2. Interact in patterns. There are predictable patterns of interaction that emerge in a family system.  These repetitive cycles help maintain the family’s equilibrium and provide clues to the elements about how they should function.

3. Have boundaries and can be viewed from open to close. Every system has ways of including and excluding elements so that the line between those within the system and those outside of the system is clear to all. If a family is permeable and vague boundaries it is considered “open.” Open boundary systems allow elements and situations outside the family to influence it.  It may even welcome external influences.  Closed boundary systems isolate its members from the environment and seem isolated and self-contained.  No family system is completely closed or completely open.

4. Use messages and rules to shape members. Messages and rules are relationships agreements which prescribe and limit a family members’ behaviour over time. They are repetitive and redundant. They are rarely, if ever, explicit or written down.  They give power; they induce guilt; they control or limit behaviours; and they perpetuate themselves and reproduce.

5. Have subsystems. Every family system contains a number of small groups usually made up of 2-3 people. The relationships between these people are known as subsystems, coalitions, or alliances. Each subsystem has its own rules, boundaries, and unique characteristics. Membership in subsystems can change over time.

 

References

BERLE, A. A., and MEANS, G. C. (1932).The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: World Inc.

Colli, A., Mary, R. (2000). Family business.Form of Business Organization, 9(1), 195-213.

Corbetta, G. (2001). “Family Business”, in N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Oxford: PergamonPress.

Harris, R. (2000). Industrializing English Law: Entrepreneurship and Business Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Habbershon, T. G. and M. L. Williams (1999). A Resource-Based Framework for Assessing the Strategic Advantages of Family Firms. Family Business Review 12 (1): 1-21

Howorth,  c., WESTHEAD, P., and WR1GHT, M. (2004). “Buyouts, Information Asymmetry and  the Family Management Dyad”. Journal of Business Venturing, 19/4: 50 9-34.

Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2003b). Exploring the agency consequences of  ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 179-194.

Sirmon, D. G. and M. A. Hitt (2003). Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27 (4): 339-358.

Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management,37(5), 13901412.

Westhead, P., and COWLlNG, M. (1998). “Family Firm Research: The Need for a Methodological Rethink: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, fall: 31-56.

Westhead, P., & Howorth, C. (2006). Ownership and management issues associated with family firm performance and company objectives. Family Business Review, 19(4), 301-316.