ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 15 June 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629730 Unraveling the Role of Shared Vision and Trust in Constructive Conflict Management of Family Firms. An Empirical Study From a Mixed Methods Approach Cristina Alvarado-Alvarez 1,2*, Immaculada Armadans 3 , María José Parada 4 and M. Teresa Anguera 5 1 Department of Basic, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2 Department of Social Psychology and Quantitative Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 3 Department of Social Psychology and Quantitative Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, PsicoSAO-Research Group in Social, Environmental, and Organizational Psychology, Institute of Research in Education, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 4 Strategy and General Management Department, ESADE Business School, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, 5 Faculty of Psychology, Institute of Neurosciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Family firms are a unique setting to study constructive conflict management due to the influence of family ties of the owning family imprinting a sense of common purpose Edited by: and shared destiny, and high levels of trust. We study the relationship between shared Patricia Elgoibar, vision and trust that intervene in the adoption of constructive conflict management. University of Barcelona, Spain To achieve our purpose, we carried out a systematic indirect observation using a Reviewed by: mixed methods approach. We used the narratives of 17 semi-structured interviews, Dolores Sucozhanay, University of Cuenca, Ecuador audio-recorded and transcribed, of family and non-family managers or directors from Alain Laurent Verbeke, five Spanish family firms in the siblings’ partnership stage, combined with documentary KU Leuven, Belgium data obtained from different sources. Intra- and inter-observer reliability were confirmed. *Correspondence: Cristina Alvarado-Alvarez Results show a dynamic relationship between shared vision and specific components of cristina.alvarado@ub.edu trust (benevolence and ability) at different levels of conflict management. We also provide evidence of specific processes of concurrence-seeking and open-mindedness in family Specialty section: This article was submitted to and ownership forums accounting for the relevance of family governance in these type Organizational Psychology, of organizations. Family firms are a sum of several subsystems which exhibit a particular a section of the journal resources configuration. This study sheds light on constructive conflict management Frontiers in Psychology in family firms opening interesting avenues for further research and offering practical Received: 15 November 2020 Accepted: 06 May 2021 implications to managers, owners, and advisors. Published: 15 June 2021 Keywords: shared vision, trust, constructive conflict management, family firm, mixed methods approach Citation: Alvarado-Alvarez C, Armadans I, Parada MJ and Anguera MT (2021) Unraveling the Role of Shared Vision INTRODUCTION and Trust in Constructive Conflict Management of Family Firms. An Organizations are fertile ground for conflicts. They respond to the high demands of a highly Empirical Study From a Mixed changing environment, which exerts many pressures on the teams and demands people to solve Methods Approach. their dissents, effectively collaborate, and make agile decisions (De Dreu and Gelfand, 2008). Front. Psychol. 12:629730. Conflict is a multilevel (e.g., individual, teams, organizational, culture) phenomenon (Lewicki and doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629730 Spencer, 1992; De Dreu and Gelfand, 2008), which poses unique challenges to organizational life. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms Current evidence supports both the negative and positive effects shared destiny (Miller, 2014; Neff, 2015). The high levels of trust of conflicts (e.g., Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Spector and Bruk- among family members would contribute to build-up lasting Lee, 2008). On the one hand, conflict may bring harmful and flourishing organizations (Sundaramurthy, 2008; Cater and consequences like stress, absenteeism, and turnover (Spector Kidwell, 2014; Eddleston and Morgan, 2014) and convert these and Bruk-Lee, 2008). On the other hand, conflict can drive groups into fertile ground for constructive conflict. However, innovation, change, and enhanced personal relationships in the most of the literature points out the dark side of conflict in family workplace when it is constructively managed (Tjosvold et al., firms given the co-existence of both family and business logics, 2014; Elgoibar et al., 2016; Mikkelsen and Clegg, 2018). In which may open the door to controversies (Reay et al., 2015) and this matter, trust and open-mindedness play a critical role the demise of the family business (Großmann and von Schlippe, in displaying its constructive potential (Tjosvold et al., 2014; 2015) if they are not constructively managed (Alvarado-Alvarez Elgoibar et al., 2016). et al., 2020). The higher complexity of family firms makes them Although the study of conflict in organizations has a more prone to conflict (Lansberg, 1983; Davis and Harveston, long trajectory (e.g., Jehn, 1997; Jehn and Mannix, 2001; De 2001; Pieper, 2010). Therefore, research has paid less attention to Dreu and Gelfand, 2008), some questions are still pending. the bright possibilities offered by constructive conflict in family Given that conflict is a relational process which emerges in firms (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., 2020). a context “with a sense of history, a normative trajectory, Current evidence shows that conflict may play a positive and changing circumstances” (Coleman and Kugler, 2014, p. role in the continuance of family firms by triggering change 963), the exploration of a unique context, such as family (Sharma et al., 1997; Claßen and Schulte, 2017) and innovation firms opens attractive doors to new research in the field of (De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, 2015; Kammerlander et al., conflict management, given their uniqueness emanating from 2015). Challenging conventional wisdom, a conflict can be the overlap of two social systems (the family and the business) “a constructive force” (Mikkelsen and Clegg, 2018, p. 3) that (Lansberg, 1983) and the overlapping roles of family members in contributes to the long-term development and sustainability of different decision making domains. Precisely, scholars highlight family firms. the need to support with empirical evidence the primary roots Moreover, some last reviews encourage exploring both the of constructive conflict in this context (e.g., Alvarado-Alvarez negative and positive sides of conflict management (Caputo et al., 2020). Specific contexts as family firms would shape et al., 2018; Qiu and Freel, 2020). Evidence from organizational organizational processes like conflict management in a different psychology shows that family expectations are not a significant way (Ployhart and Hale, 2014). source of stress and work-family conflict (Beehr et al., 1997). Family businesses are a mounting portion of enterprises across These authors (Beehr et al., 1997) alluded to the characteristics the world. Only in Europe, family firms represent 70–80% of of the samples of prior studies in the field (e.g., based on advisors; private companies and account for about 40–60% of employment Beehr et al., 1997) bias the understanding of the family side as (Botero et al., 2015). The economies of many countries mostly a source of conflict. Indeed, the use of an ambiguous definition depend on family enterprises (Basco, 2015; Memili et al., 2015). of conflict (Tjosvold, 2008; Frank et al., 2011; Alvarado-Alvarez In essence, a family business is: “a business governed and/or et al., 2020) may also deviate the attention of the scholars to managed with the intention to shape and pursue the vision of adverse outcomes of conflict (Qiu and Freel, 2020). the business held by a dominant coalition controlled by members These factors make necessary a more fine-grained of the same family or a small number of families in a manner conceptualization of conflict, which sees the phenomena through that is potentially sustainable across different generations of a the lens of constructive conflict management (e.g., Tjosvold et al., family or families (Chua et al., 1999, p. 25).” Therefore, families 2014; Elgoibar et al., 2016). Aligned to this aim, a conceptual in business are a valuable type of resource that must be preserved work recently published has proposed that both components and promoted as primary assets (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003), which of shared vision and trust may be considered as cognitive and can derive in a key competitive advantage for economies. relational roots of constructive conflict management dynamics Families in business can be considered “the brain and the in family firms (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., 2020). heart” of this organization type. The brain because they bring In summary, given that the context of family firms has been direction and a sense of destiny to their companies (Chua et al., under-explored in organizational psychology (Gagné et al., 2014), 1999) through critical processes as decision-making and strategic it offers interesting opportunities to explore group processes, behavior (Chrisman et al., 2005; Sharma et al., 2014), and the such as conflict (Frank et al., 2011; Loignon et al., 2015; Caputo heart because families inspire and move their companies through et al., 2018). Recent works try to bridge the gap between sharing family history, values and emotions (Bee and Neubaum, psychology and family business research (e.g., Jiang et al., 2018; 2014). Therefore, the uniqueness of family firms undoubtedly Strike et al., 2018; Kammerlander and Breugst, 2019). In response resides in family resources (Habbershon and Williams, 1999), to these gaps, this research aims to refine our understanding which represent both advantages and challenges in areas, such of the interplay between shared vision, trust, and constructive as conflict management (Pieper, 2010; Alvarado-Alvarez et al., conflict management in family firms. 2020), family governance (Suess-Reyes, 2017), and innovation In the following sub-sections, we explain the theoretical (Carnes and Ireland, 2013) among others. framework and the relevance of studying these three As mentioned earlier, the family’s presence in the business variables: shared vision, trust, and constructive conflict affects its entirety, imprinting a sense of common purpose and management. Then the paper continues with the methods and Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms data analysis. Finally, the article ends with the discussion At the same time, this collective purpose would promote open- and conclusions sharing contributions, limitations and mindedness and the group’s learning capacity (Miller, 2014; Lord, further research. 2015). Some works highlight the positive influence of shared vision Shared Vision on innovation through having a good impact on collaboration In the literature of organizational psychology, a shared vision (Bigliardi and Galati, 2018), new product development (Cassia has been defined “as a common mental model of the future et al., 2012), and strategic flexibility (Craig et al., 2014). A state of the team or its tasks that provides the basis for shared vision as a collective cognition between family and non- action within the team” (Pearce and Ensley, 2004, p. 260– family members would enhance innovation (Madison et al., 261). In the context of family firms, shared vision represents 2020). A relevant issue to address in this research is to refine an optimistic view of the future, also known as ’family dreams’ our understanding about the relationship between shared vision, (Boyatzis and Soler, 2012). It is a set of goals and purposes trust and constructive conflict management in the context of which energize the group and promote change in organizations. family firms. This view of the future creates a sort of emotional contagion atmosphere in the group (Boyatzis et al., 2015). The shared vision is also an expression of the workplace’s relational Trust climate (Boyatzis and Rochford, 2020) and a needed team Organizational development is rooted in collaboration and trust functioning (Marlow et al., 2018). This group’s beliefs inspire (Whitener et al., 1998; Elgoibar et al., 2016). Trust promotes the group to collaborate toward a common purpose (Lord, interdependence, given that it represents an expectation about 2015). goal facilitation (Tjosvold et al., 2016). In other words, if we Shared vision is a component of the unique organizational expect that another person will help us achieve our goals, we culture of family firms, which has a significant positive impact on will probably trust him/her, making cooperation a more likely business performance because it behaves as a driver to achieve the case. Trust is an expression of “confident positive expectations organizational future (Neff, 2015). Some elements are distinctive regarding another’s conduct” (Lewicki et al., 1998, p. 439). of shared vision in family firms. Usually, it includes family and At the same time, trustworthiness connects with our sense business purposes (Knapp et al., 2013). It is deeply rooted in of being vulnerable to the actions of the other person (Mayer family past experiences and condensates the main learnings and et al., 1995). In this context, perception of ability, benevolence, insights into the family business history (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015). and integrity would create and sustain trust in organizations It also has a transgenerational orientation (Knapp et al., 2013; (Schoorman et al., 2007). It means that managers influence upon Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Diaz-Moriana et al., 2020). It is rooted the basis of their skills and competences (Mayer et al., 1995; in the business founders’ history (Lord, 2015), but the following Schoorman et al., 2007). If they are perceived as competent “to generations also participate in its development. It is not a fixed manage the task at hand” (Stedham and Skaar, 2019, p. 4), teams picture. It is considered a relevant factor because a shared vision will trust this person. Integrity refers to the perceived consistency promotes emotional bonding between family members in the between words and actions (Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman et al., context of high family influence oriented to business continuity 2007; Stedham and Skaar, 2019). A perception of caring, genuine (Wang and Shi, 2020). concern with others’ needs, and benevolent motives contribute to In this sense, family narratives would contribute to this trust (Mayer et al., 1995; Stedham and Skaar, 2019). process (Kammerlander et al., 2015; Parada and Dawson, McAllister (1995) distinguishes two types of interpersonal 2017). Shared vision contributes to the perception of collective trust: cognition and affection-based trust. It means that we trust commitment, and it is an expression of psychological capital based on having “good reasons” (McAllister, 1995, p. 25). Also, inside the family firm (Memili et al., 2013; Miller, 2014). Indeed, the emotional ties between individuals are a source of trust a shared vision would promote enthusiasm in the next generation (McAllister, 1995). The three components of ability, integrity, who will be more committed to entrepreneurial activity (Miller, and benevolence (Mayer et al., 1995) are foundations of both 2014; Bettinelli et al., 2017). For instance, the selection of a cognition and affection-based trust (McAllister, 1995). We may daughter as a successor can be predicted if this person shares a have “good reasons and feeling an emotional connection” to future vision of the business with their parents (Overbeke et al., trust on people whom we perceive capable (cognitive), upright 2015). (both cognitive and affective), and benevolent (affective) (Lewicki Besides the legacy orientation and business purposes, family and Brinsfield, 2017). It seems logical that in family firms, harmony norms may also be present in this future frame. In this the different components of trust (Mayer et al., 1995) are also sense, Kidwell et al. (2012, p. 507) argue that “norms of family relevant, and they would show some differences depending on harmony help to focus the efforts of family members on the the family or business roles (Knapp et al., 2013). success of the firm, reinforcing the idea of a team-based ethical In the context of family firms, the perception of similarity climate in which family members cooperate with one another.” rooted in the family history shared values and goals would be an These expectations about family harmony directly connect to essential source of trust (Identity-based trust; Lewicki, 2006). The constructive conflict management in a way that a shared vision expectations about the ownership rules or the compliance with would lead family members to perceive conflict as an opportunity the constitution of the family would also steam trustworthiness and “a driver of change” (Claßen and Schulte, 2017, p. 1204). (Calculus-based trust; Lewicki, 2006). Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms Trustworthiness creates the right conditions for the et al., 2010; Wang and Shi, 2020). Responding to this call, one of emergence of a constructive conflict management in the aims of this research is to explore and understand the role of organizations, which is also beneficial for trust relationships trust in constructive conflict management in family firms. (Tjosvold et al., 2014). In a trustful context, people feel safe to express their views openly, discuss controversies and put their Constructive Conflict efforts to integrate this exchange in solutions mutually agreed Conflict is natural and pervasive in interpersonal relationships upon because they understand that everything is beneficial in as an old said state, “conflict is the spice of life” (Lewicki and order to achieve their mutual goals (Tjosvold et al., 2014). Spencer, 1992). Like spices in cooking, conflict elicits a variety When applying this theory to the context of family firms, of responses, diverse emotions and experiences. It is intrinsic current evidence points out that we should consider some to social interaction because people have different goals, ideas, specificities regarding this mutual influence process, given that and activities. Diversity by itself does not cause conflict; it trust stems from family ties to a great extent (Alvarado-Alvarez is more common when the parties involved perceive it as a et al., 2020). The family nexus would create high vulnerability source of incompatibility, interference, and negative emotions. and affection-based trust (Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995), Simultaneously, diversity creates better cooperation conditions in which creates a fertile ground for collaboration and constructive teams (Kozlowski and Chao, 2012). conflict management (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., 2020). We may This research finds inspiration in Social Interdependence hypothesize that a shared vision would promote higher cognition Theory, which has been considered one of the five most and affection-based trust between family members (McAllister, influential organizational conflict management approaches 1995). (Coleman et al., 2012). The most representative work is the Family involvement is a source of social capital (Pearson seminal theory of cooperation and competition developed by et al., 2008) being trust an essential component of organizational Morton Deutsch in the late forties (Deutsch, 1994). According psychological capital in family firms (Meier and Schier, 2016). to Deutsch’s assumptions, people who depend on each other This bundle of resources or familiness (Habbershon et al., 2003) to accomplish their goals are prone to conflict (Deutsch, reports competitive advantages to firms with a top management 2011). It is precisely this sense of interdependence that composed of family members (Pearson et al., 2008) who share will determine if conflict takes a constructive or destructive high levels of trust (Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2015). Trust catalyzes course (Deutsch, 2011). Positive interdependence is related to interaction between leaders and collaborators (Wang and Shi, cooperation and rooted in the perception of “similarity in 2020) and minimizes dysfunctional conflict (Sundaramurthy, beliefs and attitudes, a readiness to be helpful, openness in 2008). communication, trusting and friendly attitudes, sensitivity to Trust in family firms adopts different ways according to common interests and deemphasis of opposed interests, an their life cycle (Sundaramurthy, 2008). In the initial stages, trust orientation toward enhancing mutual power rather than power stems from the founder and adopts a particularistic view. As the differences. . . ” (Deutsch, 1994, p. 112). A cooperative approach company grows, trust shifts to an institution-based view (Wang leads to constructive conflict management, reporting positive and Shi, 2020). outcomes as personal well-being, improving relationships, or There is evidence that trust has a positive effect on the innovation, among others (Tjosvold et al., 2014). performance of family firms. Specifically, enhancing innovation Under this approach, the participants emphasize “on mutual (Calabrò et al., 2018). In this sense, social capital and a positive goals, understanding everyone’s orientation” toward mutual emotional climate boost innovation (Sanchez-Famoso et al., benefit, and incorporating several positions to find a solution 2014; Bernoster et al., 2018; Daspit et al., 2019). Trust in the right for all (Alper et al., 2000, p. 629). Cooperation and family firm’s collective abilities also increases innovation (Holt constructive conflict can unleash the best organizations and and Daspit, 2015). Indeed, trust relationships with the external teams, reporting optimal outcomes for groups and individuals stakeholders also contribute to innovation by promoting honest regarding sustainability and innovation (Elgoibar et al., 2016). feedback in evaluating innovation projects (Frank et al., 2019). Open-mindedness is a central process of constructive conflict. It makes sense that given that innovation involves taking The main research gaps detected about this process in risks to express divergent opinions (sometimes contrary to the family business field will deserve our attention in the the majority position) and assuming that novel ideas may fail following sub-section. (Johnson, 2015), trust would play an essential role in constructive conflict and innovation in family firms. However, there is Open-Mindedness evidence that some trust-breaching practices, such as asymmetry Open-mindedness is the foundation of constructive conflict in in the accountability of incentive norms impair the innovation of organizations (Tjosvold et al., 2014), also known as constructive family firms (De Massis et al., 2016). A study about innovative controversy (Tjosvold et al., 2014; Johnson, 2015). According successful practices of family enterprises identified trust and to Tjosvold et al. (2014), “open-minded discussion occurs constructive conflict as mutually reinforced processes in the when people work together to understand each other’s ideas innovation process (Frank et al., 2019). and positions, impartially consider each other’s reasoning for Although there is evidence that trust is present across the their positions, and seek to integrate their ideas into mutually multiple levels of family firms (Eddleston and Morgan, 2014), acceptable solutions” (p. 549). Open-mindedness involves a trust merits further research in this unique context (Eddleston critical assessment of options, beliefs, and receptivity to exploring Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms all the alternative courses of action (Lord, 2015). Compared knowledge sharing (Cunningham et al., 2016) are beneficial for to other cooperative approaches, such as concurrence-seeking unleashing the constructive effects of conflict in family business (Johnson, 2015), open-mindedness or constructive controversy performance. Moreover, information exchange moderates the is related to more creativity, a deeper understanding of the issues relationship between the diversity of top management teams and (Johnson, 2015), and a higher sociomoral climate (Seyr and organizational outcomes (Ling and Kellermanns, 2010). Vollmer, 2014). However, family firms also need to overcome some barriers To our understanding, open-mindedness in family firms is to open-mindedness like excessive parental altruism (Lubatkin an underexplored topic. Some studies have approached conflict et al., 2005; Kidwell et al., 2018), authoritarian power management phenomena in family firms (e.g., Sorenson, 1999; styles (Mussolino and Calabrò, 2014), founder centrality Sciascia et al., 2013; De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, 2015), but (Kammerlander et al., 2015), rigid family roles (Friedman, there are still intriguing avenues to explore. Mostly, concerning 1991), and hidden agendas (Pieper et al., 2013). Under these the possibilities offered by constructive conflict so that family circumstances, family firms recur to third parties to manage firms may release all their potential (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., conflict (Lewicki et al., 2016; Qiu and Freel, 2020). Third 2020). Some inquiries about the uniqueness of open-mindedness parties may be formal (e.g., consultants), informal (e.g., spousal, in family firms deserve further attention. friends), or members of the family business board (Strike, In business-related conflict, open-mindedness would 2012). Third parties may assume different roles in the process be more frequent, especially when discussing non-family of conflict management (Lewicki et al., 2016). Among the managers/directors. The mix between family and ownership main ones, there is the control of the process (e.g., mediators roles might favor this cooperative approach. The use of particular of conflicts) or decision arbitrators (not necessarily as formal conflict management strategies depends on the roles, the issues arbitrators), playing an autocratic role (Goldman et al., 2008) to discuss, and the expected outcomes. Concurrence seeking may and process consultation (Lewicki et al., 2016). The last might be more used than open-mindedness to manage family-related have a relevant role in constructive conflict, given that one conflict, given that families in business tend to avoid conflict of their goals is to assist the participants of the conflict in (Danes et al., 2000). improving communication (Lewicki et al., 2016). According Family members’ concerns and expectations regarding family to Deutsch (1994), third parties should help participants harmony may affect the adoption of open-mindedness. For change their destructive conflict patterns and engage a joint instance, survey studies reported that collaboration showed problem-solving approach. better outcomes for both families and businesses. Meanwhile, In summary, current evidence calls for further research on the compromise and accommodation contributed to positive family possible influence of shared vision, trust, and open-mindedness outcomes (Sample of study: 59 companies; Sorenson, 1999). in developing constructive conflict dynamics in family firms (see Expecting to achieve better outcomes for family relationships, Figure 1). This is what we study in this paper. family firms may prioritize achieving consensus in detriment of open discussion. Besides, they may avoid an appraisal of MATERIALS AND METHODS alternative ideas and action courses to prevent conflicts between family members. The majority position may use pressure to In the following sub-sections, we explain the design, participants, achieve agreement (Johnson and Johnson, 2009; Johnson, 2015). instruments, and procedures used to achieve our research aims. Open-mindedness would report several benefits for family firms. Theoretically, a conversation orientation would enhance Design innovativeness (Sciascia et al., 2013). Innovativeness understood This research is in the intersection between mixed method and as “a firm’s tendency to engage in and support new ideas, novelty, case study research (Plano Clark et al., 2018; Walton et al., 2019). experimentation, and creative processes that may result in new According to Plano Clark et al., a mixed method case study is “a products, services, or technological processes” (Lumpkin and research approach that intentionally intersects the assumptions, Dess, 1996, p. 142). intents, logics, and methods of mixed methods research and When two or more generations participate in the process, case study research in order to more completely describe and the entrepreneurial orientation is reinforced (Chirico et al., interpret the complexity and theoretical importance of a case 2011). A learning orientation (being shared vision and open- or cases” (2018, p. 20). This study is an example of nesting the mindedness two of their dimensions) enhances entrepreneurial mixed methods within a case study research because it “employs a orientation according to a survey carried out with 509 Spanish ‘parent’ case study design and uses mixed methods by collecting, SMEs (Hernández-Linares and López-Fernández, 2018). analyzing, and integrating qualitative and quantitative data” Open-mindedness would be present at different levels, (Guetterman and Fetters, 2018). In family business research, a such as the top management team and governance forums case study mixed methods research is an appropriate option (Bettinelli, 2011; Rosenkranz and Wulf, 2019), where family to advance current knowledge (López-Fernández and Molina- members are involved, sometimes with overlapping roles in the Azorin, 2011; Reilly and Jones, 2017; Walton et al., 2019). different areas. In the end, open-mindedness would contribute Separately, each type of research design reports interesting to creating a shared vision and increasing trust, reporting opportunities. For the side of the case study research, it “allows unique advantages in terms of innovativeness (Lambrechts investigators to focus on a case and retain a holistic and real- et al., 2017). Board openness (Kanadli et al., 2020) and world perspective, such as in studying individual life cycles, Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms FIGURE 1 | Theoretical model of this research. Source: Adapted from Alvarado-Alvarez et al. (2020). small group behavior, organizational and managerial processes” Designing a case study mixed methods research involves (Yin, 2015, p. 4). According to this author, case studies allow making some decisions about the qualitative and quantitative addressing “how” and “why” questions. They involve “an components. For the qualitative component in this study, we intensive study of a single unit for the purpose of understanding a employed the narrative approach, which involved collecting larger class of (similar) units. . . observed at a single point in time narratives from different case participants by gathering their or over some delimited period of time” (Gerring, 2004, p. 342). stories and reports about individual experiences (Creswell, Case studies are an excellent option to understand social 2013). The sources of these narratives were basically in- complex phenomena by applying and extending current theories depth interviews. The quantitative component was addressed (George and Bennett, 2005). Indeed, these authors identify four by conducting a polar coordinate analysis of the matrix of advantages of case studies: “their potential for achieving high codes obtained using an ad hoc indirect observation system conceptual validity; their strong procedures for fostering new to process these narratives (See Supplementary Material—The hypotheses; their value as a useful means to closely examine Indirect Observation System Handout). After obtaining the the hypothesized role of causal mechanisms in the context matrix of codes of each case and applying the polar coordinate of individual cases; and their capacity for addressing causal analysis, we compared the structures of associative relationships complexity” (George and Bennett, 2005, p. 19). that were statistically significant to select those in which at Gerring (2004, p. 341) asserted that “The case study survives least three or more cases coincided. The reasoning behind this in a curious methodological limbo.” Although the case study election was that we were interested in detecting the presence is not exempt of controversies, we considered the enormous of similar structures as an empirical evidence of suitability attractive of using a multiple case design. The case is a and validity of the theoretical model (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., polyhedric entity characterized by high levels of complexity 2020). where there are different orbits interacting as can be family The decision about how many parallel results of the different and business. unique cases must coincide for us to consider a multiple case A multiple case design is not an aggregation of single cases; is conventional, and is not logically fixed in the literature. In instead, it involves detecting the structure and patterns of a this sense, Sandelowski (1996, p. 527) said: “The appropriate single case and testing if the following cases share a similar initial approach to any kind of qualitative data analysis is to structure (Anguera, 2018). In this sense, cross-case comparisons understand and treat each sampling unit as a case, whether allow a more fine-grained understanding of common and that is defined empirically (e.g., as a certain person or family unique traits of each case (Guetterman and Fetters, 2018). or event) or analytically (e.g., by a diagnostic or other Case studies also involve dealing with several trade-offs, such theoretical, constructed, or researcher-invented category) before as the selection bias, the balance between parsimonious and looking for commonalities and differences across cases. The rich data, and the sacrifice of generalizability over internal analyst works to discern what elements comprise the case and, validity (George and Bennett, 2005), among others. Apart more importantly, the way they come together uniquely to from the existing typologies (Stake, 1994; Thomas, 2011; Yin, characterize the case.” A quarter of a century later we have 2014), the logic of the single case is intra-case by nature been accumulating evidence from studies in which multiple cases (Hilliard, 1993), and for this reason, some certain conditioned have been detected, and the aforementioned conventionality behaviors were proposed for each case, depending on the is maintained. objectives of the study, but the method applied to detect Thus, the research design involved three phases: (1) multiple cases has been to start from parallel relationships Qualitative (QUAL) consisted of collecting narratives, coding between focal and conditioned behaviors, understanding that by an indirect observation system, and converting it into a these relationships have been obtained quantitatively through a matrix of codes. (2) Quantitative (QUAN): we conducted a polar robust analysis. coordinate analysis to quantify the narratives. (3) Qualitative Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms FIGURE 2 | Research design. Source: Own elaboration. (QUAL) to integrate qualitative and quantitative findings (see narratives (Anguera et al., 2018), a claim in family business Figure 2). research (Wright and Kellermanns, 2011). Moreover, it opens The following sub-section describes the indirect observation some avenues to study conflict management as experienced methodology employed to conduct the mixed methods study. by participants in everyday life, which is highly appropriate in order to explore such sensitive issues (Jehn and Jonsen, Indirect Observation 2010). Observational studies allow observing psychological phenomena Specifically, we conducted an indirect observation of the in the natural context. In the last two decades, Anguera narratives collected to systematize the detection process and et al. have built a body of robust evidence regarding the describe the structure of patterns of behavior (Anguera et al., use of observation in a variety of contexts supported by 2018; Anguera, 2020). This process involved several steps to a “highly systematic data collection and analysis, stringent quantifying the qualitative data (Anguera et al., 2018), which data quality controls, and the merging of qualitative and allowed rigor, flexibility, and reduced the loss of the relevant quantitative methods” (Anguera et al., 2018, p. 3). An extension information (Anguera, 2020). The use of this methodological of the observational methodology is the indirect observation approach has been recognized as highly valuable to explore to analyze textual material and narrative data from verbal family phenomena (Plano Clark et al., 2008) as well everyday behavior or documentary sources (see Anguera et al., 2018, for practices of individuals and groups (Anguera et al., 2018) and more detail). communicative processes (e.g., García-Fariña et al., 2018; Del Thus, this study adopts an indirect observation method Giacco et al., 2019, 2020; Anguera et al., 2020). Additionally, (Anguera et al., 2018) to grasp the nuances of the reciprocal mixed methods reported several advantages in addressing relationship between shared vision, trust and constructive complex research questions and collecting robust evidence conflict management in family firms. Under a mixed methods (Yin, 2015). approach, we systematically observed the textual material In studies of indirect observation, it is needed to make obtained from open-ended interviews using an ad hoc indirect decisions about the characteristics of the design (Anguera et al., observation system (Anguera et al., 2018) developed by 2018) considering the number of units of study (one vs. various), the authors (See Supplementary Material—the Indirect the temporality of the records (punctual vs. follow-up), and Observation System Handout). This ad hoc instrument was the level of response (one or multiple dimensions) (Blanco- built upon the conceptual framework about constructive Villaseñor et al., 2003). In this research, the use of five family conflict management in family firms (Alvarado-Alvarez firms as units of study, temporal series of events in the life of et al., 2020). The use of indirect observation contributes these units, and the interest in observing several dimensions to systematizing and achieving more rigor in the study of (shared vision, trust, and conflict management), led to the use Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms TABLE 1 | Characteristics of the participants. Indirect Observation System To perform the indirect observation of the narratives, we used an Case Industry Profile’s interviewee ad hoc indirect observation system created by the authors (for a 1 Retail Founders (mother and father) detailed description, see the Indirect Observation System Handout three sisters in Supplementary Material). The different components of the two non-family managers system were based on the literature review. This indirect 2 Services Two sisters/ third observation system consisted of six dimensions: family, business, generation-member shared vision, trust, constructive conflict management, and 3 Manufacture Sister innovation. Most of the dimensions had several subdimensions 4 Manufacture Two sisters and categories (see Table 3). The observers were able to use the 5 Services Son different dimensions and subdimensions to code the narratives. non-family owner The categories were mutually exclusive. non-family manager The family dimension observed the existence of different subsystems around the family system (boundaries), the awareness of the generational stage (generation), the family kinship (family ties), and the references to the milestones of of a nomothetic, follow-up and multidimensional study (Blanco- the family history as a group or as individuals. The business Villaseñor et al., 2003; Sánchez-Algarra and Anguera, 2013). dimension allowed coding the narratives regarding the specific attributes (or characteristics) of the company (e.g., size) or its Participants environment or group of companies (e.g., industry or market) The data collected consisted of 17 in-depth interviews with family and the role played in the organization (business role). The and non-family managers (Total of hours: 18.85; see Table 1) shared vision dimension is concerned with the perception and documentary data gathered from several sources (e.g., of a “group member’s genuine belief that they are working participants, company’s web page, business reports, internet, collaboratively toward a common purpose” (Lord, 2015, p. 8) press media, social networks). The interviews were open- and the image of possibilities, family dreams, and hope (Boyatzis ended although some questions were considered as a reference and Soler, 2012). It also allowed observing the perception of for assuring that the object of study was explored (See the absence of a shared vision between family members (Lack Supplementary Material for see the questions guide used by of shared vision). The trust dimension observed the existence interviewer). This process was carried out between November of trust (Mayer et al., 1995; Lewicki et al., 1998), the allusions 2018 and December 2020. The original language of the interviews to the different components of trust (ability, benevolence, and was Spanish. integrity), the perception of a lack of trust, and trust repair Theoretical sampling is a good research strategy to build (Lewicki and Brinsfield, 2017). The dimension of constructive theories from case studies (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). conflict management consisted of six subdimensions: multilevel Therefore, we purposely selected the participants according to system, perceived conflict, types of conflict, processes, third- the following criteria: (1) An enterprise or family business group party assistance, and succession. Finally, the dimension of owned by a group of siblings. (2) The company was recognized innovation had four subdimensions (innovativeness, risk- as highly innovative in the industry. (3) The cases were easy taking orientation, external pressures, and decision-making to access through the social network of the researchers. All the pace) (For a detailed description of the indirect observation participants were informed about the objectives of the study, and system, please see the Indirect Observation System Handout in their consent to participate were also informed to the researchers. Supplementary Material). A common characteristic of the cases was that they had received family business advising in the last decade (For a thorough Data Analysis Software description of the cases, see Table 2). The coding table obtained by the web application was able to export the matrix of codes to Excel. The intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were performed by the Generalized Instruments Sequential Querier computer program (GSEQ, v.5.1.23; Bakeman Recording Instruments and Quera, 2011). We used the Tool for the Observation of The open-ended interviews were audio-recorded using a mobile Social Interaction in Natural Environments (HOISAN, v. 1.6.3.3.4; application. We performed the verbatim transcription by the Hernández-Mendo et al., 2012) to conduct the polar coordinate Software TRINT. The coding process was carried out by a web analysis, and to draft the vectors with the assistance of the R application specially designed for this research. It was based on program (Rodríguez-Medina et al., 2019). the ad hoc indirect observation system. The data model of the web application consisted of a set of master data tables framed on Procedure the following entities: table of interviews, observers, participants, The verbatim of the 17 open-ended interviews was segmented companies, units of analysis, and a list of codes organized in into units of analysis, as suggested by Anguera et al. (2018). The dimensions and subdimensions. All of the observations were unitizing process involved the division of the textual material stored in a coding table. into units with meaning (Krippendorff, 2018; Anguera, 2020). Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms TABLE 2 | Case description. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Generation Second generation Second generation First generation Fourth generation First generation Family business Founded by an The expansion of the Founded by the father Founded by the Founded by the father. A history entrepreneurial couple. company has been and one of the siblings. grandparents and few years later, a non- Siblings have developed co-led by siblings. It has faced a fast growth expanded by an family manager co-led their career in the in three decades. Sibling entrepreneurial couple the growth and shared company except one group has been working and their children. the ownership of the who entered later. together in this company. expansion process. Children also are participating in management and they have contributed to the fast growth that the company faced in the last decade. Family involvement The founder is still Earlier involvement of the Siblings have been Siblings play different roles The founder is still involved at the Board of successors in the involved since the mainly at the governance involved at the Directors. company. foundation of the level. governance level. Sibling group co-lead Members of the cousin company. Next generation is Siblings play different the company. group play managerial Siblings are both at the involved in the company. managerial roles. roles in the company. governance and managerial levels of the company. Business complexity Medium Medium High High High International More (Gimeno et al., 2010) International Local International International than 500 employees Around to 250 Around 100–150 Around 370 employees More than 200 employees Vertically integrated employees hundred employees Partial Partial vertically integrated Vertically integrated vertically integrated Ownership Family Family Family Family +non-family Family + non-family Succession The process of Effective delegation of The generation in charge The process of Facing the transition succession in managerial roles to (sibling partnership) is still succession in governance between founder stage management has been successor. young to start a and management has and sibling partnership. successfully completed. Facing the transition from succession process. been successfully Next generation second (sibling completed. participates in the Board partnership) to third of Directors. generation (cousins consortium). Next generation participates in Family Council. Conflict Family harmony Family conflict Family harmony Family harmony Family harmony Report of a critical They report the In the last years they have Report of a critical incident related to the advantages of having invested time and incident regarding the participation of the next controversies in the resources in improving temporal exit of a child of generation in Advisory board. family communication the company in the past the company. between siblings (e.g., coaching services). Governance Informal meetings Family Council Family Council Informal family meetings Family Council Board of directors Board of directors Board of directors Family Council Board of directors Family protocol Advisory Board Advisory board Board of directors Family protocol Family protocol Family protocol Family protocol Innovation Focused on new Focused on new services Focused on new internal Focused on new markets Focused on new services markets. and markets. processes. and services. and internal processes. Innovativeness Collaborative Innovativeness Innovation through Recruiting of an external committee (recent partnerships with other committee (recent tradition (product Head of innovation. creation) to trigger companies to improve creation) lead by external development rooted in internal debates around innovation capacities. advisors and managers. long-lasting innovation. entrepreneurial activity-De Collaborative Massis et al., 2016). partnerships with Digitalization. start-ups to explore new product and service development. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms TABLE 3 | A summary of indirect observation system. TABLE 3 | Continued Dimensions Subdimensions Categories Codes Dimensions Subdimensions Categories Codes Family (1) Boundaries (A) Family 1AFAM Collaborators Non-family 1ANOFAM Ownership Family business 1AFAMBIZ Family External environment 1AEXT constitution Generation (B) Founder 1BFOUND Teams Second 1B2G Perceived Perceived 5BCONF generation 1B3G conflict (B) conflict 5BLACKCONF Third generation 1B4G Lack of conflict 5BCONFAVO Fourth generation Conflict avoidance Family ties (C) Spousal 1CSPOU Types of conflict Task conflict 5CTASK Parent-children 1CCHILD (C) Relational 5CRELAT Sibling 1CSIBL conflict 5CWORKFAM Cousin 1CCOUSI Work- Uncle, aunt 1CUNCL, family conflict Niece, nephew 1CAUNT Processes (D) Open- 5DOMD Grand-mother 1CNIEC, 1CNEP mindedness 5DCLOSE Grand-father Close- 5DCONCSEEK Grand-children 1CGRANDM mindedness In-law 1CGRANDF Concurrence- 1CGRANDCHIL seeking 1CINLAW Third-party Third-party 5ETHIRD Family history Family history 1DFAMHIST assistance (E) assistance (D) Succession (F) Succession 5FSUCCESS Business (2) Characteristics Size 2ASIZE Innovation (6) Innovativeness Innovativeness 6AINNOVA (A) Industry 2AINDUST (A) Collaborative innovation 6ACOLLINNOV Market 2AMARK Risk-taking Risk-taking 6BRISKTAK Business role Chief executive 2BCEO orientation (B) Risk-avoidance 6BRISKAVOID (B) officer 2BGM General 2BCFO External External 6CEXT manager 2BMANAG pressures (C) pressures Chief financial 2BWORK Decision- Agile 6DAGILE officer 2BBDME making pace decision-making 6DSLOW Manager 2BABME (D) Slow 6DBLOCK Worker 2BNONEX decision-making Board of 2BOWN Blocked decision- directors making member Board of advisor member Non-executive role A total of 10,442 units of analysis were coded using the web Owner application (see an example of unitizing and coding in Table 4). Shared vision Shared vision 3ASHAVIS Before conducting the polar coordinate analysis, the control of (3) Lack of 3ALACKSHAVIS data quality was performed (Anguera et al., 2018). shared vision Trust (4) Trust (A) Trust 4ATRUST Data Quality Control Trust Ability 4BABILIT Given that this is an indirect observation study (Anguera et al., components (B) Integrity 4BINTEG 2018), we conducted both intra-observer and inter-observer Benevolence 4BBENEV reliability. The former consisted of measuring the level of Lack of trust (C) Lack of trust 4CLACKTRU agreement between three observations (in successive weeks; 1, Trust repair (D) Trust repair 4DTRUREP 2, 3) performed by the same researcher of the same units of Constructive Multilevel Informal family 5AFAMEET conflict system (A) meetings 5AFACOUN analysis. The last referred to the level of agreement between three management Family council 5AMACOM observers in coding the same units of analysis. In both situations, (5) Managing 5ABOADIR we selected 10% of the textual material (around 1,000 units committee 5ABOAADV of analysis) to conduct quality control. For the inter-observer Board of 5ACOLLAT reliability process, three observers were trained for coding. directors 5AOWN Board of 5AFACONST The three observers had different professional backgrounds and advisors 5ATEAM levels of research experience, which allowed more rigor in the control of data quality (Anguera et al., 2018). The intra-observer (Continued) reliability was computed as the average Cohen coefficient (Cohen, Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms TABLE 4 | Some examples of unitizing and coding. 1960) GSEQ (v.5.1.23; Bakeman and Quera, 2011). The average result was 0.69 (good). This result was affected by the fact that Units Codes the indirect observation system was slightly adjusted between Then the differences 1AFAMBIZ, 1B2G, 1CCOUSI, 1DFAMHIST, 2BCEO, observation 1 and observation 2 (Kappa 1.2 = 0.59; Kappa surfaced 5BCONF 1.3 = 0.63; Kappa 1.3 = 0.86; Mean value = 0.69). And in these 1AFAMBIZ, 1B2G, 1CCOUSI, 1DFAMHIST, 2BCEO, The inter-observer concordance was calculated using the same meetings there was 4CLACKTRU, 5ABOADIR, 5BCONF, 5CRELAT procedure for the intra-observer reliability. The average Kappa already a more coefficient calculated for the level of agreement between the three personal, more hurtful issue. pairs of observers was 0.65 (good). The discussions 1AFAMBIZ, 1B2G, 1CCOUSI, 1DFAMHIST, 2BCEO, were already very 5ABOADIR 5BCONF, 5CRELAT strong but mixed Data Analysis with personal issues The polar coordinate analysis is a quantitative analytic technique I try to give my 1AFAM, 1BFOUND, 1CCHILD, 4ATRUST, 4BBENEV widely used in observational studies (Arias-Pujol and Anguera, daughters a little 2017; Portell et al., 2019; Anguera, 2020; Anguera et al., in press). support, right? In specific designs, such as multiple mixed methods case, the use There are some 1AFAMBIZ, 1BFOUND, 1CCHILD, 5FSUCCESS of polar coordinates allows conducting the diachronic analysis of areas that I haven’t the cases (Anguera, 2018; Anguera et al., 2020). The use of polar fully transferred yet but they are coordinate analysis reports several advantages. First, it helps secondary areas investigators to draw conclusions about complex interactions. The main ones have 1AFAMBIZ, 1BFOUND, 1CCHILD, 2BCEO, 5FSUCCESS Second, it exhibits a high predictive value (Maneiro and Amatria, all been transferred, 2018). Third, it allows processing a high amount of textual data which is (García-Fariña et al., 2018). decision-making. This technique was developed by Sackett (1980) and improved A constant of first 1ANOFAM, 1B3G, 1CSIBL, 2BBDME, 4ATRUST, by Anguera (1997) through introducing genuine retrospectivity. listening and 5ABOADIR, 5DOMD reflecting The polar coordinate analysis is based on the results obtained Because they can 1ANOFAM, 1B3G.1CSIBL, 2BBDME, 5ABOADIR, through the lag-sequential analysis (Bakeman, 1978), including tell you something at 5BCONF, 5DOMD the adjusted residuals (Allison and Liker, 1982). This analysis is first conducted at both the prospective, through the positive lag, as And achieving 1AFAMBIZ, 1B2G, 1CCHILD, 2BBDME, 3ASHAVIS, well as the retrospective level, through the negative lag that once consensus and 5ABOADIR, 5DCONCSEEK, 6AINNOVA standardized (Z values) are reduced using the Zsum parameter agreeing what we introduced by Cochran (1954). Zsum is based on the principle are understanding as innovation that the sum of a number n of independent Z scores (as But ¡what is he 1ANOFAM, 1B3G, 1CSIBL, 2BBDME, 4CLACKTRU, many calculated prospective as retrospective lags with the same telling me! 5ABOADIR, 5BCONF quantity in each case and which should be at least 5) is normally But hey afterwards, 1AFAMBIZ, 1B3G, 1CSIBL, 2BBDME, 4ATRUST. distributed with µ = 0 and σ = 1. The P calculation of the Zsum Z the great capacity of 5ABOADIR parameter, whose formula is Zsum = √n (where n stands for the leaving the advise to reflect on saying, number of lags), allows for the obtention of as many Zsum as lags well, where are we for each specific category from the prospective and retrospective going? perspectives. As a consequence, the same quantity of Zsum and Because obviously 1AFAM, 1B4G, 1CCOUSI, 3ALACKSHAVIS lags are obtained for every specific category in each of the two they as a company prospective and retrospective perspectives. have a very clear Each Zsum may carry a positive or negative sign, which will vision that is very different from ours therefore determine which of the four quadrants will contain the They are also very 1AEXT, 1B3G, 1CSIBL, 2BBDME, 3ASHAVIS, 4ATRUST, categories corresponding to the conditional behaviors in relation clear that they have 4BBENEV, 5ABOADIR to the focal behavior being displayed. The polar coordinates to really respect our analysis helps to identify the activation or inhibition relation vision to grow of the focal behavior and all or some of the categories of In our case, as we 1AEXT, 1B3G, 1CSIBL, 2BBDME, 3ASHAVIS, 4ATRUST, the observational instrument, which are the conditional or also draw the 5ABOADIR matching behaviors. Strategic Plan together, we are very Vectors represent the relationships graphically. aligned in everything The q length parameter of the vector (Lenght = we do. (Zsum prospective )2 + (Zsum retrospective )2 ) and the angle They worry about 1AEXT, 1B3G, 1CSIBL, 2BBDME, 3ASHAVIS, 4ATRUST, Zsum retrospective seeing that the plan 5ABOADIR (ϕ = Arc sen Lenght ) are calculated using the Zsum is being fulfilled criterium and Zsum matching values for each of the conditional Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms behaviors. For a significance level of 0.05 the length of the vector TABLE 5 | List of focal and conditional behaviors selected for analysis. has to be >1.96. Once the length and the angle corresponding to Focal behaviors Conditional behaviors each vector are obtained, the angle must be adjusted taking into account the quadrant where each vector will be located. Shared vision (3) Family boundaries (1A), Generation (1B), Family ties (1C), This analysis was carried out through GSEQ software package and business roles (2B). Trust (4A), components of trust v.5.1.23 and HOISAN v 1.6.3.3.4. In Table 5, the focal and (4B), and lack of trust (4C). Multilevel system (5A), conditional behaviors selected for analysis are listed. This list perceived conflict (5B), types of conflict (5C), processes (5D), third-party assistance (5E), and succession (5F). was consistent with the dimensions of the study. Therefore, Innovativeness (6A), risk-taking orientation (6B), shared vision, trust, constructive conflict management and decision-making pace (6D). innovativeness were considered focal behaviors. Family and Trust (4A) Family boundaries (1A), Generation (1B), Family ties (1C), business dimensions and the remaining set of dimensions of family history (1D), business roles (2B), shared vision (3), the study were considered conditional behaviors, respectively. multilevel system (5A), perceived conflict (5B), types of In this research, this technique of analysis allowed to describe conflict (5C), processes (5D), third-party assistance (5E), succession (5F). Innovativeness (6A), risk-taking orientation the structure of reciprocal relationships between the different (6B). dimensions of study by capturing the respective activation and Trust components (4B) Multilevel system (5A), perceived conflict (5B), types of inhibition effects shown between narratives. In other words, conflict (5C), processes (5D), third-party assistance (5E), the activation effect expressed that one dimension activated succession (5F), innovativeness (6A). the presence of the other dimension. Whereas, the inhibition Lack of trust (4C) Multilevel system (5A), perceived conflict (5B), types of influence meant that the dimension suppressed the presence conflict (5C), processes (5D), third-party assistance (5E), of the other dimension. Translated to narrative studies means succession (5F). that some narratives appeared together (activation) and some Perceived conflict (5B) Family boundaries (1A), Generation (1B), Family ties (1C), family history (1D), business roles (2B), trust (4A), trust narratives suppressed each other (inhibition). components (4B), lack of trust (4C), multilevel system (5A), The polar coordinate analysis has been applied in several innovativeness (6A). fields, as education (García-Fariña et al., 2018; Escolano-Pérez Types of conflict (5C) Family boundaries (1A), Generation (1B), Family ties (1C), et al., 2019), clinical psychology (Arias-Pujol and Anguera, 2020; family history (1D), business roles (2B), trust (4A), trust Del Giacco et al., 2020), sports (Morillo et al., 2017; Maneiro and components (4B), lack of trust (4C), multilevel system (5A), Amatria, 2018), environmental psychology (Pérez-Tejera et al., processes (5D), third-party assistance (5E), succession (5F). Innovativeness (6A). 2018) and health promotion in work (Portell et al., 2019). Processes (5D) Family boundaries (1A), business roles (2B), trust (4A), trust components (4B), lack of trust (4C), multilevel system (5A), innovativeness (6A). Succession (5F) Shared vision (3), trust (4A), trust components (4B), lack of RESULTS trust (4C). Innovativeness (6A) Shared vision (3), Trust (4A), Trust components (4B), lack As it was mentioned earlier, we were interested in identifying of trust (4C), perceived conflict (5B), processes (5D), existing statistically significant associative relationships across succession (5F). most of the cases to account for the existence of a multiple case. For this reason, in this section we describe the results of the polar coordinate analysis of focal and conditional behaviors selected for analysis (see Table 5) were significant associative relationships of the higher number of coinciding associative relationships (vectors with a length >1.96, p < 0.05) coinciding in three or (Total = 27). more cases (see Tables 6, 7). In the following sub-sections, we will present the results of As it is shown in Tables 6, 7, the parallel significant results polar coordinate analysis differentiating the focal behaviors and across at least three cases were concentrated in two opposing conditional behaviors which were selected for analysis according quadrants (I and III) expressing the existence of two types of to our previous theorization. associative relationships between focal and conditional behaviors: mutual activation and mutual inhibition (see Table 7). The presence of significant associative relationships was ample Looking Into Family Boundaries (Total = 99) given the wide range of focal behaviors and The four subdimensions of family boundaries (family system, conditional behaviors selected for analysis. The presence of three family business system, non-family members, and external associative relationships that were consistent across five cases was environment) selected as conditional behaviors showed significant. These three relationships indicated that shared vision, significant associative relationships with shared vision and trust. benevolence (specific component of trust) and innovativeness did In this sense, we found that the presence of an inspiring vision for not emerge in presence of narratives concerning benevolence, the future or shared vision was activated in presence of narratives board of directors and succession, respectively. concerning family business systems whereas narratives regarding It was also noticeable that 11 associative relationships were family members and non-family members were inhibitors of coinciding across three combinations of four cases. Cases 1, 2, narratives of shared vision. The perception of a lack of shared and 5 showed the higher level of similarity given the existence vision and family business system were mutually activated, Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms TABLE 6 | Patterns of coincidence in terms of their associative relationships across the five cases studied. Number of Cases Focal behavior Conditional behavior Quadrant coincidences Five coincidences 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Shared vision Benevolence III Benevolence Board of directors (multilevel III CCM) Innovativeness Succession III Four coincidences 1, 2, 3, 5 Lack of shared vision Risk taking orientation I Lack of trust I Perceived conflict I Shared vision Managing committee I Trust Collaborators (multilevel I CCM) General manager (business I role) Shared vision Perceived conflict III Succession Shared vision III 1, 2, 4, 5 Lack of trust Board of directors (multilevel I CCM) Shared vision Board of directors member III (business role) Ability Perceived conflict III Family meetings III Perceived conflict Ability III Innovativeness Lack of trust III 1, 3, 4, 5 Trust Innovativeness III Three coincidences 1, 2, 3 Lack of shared vision Family business system I (boundaries) Shared vision Family business system I (boundaries) Risk-taking I Risk-avoidance I Innovativeness I Ability External environment I (boundaries) Work family conflict Family history I Innovativeness Shared vision I Lack of shared vision Non-family members III Shared vision Non-family members III Ability Ownership III Perceived conflict Innovativeness III External environment III Open-mindedness External environment III Innovativeness Perceived conflict III 1, 2, 4 Trust Succession I Benevolence Family system I Concurrence-seeking Family meetings I Open-mindedness Family meetings I Family council I Succession Trust I Shared vision Family system III Ability Family council III Family system III 1, 2, 5 Shared vision Ownership (multilevel CCM) I Ability I Trust Managing committee I Lack of trust Close-mindedness I (Continued) Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms TABLE 6 | Continued Number of Cases Focal behavior Conditional behavior Quadrant coincidences Ability Collaborative innovation I General manager I Collaborators I Managing committee I Perceived conflict Family constitution I Task conflict General manager I Close-mindedness Lack of trust I Concurrence-seeking Ownership I Collaborative innovation Ability I Shared vision Family council III Family constitution III Trust Workers III Ability Ownership III Workers III Family constitution III Benevolence Teams III Lack of conflict Managing committee III Collaborators III Innovativeness III Close-mindedness Managing committee III Concurrence-seeking Collaborators III Open-mindedness Lack of trust III Ownership III Innovativeness Lack of conflict III 1, 3, 4 Trust Family system I 1, 3, 5 Shared vision Succession III Trust Board of directors III Board of directors member III Perceived conflict Managers III Teams III 1, 4, 5 Shared vision Family meetings I Benevolence Innovativeness III Integrity Innovativeness III Innovativeness Trust III Benevolence III Integrity III 2, 3, 4 Ability Non-family members I Trust Family business system III Ability Family business system III Benevolence Non-family members III Family business III 2, 3, 5 Open-mindedness Managers III Collaborators III 2, 4, 5 Lack of shared vision Innovativeness I Innovativeness Lack of shared vision I Trust Perceived conflict III Perceived conflict Trust III Close-mindedness Trust III 3, 4, 5 Shared vision Board of directors I Ability Innovativeness III Open-mindedness Trust III Innovativeness Ability III Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org Alvarado-Alvarez et al. TABLE 7 | Summary of significant associative relationships. Dimension of analysis Case/value of the radius (only values >1.96) Focal behavior Conditional behavior Quadrant 1 2 3 4 5 Shared vision Shared vision Family Boundaries Family system III 7.39** 17.89** 3.59** Family business system I 23.72** 11.28** 5.39** Non-family members III 22.8** 3.92** 4.86** Business roles Board of directors’ member*** III 5.32** 4.54** 5.55** Trust Benevolence III 6.12** 3.33** 2.61** 1.97* 4.82** Constructive conflict Perceived conflict III 6.20** 3.87** 3.71** 5.36** management Multilevel system Managing I 18.69** 15.1** 10.31** 10.05** committee Ownership*** I 2.16* 12.88** 9.63** Family council III 3.59** 4.26** 5.88** 15 Family constitution III 3.23** 5.38** 5.03** Family meetings III 4.83** 5.3** 4.34** Board of I 3.76** 4.56** 10.16** directors*** Succession III 8.93** 10.03** 2.49 5.19** Innovativeness Innovativeness I 10.88** 5.2** 5.6** Risk-taking orientation Risk-taking I 13.97** 11.74** 7.09** Risk-avoidance I 10.06** 2.66 4.83** Lack of shared vision Family Boundaries Family business system I 3.43** 5.04** 3.25** Non-family members III 4.7** 2.21* 2.09 Trust Lack of trust I 8.45** 5.11** 6.07** 2.27* Constructive conflict Perceived conflict I 10.78** 15.24** 15.17** 21.06** June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 management Constructive Conflict Family Firms Innovativeness Innovativeness I 5.47** 2.21* 6.25** Risk-orientation Risk-taking*** I 2.64** 3.99** 15.26** (Continued) Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org Alvarado-Alvarez et al. TABLE 7 | Continued Dimension of analysis Case/value of the radius (only values >1.96) Focal behavior Conditional behavior Quadrant 1 2 3 4 5 Trust Trust Family Boundaries Family business system III 11.03** 12.27** 9.63** Business roles Board of directors’ member III 4.04** 3.62** 2.54* General manager I 5.03** 2.5* 2.25* 9.46** Worker III 4.99** 8.17** 12.05** Constructive conflict Perceived conflict III 8.41** 3.73** 5.24** management Succession I 2.12* 4.64** 2.41* Multilevel system Collaborators I 19.77** 2.04* 6.64** 5.9** Managing I 4.37** 17.8** 15.23** committee*** Board of directors III 4.04** 3.79** 7.46** Innovativeness Innovativeness III 18.96** 2.18* 9.31** 14.05** Components Ability Family Boundaries Family system III 5.74** 4.17** 2.17* Family business system III 3.02** 10.47** 4.07** 16 Non-family members I 7.2** 11.81** 5.26** External environment I 10** 5.63** 3.85** Business roles General manager I 8.13** 2.96** 4.76** Workers III 4.94** 2.66** 8.14** Constructive conflict Perceived conflict*** III 2.49* 4.69** 3.38** 3.55** management Multilevel system Family meetings III 5.15** 2.35* 4.09** 2.07 Ownership III 2.63** 5.23** 2.83** Family council III 2.56* 5.27** 2.42* Collaborators I 4.19** 10.38** 3.24** Managing I 4.82** 13.44** 2.2* 2.77** committee*** June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Family constitution III 2.42* 2.31* 2.78** Constructive Conflict Family Firms Innovativeness Innovativeness*** III 2.52* 3.93* 6.37** Collaborative innovation I 7.8** 6.3** 6.7** Integrity Innovativeness Innovativeness*** III 9.64** 2.74** 2.49* Benevolence Boundaries Family system I 6.53** 4.65** 16.55** Family business system III 8.06** 3.23** 4.39** Non-family members III 2.48* 3.22** 2.41* (Continued) Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org Alvarado-Alvarez et al. TABLE 7 | Continued Dimension of analysis Case/value of the radius (only values >1.96) Focal behavior Conditional behavior Quadrant 1 2 3 4 5 Constructive conflict Multilevel system Board of directors III 2.4* 4.39** 3.39** 9.87** 6.06** management Teams III 3.67** 2.1* 2.83** Innovation Innovativeness III 15.88** 3.52** 6.88** Lack of trust Constructive conflict Multilevel system Board of directors I 4.24** 11.52** 2.34* 3.04** management Processes Close-mindedness I 9.89** 2.07* 2.15* Constructive conflict management Perceived Perceived conflict Boundaries External III 8.72** 12.81** 3.1** conflict environment Business role Managers III 17.33** 2.62** 2.54** Trust III 8.41** 3.73** 5.24** Trust Ability III 2.49* 4.69** 3.38** 3.55** Multilevel system Family constitution I 10.42** 5.5** 2.7** 17 Teams III 11.41** 4.09** 3.61** Innovativeness Innovativeness*** III 15.47** 7.81** 9.65** Lack of conflict Multilevel system Managing III 4.38** 2.89** 2.42* committee Collaborators III 6.62** 2.41* 2.83** Innovativeness Innovativeness III 7.23** 2.84** 3.95** Types Task conflict Business role General manager I 11.67** 4.63** 3.36** Work-family conflict Family history I 10.29** 2.81** 7.95** Succession Trust I 2.12* 4.64** 2.41* Processes Conditional behaviors June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Open-mindedness Boundaries External III 8.88** 3.54** 3.07** environment Constructive Conflict Family Firms Business role Managers*** III 3.41** 4.7** 4.58** (Continued) Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org Alvarado-Alvarez et al. TABLE 7 | Continued Dimension of analysis Case/value of the radius (only values >1.96) Focal behavior Conditional behavior Quadrant 1 2 3 4 5 Trust Trust III 5.97** 5.62** 3.81** Lack of trust III 5.5** 2.47** 2.93** Multilevel system Family meetings I 2.94** 4.13** 5.25** Family council I 7.68** 6.68** 2.73** Ownership III 3.01** 3.03** 6.87** Collaborators III 33.04** 5.5** 2.79** 2.03* Close-mindedness Trust Trust III 4.46** 2.03** 2.26** Lack of trust I 9.89** 2.07* 2.15* Multilevel system Managing III 2.49* 3.53** 2.8** committee Concurrence-seeking Multilevel system Ownership I 4.41** 7.74** 2.11* Family meetings I 14.17** 18.08** 4.14** Collaborators III 4.83** 4.77** 3.33** Innovativeness Innovativeness Shared vision I 10.88** 5.2** 5.6** 18 Lack of shared vision*** I 5.47** 2.21* 6.25** Trust Trust III 18.96** 9.31** 14.05** Lack of trust III 18.17** 3.41** 3.06** 3.78** Components Benevolence III 15.88** 3.52** 6.88** Integrity*** III 9.64** 2.74** 2.49* Ability III 2.52* 3.93** 6.37** Constructive conflict Perceived conflict*** III 15.47** 7.81** 9.65** management Lack of conflict III 7.23** 2.84** 3.95** Succession III 21.36** 17.1** 5.7** 3.65** 9.69** Collaborative Trust Components Ability I 7.8** 6.23** 6.7** innovation June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 *Significant associative relationship (p-value <0.05). Constructive Conflict Family Firms **Very significant associative relationship (p-value <0.01). ***Statistically significant associative relationship presented in five cases although in different quadrant to the existent across at least three cases. Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms whereas lack of shared vision and non-family members were inhibited the emergence of narratives regarding future goals or mutually suppressed or inhibited. shared vision. Relationships between shared vision and processes Concerning trust, the family boundaries indicated that of constructive conflict management are not supported by narratives regarding the several subsystems activated or inhibited consistent findings across at least three cases. Although we found narratives depending if these referred to the perception of trust, that a perception of lack of shared vision and perceived conflict lack of trust or the specific components of trust. We found that exhibited a mutual activation relationship. mentions to the perception of trust did probably not emerge in the presence of narratives regarding the family business system. Relationships Between Shared Vision and Indeed, references to a family system and family business system Innovativeness showed this inhibitory role of perception of the component of Findings supported the relationship between shared vision and ability whereas elusions to non-family members and the external mentions to the tendency of the firm to engage and support environment showed an activation effect of the perception of the processes oriented to result in new products, services or processes capacity or ability to manage the tasks as a trait of trust. For (innovativeness) in the expected direction given that narratives of the component of benevolence, we found the opposite direction future goals or shared vision are activated in the presence of these such that elusions to the family system activated the perception mentions to innovativeness. The same relationship was found of caring or the affection-based component of trust (benevolence) with the subdimension of risk-taking orientation (both categories whereas family business system and non-family members exerted of risk-taking and risk-avoidance). Narratives of lack of shared an inhibitory role. vision also showed this relationship of activation with references Narratives regarding the external environment and perceived to innovativeness and risk-taking orientation. conflict were mutually inhibited. The same type of relationship (mutual inhibition) was found between those narratives referred Relationships Between Trust and to the external environment and open-mindedness. The external environment seems to be perceived as trustful as Constructive Conflict Management long as narratives of ability and external environment are Narratives regarding the perception of trust inhibited narratives mutually activated. of perceived conflict whereas narratives of trust were activated in presence of narratives of a specific conflict of succession. We found evidence about the relationship between narratives of trust Relationships Between Shared Vision and and narratives regarding the different levels at the organization Trust where conflict management took place. In this sense, trust was As shown in Figure 3, shared vision showed a rich structure of indirectly observed alongside mentions to collaborators and associative relationships with family and business dimensions, managing committee whereas mentions of trust were inhibited trust, constructive conflict management, and innovativeness. In in presence of narratives concerning the board of directors. It this regard, we found evidence about the relationship between is noticeable that an associative relationship between trust and shared vision and trust. First, we found that shared vision showed managing committee was coinciding across five cases although an associative relationship of mutual inhibition with the affective not in the same quadrant. In Figure 5, it is shown an example component of trust or benevolence. Second, the perception of of a vectorial map obtained from the polar coordinate analysis lack of shared vision was followed by the perception of lack of considering trust as a focal behavior. trust which is consistent with our theorization about the mutual From the scrutiny of the specific components of trust, we influence between both dimensions (For an example of a vectorial found a relationship between mentions to ability and perceived map of shared vision as focal behavior, see Figure 4). conflict. They were mutually inhibited. We also found that mentions to ability were activated in presence of elusions Relationships Between Shared Vision and regarding the levels of collaborators and managing committee Constructive Conflict Management and that they were inhibited when participants referred to family The indirect observation reported that shared vision narratives meetings, family council, family constitution and ownership. were inhibited in presence of mentions to controversies Concerning narratives regarding the affective component of trust that produced tensions or interference (perceived conflict). or benevolence, they were inhibited in presence of mentions to Something similar was found between the presence of narratives the board of directors and teams. We also found that narratives of shared vision and references to conflict related to the of lack of trust and trust were related to open-mindedness where process of transference of power, managerial roles and ownership they exerted an inhibitory role. Whereas, in close-mindedness (succession) in which they were mutually inhibited. We indirectly narratives of trust exerted an inhibitory role and lack of trust observed that shared vision was activated in the presence of activated the references to close-mindedness. mentions to the managing committee, ownership (this associative relationship was observed across the five cases although in two Relationships Between Trust and of them it was in a different quadrant), and board of directors Innovativeness (it was coinciding in the five cases but in two of the cases We found that narratives of trust and innovativeness were it was in a different quadrant). On the contrary, mentions related. Perception of trust and their components of benevolence, to family meetings, family council and family constitution ability and integrity were associated with innovativeness in the Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 19 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms FIGURE 3 | Structure of significant associative relationships of shared vision dimension (+ Quadrant I/– Quadrant III). sense that they were mutually inhibited. However, the perception did not seem present as the inhibitory relationship between of ability which was activated in the presence of narratives related narratives of both types indicated. to engaging innovation in collaboration with external parties or collaborative innovation. Relationships Between Constructive Conflict Management and Innovativeness As it is shown in Figure 7, innovativeness and conflict were Examining Constructive Conflict associated such that they mutually inhibited. When participants Management narrated experiences of innovativeness in their companies Given that we were interested in understanding constructive they did not talk about perceived conflict, lack of conflict conflict management we conducted several analyses considering or succession. the different subdimensions as focal behaviors. As it is shown in Figure 6, we found evidence about the presence of Business Roles Matter narratives regarding conflict management at different levels of Concerning the several business roles played in the company, the the organization such that the perception of conflict was activated results obtained indicated that they conditioned shared vision, alongside references to family constitution and inhibited when trust, constructive conflict management and innovativeness in participants talked about teams. Another finding was related to different senses. the relationship between mentions to work-family conflict and For instance, we found that references to the members of family history such that where they were mutually activated. the board of directors suppressed the presence of narratives We found evidence about the presence of open-mindedness at of shared vision and trust. In other words, if the participants different levels of the organization. Precisely, findings indicated narrated experiences regarding the board of directors, these that this process is more probably present in family meetings were not followed by mentions to shared vision and trust. It and family council whereas it was not referred to during the is noticeable that mentions to the general manager activated elusions of ownership and collaborators. Concurrence-seeking narratives concerning the component of trust related to personal and open-mindedness shared in some sense this structure of skill and capacities (ability) whereas references to workers exerted relationships, such as that narratives regarding concurrence- the opposite effect, it meant that if the participants referred to seeking and family meetings and ownership were mutually ability they did not refer to trust stemmed on ability. Findings activated though they were inhibited when participants referred supported that perceived conflict and open-mindedness were not to collaborators. In managing committees, it close-mindedness referred to managers. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 20 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms FIGURE 4 | Example A of vectorial map of the statistically significant relationships. The cart shows the vectorial map of the statistically significant relationships for the category of shared vision (3ASHAVIS) considering as focal behavior, and family boundaries (1A), generation (1B), family ties (1C), business roles (2B), trust (4A), components of trust (4B), lack of trust (4C), multilevel system (5A), perceived conflict (5B), types of conflict (5C), processes (5D), third-party assistance (5E), succession (5F), innovativeness (6A), risk-taking orientation (6B), and decision-making pace (6D), as conditional behaviors. At the table the results of the polar coordinate analysis are presented. The significance level was fixed at *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. DISCUSSION roots of constructive conflict management (cf. Alvarado-Alvarez et al., 2020). Results suggest that shared vision and trust have In this research, we provide evidence about the use of indirect their path (cognitive and emotional) to influence constructive observation as a rigorous approach to study narratives and conflict management and innovation in family firms. Looking extracting conclusions about complex phenomena (Anguera into the results, we find that shared vision and trust are et al., 2018). In addition, the combined use of mixed methods related but seem connected by the cognitive component of and multiple case has demonstrated being a suitable design to trust (ability) and not through affective elements of trust use in studies in the context of family firms. It offers interesting (e.g., benevolence). opportunities to quantify the existent relationships between Indeed, affection-based trust (benevolence) would hinder the different dimensions of a complex reality and find shared the perception of future goals or shared vision. It seems that structures of significant associative relationships between the benevolence stems from family ties and shared vision is referred cases allowing to account for the existence of a multiple case to business goals according to the results. This finding might (Anguera, 2020). explain that shared vision does not seem to be a subject of Therefore, this study yields empirical evidence about the conversation in family governance forums (e.g. family meetings, unique set of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses family council). A plausible explanation for this, is that shared involved in conflict situations (García et al., 2016; Alvarado- vision is an antecedent of the creation of a governance bodies, Alvarez et al., 2020). The general picture emerging from the particularly in siblings partnership stage, therefore shared vision results indicates that trust and shared vision play a relevant role is not a topic of conversation in family governance forums. In in the constructive conflict management of family firms, and fact prior research suggests that the more aligned the values and they are deeply ingrained as elements of constructive conflict vision of the family, the more they develop governance structures management. This research also sheds light about the possible (Parada, 2015). This finding is also consistent with the practices influence of social processes, such as shared vision, trust, and of governance of the cases studied which distinguishes spaces for conflict in innovativeness. debating family issues (e.g., family council) and business strategy Our findings confirm previous theoretical work, empirically (e.g., board of directors or advisory board). Our findings suggest showing that shared vision and trust are cognitive and relational that shared vision is more focused on business goals than on Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 21 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms FIGURE 5 | Example B of vectorial map of the statistically significant relationships. The graph represents the vectorial map of the statistically significant relationships for the subdimension of trust (4ATRUST) considering as conditional behaviors the following: family boundaries (1A), generation (1B), family ties (1C), family history (1D), business roles (2B), shared vision (3), multilevel system (5A), perceived conflict (5B), types of conflict (5C), processes (5D), third-party assistance (5E), succession (5F), innovativeness (6A), and risk-taking orientation (6B). The table contains the results of the polar coordinate analysis. The significance level was fixed at **p < 0.01. family goals. From the findings, it is not possible to conclude is perceived as related to family relationships (Steier, 2001; that shared vision comprises non-family related goals. Previous Eddleston et al., 2010), whereas the perception of ability is related studies have referred to the salient role of non-family related goals to managerial roles and decision-making at the business level of families in business (Berrone et al., 2012; Kotlar and De Massis, (Mayer et al., 1995). The presence of altruism may explain to 2013). some extent that narratives regarding skills and competences as a In this sense, our results contradict our expectations about source of trust or ability were not followed by references to family shared vision triggering bonding and emotional contagion, as meetings, family council or the ownership level (Lubatkin et al., seen in previous studies (c.f. Boyatzis et al., 2015; Wang and 2005; Kidwell et al., 2018). This study depicts the different sides Shi, 2020). However, it supports the argument that shared vision of trust in family firms (Eddleston and Morgan, 2014). is different from cohesiveness (around family ties per se) which In this study, we may confirm the existence of specific would lead to groupthink (Kidwell et al., 2012; Lord, 2015). components of trust (ability, benevolence, and integrity) Our analyses indicate that when families in business are (Schoorman et al., 2007) that have different effects on in the middle of conflicts related to succession for instance, constructive conflict management in family firms. For instance, shared vision does not easily emerge. Apparently, this finding shared vision is related to the cognitive component of trust contradicts current evidence about shared vision having a (ability) with specific implications in constructive conflict positive influence on succession (e.g., Overbeke et al., 2015; management at the organizational level where it takes place. Daspit et al., 2016). However, it may suggest that during a Conversations about future projects and goals are more proper succession process the incumbent and the successor need to for business levels of governance. However, we do not find negotiate their goals and future expectations to succeed during evidence about these debates being open-minded. We find that this stage (Caputo and Zarone, 2019). open-mindedness is associated to spaces of conversations led by Data provides evidence about the importance of context for family members, such as family meetings and family council, the emergence of trust (Kramer, 1999). For instance, benevolence confirming the conceptualization of family ties fertilizing the Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 22 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms FIGURE 6 | Structure of significant associative relationships of constructive conflict management dimension (+ Quadrant I/ Quadrant III). ground for the emergence of constructive conflict management indicate that open-mindedness is inhibited by the perception of (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., 2020). The prevalence of open-minded trust and lack of trust. It may reflect some differences between debates and concurrence-seeking in family forums suggest the the cases but it can also be an expression of the different roles need to constructively manage their conflicts to maintain trust of trust as an antecedent and outcome of constructive conflict and family harmony (Kidwell et al., 2012). management. If parties trust each other, they do not perceive the An interesting insight we can extract from this study is need of managing conflict because they may address it through that the agile and frequent communication may propitiate communication, and consequently, they would not associate a better communication which prevents destructive conflict trust and open-mindedness. Conversely, if the parties lack trust, dynamics. Moreover, the presence of concurrence-seeking at the they do not feel safe to openly talk about conflict (Deutsch, ownership level underlines the necessity of reaching agreements 2011). or consensus (e.g., shareholders policies; Ensley and Pearson, Furthermore, our results are tightly connected to boundaries 2005). We can also observe the pernicious effect of a lack of trust theory (Sundaramurthy and Kreiner, 2008; Knapp et al., 2013) hindering open-mindedness or favoring close-mindedness. and systems theory (Distelberg and Sorenson, 2009) because Moreover, results suggest that collaboration between family participants differentiate between family, family business as and non-family members may be hampered by a lack of shared a whole entity, non-family and external environment. These vision (Waldkirch, 2020). Indeed, findings suggest that the board boundaries have several implications in terms of resources and of directors is not perceived as a place where trust flourishes conflict management. From the family system, benevolence which can be considered as harmful for the social dynamics and can be considered a relational resource (Pearson et al., the decision-making of this forum (Eddleston et al., 2010) and 2008). The presence of benevolence can be an outcome of psychological capital within the members of the organization behavioral integration and relational governance implemented (León-Perez et al., 2016; Meier and Schier, 2016; Tang, 2020). by the companies studied (Rosenkranz and Wulf, 2019) A finding which requires further exploration is that close- through family governance tools (e.g., family council, mindedness and trust are reciprocally influenced. It is suggesting family meetings). Whereas, perceiving ability in the external that certain topics may not be openly discussed or that some environment (e.g., competitors, professional associations, barriers exist to effectively deal with conflict (Kiernan et al., entrepreneurial ecosystem) contributes to the collaborative 2019). Perhaps the perception of lack of trust between family innovativeness engaged by the cases studied (Feranita et al., and non-family members is a plausible explanation which merits 2017). further studies. The non-family members subsystem and external Despite these interesting insights, we consider that the role environment are perceived as richer in skills and capacities of trust in open-mindedness requires more scrutiny. The results for good performance (Bettinelli, 2011; Tabor et al., 2018). Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 23 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms FIGURE 7 | Example C of vectorial map of the statistically significant relationships. The graph exhibits the vectorial map of the statistically significant relationships for the subdimension of open-mindedness (5DOMD) considering the following as conditional behaviors: family boundaries (1A), business roles (2B), trust (4A), trust components (4B), lack of trust (4C), multilevel system (5A), and innovativeness (6A). The table contains the results of the polar coordinate analysis. The significance level was fixed at **p < 0.01. Family firms rely on high levels of trust for the creation of at the business level of conflict management is an intriguing knowledge with allies (Feranita et al., 2017; Bouncken et al., finding. Further exploration may be required to understand the 2020). In general terms, non-family members seem to have implications of emotions and trust in family business governance dissimilar levels of shared vision and trust (Tabor et al., 2018). (Eddleston et al., 2010; Kellermanns et al., 2014). Some explanations may be related to the existence of different An interesting side result is that conflict and family goals (Jaskiewicz and Luchak, 2013), family bias (Tabor et al., constitution mutually reinforce each other. It is consistent with 2018), and social categorization (Kramer, 1999; Waldkirch current evidence about some governance tools, such as Family et al., 2018). The relationship between task conflict and general Constitutions, or Family Protocols that are used to manage manager narratives observed in this study support evidence conflict in family firms (or conflict triggers their implementation) about the existence of this type of conflict at managerial levels (Arteaga and Menéndez-Requejo, 2017). and its implications in terms of stress and psychological well- Our study brings evidence that shared vision would promote being (Guerra et al., 2005; De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia, innovativeness which contradicts some theorization about 2017). the potential harming of a shared culture as a sort of The differentiation between different levels of constructive “collective blindness” that may inhibit the pioneering process conflict management and their implications in terms of shared and consequently innovation (Carnes and Ireland, 2013). Our vision and trust may provide evidence about the influence of findings suggest that the diverse approaches used to allocating family business advising in developing governance practices resources (risk orientation) require to undertake conflict (Strike et al., 2018). The fact that benevolence is not perceived management processes at different levels of the organization Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 24 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms (Borbély and Caputo, 2017; e.g., managing committee and board collaboration and innovativeness through constructive conflict of directors). At the same time, shared vision is a driver to achieve management (Bennedsen and Foss, 2015). Indeed, the use of innovativeness (Neff, 2015) and represents a collective cognition open-mindedness may help to deal with the existence of task between family and non-family members (Madison et al., 2020). conflict and cognitive conflict at a business level. The processes of constructive conflict as open-mindedness or concurrence-seeking does not emerge with the same strength Limitations and Further Research Agenda in the picture of innovativeness. Although the findings suggest Despite the strengths of this research, we acknowledge that it that the perception of conflict or the lack of conflict may is not exempt from limitations. We are aware that this study hamper innovativeness, which is consistent with the paradoxes is an initial step to understand the dynamics of constructive of conflict and innovation described in scientific literature: conflict in family firms. It opens interesting avenues to further too much conflict hampers innovation but at the same time studies. For instance, the exploration of the relationships between specific levels of conflict trigger organizational innovation shared vision, bonding and relational climate in the family (Vollmer, 2015). Something that emerges from the analysis is the firm require further exploration. Further research may explore importance of working on diminishing the perception of lack a more heterogeneous group of cases in terms of their levels of shared vision to positively impact on innovativeness (Neff, of innovativeness, size or geographical situation. Moreover, 2015). studying cases in different generational stages of ownership is a good avenue to extend this study. Indeed, studying cases which Contributions might not have been assisted by family business advisors may be This research reports interesting insights about trust and an interesting opportunity. In this study, narratives provided by constructive management in the unique context of family firms family members are more prevalent. Further studies may explore (Elgoibar et al., 2016). Therefore, it extends current knowledge in-depth the perspective from non-family members. because it brings empirical evidence about the specific role of Further studies may investigate the potential of conflict shared vision and trust in constructive conflict management management as a tool for balancing work and family in the and innovativeness in family firms (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., context of family firms (Lu et al., 2012). Indeed, the exploration 2020). It also describes the dynamic character of constructive at the individual level of conflict management in family firms conflict as an emergent process in family firms (Kozlowski and as a relevant contributor to personal well-being is a promising Chao, 2012). This research refines our understanding of the area (León-Perez et al., 2016). Further inquiries are needed about role of cognitions in the conflict management of family firms the role of third parties in conflict management of family firms following the current stream of research in family business and their contribution to trust promotion practices (Strike et al., (Kammerlander and Breugst, 2019). This study also depicts the 2018). Exploring their vision of conflict and open-mindedness importance of family governance practices for managing conflict merits attention. in family firms contributing to understand their uniqueness in Given that conflict is in the area of sensitive issues (Jehn terms of constructive conflict management (Alvarado-Alvarez and Jonsen, 2010), the use of a systematic direct observation et al., 2020). Methodologically, it represents an evidence of the (Sánchez-Algarra and Anguera, 2013; Anguera et al., 2017, 2020) adequacy of a mixed method approach to study complex realities of real-life situations in family businesses (e.g., family councils, (e.g., family firms; Plano Clark et al., 2008). Indeed, it represents a meetings of the board of directors, informal family meetings) and novel methodological approach based on systematic observation, evaluation program designs may be alternative ways to approach specifically on indirect observation (Anguera et al., 2017, 2020), to the phenomena (Chacón-Moscoso et al., 2013; Portell et al., which may report an excellent advance for both fields of conflict 2015). Further studies which explore the possibilities that may management and family business research. offer constructive conflict management to family firms in current trends as digital transformation are encouraged (Vollmer, 2015; Practical Implications Vaska et al., 2020). Family governance is a fundamental level of constructive conflict management in family firms (Berent-Braun and Uhlaner, 2012; Suess-Reyes, 2017) as we confirm in this research. CONCLUSIONS Families address critical conversations in spaces as informal gatherings and family councils demonstrating that institutions This research sheds light on the uniqueness of constructive and relationships contribute to trust (Lewicki, 2006). In this conflict management in family firms. We provided empirical study, the importance of managing conflicts of succession evidence of shared vision and trust as roots of constructive emerges as a relevant finding which opens interesting avenues for conflict management observed at different levels of the mediators, conflict managers and organizational psychologists organization. Trust management demonstrates critical (e.g., Haynes et al., 1997). We encourage the development importance for obtaining constructive outcomes of conflict of education programs adapted for families in business and in this type of organizations. Conflicts of succession emerges the advisory practices from a psychological approach which as a critical moment for developing trust and shared vision. encourage the adoption of constructive conflict management. Although the role of conflict in innovativeness is confirmed, Trust promotion between family and non-family members it is necessary to further explore in-depth open-mindedness should be included in the agenda of family firms to boost and concurrence-seeking in family firms. This study paves the Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 25 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms way to further research, which looks into family firms from a FUNDING psychological perspective. MA gratefully acknowledges the support of a Spanish DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT government subproject Integration ways between qualitative and quantitative data, multiple case development, and The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be synthesis review as main axis for an innovative future in made available by the authors, without undue reservation. physical activity and sports research (PGC2018-098742-B- C31) (2019–2021) (Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades/Agencia Estatal de Investigación/Fondo Europeo ETHICS STATEMENT de Desarrollo Regional), that is part of the coordinated The study has been carried out following the ethical guidelines project New approach of research in physical activity and and procedures of the Doctorate Program of Psychology of sport from mixed methods perspective (NARPAS_MM) Communication and Change of the both Autonomous University (SPGC201800X098742CV0). In addition, the author thanks the of Barcelona and University of Barcelona, to which the first support of the Generalitat de Catalunya Research Group, GRUP author is a Doctoral candidate and the ethical standards for DE RECERCA I INNOVACIÓ EN DISSENYS (GRID). Tecnología research established by the American Psychological Association i aplicació multimedia i digital als dissenys observacionals (2017). All participants gave their informed consent to participate (Grant number 2017 SGR 1405). in the research in conformity with the Declaration of Helsinki before making the audio recording and data collection. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Personal information of participants was replaced and not provided to the coders of audio recordings and transcripts to We would like to thank the support received from MSc. Yolanda ensure confidentiality. Rodríguez and Dr. Geovanna Muñoz to conduct the quality control of the data. We were thankful to the family firms whose agreed to participate in this research. We also were grateful for AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS the collaboration of the Catalonian Association of Family Firms CA-A carried out the data collection, literature review, research to the assistance provided for contacting potential participants in design, writing the manuscript, coded the textual material, and this study. We appreciate the insightful comments of reviewers trained and supervised the coders who participated in the data and the editor. quality control procedures. IA and MP made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution through supervising all the stages SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL of the research process, and reviewing the several drafts of the article. MA supervised the method and conducted the polar The Supplementary Material for this article can be found coordinate analysis. All authors contributed to the article and online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg. approved the submitted version. 2021.629730/full#supplementary-material REFERENCES Anguera, M. T. (2020) “Is it possible to perform “liquefying” actions in conversational analysis? The detection of structures in indirect Aldrich, H. E., and Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on observations,” in The Temporal Structure of Multimodal Communication. entrepreneurship: toward a family embeddedness perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 164, eds L. Hunyadi and 18, 573–596. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00011-9 I. Szekrényes (Cham: Springer), 45–67. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-228 Allison, P. D., and Liker, J. K. (1982). Analyzing sequential categorical data on 95-8_3 dyadic interaction: a comment on Gottman. Psychol. Bull. 91, 393–403. Anguera, M. T., Blanco-Villaseñor, A, Losada, J. L., and Sánchez-Algarra, Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., and Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, P. (2020). Integración de elementos cualitativos y cuantitativos en and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychol. 53, 625–642. metodología observacional [Integration of qualitative and quantitative doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x elements in observational methodology]. Ámbitos Rev. Int. Comun. 49, 49–70. Alvarado-Alvarez, C., Armadans, I., and Parada, M. J. (2020). Tracing the roots of doi: 10.12795/Ambitos.2020.i49.04 constructive conflict management in family firms. Negot. Conflict Manage. Res. Anguera, M. T., Camerino, O., Castañer, M., Sánchez-Algarra, P., and 13, 105–126. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12164 Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2017). The specificity of observational studies American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and in physical activity and sports sciences: moving forward in mixed Code of Conduct. Available online at: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/2017.pdf methods research and proposals for achieving quantitative and (accessed January 1, 2018). qualitative symmetry. Front. Psychol. 8:2196. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017. Anguera, M. T. (1997). From Prospective Patterns in Behavior to Joint Analysis With 02196 a Retrospective Perspective. Colloque sur invitation ≪Méthodologie d’analyse Anguera, M. T., Portell, M., Chacón-Moscoso, S., and Sanduvete- des interactions sociales≫. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne. Chaves, S. (2018). Indirect observation in everyday contexts: Anguera, M. T. (2018). “Del caso único al caso múltiple en el estudio del concepts and methodological guidelines within a mixed methods comportamiento humano,” in Academia de Psicología de España, Psicología framework. Front. Psychol. 9:13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018. para un mundo sostenible, Vol. II (Madrid: Pirámide), 31–50. 00013 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 26 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms Anguera, M. T., Portell, P., Hernández-Mendo, A., Sánchez-Algarra, P., and effective leadership, relationships, and engagement. Front. Psychol. 6:670. Jonsson, G. K. (in press). “Diachronic analysis of qualitative data,” in Reviewer’s doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00670 Guide for Mixed Methods Research Analysis, eds A. J. Onwuegbuzie and B. Boyatzis, R. E., and Soler, C. (2012). Vision, leadership and Johnson (London: Routledge). emotional intelligence transforming family business. J. Arias-Pujol, E., and Anguera, M. T. (2017). Observation of interactions in Fam. Bus. Manage. 2, 23–30. doi: 10.1108/2043623121121 adolescent group therapy: a mixed methods study. Front. Psychol. 8 :1188. 6394 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01188 Cabrera-Suárez, M. K., Déniz-Déniz, M. C., and Martín-Santana, Arias-Pujol, E., and Anguera, M. T. (2020). A mixed methods framework for J. D. (2015). Family social capital, trust within the TMT, psychoanalytic group therapy: from qualitative records to a quantitative and the establishment of corporate goals related to nonfamily approach using T-pattern, lag sequential and polar coordinate analyses. Front. stakeholders. Fam. Bus. Rev. 28, 145–162. doi: 10.1177/089448651452 Psychol. 11:1922. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01922 6754 Arteaga, R., and Menéndez-Requejo, S. (2017). Family constitution and Calabrò, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., and business performance: moderating factors. Fam. Bus. Rev. 30, 320–338. Kraus, S. (2018). Innovation in family firms: a systematic literature review and doi: 10.1177/0894486517732438 guidance for future research. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 21, 1–39. doi: 10.1111/ijmr. Bakeman, R. (1978). “Untangling streams of behavior: sequential analysis of 12192 observational data,” in Observing Behavior, 2 Data Collection and Analysis Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Pellegrini, M., and Rialti, R. (2018). Conflict management Methods, ed G. P. Sackett (Baltimore, MD: University Park Press), 63–78. in family businesses: a bibliometric analysis and systematic literature Bakeman, R., and Quera, V. (2011). Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods review. Int. J. Conflict Manage. 29, 519–542. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-02-2018- for the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 0027 Basco, R. (2015). Family business and regional development—a theoretical Caputo, A., and Zarone, V. (2019). Uscio e Bottega: an exploratory study model of regional familiness. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 6, 259–271. on conflict management and negotiation during family business succession doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.04.004 in Tuscany. World Rev. Entrepr. Manage. Sustain. Dev. 15, 202–225. Bee, C., and Neubaum, D. O. (2014). The role of cognitive appraisal and emotions doi: 10.1504/WREMSD.2019.098453 of family members in the family business system. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 5, 323–333. Carnes, C. M., and Ireland, R. D. (2013). Familiness and innovation: resource doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.12.001 bundling as the missing link. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 37, 1399–1419. Beehr, T. A., Drexler, J. A. Jr., and Faulkner, S. (1997). doi: 10.1111/etap.12073 Working in small family businesses: empirical comparisons Cassia, L., De Massis, A., and Pizzurno, E. (2012). Strategic innovation and new to non-family businesses. J. Organ. Behav. 18, 297–312. product development in family firms. Int. J. Entrepr. Behav. Res. 18, 198–232. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<297::AID-JOB805>3.0.CO;2-D doi: 10.1108/13552551211204229 Bennedsen, M., and Foss, N. (2015). Family assets and liabilities in the innovation Cater, J. J. III., and Kidwell, R. E. (2014). Function, governance, and trust in process. Calif. Manage. Rev. 58, 65–81. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2015.58.1.65 successor leadership groups in family firms. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 5, 217–228. Berent-Braun, M. M., and Uhlaner, L. M. (2012). Family governance practices and doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.06.001 teambuilding: paradox of the enterprising family. Small Bus. Econ. 38, 103–119. Chacón-Moscoso, S., Sanduvete-Chaves, S., Portell, M., and Anguera, doi: 10.1007/s11187-010-9269-4 M. T. (2013). Reporting a program evaluation: needs, program plan, Bernoster, I., Rietveld, C. A., Thurik, A. R., and Torrès, O. (2018). intervention, and decisions. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 13, 58–66. Overconfidence, optimism and entrepreneurship. Sustainability 10:2233. doi: 10.1016/S1697-2600(13)70008-5 doi: 10.3390/su10072233 Chirico, F., Sirmon, D. G., Sciascia, S., and Mazzola, P. (2011). Resource Berrone, P., Cruz, C., and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in orchestration in family firms: investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, family firms: theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strat. future research. Fam. Bus. Rev. 25, 258–279. doi: 10.1177/0894486511435355 Entrepr. J. 5, 307–326. doi: 10.1002/sej.121 Bettinelli, C. (2011). Boards of directors in family firms: an exploratory Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., and Steier, L. (2005). Sources and consequences of study of structure and group process. Fam. Bus. Rev. 24, 151–169. distinctive familiness: an introduction. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 29, 237–247. doi: 10.1177/0894486511402196 doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00080.x Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., and Fayolle, A. (2017). Researching Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., and Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by entrepreneurship in family firms. J. Small Bus. Manage. 55, 506–529. behavior. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 23, 19–39. doi: 10.1177/104225879902300402 doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12347 Claßen, C., and Schulte, R. (2017). How do conflicts impact change in family Bigliardi, B., and Galati, F. (2018). Family firms and collaborative innovation: businesses? The family system and familiness as a catalytic converter of change. present debates and future research. Eur. J. Innov. Manage. 21, 334–358. J. Organ. Change Manage. 30, 1198–1212. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-04-2016-0071 doi: 10.1108/EJIM-05-2017-0054 Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common X2 tests. Blanco-Villaseñor, A., Losada, J. L., and Anguera, M. T. (2003). Data analysis Biometrics 10, 417–451. doi: 10.2307/3001616 techniques in observational designs applied to the environment-behaviour Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. relation. Med. Ambient. Comport. Hum. 4, 111–126. Available online Measu. 20, 37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104 at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.577.3872&rep= Coleman, P. T., and Kugler, K. G. (2014). Tracking managerial conflict rep1&type=pdf adaptivity: introducing a dynamic measure of adaptive conflict management Borbély, A., and Caputo, A. (2017). Approaching negotiation at the organizational in organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 35, 945–968. doi: 10.1002/job.1935 level. Negot. Conflict Manage. Res. 10, 306–323. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12106 Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Nowak, A., and Vallacher, R. Botero, I. C., Cruz, C., Massis, A. D., and Nordqvist, M. (2015). Family (2012). Getting down to basics: a situated model of conflict in social relations. business research in the European context. Eur. J. Int. Manage. 9, 139–159. Negot. J. 28, 7–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2011.00324.x doi: 10.1504/EJIM.2015.067858 Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., and Garrett, R. (2014). Examining relationships among Bouncken, R. B., Hughes, M., Ratzmann, M., Cesinger, B., and Pesch, family influence, family culture, flexible planning systems, innovativeness and R. (2020). Family firms, alliance governance and mutual knowledge firm performance. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 5, 229–238. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.09.002 creation. Br. J. Manage. 31, 769–791. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Los 12408 Angeles, CA: SAGE publications, Inc. Boyatzis, R. E., and Rochford, K. (2020). Relational climate in the workplace: Cunningham, J., Seaman, C., and McGuire, D. (2016). Knowledge sharing in Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Front. Psychol. 11:85. small family firms: a leadership perspective. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 7, 34–46. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00085 doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.10.002 Boyatzis, R. E., Rochford, K., and Taylor, S. N. (2015). The role of Danes, S. M., Leichtentritt, R. D., Metz, M. E., and Huddleston-Casas, C. the positive emotional attractor in vision and shared vision: toward (2000). Effects of conflict styles and conflict severity on quality of life of Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 27 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms men and women in family businesses. J. Fam. Econ. Issues 21, 259–286. response from mixed-methods approach: Complementarity of data analysis. doi: 10.1023/A:1009485301715 Front. Psychol. 10:1298. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01298 Daspit, J. J., Holt, D. T., Chrisman, J. J., and Long, R. G. (2016). Feranita, F., Kotlar, J., and De Massis, A. (2017). Collaborative innovation in family Examining family firm succession from a social exchange perspective: firms: past research, current debates and agenda for future research. J. Fam. Bus. a multiphase, multistakeholder review. Fam. Bus. Rev. 29, 44–64. Strat. 8, 137–156. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.07.001 doi: 10.1177/0894486515599688 Frank, H., Kessler, A., Bachner, C., Fuetsch, E., and Suess-Reyes, J. (2019). Daspit, J. J., Long, R. G., and Pearson, A. W. (2019). How familiness Principles for innovation management in family firms. J. Fam. Bus. Manage. affects innovation outcomes via absorptive capacity: a dynamic 9, 319–348. doi: 10.1108/JFBM-09-2018-0049 capability perspective of the family firm. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 10, 133–143. Frank, H., Kessler, A., Nosé, L., and Suchy, D. (2011). Conflicts in family firms: doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.11.003 state of the art and perspectives for future research. J. Fam. Bus. Manage. 1, Davis, P. S., and Harveston, P. D. (2001). The phenomenon of substantive conflict 130–153. doi: 10.1108/20436231111167219 in the family firm: a cross-generational study. J. Small Bus. Manage. 39, 14–30. Friedman, S. D. (1991). Sibling relationships and intergenerational succession in doi: 10.1111/0447-2778.00003 family firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 4, 3–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1991.00003.x De Clercq, D., and Belausteguigoitia, I. (2015). Intergenerational strategy Gagné, M., Sharma, P., and De Massis, A. (2014). The study of organizational involvement and family’s innovation pursuits: the critical roles of behaviour in family business. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 23, 643–656. conflict management and social capital. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 6, 178–189. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.906403 doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.04.003 García, A. B., Pender, E., and Elgoibar, P. (2016). “The state of art: trust and De Clercq, D., and Belausteguigoitia, I. (2017). Overcoming the dark side of task conflict management in organizational industrial relations,” in Building Trust conflict: buffering roles of transformational leadership, tenacity, and passion for and Constructive Conflict Management in Organizations. Industrial Relations & work. Eur. Manage. J. 35, 78–90. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.008 Conflict Management, eds P. Elgoibar, M. Euwema, and L. Munduate (Cham: De Dreu, C. K. W., and Gelfand, M. J. (Eds.). (2008). The Organizational Frontiers Springer), 29–51. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31475-4_3 Series. The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations. García-Fariña, A., Jiménez Jiménez, F., and Anguera, M. T. (2018). New York, NY; Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Observation of physical education teachers’ communication: detecting De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Frattini, F., Chrisman, J. J., and Nordqvist, M. (2016). patterns in verbal behavior. Front. Psychol. 9:334. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018. Family governance at work: organizing for new product development in family 00334 SMEs. Fam. Bus. Rev. 29, 189–213. doi: 10.1177/0894486515622722 George, A. L., and Bennett, A. (2005). Case Study and Theory Development in the Del Giacco, L., Anguera, M. T., and Salcuni, S. (2020). The action of verbal and Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press. non-verbal communication in the therapeutic alliance construction: a mixed Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. methods approach to assess the initial interactions with depressed patients. 98, 341–354. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145316 Front. Psychol. 11:234. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00234 Gimeno, A., Baulenas, G., and Coma-Cros, J. (2010). Family Business Models: Del Giacco, L., Salcuni, S., and Anguera, M. T. (2019). The communicative Practical Solutions for the Family Business. Palgrave MacMillan. modes analysis system in psychotherapy from mixed methods framework: Goldman, B. M., Cropanzano, R., Stein, J., and Benson, L. III. (2008). “The introducing a new observation system for classifying verbal and non- role of third parties/mediation in managing conflict in organizations,” in The verbal communication. Front. Psychol. 10:782. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019. Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations, eds C. K. W. 00782 De Dreu and M. J. Gelfand (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 291–320. Deutsch, M. (1994). Constructive conflict management for the world today. Int. J. Großmann, S., and von Schlippe, A. (2015). Family businesses: fertile Conflict Manage. 5, 111–129. doi: 10.1108/eb022738 environments for conflict. J. Fam. Bus. Manage. 5, 294–314. Deutsch, M. (2011). “Interdependence and psychological orientation,” doi: 10.1108/JFBM-11-2014-0038 in Conflict, Interdependence, and Justice, Peace Psychology Book 247 Guerra, J. M., Martínez, I., Munduate, L., and Medina, F. J. (2005). A Series, ed P. T. Coleman (New York, NY: Springer Sciences), 247–271. contingency perspective on the study of the consequences of conflict types: doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9994-8_11 the role of organizational culture. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 14, 157–176. Diaz-Moriana, V., Clinton, E., Kammerlander, N., Lumpkin, G. T., and Craig, J. B. doi: 10.1080/13594320444000245 (2020). Innovation motives in family firms: a transgenerational view. Entrepr. Guetterman, T. C., and Fetters, M. D. (2018). Two methodological approaches to Theory Pract. 44, 256–287. doi: 10.1177/1042258718803051 the integration of mixed methods and case study designs: a systematic review. Distelberg, B., and Sorenson, R. L. (2009). Updating systems concepts in family Am. Behav. Sci. 62, 900–918. doi: 10.1177/0002764218772641 businesses: a focus on values, resource flows, and adaptability. Fam. Bus. Rev. Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., and MacMillan, I. C. (2003). A unified 22, 65–81. doi: 10.1177/0894486508329115 systems perspective of family firm performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 18, 451–465. Eddleston, K. A., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., and Chua, J. H. (2010). Governance doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00053-3 and trust in family firms: an introduction. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 34, 1043–1056. Habbershon, T. G., and Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00412.x assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 12, 1–25. Eddleston, K. A., and Morgan, R. M. (2014). Trust, commitment and relationships doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1999.00001.x in family business: challenging conventional wisdom. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 5, Haynes, J. M., Usdin, T. M., Lee Begler, A., Kaye, K., and Kaslow, F. (1997). 213–216. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.08.003 Resolving family business disputes through mediation. Fam. Bus. Rev. 10, Eisenhardt, K. M., and Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from 115–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1997.00115.x cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manage. J. 50, 25–32. Hernández-Linares, R., and López-Fernández, M. C. (2018). Entrepreneurial doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 orientation and the family firm: MAPPING the field and tracing a path for Elgoibar, P., Munduate, L., and Euwema, M. (2016). “Building trust and future research. Fam. Bus. Rev. 31, 318–351. doi: 10.1177/0894486518781940 constructive conflict management in organizations,” in Building Trust and Hernández-Mendo, A., López-López, J. A., Castellano, J., Morales- Constructive Conflict Management in Organizations. Industrial Relations & Sánchez, V., and Pastrana, J. L. (2012). Hoisan 1.2: programa Conflict Management, eds P. Elgoibar, M. Euwema, and L. Munduate (Cham: informático para uso en metodología observacional [Hoisan 1.2: software Springer), 1–13. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31475-4_1 for observational methodology]. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 12, 55–78. Ensley, M. D., and Pearson, A. W. (2005). An exploratory comparison of the doi: 10.4321/S1578-84232012000100006 behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new Hilliard, R. B. (1993). Single-case methodology in psychotherapy ventures: cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 29, process and outcome research. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 61, 373–380. 267–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00082.x doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.61.3.373 Escolano-Pérez, E., Herrero-Nivela, M. L., and Anguera, M. T. (2019). Preschool Holt, D. T., and Daspit, J. J. (2015). Diagnosing innovation readiness in family metacognitive skill assessment in order to promote educational sensitive firms. Calif. Manage. Rev. 58, 82–96. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2015.58.1.82 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 28 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., and Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: Lansberg, I. S. (1983). Managing human resources in family firms: toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational the problem of institutional overlap. Organ. Dyn. 12, 39–46. entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 30, 29–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(83)90025-6 07.001 León-Perez, J. M., Antino, M., and León-Rubio, J. M. (2016). The role Jaskiewicz, P., and Luchak, A. A. (2013). Explaining performance differences of psychological capital and intragroup conflict on employees’ burnout between family firms with family and nonfamily CEOs: it’s the nature of and quality of service: a multilevel approach. Front. Psychol. 7:1755. the tie to the family that counts! Entrepr. Theory Pract. 37, 1361–1367. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01755 doi: 10.1111/etap.12070 Lewicki, R., and Spencer, G. (1992). Conflict and negotiation in organizations: Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in introduction and overview. J. Organ. Behav. 13, 205–207. organizational groups. Admin. Sci. Q. 42, 530–557. doi: 10.2307/2393737 Lewicki, R. J. (2006). “Trust, trust development, and trust repair,” in The Handbook Jehn, K. A., and Jonsen, K. (2010). A multimethod approach to the study of Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice, 2nd Edn., eds M. Deutsch, P. T. of sensitive organizational issues. J. Mixed Methods Res. 4, 313–341. Coleman and E. C. Marcus (San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass), 92–119. doi: 10.1177/1558689810380920 Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., and Saunders, D. M. (2016). Essentials of Negotiation. New Jehn, K. A., and Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a York, NY: McGraw-Hill. longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad. Lewicki, R. J., and Brinsfield, C. (2017). Trust repair. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Manage. J. 44, 238–251. doi: 10.5465/3069453 Organ. Behav. 4, 287–313. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147 Jiang, D. S., Kellermanns, F. W., Munyon, T. P., and Morris, M. L. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., and Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: (2018). More than meets the eye: a review and future directions for the new relationships and realities. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23, 438–458. social psychology of socioemotional wealth. Fam. Bus. Rev. 31, 125–157. doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.926620 doi: 10.1177/0894486517736959 Ling, Y., and Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). The effects of family firm specific sources Johnson, D. W. (2015). Constructive Controversy: Theory, Research, Practice. of TMT diversity: the moderating role of information exchange frequency. J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manage. Stud. 47, 322–344. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00893.x Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: the instructional Loignon, A. C., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., and Kidwell, R. E. (2015). power of conflict. Educ. Res. 38, 37–51. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08330540 “Antecedents and outcomes of Conflict in Family Firms,” in The Routledge Kammerlander, N., and Breugst, N. (2019). Construals matter: painting the big Companion to Family Business, eds F. W. Kellermanns and F. Hoy (New York, picture or drawing the brushstrokes of the family firm. Fam. Bus. Rev. 32, NY: Routledge), 349–366. 222–232. doi: 10.1177/0894486519864724 López-Fernández, O., and Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The use of mixed Kammerlander, N., Dessi, C., Bird, M., Floris, M., and Murru, A. methods research in the field of behavioural sciences. Qual. Quant. 45:1459. (2015). The impact of shared stories on family firm innovation: a doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9543-9 multicase study. Fam. Bus. Rev. 28, 332–354. doi: 10.1177/089448651560 Lord, M. (2015). Group learning capacity: the roles of open-mindedness and 7777 shared vision. Front. Psychol. 6:150. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00150 Kanadli, S. B., Torchia, M., Gabaldon, P., and Calabrò, A. (2020). Effects of task Lu, J., Tjosvold, D., Shi, K., and Wang, B. (2012). Developing work–family conflict on board task performance in family firms: the importance of board balance through conflict management. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 15, 77–88. openness. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 11:100350. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100350 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2011.01363.x Kellermanns, F. W., Dibrell, C., and Cruz, C. (2014). The role and impact of Lubatkin, M. H., Schulze, W. S., Ling, Y., and Dino, R. N. (2005). The effects of emotions in family business strategy: new approaches and paradigms. J. Fam. parental altruism on the governance of family-managed firms. J. Organ. Behav. Bus. Strat. 5, 277–279. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.08.002 26, 313–330. doi: 10.1002/job.307 Kidwell, R. E., Eddleston, K. A., and Kellermanns, F. W. (2018). Learning Lumpkin, G. T., and Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation bad habits across generations: how negative imprints affect human resource construct and linking it to performance. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21, 135–172. management in the family firm. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 28, 5–17. doi: 10.5465/amr.1996.9602161568 doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.05.002 Madison, K., Daspit, J. J., and Marett, E. G. (2020). Does knowing “who knows Kidwell, R. E., Kellermanns, F. W., and Eddleston, K. A. (2012). Harmony, justice, what” matter for family firm innovation? Insights from transactive memory confusion, and conflict in family firms: implications for ethical climate and the system theory. Fam. Bus. Rev. 34, 1–25. doi: 10.1177/0894486520912879 “Fredo effect”. J. Bus. Ethics 106, 503–517. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1014-7 Maneiro, R., and Amatria, M. (2018). Polar coordinate analysis of relationships Kiernan, L., Ledwith, A., and Lynch, R. (2019). Design teams management with teammates, areas of the pitch, and dynamic play in soccer: a study of Xabi of conflict in reaching consensus. Int. J. Conflict Manage. 31, 263–285. Alonso. Front. Psychol. 9:389. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00389 doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-06-2019-0097 Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., and Salas, E. (2018). Does Knapp, J. R., Smith, B. R., Kreiner, G. E., Sundaramurthy, C., and Barton, team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach? A meta-analysis S. L. (2013). Managing boundaries through identity work: the role of of team communication and performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. individual and organizational identity tactics. Fam. Bus. Rev. 26, 333–355. 144, 145–170. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001 doi: 10.1177/0894486512474036 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative Kotlar, J., and De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family businesses: model of organizational trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20, 709–734. goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family- doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 centered goals. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 37, 1263–1288. doi: 10.1111/etap. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for 12065 interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manage. J. 38, 24–59. Kozlowski, S. W., and Chao, G. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: doi: 10.5465/256727 Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Manag. Decis. Econ. 33, 335–354. Meier, O., and Schier, G. (2016). The early succession stage of a family firm: doi: 10.1002/mde.2552 exploring the role of agency rationales and stewardship attitudes. Fam. Bus. Rev. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging 29, 256–277. doi: 10.1177/0894486516646260 perspectives, enduring questions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50, 569–598. Memili, E., Fang, H., Chrisman, J. J., and De Massis, A. (2015). The impact of doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569 small-and medium-sized family firms on economic growth. Small Bus. Econ. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Los 45, 771–785. doi: 10.1007/s11187-015-9670-0 Angeles, LA: Sage Publications. Memili, E., Welsh, D. H., and Luthans, F. (2013). Going beyond research on goal Lambrechts, F., Voordeckers, W., Roijakkers, N., and Vanhaverbeke, setting: a proposed role for organizational psychological capital of family firms. W. (2017). Exploring open innovation in entrepreneurial Entrepr. Theory Pract. 37, 1289–1296. doi: 10.1111/etap.12066 private family firms in low-and medium-technology industries. Mikkelsen, E. N., and Clegg, S. (2018). Unpacking the meaning of conflict in Organ. Dyn. 46, 244–261. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017. organizational conflict research. Negot. Conflict Manage. Res. 11, 185–203. 05.001 doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12127 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 29 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms Miller, S. P. (2014). Next-generation leadership development in family businesses: Unpublished manuscript. Available online at: https://jairodmed.shinyapps.io/ the critical roles of shared vision and family climate. Front. Psychol. 5:1335. HOISAN_to_R/ doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01335 Rosenkranz, C., and Wulf, T. (2019). Behavioral integration as a relational Morillo, J. P., Reigal, R. E., Hernández-Mendo, A., Montaña, A., and Morales- governance mechanism in family firms—the moderating role of family Sánchez, V. (2017). Decision-making by handball referees: design of an ad hoc involvement in management. J. Small Bus. Manage. 57, 801–819. observation instrument and polar coordinate analysis. Front. Psychol. 8:1842. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12325 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01842 Sackett, G. P. (1980). “Lag sequential analysis as a data reduction technique Mussolino, D., and Calabrò, A. (2014). Paternalistic leadership in family firms: in social interaction research,” in Exceptional Infant. Psychosocial Risks in types and implications for intergenerational succession. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 5, Infant-Environment Transactions, eds D. B. Sawin, R. C. Hawkins, L. O. Walker, 197–210. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.09.003 and J. H. Penticuff (New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel), 300–340. Neff, J. E. (2015). Shared vision promotes family firm performance. Front. Psychol. Sánchez-Algarra, P., and Anguera, M. T. (2013). Qualitative/quantitative 6:646. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00646 integration in the inductive observational study of interactive behaviour: Overbeke, K. K., Bilimoria, D., and Somers, T. (2015). Shared vision Impact of recording and coding predominating perspectives. Qual. Quant. 47, between fathers and daughters in family businesses: the determining 1237–1257. doi: 10.1007/s11135-012-9764-6 factor that transforms daughters into successors. Front. Psychol. 6:625. Sanchez-Famoso, V., Maseda, A., and Iturralde, T. (2014). The role of internal doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00625 social capital in organisational innovation. An empirical study of family firms. Parada, M. J. (2015). Developing Governance Structures in Family Firms: From Eur. Manage. J. 32, 950–962. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2014.04.006 Adoption to Institutionalization. JIBS Dissertation Series. Sandelowski, M. (1996). One is the liviest number: the case Parada, M. J., and Dawson, A. (2017). Building family business identity orientation of qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health 19, 525–529. through transgenerational narratives. J. Organ. Change Manage. 30, 344–356. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199612)19:6<525::AID-NUR8>3.0.CO;2-Q doi: 10.1108/JOCM-10-2016-0200 Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of Pearce, C. L., and Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal organizational trust: past, present, and future. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32, 344–354. investigation of the innovation process: the central role of shared vision in doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.24348410 product and process innovation teams (PPITs). J. Organ. Behav. 25, 259–278. Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., and Chirico, F. (2013). Generational involvement doi: 10.1002/job.235 in the top management team of family firms: exploring nonlinear Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., and Shaw, J. C. (2008). Toward a theory of effects on entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 37, 69–85. familiness: a social capital perspective. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 32, 949–969. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00528.x doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00265.x Seyr, S., and Vollmer, A. (2014). Socio-moral climate, debate, and decision Pérez-Tejera, F., Valera, S., and Anguera, M. T. (2018). Using systematic comprehensiveness interplay for team innovation. Int. J. Conflict Manage. 25, observation and polar coordinates analysis to assess gender-based differences 105–123. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0060 in park use in Barcelona. Front. Psychol. 9:2299. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02299 Sharma, P., Chrisman, J. J., and Chua, J. H. (1997). Strategic management of the Pieper, T. M. (2010). Non solus: toward a psychology of family business. J. Fam. family business: past research and future challenges. Fam. Bus. Rev. 10, 1–35. Bus. Strat. 1, 26–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.02.003 doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1997.00001.x Pieper, T. M., Astrachan, J. H., and Manners, G. E. (2013). Conflict in family Sharma, P., De Massis, A., and Gagne, M. (2014). Family business: a fertile ground business: common metaphors and suggestions for intervention. Fam. Relat. 62, for research on time, teams and positive organizational study. Eur. J. Work 490–500. doi: 10.1111/fare.12011 Organ. Psychol. 23, 674–679. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.900046 Plano Clark, V. L., Foote, L. A., and Walton, J. B. (2018). Intersecting mixed Sorenson, R. L. (1999). Conflict management strategies used by successful family methods and case study research: design possibilities and challenges. Int. J. businesses. Fam. Bus. Rev. 12, 325–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.1999.00325.x Mult. Res. Approach. 10, 14–29. doi: 10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a1 Spector, P. E., and Bruk-Lee, V. (2008). “Conflict, health, and well-being,” in Plano Clark, V. L., Huddleston-Casas, C. A., Churchill, S. L., O’Neil Green, The Organizational Frontiers Series. The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict D., and Garrett, A. L. (2008). Mixed methods approaches in family Management in Organizations, eds C. K. W. De Dreu and M. J. Gelfand science research. J. Fam. Issues 29, 1543–1566. doi: 10.1177/0192513X0831 (New York, NY; Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group; Lawrence Erlbaum 8251 Associates), 267–288. Ployhart, R. E., and Hale, D. Jr. (2014). The fascinating psychological Stake, R. E. (1994). “Case studies,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds N. K. microfoundations of strategy and competitive advantage. Annu. Rev. Organ. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 236–247. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1, 145–172. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-09 Stedham, Y., and Skaar, T. B. (2019). Mindfulness, trust, and leader effectiveness: a 1312 conceptual framework. Front. Psychol. 10:1588. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01588 Portell, M., Anguera, M. T., Chacón-Moscoso, S., and Sanduvete Chaves, S. (2015). Steier, L. (2001). Family firms, plural forms of governance, and the evolving role of Guidelines for reporting evaluations based on observational methodology. trust. Fam. Bus. Rev. 14, 353–368. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2001.00353.x Psicothema 27, 283–289. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2014.276 Strike, V. M. (2012). Advising the family firm: reviewing the past to build the Portell, M., Sene-Mir, A. M., Anguera, M. T., Jonsson, G. K., and Losada, future. Fam. Bus. Rev. 25, 156–177. doi: 10.1177/0894486511431257 J. L. (2019). Support system for the assessment and intervention during Strike, V. M., Michel, A., and Kammerlander, N. (2018). Unpacking the black the manual material handling training at the workplace: contributions from box of family business advising: Insights from psychology. Fam. Bus. Rev. 31, the systematic observation. Front. Psychol. 10:1247. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019. 80–124. doi: 10.1177/0894486517735169 01247 Suess-Reyes, J. (2017). Understanding the transgenerational orientation of family Qiu, H., and Freel, M. (2020). Managing family-related conflicts in family businesses: the role of family governance and business family identity. J. Bus. businesses: a review and research agenda. Fam. Bus. Rev. 33, 90–113. Econ. 87, 749–777. doi: 10.1007/s11573-016-0835-3 doi: 10.1177/0894486519893223 Sundaramurthy, C. (2008). Sustaining trust within family businesses. Fam. Bus. Reay, T., Jaskiewicz, P., and Hinings, C. R. (2015). How family, business, Rev. 21, 89–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00110.x and community logics shape family firm behavior and “rules of Sundaramurthy, C., and Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity the game” in an organizational field. Fam. Bus. Rev. 28, 292–311. boundaries: The case of family businesses. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 32, 415–436. doi: 10.1177/0894486515577513 doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00234.x Reilly, T. M., and Jones, R. III. (2017). Mixed methodology in family business Tabor, W., Chrisman, J. J., Madison, K., and Vardaman, J. M. (2018). Nonfamily research: past accomplishments and perspectives for the future. J. Fam. Bus. members in family firms: a review and future research agenda. Fam. Bus. Rev. Strat. 8, 185–195. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.08.003 31, 54–79. doi: 10.1177/0894486517734683 Rodríguez-Medina, J., Arias, V., Arias, B., Hernández-Mendo, A., and Anguera, Tang, J. J. (2020). Psychological capital of entrepreneur teams and human resource M. T. (2019). Polar Coordinate Analysis, From HOISAN to R: A Tutorial Paper. development. Front. Psychol. 11:274. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00274 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 30 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730 Alvarado-Alvarez et al. Constructive Conflict Family Firms Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following Wang, Y., and Shi, H. X. (2020). Particularistic and system trust in family a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qual. Inq. 17, 511–521. businesses: the role of family influence. J. Small Bus. Manage. 1–35. doi: 10.1177/1077800411409884 doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12533 Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. J. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., and Werner, J. M. (1998). Organ. Behav. 29, 19–28. doi: 10.1002/job.473 Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for Tjosvold, D., Wan, P., and Tang, M. M. (2016). “Trust and managing conflict: understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23, partners in developing organizations,” in Building Trust and Constructive 513–530. doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.926624 Conflict Management in Organizations, eds P. Elgoibar, M. Euwema, and L. Wright, M., and Kellermanns, F. W. (2011). Family firms: a research agenda and Munduate (Cham: Springer), 53–74. publication guide. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 2, 187–198. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2011.10.002 Tjosvold, D., Wong, A. S., and Feng Chen, N. Y. (2014). Constructively managing Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 5th Edn. Los Angeles, conflicts in organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1, 545–568. CA: Sage. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091306 Yin, R. K. (2015). Qualitative Research From Start to Finish. New York, NY: Vaska, S., Massaro, M., Bagarotto, E. M., and Dal Mas, F. (2020). The digital Guilford Publications. transformation of business model innovation: a structured literature review. Front. Psychol. 11:539363. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.539363 Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the Vollmer, A. (2015). Conflicts in innovation and how to approach the “last mile” of absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a conflict management research–a literature review. Int. J. Conflict Manage. 26, potential conflict of interest. 192–213. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-09-2012-0062 Waldkirch, M. (2020). Non-family CEOs in family firms: spotting gaps and The handling editor declared a shared affiliation with several of the authors challenging assumptions for a future research agenda. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. CA-A, IA, and MA at time of review. 11:100305. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.100305 Waldkirch, M., Nordqvist, M., and Melin, L. (2018). CEO turnover in family Copyright © 2021 Alvarado-Alvarez, Armadans, Parada and Anguera. This is an firms: how social exchange relationships influence whether a non-family CEO open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution stays or leaves. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 28, 56–67. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017. License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, 05.006 provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the Walton, J. B., Plano Clark, V., Foote, L. A., and Johnson, C. (2019). Navigating original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic intersecting roads in a mixed methods case study: a dissertation journey. J. practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply Mixed Methods Res. 15, 436–455. doi: 10.1177/1558689819872422 with these terms. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 31 June 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 629730