First-, Second-, and Third-Generation Family Firms: A Comparison
比较了第一、二、三代家族企业，发现仅两个显著差异：第一代企业更少进行继任规划，且三代企业在创始人影响上无差别。
SAGE wishes to inform readers that the article titled “Bahavioral [sic] Characteristics of Entrepreneurs in the Gujrat, Gujranawala and Slalkot Industrial Clusters of Pakistan: A Comparisn [sic] of First, Second and Third Generation Family Firms,” by Shahid Qureshi, Sarfraz A. Mian, and Arif Iqbal Rana, published in Volume 1, Issue 2 (November 2010) of International Journal of Business and Social Science included substantial excerpts from this article, “First-, Second-, and Third-Generation Family Firms: A Comparison,” by Matthew C. Sonfield and Robert N. Lussier, Volume XVII, Number 3 (September 2004) of Family Business Review, without appropriate attribution to Drs. Sonfield and Lussier or authorization of the authors or SAGE. Numerous requests made by SAGE to the editor of International Journal of Business and Social Science to address the inappropriate use of this article have gone unanswered. SAGE has additionally been informed by the lead author of the IJBSS article, Shahid Qureshi, that Sarfraz A. Mian and Arif Iqbal Rana did not participate in the authorship of the IJBSS article, and authorship of the article was completed by Dr. Qureshi alone. There has been limited prior research into generational differences among family businesses. This study compared first-, second-, and third-generation family firms. Contrary to much of the current literature, only two significant differences were found when testing 11 hypotheses. As hypothesized, first-generation family businesses do less succession planning than second- and third-generation family firms, and there are no differences between first-, second-, and third- generation firms with regard to the influence of the firm's founder. Also, first-generation firms had the highest use of equity versus debt financing. Although not tested as a hypothesis, demographic analysis indicated fewer first-generation firms using the corporation form of ownership. Analysis of covariance indicated no spurious relationships existing in the hypotheses.