. C. (1990). Fo ms o in e o ganiza ional
go e nance o mul ina ional alliances. Academy o Managemen
Jou nal, 33(3), 503–519.
Oumlil, A. B., & Balloun, J. L. (2009). E hical decision-making di -
e ences be ween Ame ican and Mo occan manage s. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 84(4), 457–478.
Pa bo eeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. (2008). E hics and eli-
gion: An empi ical es o a mul idimensional model. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 80(2), 387–398.
Pa el, P. C., & Coope , D. (2014). S uc u al powe equali y be ween
amily and non- amily TMT membe s and he pe o mance
o amily i ms. Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 57(6),
1624–1629.
Pa e son, T. A., Spech , D., & Duchon, D. (2013). Explo ing cos s
and consequences o eligious exp ession in amily businesses.
Jou nal o Managemen , Spi i uali y & Religion, 10(2), 138–158.
Peni, E. (2014). CEO and chai pe son cha ac e is ics and i m pe o -
mance. Jou nal o Managemen & Go e nance, 18(1), 185–205.
Piepe , T. M., Williams, R. I., J ., Manley, S. C., & Ma hews, L. M.
(2020). Wha ime may ell: An explo a o y s udy o he ela-
ionship be ween eligiosi y, empo al o ien a ion, and goals in
amily business. Jou nal o Business E hics, 163(4), 759–773.
Pi che , P., Ch eim, S., & Kis al i, V. (2000). CEO succession esea ch:
Me hodological b idges o e oubled wa e s. S a egic Manage-
men Jou nal, 21(6), 625–648.
PwC. (2023). 11 h global amily business su ey. Re ie ed om
h ps:// www. pwc. com/ gx/ en/ se i ces/ amily- busin ess/ amily-
busin ess- su ey. h ml
Qiu, B., Ren, H., Zuo, J., & Cheng, B. (2022). Social us and emale
boa d ep esen a ion: E idence om China. Jou nal o Business
E hics, 1, 1–18.
Reck, F. S., Fische , D., & B e el, M. (2022). E hical decision-making
in amily i ms: The ole o employee iden i ica ion. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 180(2), 651–673.
Rossi, P. E. (2014). E en he ich can make hemsel es poo : A c i ical
examina ion o IV me hods in ma ke ing applica ions. Ma ke ing
Science, 33(5), 655–672.
Saboo, A. R., Chak a a y, A., & G ewal, R. (2016). O ganiza ional
debu on he public s age: Ma ke ing myopia and ini ial public
o e ings. Ma ke ing Science, 35(4), 656–675.
Sa oglou, V., Delpie e, V., & De nelle, R. (2004). Values and eligios-
i y: A me a-analysis o s udies using Schwa z’s model. Pe son-
ali y and Indi idual Di e ences, 37(4), 721–734.
Schwa z, S. H. (1992). Uni e sals in he con en and s uc u e o al-
ues: Theo e ical ad ances and empi ical es s in 20 coun ies.
Ad ances in Expe imen al Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
Sha man, M. P. (1991). Concep ualizing and measu ing he o gani-
za ional en i onmen : A mul idimensional app oach. Jou nal o
Managemen , 17(4), 681–700.
Shen, N., & Su, J. (2017). Religion and succession in en ion—E i-
dence om Chinese amily i ms. Jou nal o Co po a e Finance,
45, 150–161.
Singhapakdi, A., Salyachi in, S., Vi akul, B., & Vee ayangku , V.
(2000). Some impo an ac o s unde lying e hical decision
making o manage s in Thailand. Jou nal o Business E hics,
27, 271–284.
Smi h, B. R., McMullen, J. S., & Ca don, M. S. (2021). Towa d a
heological u n in en ep eneu ship: How eligion could enable
ans o ma i e esea ch in ou ield. Jou nal o Business Ven u -
ing, 36(5), 106139.
Smi h, N. C., & Rönnega d, D. (2016). Sha eholde p imacy, co po a e
social esponsibili y, and he ole o business schools. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 134(3), 463–478.
Smi h, T. W. (2008). Lo ing and ca ing in he Uni ed S a es: T ends
and co ela es o empa hy, al uism, and ela ed cons uc s. In
B. Feh , S. Sp eche , & L. G. Unde wood (Eds.), The science o
compassiona e lo e (pp. 79–119). Wiley-Blackwell.
So enson, R. L., & Milb and , J. M. (2023). Family social capi al in
amily business: A ai h-based alues heo y. Jou nal o Business
E hics, 184(3), 701–724.
Spenkuch, J. L. (2017). Religion and wo k: Mic o e idence om con-
empo a y Ge many. Jou nal o Economic Beha io & O ganiza-
ion, 135, 193–214.
Sulaiman, R., Toulson, P., B ougham, D., Lempp, F., & Haa , J. (2022).
The ole o eligiosi y in e hical decision-making: A s udy on
Islam and he Malaysian wo kplace. Jou nal o Business E hics,
179(1), 297–313.
Swab, R. G., She lock, C., Ma kin, E., & Dib ell, C. (2020). “SEW”
Wha do we know and whe e do we go? A e iew o socioemo-
ional weal h and a way o wa d. Family Business Re iew, 33(4),
424–445.
Tei linck, P. (2017). Con igu a ions o s a egic R&D decisions and
inancial pe o mance in small-sized and medium-sized i ms.
Jou nal o Business Resea ch, 74, 55–65.
Tenu a, P., & Camb ea, D. R. (2022). Co po a e social esponsibil-
i y and co po a e inancial pe o mance: The ole o execu i e
di ec o s in amily i ms. Finance Resea ch Le e s, 50, 103195.
730 F.E ns e al.
Vazquez, P. (2016). Family business e hics: A he c oss oads o busi-
ness e hics and amily business. Jou nal o Business E hics,
150(3), 691–709.
Villadsen, A. R., & Wul , J. N. (2021). A e you 110% su e? Mod-
eling o ac ions and p opo ions in s a egy and managemen
esea ch. S a egic O ganiza ion, 19(2), 312–337.
Villalonga, B., & Ami , R. (2006). How do amily owne ship, con ol
and managemen a ec i m alue? Jou nal o Financial Eco-
nomics, 80(2), 385–417.
Wassme , U., Li, S., & Madhok, A. (2017). Resou ce ambidex e i y
h ough alliance po olios and i m pe o mance. S a egic Man-
agemen Jou nal, 38(2), 384–394.
Weine , B. (1985). An a ibu ional heo y o achie emen mo i a ion
and emo ion. Psychological Re iew, 92(4), 548–573.
Wes head, P., Cowling, M., & Howo h, C. (2001). The de elopmen
o amily companies: Managemen and owne ship impe a i es.
Family Business Re iew, 14(4), 369–385.
Wilson, N., W igh , M., & Scholes, L. (2013). Family business su i al
and he ole o boa ds. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice,
37(6), 1369–1389.
Zajac, E. J., & Wes phal, J. D. (1996). Who shall succeed? How CEO/
boa d p e e ences and powe a ec he choice o new CEOs.
Academy o Managemen Jou nal, 39(1), 64–90.
Zellwege , T. M. (2017). Managing he amily business: Theo y and
p ac ice. Chel enham: Edwa d Elga .
Publishe 's No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o
ju isdic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a ilia ions.
