Associate Professor, Management
CIBC Distinguished Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Business, Management
Peter Jaskiewicz conducts quantitative and qualitative research on family business and entrepreneurship. His current research interests involve transgenerational entrepreneurship, executive team compensation, nepotism, corporate reputation, and succession planning. His research has been published in journals such as Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Business Venturing, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Family Business Review, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Family Business Strategy, and Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.
In his teaching, Peter shares up-to-date knowledge on management, entrepreneurship, and family business with Bachelor, Master, and PhD students. Peter also organized an annual MBA Summer School on "Leadership in Europe" (2006-2008) and developed an annual European Study Tour on "Governance, Entrepreneurship and Family Business" (2009-2013) that included visits to BMW, Merck, the European Parliament, and the European Central Bank, among others.
Beyond research and teaching, Peter Jaskiewicz has successfully helped to fundraise more than $950,000 as the principal investigator or as a co-investigator from government and university agencies for international student exchange and research over the last years.
Peter Jaskiewicz is currently a review board member at Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Human Resource Management Review, and Family Business Review. In addition to these academic positions, Peter is an Advisory Board member at Venture for Canada (http://www.ventureforcanada.ca).
Doctor rerum politicarum (European Business School)
Areas of expertise
- Family business
COMM320 - Introduction to Entrepreneurship
Abstract: This course emphasizes the entrepreneurial aspects of management that are required to create, develop, and sustain either a new business venture or a major project/initiative within an existing organization. The integrative nature of the course requires an understanding of each functional area of business. Students will have the opportunity to demonstrate the teamwork, leadership, communication, and the other skills stressed throughout the program.
Prerequisites: COMM 222, 223 or 224, 305, 308.
Note: Peter Jaskiewicz is a course coordinator of COMM320.
Refereed Journal Articles
 Jaskiewicz, P. Luchak, A., In-Sue, O., & Chlosta, S. 2015. Areindividual differences really dead? The mediating role of regulatory career goals in the relationship between individual differences and entrepreneurial intentions and status. Journal of Career Development, forthcoming.
 Jaskiewicz, P., Block, J., Miller, D., & Combs, J. 2015. Owners and their different agency problems: CEO incentives and firm performance among founder-owned, family-owned, and manager-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, forthcoming.
 Jaskiewicz, P., Godwin, M., & Lutz, E. 2015. Too much family baggage to carry on? Succession as an impediment to firm survival and growth. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, in press.
 Reay, T., Jaskiewicz, P., & Hinings, C.R. 2015. Institutional logics and strategic approach: family and business logics in Canadian wineries. Family Business Review, in press.
 Jaskiewicz, P., Heinrichs, K.,Rau, S., & Reay, T. 2015. For money or love? Financial and socioemotional considerations in family firm succession. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, in press.
 Jaskiewicz, P., Miller, D., Block, J., & Combs, J. 2015. Founders versus family owners' impact on pay dispersion among non-CEO top managers: Implications for firm performance. Journal of Management, in press.
 Carney, M., & Jaskiewicz, P. 2014. Seven classic books that every family business scholar should read. Academy of Management Learning and Education, in press.
 Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J., & Rau, S. 2014. How an entrepreneurial legacy fosters transgenerational entrepreneurship in multi-generational family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, in press.
 Jaskiewicz, P. & Luchak, A.2014. Explaining performance differences between family firms with family and non-family CEOs: It’s the nature of the family tie that counts! Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37: 1361-1367.
 Block, J., Miller, D., Jaskiewicz, P., & Spiegel, F. 2013. Technological importance and economic value of innovations in large family and founder firms: An analysis of patent data. Family Business Review, 26(2): 180-199.
 Deephouse, D. & Jaskiewicz, P. 2013. Do family businesses have better reputations than nonfamily businesses? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3): 337-360.
 Jaskiewicz, P., Uhlenbruck, K., Balkin, D., & Reay, T. 2013. Can nepotism be a source of competitive advantage? A social exchange perspective on types of nepotism. Family Business Review, 26(2): 121-139.
 Block, J., Jaskiewicz, P., & Miller, D. 2011. Ownership versus management effects on performance in family and founder companies: A Bayesian analysis. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(4): 232-245.
 Block, J., Miller, D., Jaskiewicz, P., & Spiegel, F. 2011. Innovation in founder and family firms: Entrepreneurial versus nurturer identities of owners. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 31(13): 437-450.
 Niedermeyer, C., Jaskiewicz, P., & Klein, S. B. 2010. Can’t get no satisfaction? Evaluating the sale of the family business from the family’s perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3): 293-320.
 Astrachan J., & Jaskiewicz, P. 2008. Emotional returns and emotional costs in privately held family firms: Advancing traditional business valuation. Family Business Review, 21(2): 139-149.
 Pieper, T., Klein, S. B., & Jaskiewicz, P. 2008. The impact of culture on corporate governance – An agency and stewardship theoretical analysis of boards of directors. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3): 372-394.
 Jaskiewicz, P., & Klein, S. B. 2007. The impact of goal alignment on board size and board composition in family-owned businesses. Journal of Business Research, 60(10): 1080-1089.
 Jaskiewicz, P., Schiereck, D., & May, P. 2006. Nicht aktive Gesellschafter in Familienunternehmen – im Spannungsfeld zwischen Familienzugehörigkeit und Unternehmenskontrolle. Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship (ZfKE), 54(3): 175-196.
 Jaskiewicz, P., Gonzalez, V., Menendez, S., & Schiereck, D. 2005. Long-run IPO performance analysis of German and Spanish family-owned businesses. Family Business Review, 18(3): 179-202.
Astrachan, J., Pieper, T., & Jaskiewicz, P. (Eds.) 2008. Family firms. Edgar Elgar
Bernhard, F., & Jaskiewicz, P. 2010. Ownership perceptions in family businesses – Psychological difficulties of the retiring owner-manager. In Stamm, I., Breitschmid, P. & Kohli, M. (Eds.), Doing Succession in Europe: Generational Transfers in Family Businesses in Comparative Perspective (pp. 189-216). Zurich, Switzerland: Schulthess
Participation activities (2014-2015)
Refereed Conference Presentations
Block, J., Carney, M., Jaskiewicz, P., & Wagner, D. 2015. Bridging the Pacific divide: A meta-analysis on the role of the institutional context for the performance of family firms. Academy of Management Conference, Vancouver, Canada, August, 2015.
Block, J., Carney, M., Jaskiewicz, P., & Wagner, D. 2015. A meta-analysis on the role of the institution of family for the performance of family firms. EGOS conference, Athens, Greece, July, 2015.
Hoffmann, C., Jaskiewicz, P., & Wulf, T. 2015. Socioemotional wealth preservation and family-firm performance? The moderating role of outside board and management members. ASAC Conference, Halifax, Canada, June, 2015.
Jaskiewicz, P. & Reda, B. 2015. How do families imprint an entrepreneurial legacy on the next generation? A family science perspective. FERC Conference, Burlington, USA, June, 2015.
Jaskiewicz, P., Burrows, S., & Deephouse, D. 2015. How stakeholder identification with the family firm handcuffs the family firm: A qualitative analysis of Anheuser-Busch. FERC Conference, Burlington, USA, June, 2015.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J., & Rau, S. 2014. Entrepreneurial legacy: how some family firms nurture entrepreneurship across generations. Academy of Management Conference, Philadelphia, Aug. 2014.
Hoffmann, C.,Jaskiewicz, P., & Wulf, T. 2014. Socioemotional wealth preservation and family-firm performance? The moderating role of outside board and management members.A cademy of Management Conference, Philadelphia, Aug. 2014.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J., & Rau, S. 2014. Entrepreneurial legacy: how some family firms nurture entrepreneurship across generations. Journal of Business Venturing Conference, Shanghai, China(presented by J. Combs), May 2014
Jaskiewicz, P.,Combs, J., & Rau, S. 2014. Entrepreneurial legacy: how some family firms nurture entrepreneurship through succession across generations. TRANSEO 2ndBest Paper Award, Transeo Summit, Brussels, 2014. (presented by S. Rau).
Invited Research Talks and Workshops (2014-2015)
“The End of the Dynastic Approach.” Presentation for Business Families Foundation to be held in Miami, USA, November, 2015.
“How Much Should You Pay Your Non-Family CEO and Is S/he Worth It?” Invited Presentation at University of Toronto, Sept. 2015.
“Owners’ Different Impact on Pay Dispersion Among Non-CEO Top Managers: Implications for Firm Performance.” Invited Key Note Speech at University Paris-Dix Conference, July 2015.
“How Can You Have a Successful Academic Career in the Field of Family Business?” Career Workshop at FERC conference, Burlington, Vermont, June, 2015.
“Market Research and Business Models: How Google’s self-driving car will affect other industries.” Workshop for Venture for Canada at Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, May, 2015.
“Entrepreneurial legacy: how some family firms nurture entrepreneurship through succession.” Familienunternehmen 2014 Conference, WHU Vallendar, Germany (including Concordia video message)(presented by A. Wirsching), April, 2014.
Call for Papers
Human Resource Management Review
THE ROLE OF FAMILY SCIENCE THEORIES FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN FAMILY FIRMS
Jaskiewicz, Peter, (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Combs, James (email@example.com)
Shanine, Kristen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Balkin, David (email@example.com)
Family firms are the most common type of organization in the world and differ widely from non-family firms. Research, however, has only recently begun to develop theory about these organizations (e.g., Lansberg, 1983). Defined as firms that are significantly influenced by a family, family firms are unique in their characteristics, goals, and behaviors (Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999). For instance, family firms often develop unique organizational cultures that are fuelled by family values and appreciated by key stakeholders, such as employees (Vallejo, 2008). They pursue unique goals, such as transgenerational control, which is the desire to pass the firm to the next generation (Gómez-Mejía, Haynes, Núñez-Nickel, Jacobson, & Moyano-Fuentes, 2007). Finally, their unique characteristics and goals regularly nurture distinctive behaviors. For example, while family firms regularly hire family over more meritorious non-family members (Jaskiewicz et al., 2013; Schulze et al., 2001), they are also less likely to fire employees – even during economic downturns (Block, 2010).
Many of the identified differences between family and non-family firms carry important implications for Human Resource Management (HRM). For example, family firms differ substantially from non-family firms and from each other in terms of human capital management (Griffeth, Allen, & Barrett, 2006; Perez-Gonzalez, 2006), remuneration and remuneration systems (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2003), performance appraisal (Gómez-Mejía, Nuñez-Nickel, & Gutierrez, 2001), knowledge transfer (Cabrera-Suarez et al., 2001; Jaskiewicz et al., 2013), organizational citizenship behavior (Arregle et al., 2007), and workplace justice perceptions (Van der Heyden et al., 2005). Despite a rapidly growing number of important insights on the uniqueness of family firms (Gagne, Sharma, & De Massis, 2014), we still lack theory on how these differences come into place. Indeed, research has focused for too long on detecting family firm differences rather than developing theories to explain them. With this special issue call, we want to take an important first step to bridge this gap. We suggest that an essential aspect that distinguishes family firms from non-family firms and from each other is the family itself. Specifically, we posit that familial differences on the individual and group-level of analysis can help explain the prevalence and consequences of HRM practices across family firms.
Indeed, even among family business researchers, who might be most likely to embrace family in their analyses, there is “growing discomfort” with our lack of understanding about the role of “family” in family businesses (James, Jennings, & Breitkreuz, 2012, pg. 88). Because it is not known how families’ diverse structures and family-member relationships affect organizational actors’ decisions and behaviors, we do not know, for example, how sibling relationships or parenting style affect subsequent family leaders’ skills and their effects on employees’ psychological contracts, organizational citizenship behavior, workplace deviance, or any other factor known to impact behavior and success. Fortunately, we do not need to start from scratch to generate theory that can explain different ways that families influence family firms’ practices relevant to HRM. Researchers from education, psychology and sociology have already done much and summarized it under name “family science”. However, despite several calls, theory building that leverages family science theories in the context of family firms remains in its infancy (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Dyer, 2006; James et al., 2012; Olson, Zuiker, Danes, Stafford, Heck, & Duncan, 2003; Rogoff & Heck, 2003).
This call, therefore, takes an initial step toward leveraging family science research to explain family firm practices and outcomes of interest to HRM scholars. Building upon the small number of studies, mostly from organizational behavior/ HRM (e.g., Clark, 2000; Dencker, Joshi, & Martocchio, 2007; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Lewis & Cooper, 1995; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007) and family business (e.g., Distelberg & Blow, 2011; Dyer, 1986; Lubatkin, Durand, & Ling, 2007; Eddleston & Kidwell, 2012), that have started to leverage family science theories, we ask how can family science theories shed light on HRM in family firms. The following list provides exemplary research topics to stimulate thought but is no way exhaustive:
· Can rules and rituals within the family system help explain perceptions of organizational justice and characteristics of organizational culture among family firms?
· What are attributes of the family that support the different treatment of family and non-family members in family firms? Which HRM practices might attenuate the negative consequences of discrimination against non-family employees in family firms?
· What familial practices might enrich HRM practices in family firms and which are the familial practices that undermine important HRM practices?
· How do the ways in which families make decisions (e.g., about family successors) affect non-family employees’ attitudes and behaviours?
· How do work-life conflicts among family members affect the work-life balance practices that family firms adopt?
· Are family cohesion and family communication drivers of organizational culture in family firms?
· How do family shocks (e.g., divorce, rampant conflict) affect collaboration among family and non-family employees in the family firm?
· Can birth order help explain family member promotions and family member pay in family firms? Can it help explain successor management style?
· To what extent can the strength of kin ties help explain the feedback, resource access, and remuneration that family members receive relative to non-family members?
· To what extent does a family upbringing that highlights traditional male and female role models translate into disadvantages for female family and non-family employees in the family firm?
· Can traditional family role models explain business owners’ propensity to burnout or have other psychological work-related challenges?
· How does each gender’s empowerment in the family affect the prospect of working in the family business and becoming accepted as legitimate successors by non-family employees?
· Which parenting styles “create” unique family leaders who will become organizational citizens who have strong psychological contracts with their predecessors?
· How are family traditions and rituals (e.g., succession by the oldest son) passed on to the next generation of family members working in the family firm? Which HRM practices can sustain such practices, which ones can undermine them? Do some HRM practices lead to greater professionalization among family-member employees?
· How does a founder’s relationship with her/his children affect the willingness of 2nd and later generation family members to succeed and employees’ attitudes and behaviors regarding firm leadership?
· How do HRM practices, in turn, affect the development of family members’ family structures and family member-relationships?
These topics are merely examples of possible research questions and should not be considered an exhaustive list. We encourage submissions that use a wide range of method light on how families (e.g., their structures and family-member relationships) affect family businesses. Cross-level and interdisciplinary research are encouraged, as are studies from all over the world. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact one of the special issue guest editors: Peter Jaskiewicz at Concordia University; James Combs at University of Alabama; Kristen Shanine at University of Alabama; and David Balkin at University of Colorado – Boulder.
1st-15th of June, 2015: Submit abstracts (maximum 1,000 words) as Microsoft Word files (.doc or .docx files) to Peter Jaskiewicz by email at this address: firstname.lastname@example.org
15th of June-15th of July, 2015: Invitations to submit full papers will be sent out.
2nd of Jan. 2016: Submission of full papers for double blind review.
1st of Mar. 2016: Authors will receive feedback.
1st of July 2016: Full papers after 1st revision will be due.
1st of Sept. 2016: Authors will receive feedback.
1st of Dec. 2016: Full papers after 2nd revision will be due.
2017: Online versions of accepted papers appear on the HRMR web site within three months of acceptance. It will take another 6-9 months before the Journal volume will be published.
Consistent with HRMR’s scope, conceptual and theoretical papers are welcomed (not empirical). Proposals and papers should be submitted according to the journal’s guidelines and use the format (e.g. numbered headings, citations, references, figures, tables, etc.) according to the journal’s guidelines and consistence with the format seen in recent articles published in HRMR: http://ees.elsevier.com/humres/
Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 573–596.
Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The Development of Organizational Social Capital: Attributes of Family Firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73-95.
Block, J. (2010). Family management, family ownership, and downsizing: Evidence from S&P 500 firms. Family Business Review, 23, 109-130.
Cabrera-Suárez, K., De Saa-Perez, P., & García-Almeida, D. (2001). The succession process from a resource-and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review, 14(1), 37-46.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., Pearson, A.W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267-293.
Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19-39.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53, 747–770.
Dencker, J. C., Joshi, A., & Martocchio, J. J. (2007). Employee benefits as context for intergenerational conflict. Human Resource Management Review, 17(2), 208-220.
Distelberg, B. J., & Blow, A. (2011). Variations in family system boundaries. Family Business Review, 24, 28–46.
Dyer, Jr., W. G. (1986). Cultural change in family firms: Anticipating and managing business and family transitions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eddleston, K. A., & Kidwell, R. E. (2012). Parent-child relationships: Planting the seeds of deviant behavior in the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 369–386.
Gagne, M., Sharma, P., & De Massis, A. (2014). The study of organizational behavior in family business. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 643–656.
Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Nuñez-Nickel, M., & Gutierrez, I. (2001). The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 81-95.
Gómez-Mejía, L. R., Larraza-Kintana, M., & Makri, M. (2003). The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2), 226-237.
Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Haynes, K.T., Nunez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.J.L. & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106-137.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.
Griffeth, R.W., Allen, D.G., and Barrett, R. (2006). Integration of family owned business succession with turnover and life cycle models: Development of a successor retention process model. Human Resource Management Review, 16(4), 490-507.
James, A. E., Jennings, J. E., & Breitkreuz, R. S. (2012). Worlds apart? Rebridging the distance between family science and family business research. Family Business Review, 25, 87–108.
Jaskiewicz, P., Uhlenbruck, K., Balkin, D. B., & Reay, T. (2013). Is nepotism good or bad? Types of nepotism and implications for knowledge management. Family Business Review, 26(2), 121-139.
Jennings, J.E., Breitkreuz, R.S., & James, A.E. (2013). When family members are also business owners: Is entrepreneurship good for families? Family Relations, 62, 472-489.
Lansberg, I. S. (1983). Managing human resources in family firms: The problem of institutional overlap. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 39-46.
Lewis, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Balancing the work/home interface: A European perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 5(4), 289-305.
Lubatkin, M. H., Durand, R., & Ling, Y. (2007). The missing lens in family firm governance theory: A self-other typology of parental altruism. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1022-1029
Olson, P. D., Zuiker, V. S., Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Heck, R. K., & Duncan, K. A. (2003). The impact of the family and the business on family business sustainability. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 639-666
Perez-Gonzalez, F. (2006). Inherited control and firm performance. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1559-1588.
Rogoff, E. G., & Heck, R. K. Z. (2003). Evolving research in entrepreneurship and family business: Recognizing family as the oxygen that feeds the fire of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 559-566.
Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., Dino, R.N., & Bucholtz, A. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(2), 99-116.
Vallejo, M.C. (2008). Is the culture of family firms really different? A value-based model for its survival through generations. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 261-279.
Van der Heyden, L., Blondel, C., & Carlock, R. S. (2005). Fair process: Striving for justice in family business. Family Business Review, 18(1), 1-21.
Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work–family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 63-76.