1. 1
============================
Strategic practices in family businesses:
The case of advisory boards
============================
17 May 2015
Judith van Helvert
PhD student in Business Administration
Jönköping International Business School, Centre for Family Enterprise and Ownership
Windesheim University of Applied Sciences
PO Box 10090
8000GB Zwolle, the Netherlands
T +31 88 469 7189
E jmc.beugels@windesheim.nl
Mattias Nordqvist
Professor in Business Administration and director of CeFEO at JIBS
Jönköping International Business School, Centre for Family Enterprise and Ownership
P.O. Box 1026
SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden
T +46 36 101 853
E mattias.nordqvist@jibs.hj.se

2. 2
ABSTRACT
This paper identifies the advisory board as a strategy practice in privately-held family
businesses. As we have little understanding of the advisory board as an informal governance
mechanism, we suggest to use the strategy as practice perspective to study at a micro level
how the advisory board is used in strategizing. We come up with a framework that explains
the meaning of the advisory board as a strategy practice and show how the strategy as practice
lens can work by presenting and discussing a longitudinal in-depth case study of an
innovative medium sized family firm specialized in glue engineering that has recently started
to work with an advisory board. By applying this micro level perspective we aim to contribute
to practice by identifying the enabling and constraining factors in working with an advisory
board.
1. INTRODUCTION
The advisory board is an informal governance mechanism that we know little about
(Blumentritt, 2006; Strike, 2012). It is used primarily to provide advice to a firm’s top
managers. Because of its informal status it is a ‘safe’ way to involve outsiders in the business:
advisory boards do not have legal standing (the advice is not binding) and advisory board
members are therefore formally not allowed to participate in strategic decision making,
meaning that the decision making power remains in the hands of the owners. Also, the
advisory board can easily be dissolved if it is not working as expected (Lambrecht & Lievens,
2008). As this phenomenon is highly recommended by the practitioner literature (e.g. Jaffe,
Lane, Dashew & Bork, 1997; Pendergast, Ward & Brun de Pontet, 2011), but has received
little attention in the academic literature, it is important to support this often-repeated ‘best
practice’ with empirical assessments rather than face validity (Gersick & Feliu, 2013).We
need to assess its value by developing our understanding of it and see how it is employed. In
this paper, we draw on strategy as practice research to inform our study (Nordqvist & Melin,
2010). The strategy as practice perspective has emerged around an interest in what, at a micro
level, people actually do when strategizing (Johnson, Melin & Whittington, 2003). Nordqvist
and Melin (2010) argue that the strategy as practice perspective can be used to develop rich
and holistic understandings and useful knowledge about routines and work patterns in the
dynamics of strategy work in family businesses. It can address the need for more empirical
research on the details of strategy work in family businesses so that richer and more accurate
theoretical concepts can be generated (Astrachan, 2010; Nordqvist, 2012). The common
characteristics of family businesses, even though acknowledging that family firms are not the

3. 3
same and that local understandings and rules of the game differ between them (Melin &
Nordqvist, 2007), motivate an investigation of the advisory board in the family business
context. Examples of such common characteristics are their longer term horizons and
persistence in strategic direction and choices and separate planning processes of family
planning and business planning that are integrated in an informal way (Nordqvist & Melin,
2010).
This study focuses on the role of the advisory board in strategy work and addresses the
following research question: how can we develop our understanding of the advisory board, as
a team of individual advisors, in family businesses by framing and consequently studying this
informal governance mechanism as a strategy practice? Research on the role of advisors in
family firms is limited (Strike, 2012; Reay, Pearson & Dyer, 2013). Even though the attention
to family firm consulting practices is significant from a practice perspective, a recent
literature review on advising family businesses shows a lack of rigorous academic research
(Strike, 2012). We know little about the efficacy (or harm) of various advisory methods and
approaches (Astrachan & McMillan, 2006). “From a research perspective it is not clear what
family firm advisors really do and how they bring value to the firm” (Reay et al., 2013, p.
209). Strike (2012) found that the available literature is very fragmented and that many of the
studies are not grounded in rigorous research methods but are based on description and
personal experiences. Moreover, she stresses the importance of connecting the various
fragments to understand the evolution of the family firm–advisor relationship, the process of
advising, and its outcomes (Strike, 2012). A special issue of the Family Business Review in
2013 was fully dedicated to the role of advisors in family firms to start addressing the
literature gap. Topics in this special issue include (1) the impact of the advisor’s goal
orientation on generating feedback from clients in order to optimize advising behavior (Davis,
Dibrell, Craig & Green, 2013), (2) the mentoring role and the staged withdrawal of advisors
in successfully developing the leadership skills of the next generation in the succession
process (Salvato & Corbetta, 2013a), (3) the effectiveness of a team approach in advising in
comparison with individual advisors (Su & Dou, 2013), (4) the influence of an ‘embedded’
external accountant on firm performance (Barbera & Hasso, 2013), and (5) the strategies and
tactics of advisors who serve on a longer period (Strike, 2013). Overall themes discussed
across these articles include the relationship between family firm advisors and the clients, the
need to be attentive to the family concerns and needs in the business, the different roles of
advisors, the influence on firm performance and family dynamics (Reay et al., 2013).

4. 4
Moreover, Naldi, Chirico, Kellermanns, and Campopiano (2015) discuss a specific category
of advisory, namely family member advisors. They find that advisors coming from the family
have a positive relationship with performance in first-generation firms, and that this
relationship changes to an inverted U-shape in later-generation family firms. And Strike and
Rerup (2015) discuss the mediated sensemaking approach of advisors, an approach that
facilitates adaptive sensemaking by slowing down action of the directors and facilitating
doubt.
One of the fragments that needs the attention of researchers is a specific form of advice,
namely advisors working in a team (Strike, 2012; Reay et al., 2013). This is an important
research area as seeking feedback from a team of advisors, on individual performance (by the
owner manager) or expertise on specific issues relevant to the business and the family, and
incorporating this in strategic decision making, can lead to better informed decisions. This
paper uses the practice lens to build our understanding of advisory boards and presents a
framework for thinking about advisory boards as a strategy practice in family businesses. We
address the micro-level influences (among which social interaction and local organizational
contexts (Langley, 1989)) on how this practice is used by family businesses and how it
develops over time. The study’s interest in and emphasis on the role of the family members,
family owners, and other actors in strategy work in family businesses (who they are, where
they meet and how they interact) aligns with the strategy as practice perspective’s ambition to
‘humanize’ the field of strategy research (Johnson, Langley, Melin & Whittington, 2007;
Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski, 2008). The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to build
on existing family business strategy theory by studying the advisory board as a strategy
practice in family businesses, thereby developing our understanding of advisory boards and
how they are employed in a family business context; and second, to contribute to the strategy
as practice literature by responding to the call for research into the way that practices are
implicated in situated strategizing activities (Jarzabkowski & Seidl, 2008) and to different
levels including the individual, the team, the organization and extra-organizational levels
(Seidl & Whittington, 2014). Empirically, we draw from case research into an advisory board
in a family business attending to various micro-level dimensions (interactions, roles, behavior,
emotions, activities, and routines). The case research focuses on an innovative medium sized
family firm specialized in glue engineering that finds itself in the early stages of management
succession. The paper concludes by reflecting on the implications of viewing the advisory

5. 5
board as a strategy practice in family businesses and its relevance to the family business
strategy literature.
2. THEORY: THE STRATEGY AS PRACTICE LENSE
2.1 Promises of the strategy as practice perspective
The strategy as practice perspective aims to bypass the theoretical dichotomies in strategy
research (content versus process, deliberate versus non-deliberate, planned versus emergent,
profit-maximizing goals versus other objectives), and to understand human agency in the
construction and enactment of strategy in relation to the context (Johnson et al., 2007;
Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl & Vaara, 2010). The strategy practice lens offers a complementary
perspective to strategy process research and the more traditional strategic management
approaches that largely deduced or assumed human action from findings on macro levels of
economic and sociological inquiry: “Strategies are theorized as somehow disembodied”
(Johnson et al., 2007, p. 7). Even though strategy process research has started to open up the
black box of the firm and humanize the field of strategic management by attending to agency,
dynamics and time (Pettigrew, Thomas & Whittington, 2006), critics contend that the main
unit of analysis of this research stream continues to be the whole organization and their
systems and processes, instead of the micro-level particulars of managerial activity and
practices inside these processes (Johnson et al., 2007; Balogun, Huff & Johnson, 2003;
Whittington, 1996). Because of the theoretically grounded understanding of the “recursive
interaction among people, activities, artefacts and contexts”, the practice perspective is
particularly well positioned to address organizational phenomena with relational, dynamic
and emergent characteristics (Orlikowski, 2010, p.26). It therefore has the potential to fit
strategy, which has been argued to have such relational (Cohen & Prusak, 2001), dynamic
(Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997) and emergent (Mintzberg, 1994) characteristics, particularly
well.
2.2 Dimensions in defining strategy practice
To understand the advisory board as a strategy practice, we aim to provide boundaries on
what we understand a strategy or strategic practice to be, thereby focusing both on the
theoretical and empirical approach within practice theory (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011).
Reviewing the current literature on strategy practice, it is clear that the variety of views on
what a strategy practice is and the theoretical perspectives by which it can be studied, is very

6. 6
large. A large number of studies does not define what exactly is meant by strategy practice or
how it is measured. Another observation derived from the literature is that on the one hand
practices are discussed as the situated ways of doing strategy on the micro level (the routines
involved, and the social, symbolic and material tools) through which strategy work is
accomplished (e.g. Hendry, Kiel & Nicholson, 2010; Reckwitz, 2002), and on the other hand
to be common across organizations (including institutional procedures, norms,
communication habits, systems, techniques and strategy tools, and strategy episodes) (e.g.
Whittington, 2006, Nordqvist & Melin, 2010; Jarzabkowski, Balogun & Seidl, 2007).
Furthermore, many studies still tend to argue for either/or approaches in demarcating what
practice means depending on the topic of interest. An important distinction that is made is
deliberate and purposeful strategizing versus emergent and non-deliberate strategizing
through everyday practical coping where strategic intent is immanent in action (Chia & Holt,
2006). Moreover, practice studies often focus either on discursive practices (e.g. Samra-
Fredericks, 2003, 2004, 2005; Vaara, Kleymann & Seristö, 2004; Vaara, Sorsa & Pälli, 2010)
or non-discursive practices (e.g. Browne, Sharkey-Scott, Mangematin, Lawlor & Cuddihy,
2014; Cabantous, Gond & Johnson-Cramer, 2010; Eppler & Platts, 2009). The level on which
practice is studied also differs a lot across studies. Some look at practice as a single-level
concept, focusing on activities (negotiating, coordinating), tools (strategic planning tools), or
routines (Becker, 2008). Others look at it as an inter-relational concept, something that is
done or used in relation to others or as something that it dependent hierarchically on larger
macro structures or systems. Or it is viewed as a multi-level concept at once, involving the
micro level strategizing praxis, the firm and the context (including the network of the actors,
the market, and the society at large). Seidl and Whittington (2014) have labeled these
different ontological views as micro-isolationism (single-level), flat ontology (reaching out
horizontally) and tall ontology (reaching out vertically).
Two studies specify clearly what strategy practices are and how they should be studied. One
was found in early strategy as practice work of Jarzabkowski (2003), who even distinguishes
between strategy practice and strategy practices. She views practices as the infrastructure
through which micro strategy and strategizing occurs (habits, artefacts, modes of acting),
generating an ongoing stream of strategic activity that is practice. The second study identified
was Whittington (2006), who suggests a framework based on the three core concepts of
practice theory, strategy praxis, strategy practice and strategy practitioners, to integrate the
intra- and extra-organizational levels in strategy research and stress the interrelatedness of

7. 7
strategy practices to activity and actors. To define practices, he follows Reckwitz (2002) by
saying that practices guide strategy activity and include shared routines of behavior,
traditions, norms and procedures for thinking, acting, and using things. He adds that practices
include both the tacit and informal, and the explicit and formal and argues that practices are
multilevel. Jarzabkowski’s (2003) interpretation of practice, explaining it as the strategic
activity, is similar to what Whittington (2006) calls praxis.
Instead of focusing on specific characteristics or levels of practice in studying strategy,
Whittington (2006, 2007) strongly argues for an inclusive view on strategy practices. Building
our understanding of strategy practices in family businesses by applying a practice lens
requires such an inclusive view as it is the specific context with multiple influences of the
family on the business that affects strategy making. These influences can be captured by two
arguments derived from empirical findings (Nordqvist & Melin, 2010). First, family
businesses have characteristics that make them ‘special cases of strategic management’
(Sandberg, 1992; Nordqvist, 2012; Fletcher, 2002). For instance, the business and the family
evolve simultaneously over time (Gersick, Davis, McCollom-Hampton & Lansberg, 1997),
implying that both the future of the business and the future involvement of the family in the
business need to be planned for in parallel (Carlock & Ward, 2001). Second, family values,
priorities and interests are likely to have an impact on the strategy work of most family
businesses (Sorenson, 2013; Hall, Melin & Nordqvist, 2006; Koiranen, 2002) via the social
interaction between family and non-family members. To capture these family influences on
the business strategy and the use of strategy practices fully, we should be careful not to
exclude any details and particularities in advance that we do not know about. Whittington’s
(2006) inclusive view on practice, including both context-specifics and institutional aspects,
its relation to action, thinking and talking, and both building and dwelling aspects of
strategizing, is therefore highly relevant to develop our understanding of strategy practices in
family businesses. The next section discusses in detail what an advisory board is and how it
can be viewed as a strategy practice.
3. ADVISORY BOARDS AS A STRATEGY PRACTICE IN FAMILY BUSINESSES
3.1 What is an advisory board?
Advisory boards consist of a particular group of people (mostly outsiders, but it can also
include family member advisors (Naldi et al., 2015)) of which the composition ideally is

8. 8
informed by its tasks and the required expertise and network of its members (Blumentritt,
2006; Strike, 2012). Advisory boards are an accessible governance instrument and an
alternative to formal supervisory boards for owner-managers of family businesses who want a
sounding board that critically evaluates proposals and plans and brings in critical resources
such as expertise, skills and a network, but at the same time want to remain in charge of
strategic decision making themselves (Lambrecht & Lievens, 2008). Strike (2012) identifies
advisory boards as a specific advisory type, arguing that via an advisory board family firms
can gain the benefits of multiple advisors with diverse expertise. Generally, the advisory
board is put together to explore strategic issues, dilemmas and problems, and to provide input
and recommendations on these issues for the directors of the business (Strike, 2012).
Advisory boards thereby function as a sounding board to the owner-manager(s), the
management board, and possibly other stakeholders such as the family members (Su & Dou,
2013). But as the role of outside advisors need to be further clarified (Gersick & Feliu, 2013),
advisory boards might just as well perform other board tasks such as control and providing
legitimacy. Or, in the specific situation of the family business, provide a position for the
incumbent or for other family members to somehow frame their influence. Formally, advisory
boards are not involved in the actual decision making. Also, advisory boards are not
authorized to appoint and dismiss the CEO (Lambrecht & Lievens, 2008). But even though
the advisory board is officially not involved in the decision making, it supports the
preparation phase in which short term and long term strategic plans and activities are
discussed. The engagement of the advisory board members in strategy is therefore expected to
be high.
3.2 Why would family businesses want to work with an advisory board?
Previous research on advisors, including advisory boards, has revealed that they can be
important resources for the family business (Strike, 2013). They provide counsel regarding
strategy, planning, firm performance, compensation, family conflicts and succession (Strike,
2012). When the advisory board is viewed as a resource which is assigned the task to combine
and optimize the capabilities that a family business is able to develop and the efforts that
actors make in support of those activities, it can potentially support organizational
performance (Gedajlovic, Carney, Chrisman, & Kellermanns, 2012). Operating within the
interface of family, business, and ownership dynamics, family firms face a unique set of
dilemmas (Reay et al., 2013). The specific issues that family businesses face and advisory
boards need to address are therefore different from non-family businesses, including for

9. 9
example succession of leadership and/or ownership and conflict resolution because of
intersecting personal and business issues. These issues often cross the boundaries of the three
systems present in the family business – that is, family, business, and ownership (Tagiuri &
Davis, 1982). Following Strike (2012), this implies that family business advisors need to
acknowledge and work with the emotions of the family members, that they need to balance
personal and business interests as family members are either voluntary or involuntary
involved, that they must be wary to assess on the basis of norms of loyalty and reciprocity,
that the relationship between the advisor and the family business members is more personal
and based on trust and that advice should not be solely profit oriented but oriented to protect,
nurture and develop the members, and that because of a general resistance to change, family
business advisors should balance immediate change needs and the long term needs. So, it is
important that competent advisors are selected for the job as they themselves need to navigate
through the overlapping systems that potentially result in conflicts and increased cognitive
challenges. Moreover, they need to be sensitive to the ‘family business culture’, including
both the rational and emotional influences (Strike, 2013).
Especially when brought together in multidisciplinary teams, advisors can help to understand
the issues that result from the overlap of family and business (Swartz, 1989) and respond to
holistic needs that derive from the overlap of the family, business and ownership systems in
family businesses (Thomas, 2002; Sharma, Melin, & Nordqvist, 2013; Su & Dou, 2013).
Based on qualitative data from interviews with advisors, Su and Dou (2013) argue that the
quality of services provided by advisors to family businesses through a teamwork approach is
indeed far more effective to services provided by independent professionals. By sharing their
knowledge via teamwork, advisors can improve the quality of their service because it
improves the accuracy of issue identification, a more systematic analysis of the issue is
achieved, it leads to an integrated total solution and increases the credibility of the provided
solution (Su & Dou, 2013). Advisory boards can also be used as a transitional stage towards a
formal board, to help overcome family fears about losing control (Lambrecht and Lievens,
2008; Gersick & Feliu, 2013). Whereas this idea about the use of the advisory board as a
transition towards formality makes sense and can be a promising governance route for family
businesses to take when they grow or professionalize, it is not backed up by any empirical
assessments. Blumentritt (2006) has examined the relationship between the existence of
advisory boards and the use of strategic planning and succession planning in family
businesses. He found that family businesses with advisory boards are much more likely to

10. 10
engage in formal strategy processes and in identifying successors than are family businesses
that do not have an advisory board. He did not find similar effects for a formal board of
directors.
3.3 An integrative framework on advisory boards as a strategy practice
Going back to the dimensions of strategy practice as identified in section 2.2, in the specific
situation of an advisory board, the practice can be specified as an arena in which practitioners
come together during advisory board meetings (the flows of activity; praxis) and draw on and
work with (a set of) other practices (such as strategic planning, formal strategy analyses etc.)
in strategizing. We have tried to visualize this in Figure 1, building on the framework
developed by Whittington (2006). The figure shows that the advisory board as a strategy
practice is a multilevel concept, including micro-level activities, interactions and dynamics,
both at the team and individual level.
Figure 1: Praxis, practices and practitioners integrated in the advisory board arena
(based on Whittington, 2006)
As Strike (2012) notes, advice giving, seeking, and taking (or leaving) are related and
reciprocal activities, whereas the literature has only viewed the advising process from the
stance of the advisor. In order to understand what leads to effective advising, it is important

11. 11
that the triggers and enablers that lead to advice-seeking and advice-taking/advice-leaving
behavior are identified (Strike, 2012). Next to these influences on the individual and team
level, the arena as a strategy practice operates in relation to its organizational context in terms
of output and the extra-organizational field, drawing from extra-organizational practices and
practitioners. This multiple level (tall) ontology (Seidl and Whittington, 2014) of the strategy
as practice perspective can support in distinguishing between influences on the family firm
level and forces at the institutional level on how the practice is performed. The strategy as
practice perspective thereby offers the potential to reveal important links between micro and
macro level aspects of strategy work (Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009; Whittington, 2006).
Moreover, in line with Langley’s (1989) findings that formal analytical practices are
inextricably linked to social interaction and local organizational contexts, Figure 1 shows the
embeddedness of the advisory board practice in the organizational context (the horizontal
relatedness of the practice) implying that it operates in relation to other, both formal and
informal, strategic arenas.
The figure builds on the framework provided by Whittington (2006), who distinguishes three
interrelated core themes as part of a whole: the practices of both organizations and their wider
social fields (practices), people’s actual activity in practice (praxis) and the actors on whose
skills and initiative activity depends (practitioners) (Whittington, 2006). The practices are
indicated by the numbers (in this example 1 to 4), the praxis are represented by the meetings
(I to V), and the practitioners are indicated by the consonants (A to F). Practice number 1 is
the advisory board. For various reasons, the owner manager(s) and their families can decide to
start working with an advisory board. They draw on some institutionalized interpretation of
what this governance mechanism means and they bring it to the firm. The practitioners in the
figure above include both representatives from the family business, typically the owner
manager(s) and other top managers or influential family members (for example the former
generation), and outsiders. In the first meeting, the outsiders (C, D and E) sit together with the
insiders (A and B). In the third meeting, an extra outsider joins the meeting and leaves again
after having provided his or her input. This can for example be the accountant who is asked
by the advisory board members to present the financial figures of the last year. While
strategizing in the context of the advisory board, the practitioners draw upon a set of practices
available from their organizational and extra-organizational contexts. Whittington (2006)
explains that these practices are likely to comprise both locally generated routines and
practices from outside that become internalized.

12. 12
The output flowing from the meetings is expected to flow back into the organization in
multiple ways: by the decisions that are taken after consulting the advisory board members,
by new contacts that are initiated by the advisory board members, or new expertise that is
used in other arenas. The interrelatedness of the advisory board to its organizational context
indicates that the practice of the advisory board is broader than the arena. However, the arena
is an important aspect of the practice, as the input of the advisors is mainly discussed within
the arena of the strategy board meeting. Moreover, the practice is not static, but it evolves and
develops over time, as indicated by the arrow at the bottom of the figure. Many things in and
around the arena can change: the practices used, the practices themselves, the practitioners
involved, the interaction between them, the topics discussed, but also the location or the
duration of the meeting itself. Part of these changes and developments will result from
rational considerations. However, it is also likely that changes result from less deliberate and
explicit ways of strategizing. So even though the framework does not explicitly refer to forms
of strategizing, the way of strategizing in the advisory board arena and the development of the
advisory board as a strategy practice is expected to include both explicit and implicit aspects
of strategizing and both formal and informal aspects of strategizing.
By presenting a case study of a family business that has recently started working with an
advisory board we aim to reinforce our conceptualization of the advisory board as a strategy
practice and illustrate how the framework can be used to develop plausible explanations of
how family business owner-managers seek and work with advise in their strategy work.
4. THE CASE OF LEAN & SONS1
4.1 Method
The empirical study is based on in-depth case research into a family business that has recently
started to work with an advisory board, which was selected to secure complete access to the
phenomenon under study. As the case study method is used as an illustration to show how the
advisory board can be seen as a strategy practice, including the practitioners, the interactions
between them, the practices used during the meetings, and the influences from the
organizational and institutional level, there is no need for a comparison of multiple cases. The
case involves a family business where the family involvement in the advisory board is high,
1
The name as well as other details of the family business have been changed to preserve anonymity.

13. 13
deliberately exaggerating the specifics of the contextual influences. Empirical material was
gathered from several primary and secondary sources. The first author conducted an interview
with the owner-manager of one and a half hour, an interview with the family of two hours,
observation and attendance of five job interviews with potential candidates for the advisory
board, observation and attendance of two advisory board meetings in the research site, casual
conversations, site visits, and in between telephone and email contact. The interviews were
audiotaped and detailed notes were taken from all observed meetings. Also company reports,
strategic plans, newspaper articles and the web were used. The empirical material was
gathered over the course of 18 months.
4.2 Case illustration
Lean & Sons is an innovative medium sized family firm specialized in glue engineering. It
uses gluing and surface-treatment technologies to ensure durable bonds for any combination
of materials. Lean & Sons has four innovations underlying its activities, including plasma
treatment, linerless labels, biodegradable plugs and label tape. The firm was founded in a
small village, called Meerssen, 1996 by Leo and his wife Anne. The first two letters of their
forenames can be found in the company name. Leo, who had always been involved in the
world of adhesives, was ready for a new challenge. He felt that he did not get the opportunity
to develop his ideas and that there was little room for his creativity in the job that he had at
the time, and therefore decided to start his own company. He started a small-scale production
in a barn at his family home developing gluing technologies. Leo soon developed his first
products and attracted clients. He applied a hot melt to carpet tiles, followed by a cover sheet,
using a machine developed by himself. The result was a self-adhesive carpet tile. His clientele
soon developed and the farmyard could no longer accommodate the trucks, prompting him to
move the company to Maastricht. This is a central and easily accessible location in Limburg.
Together with his first employees, Leo built up a standard range of gluing equipment, and in
five years’ time he started developing and producing his own machines. Today the company
is organized in three different units: special products, engineering, and R&D. Two of their
three children now work in the company, his son Jim (27 years old) and youngest daughter
Sophie (24). Jim has the ambition to take over the leadership of the firm when he is older, but
wants to become more knowledgeable and experienced first. However, Leo wishes to step
down soon because he wants to spend more time with his family and especially with his first
grandchild (the child of his eldest daughter Jane (31)). Moreover, he wants to spend more
time on doing what he really likes, namely developing new products.

14. 14
“A few years ago, when I thought about taking the firm one step further, I wanted to have this
extra building, exclusively focusing on R&D activities. We want to be active in the first
phases of developing new products, that is what I really like”…. “I just turned 61, I still want
to work for a number of years, but not as the director of the firm. Discussing this with Jim, we
concluded that it would be good to look for an director of operations who manages the firm
for the next few years, I do not like managing, instead of selling the firm. Jim is still too
young to do it” (Leo, December 2013)
Leo felt that an advisory board can support in coaching his children in the business, can
support him in taking the company to the next step in terms of growth, and can help searching
for a competent external director who can fill up the years before Jim is ready to take over.
That is why he organized a family meeting at home to discuss the possibility of setting up an
advisory board. Although Leo strongly felt that an advisory board would be helpful in
addressing his needs, he wanted to make sure that the other family members agreed on this.
“I would like continuity and growth of the firm, and the family members should be and
remain to be the owners, that is what I would really like” (Leo, December 2013)
Whereas Jim was a bit skeptic at first on what the added value of the advisory board could be,
in the weeks following this meeting the family members agreed that they would proceed with
the idea of setting up an advisory board consisting of three outsiders. They started discussing
which expertise was required from the advisory board members and they developed a
document describing the purpose of the advisory board, its roles and tasks, and a profile of the
external members that they were looking for. They aimed for a person with a financial
background and financial expertise, a person with a technical background focusing on product
innovation, and an experienced entrepreneur. Moreover, the family members were very clear
in their wish that there should be at least one female advisory board member. This document
was then circulated via a network of practitioners active in advisory boards and boards of
supervisors, but also social media such as LinkedIn were used. Over the summer, job
interviews were held with a selection of 6 candidates and these interviews were attended by
Leo, Jim and Sophie. The outcomes of the meetings were discussed together with Anne and
Jane and they collectively selected the three members for their advisory board, of whom the
female candidate was appointed as the chairwoman. After the selection was made, the persons

15. 15
were invited for an informal meeting to get to know each other and also to meet Anne and
Jane. Eight months after the family meeting, the first advisory board meeting was held.
The first advisory board meeting was attended by the three outsiders and all members of the
family. Prior to the meeting a number of documents were distributed by email, including the
agenda for the meeting, a suggestion for the advisory board regulation, the annual accounts of
2011 to 2013, the core values of the business, and a personnel ‘handbook’ which is a
document explaining the background of the organization, the regulations and rules, and the
reward systems. Moreover, the external advisory board members explicitly requested to
discuss a number of issues, including the ambition and vision of the firm, its commercial
activities (they indicated via email that they sensed that Leo and his family have important
questions in relation to commerce), and the role of Leo in the near future. Following this
email from the advisory board members, Sophie sent an early draft of a commercial draft
developed by one of the key employees in sales, Mark. The regulations of the advisory board
and the commercial plan were the two issues that were discussed in detail during the first
meeting. While discussing the regulations, the practitioners all agreed on issues like the
position (rights and duties) of the directors (with the prospect of having an external director in
the future), on attendance of specific actors like the accountant, term of membership and
evaluation, the right of owners to attend the advisory board meetings, the frequency of
meetings and the intention to act and behave transparently. The second issue was discussed
during the second half of the meeting. It turned out that up until now there had not been any
real need to worry about commerce and that a commercial plan did not exist. The plan
developed by Mark focused on the internal organization, not mentioning the word customer
once. The business had been very successful in introducing new innovative products and
customers had found their way to Lean & Sons.
However, the potential of selling the products to new customers seemed enormous to the
advisory board members. Leo indicated that he did not have the skills and abilities himself to
put the products in the market and that he expected the new external director to take this on.
The external advisory board members challenged both Leo and Jim, who is responsible for
one of the specific products, in several ways: (1) much money is invested in innovation and
R&D, why not in attracting good commercial people, (2) there is not much knowledge about
the external market and on what the customers want, (3) commerce is a profession (Leo
suggested that the controller perhaps could write a good commercial plan, but changed his

16. 16
mind during the meeting agreeing with the advisory board members), (4) high dependence on
one huge customer, (5) the core characteristics of the products and their market position
should be thought through strategically (sustainable, high quality etc.), and (6) criteria should
be developed to analyze whether a new project is worthwhile to invest in.
The second meeting was held three and a half months later. In the meantime, the management
team had held a strategy-away-day where they discussed the feedback received by the
advisory board members on their commercial activities. So, for the second meeting,
commerce was back on the agenda to discuss the progress made. Other items on the agenda
included strategic plans for both Lean Engineering and Lean R&D and (again) the core values
of the business. The meeting started however with a discussion on current issues in the firm.
Leo informed the advisory board members that Mark had become ill and would not be able to
return to work any time soon. As Mark’s position is closely related to commercial activities
the discussion then quickly moved to new sales vacancies for account managers. Leo and
Jane, responsible for HRM activities, had decided that they needed an account manager for
international business and an account manager focusing on the Netherlands. They had found
some persons interested, but those guys demanded high salaries. A number of issues
discussed during the first meeting were addressed again: the importance of investing in high
quality personnel and the wish to become less dependent on one big customer. Additional
aspects that were discussed included (1) the mismatch between the ambition in the strategic
plans and the competencies of current personnel, (2) the extent to which ambition is supported
by the family members, and (3) Mark’s position. Mark, who supervises the sales department,
has an internal focus, neglecting the developments externally (also reflected by his
‘commercial’ plan). At the same time, Mark was skeptical about what the new account
managers should and could bring to the firm and the salary that this person were supposed to
receive (which would be higher than Mark’s). Jim, showing loyalty to Mark, asked why the
advisory board members had the impression that Mark did not do a good job. According to
Jim, Mark performed well, especially in comparison to other colleagues. One of the advisory
board members then explained that a single internal focus would be harmful for the
commercial activities to be developed and that the comparison to the colleagues could just as
well imply that their performance might be questionable too. Following the discussion on
commercial activities, Leo brought in a question about starting to sell machines abroad. The
advisory board members fed him with a discussion on the risks involved and suggestion on
how to further work out this proposition. The next topic discussed were the core values,

17. 17
meant especially to inform the new external director about the family business culture. Leo
then continued by informing the advisory board members that first introductory meetings had
been held with potential candidates for his successor, the position of director. The role of the
advisory board in selecting the director was discussed consequently. The actors agreed that
the advisory board can support in the selection, but that Leo and his family should indicate
beforehand on which issues they had doubts and that the eventual decision should be taken by
the owners themselves. The advisory board members indicated that they understood the
candidates’ request to share in ownership, but they strongly advised not to go along with this
and search for alternatives, for example by profit sharing. The meeting was closed by the
chairperson who asked if someone wanted to bring in any other points for discussion. Jane,
Leo’s eldest daughter, then indicated that there were family tensions related to her future
marriage and differences of opinion on the marital conditions that would be agreed upon. She
was very emotional in addressing this and asked for the advice of the outside members. The
advisory board members reacted by stressing the importance of being well informed on these
issues (as they can be very complicated and therefore difficult to oversee the consequences of
different options) and on being able to express and hear each other’s ideas on this. The
chairperson concluded by saying that she would plan talks with all of the children
individually.
In the next section, we intend to analyze the case described above by applying the framework
explaining the meaning of the advisory board as a strategy practice (Figure 1).
5. DISCUSSION
As both Figure 1 and the case itself show and describe the developments over time in starting
to work with an advisory board, our discussion of the case retraces these developments. When
Leo and his family decided to start working with an advisory board, they enacted upon
information received during a seminar at a university. Leo and Jim learned about the
phenomenon of the advisory board, thought about it and discussed its potential added value
for the family business with the other family members and the management team of the
business. They thereby brought an extra-organizational strategy practice (Whittington, 2006)
to the business (the light blue area in the framework). The involvement of the family at this
stage was high, as Leo’s eldest daughter and wife were also involved in the decision making
process. Before the advisory board started to operate, the practice was adjusted to the needs of

18. 18
the specific situation. First, the purposes and tasks of the advisory board were specified: the
advisory board members should (a) help in finding a new director of operations who is
supposed to fill the leadership gap between now and five to ten years time when the next
generation is expected to succeed their father in leading the business, and (b) should help
grow the business to the next phase by developing commerce. Second, the family needed to
decide which expertise was needed of the advisory board members. They agreed to look out
for three outside and independent advisory board members, of whom at least one woman,
with specific areas of expertise, while all five members of the family would attend the
meetings. Third, they decided on how they wanted the advisory board to operate: 4 to 5
meetings a year, they wanted one of the outsiders to be chairman too, they developed a
contract with the rules and regulations agreed upon, planned to work with an agenda, and
thought about organizing a meeting after the members were selected to see if the persons
would get along well.
After this ‘preparation’ phase, the practice started to operate (it entered the light green area in
the framework). The practice took time to develop and is still in development now (only
meeting I and II have taken place so far); over time the practitioners get to know each other,
relationships are built up and develop, and practitioners (especially the outside members) get
more informed about the firm, the family members involved and the issues the firm faces. In
the case, both business and family issues were discussed in both meetings. Whereas the first
meeting was more informative on the topic of commerce, the discussion on the topic during
second meeting already had more depth and let to real input for decisions to be made by Leo
and his family. Also the interpersonal dynamics and emotions develop over time, and the way
how the owner manager and the family members ask for feedback, perceive and deal with it.
Jim showed a defensive attitude when the performance of one of his close colleagues was
discussed and Jane apparently felt comfortable enough to bring in a quite sensitive issue
already during the second meeting. She was not afraid to show her emotions and deliberately
asked the independent outsiders on a difference of opinion between her and the other family
members, indicating a high level of trust. Concerning the extra-organizational practitioners
(the outsiders in the advisory board), they brought extra-organizational practices to the
business, such as the commercial plan and a checklist of what should be in it.
Not only the practice of the advisory board itself is formed over time (including the practices
of the individuals involved, changes in the composition of the advisory board, and changes in

19. 19
individuals who attend the meetings), but episodes of strategic praxis on the firm level might
develop and adjust over time too (Whittington, 2006). Moreover, the advisory board
influences and is influenced by the context in which it operates. It will collaborate with the
directors, members of the management team and family members. In the case for example, the
solicitor was contacted by the chairwomen after the second meeting to address the issue raised
by Jane. Also, the accountant will attend part of the next meeting. Members of the advisory
board will at least work with each other inside the arena of the advisory board, and possibly
also outside of it. For example in the case, the three outside advisory board members contact
each other to discuss the issues suggested by the family for the agenda of the meeting. They
send in their reaction via email prior to the meeting. The outcomes of the advisory board
discussions will transcend to other arenas in the family business such as the shareholders’
meeting, family meetings and business meetings. The feedback on the commercial activities
received during the first meeting appeared to be important input for the strategy-away day.
Since an important function of the advisory board and therefore the job of its members is to
perform an advisory role and provide feedback, tensions can evolve. Although family
business that start working with an advisory board show active feedback seeking behavior, it
can be difficult to receive critical feedback. It might take time for them to become accustomed
to working with the advisory board and then perhaps later see and understand that it might
help improving things. Advisory board members often have an ongoing trusted advising
capacity, in the sense that they are not brought in for a specific task or project where the
beginning and end is defined (Strike, 2013), but with the intention to build up a long-term
relationship. Strike (2013) notes that the advice process of such long-term trusted advisors has
been understudied in the family business field, but that studies from other disciplines suggest
that advisors are important to the attention structure of social systems because they can
channel organizational members’ attention and influence the flow of information within
organizations (e.g. Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Arendt, Priem, & Ndofor, 2005).
6. IMPLICATIONS & CONTRIBUTIONS
Studying advisory boards as a strategy practice in family businesses aims to understand the
process of advising when performed as a team: seeking advice, giving advice, taking and
leaving advice. Two examples from the case description illustrate this. Firstly, during the first
meeting, all three of the outside advisory board members asked critical questions in relation to
the commercial plan. They agreed on the lack of external awareness of the writer of the plan.

20. 20
Jim showed difficulty in receiving this ‘negative’ feedback on the performance of one of his
close colleagues, also during the second meeting. However, since the experts came up with
strong arguments and agreed with one another in order to achieve the goal of improving
commerce (an instrumental motive), it might be easier to convince Jim in in the future in
comparison with a single advisor being critical (Ashford, Blatt, & VandeWalle, 2003).
Studying the practice of the advisory board on a micro level over time can help in building on
existing family business strategy theory by identifying why and how family members open up
to outsiders and use their questioned and unquestioned feedback in strategizing. Over time the
outside members will have to show their credibility in discussing different issues. The second
example of the advising process can be found in the fact that Jane addressed a sensitive family
issue at the end of the second meeting. It is striking that Jane already trusted the outside
members enough to discuss the issue after meeting only twice. We question whether trust
needs a process to develop and to be sustained (Sundaramurthy, 2008) or whether in specific
situations there can be instant trust. In relation to the team approach in advising in this
situation was that the advisory board members brought in different knowledge, information
and experiences which were complementary and helped all family members in feeling that
their interests were governed (Thomas, 2002; Su & Dou, 2013).
Next to providing insight in the process of advising via a team approach in the family
business context via the practice lens, another theoretical contribution of this study is that it
addresses and identifies the specific contextual influences of the family business on the
advisory board as a strategic arena. This specific situation of a business in which the family
involvement is high accentuates the contextual family factors that enable and / or constrain
how the advisory board operates and functions (for example by the issues discussed), and how
its output resulting from the meetings flows back into the organizational and familial context.
Moreover, the study gives meaning to strategy as practice perspective by providing a
framework that explains the advisory board as a strategy practice in the family business,
including multiple levels of analysis (individuals, team, organization and extra-organization).
This study seeks to bridge the current gap between theory and practice, by using the practice
perspective as a lens to develop our understanding of the advisory board, as a team of
individual advisors, in family businesses. “Growing evidence suggests that organizational and
management research produces knowledge that is distant from management practice, rather
than knowledge that helps advance that practice” (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011, p.338). Our

21. 21
understanding of the advisory board can be further developed by gaining access to and using
process-oriented data (Forbes & Milliken, 1999; Daily, Dalton, & Cannella Jr., 2003). A
methodological contribution of this study therefore lies in its longitudinal, processual
approach.
Our research has important implications for practice. As suggested by Gersick and Feliu
(2013), it is important to empirically assess the recommendations done by consultants and
advisors. By developing our understanding of the advisory board as an informal governance
mechanism in family business and identify its output in different contexts, we can assess
whether the advisory board can be an interesting alternative or complement to a board of
directors or a board of supervisors. Furthermore, identifying the enabling and constraining
factors for owner-managers and their families in working with an advisory board can inform
owner-managers who want to start working with an advisory board how to maximize the
potential value of the advisory board and family businesses that already have an advisory
board can thereby evaluate their boards and improve their performance.
We therefore recommend future studies to use the framework and to apply it to different
situations of family businesses that work with an advisory board. By performing multiple case
studies, comparing the functioning of the advisory board as a strategy practice in different
contexts, with different levels of commitment of family members, facing different strategic
challenges, future research might identify the general underlying mechanisms that influence
the functioning of the advisory board as a practice in strategy.
REFERENCES
Arendt, L. A., Priem, R. L., & Ndofor, H. A. (2005). A CEO-adviser model of strategic
decision making. Journal of Management, 31(5), pp. 680-699.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., &VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review
of research on feedbackseeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management,
29(6), pp. 773-799.
Astrachan, J. H. (2010). Strategy in family business: Toward a multidimensional research
agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), pp. 6-14.
Astrachan, J. H., & McMillan, K. S. (2006). United States. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Handbook
of family business & family business consultation: A global perspective (pp. 347-363).
Binghamton: NY: International Business Press.
Balogun, J., Huff, A. S., & Johnson, P. (2003). Three responses to the methodological
challenges of studying strategizing. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 197-
224.

22. 22
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From Intended Strategies to Unintended Outcomes: The
Impact of Change Recipient Sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), pp. 1573-
1601.
Barbera, F., & Hasso, T. (2013). Do we need to use an accountant? The sales growth and
survival benefits to family SMEs. Family Business Review, 26(3), pp. 271-292.
Becker, M. C. (2008). The past, present and future of organizational routines: introduction to
the Handbook of Organizational Routines. In M. C. Becker (Ed.). Handbook of
organizational routines. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Berent-Braun, M. M., Bus, C. A. C. J., Van Dijk, C. C., Van Druten, E. W. J. A., Flören, R.
H., Van den Hurk, Y., . . . Webbink, R. (2013). Goed ondernemingsbestuur bij
familiebedrijven: Baker Tilly Berk NV/Nyenrode Business Universiteit.
Blumentritt, T. (2006). The relationship between boards and planning in family businesses.
Family Business Review, 19(1), pp. 65-72.
Bottomley V., Bingham K., Thorning-Lund S., & Slattery R. (2014). The Role of Advisory
Boards - Who, what, why and how? London: Odgers Berndtson.
Bourque, N., & Johnson, G. (2008). Strategy workshops and 'away days' as ritual. In G. P.
Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational
Decision Making (pp. 552-564). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, A. D., & Thompson, E. R. (2013). A narrative approach to strategy-as-practice.
Business History, 55(7), pp. 1143-1167.
Browne, S., Sharkey-Scott, P., Mangematin, V., Lawlor, K., & Cuddihy, L. (2014). Adapting
a book to make a film: how strategy is adapted through professional practices of
marketing middle managers. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9-10), pp. 949-
973.
Butler, R. (1997). Stories and Experiments in Social Inquiry. Organization Studies, 18(6), pp.
927-948.
Cabantous, L., Gond, J.-P., & Johnson-Cramer, M. (2010). Decision Theory as Practice:
Crafting Rationality in Organizations. Organization Studies, 31(11), pp. 1531-1566.
Calkoen, W. J. L. (2012). The one-tier board in the changing and converting world of
corporate governance. A comparative study of boards in the UK, the US and the
Netherlands. Deventer: Kluwer.
Carlock, R.S., & Ward, J.L. (2001). Strategic planning for the family business. Parallel
planning to unify the family and business. New York: Palgrave.
Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2006). Strategy as Practical Coping: A Heideggerian Perspective.
Organization Studies, 27(5), pp. 635-655.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: how social capital makes organizations
work. New York: Harvard Business Review Press.
Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C.A. (2004). The board of directors in family firms: one size fits all?
Family Business Review, 17(2), pp. 119-134.
Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., & Cannella Jr, A.A. (2003). Corporate governance: decades of
dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), pp. 371-382.
Davis, W.D., Dibrell, C., Craig, J.B., & Green, J. (2013). The effects of goal orientation and
client feedback on the adaptive behaviors of family enterprise advisors. Family
Business Review, 26(3), pp. 215-234.

23. 23
Eppler, M. J., & Platts, K. W. (2009). Visual Strategizing: The Systematic Use of
Visualization in the Strategic-Planning Process. Long Range Planning, 42(1), pp. 42-
74.
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory.
Organization Science, 22(5), pp. 1240-1253.
Fenton, C., & Langley, A. (2011). Strategy as Practice and the Narrative Turn. Organization
Studies, 32(9), pp. 1171-1196.
Fletcher, D. (2002). A network perspective of cultural organising and “professional
management” in the small, family business. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 9(4), pp. 400-415.
Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: understanding
boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management
Review, 24(3), pp. 489-505.
Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). The adolescence of
family firm research: taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of
Management, 38(4), pp. 1010-1037.
Gersick, K.E., Davis, J.A., McCollom-Hampton, M., Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to
generation: life cycles of the family business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Gersick, K. E., & Feliu, N. (2013). Governing the family enterprise: practices, performance
and research. In L. Melin, M. Nordqvist, & P. Sharma (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Family Business: Sage Publications Ltd.
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2010). What is strategy-as-practice. In D.
Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy
as Practice (pp. 1-20): Cambridge.
Gomez, M.-L., & Bouty, I. (2011). The Emergence of an Influential Practice: Food for
Thought. Organization Studies, 32(7), pp. 921-940.
Hall, A., Melin, L., & Nordqvist, M. (2006). Understanding strategizing in the family
business context In P. Z. Poutziouris, K. X. Smyrnios, & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Family Business (pp. 253-268). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hendry, K., Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. (2010). How boards strategise: a strategy as practice
view. Long Range Planning, 43(1), pp. 33-56.
Herepath, A. (2014). In the Loop: A Realist Approach to Structure and Agency in the Practice
of Strategy. Organization Studies, 35(6), pp. 857-879.
Huse, M. (2007). Boards, governance and value creation. The human side of corporate
governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Jaffe, D.T., Lane, S., Dashew, L., & Bork, D. (1997). The CPA as family adviser. Journal of
Accountancy, 183(5), 42-50.
Jarratt, D., & Stiles, D. (2010). How are Methodologies and Tools Framing Managers'
Strategizing Practice in Competitive Strategy Development? British Journal of
Management, 21(1), pp. 28-43.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic Practices: An Activity Theory Perspective on Continuity
and Change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 23-55.

24. 24
Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping Strategy as a Structuration Process. The Academy of
Management Journal, 51(4), pp. 621-650.
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: the challenges of a practice
perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), pp. 5-27.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy.
Organization Studies, 29(11), pp. 1391-1426.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A. P. (2009). Strategy-as-practice: a review and future directions
for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), pp. 69-95.
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy as practice, research
directions and resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction. Journal of
Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 3-22.
Koiranen, M. (2002). Over 100 Years of Age But Still Entrepreneurially Active in Business:
Exploring the Values and Family Characteristics of Old Finnish Family Firms. Family
Business Review, 15(3), pp. 175-187.
Lambrecht, J., & Lievens, J. (2008). Pruning the family tree: an unexplored path to family
business continuity and family harmony. Family Business Review, 21(4), pp. 295-313.
Langley, A. (1989). In search of rationality: the purposes behind the use of formal analysis in
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), pp. 598-631.
Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), pp. 57-84.
McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Strategists on the board. Organization Studies, 20(1),
pp. 47-74.
Melin, L., & Nordqvist, M. (2007). The reflexive dynamics of institutionalization: the case of
the family business. Strategic Organization, 5(3), pp. 321-333.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: The Free Press.
Naldi, L., Chirico, F., Kellermans, F.W., & Campopiano, G. (2015). All in the family? An
exploratory study of family member advisors and firm performance. Family Business
Review, forthcoming.
Nordqvist, M. (2005). Understanding the role of ownership in strategizing; a study of family
firms. Jӧnkӧping: Jӧnkӧping International Business School.
Nordqvist, M. (2012). Understanding strategy processes in family firms: Exploring the roles
of actors and arenas. International Small Business Journal, 30(1), pp. 24-40.
Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2010). The promise of the strategy as practice perspective for
family business strategy research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), pp. 15-
25.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In
D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of
Strategy as Practice (pp. 23-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pendergast, J.M., Ward, J.L., & Brun de Pontet, S. (2011). Building a successful family
business board. A guide for leaders, directors, and families. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

25. 25
Pettigrew, A., Thomas, H., & Whittington, R. (2006). Strategic management: the strengths
and limitations of a field. Handbook of Strategy and Management. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Reay, T., Pearson, A.W., & Dyer, W.G. (2013). Advising family enterprise: examining the
role of family firm advisors. Family Business Review, 26(3), pp. 209-214.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist
theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), pp. 243-263.
Salvato, C., & Corbetta, G. (2013a). Transitional leadership of advisors as a facilitator of
successors' leadership construction. Family Business Review, 26(3), pp. 235-255.
Salvato, C., & Corbetta, G. (2013b). Strategic content and process in family business. In P.
Sharma, L. Melin, & M. Nordqvist (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Family Business
(pp. 295-320). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003). Strategizing as Lived Experience and Strategists’ Everyday
Efforts to Shape Strategic Direction*. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), pp. 141-
174.
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2004). Managerial elites making rhetorical and linguistic 'moves' for a
moving (emotional) display. Human Relations, 57(9), pp. 1103-1143.
Samra-Fredericks, D. (2005). Strategic Practice, 'Discourse' and the Everyday Interactional
Constitution of 'Power Effects'. Organization, 12(6), pp. 803-841.
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: theorizing through
practical rationality Academy of Management Review, 36(2), pp. 338-360.
Sandberg, W. R. (1992). Strategic Management's Potential Contributions to a Theory of
Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16(3), pp. 73-90.
Seidl, D., & Whittington, R. (2014). Enlarging the Strategy-as-Practice Research Agenda:
Towards Taller and Flatter Ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), pp. 1407-1421.
Sorenson, R. L. (2013). Values in Family Businesses. In P. Sharma, L. Melin, & M.
Nordqvist (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Family Business (pp. 463-479). London:
Sage Publications Ltd
Strike, V. M. (2012). Advising the family firm: reviewing the past to build the future. Family
Business Review, 25(2), pp. 156-177.
Strike, V. M. (2013). The most trusted advisor and the subtle advice process in family firms.
Family Business Review, 26(3), pp. 293-313.
Strike, V.M., & Rerup, C. (2015). Mediated sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal,
forthcoming.
Su, E., & Dou, J. (2013). How does knowledge sharing among advisors from different
disciplines affect the quality of the services provided to the family business client? An
investigation from the family business advisor's perspective. Family Business Review,
26(3), pp. 256-270.
Sundaramurthy, C. (2008). Sustaining trust within family businesses. Family Business
Review, 21(1), pp. 89-102.
Swartz, S. (1989). The challenges of multidisciplinary consulting to family-owned businesses.
Family Business Review, 2(4), pp. 329-331.
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. A. (1982). The advantages and disadvantages of the family business.

26. 26
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509-533.
Thomas, J. (2002). Freeing the shackles of family business ownership. Family Business
Review, 15(4), pp. 321-336.
Vaara, E., Kleymann, B., & Seristö, H. (2004). Strategies as Discursive Constructions: The
Case of Airline Alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), pp. 1-35.
Vaara, E., Sorsa, V., & Pälli, P. (2010). On the force potential of strategy texts: a critical
discourse analysis of a strategic plan and its power effects in a city organization.
Organization, 17(6), pp. 685-702.
Van Ees, H., & Postma, T.J.B.M. (2004). Dutch boards and governance: a comparative
institutional analysis of board roles and member (s)election procedures. International
Studies of Management and Organization, 34(2), pp. 90-112.
Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), pp. 731-735.
Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization
Studies, 27(5), pp. 613-634.
Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy practice and strategy process: family differences and the
sociological eye. Organization Studies, 28(10), pp. 1575-1586.
Whittington, R. (2010). Giddens, structuration theory and strategy as practice. In D.
Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy
as Practice (pp. 109-126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.