Family Business Management: A Case Study in the Portuguese Footwear Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s):

Congratulations for your efforts in this paper.

I think that the idea of understanding the reality of the management of family businesses in the footwear industry –through the vision of the CEO ́s of five companies that accepted to be the object of this case study– is interesting for the literature.

In any case, I have some concerns related to the development of the paper and I hope these comments and suggestions may be useful for improving your study. Good luck!

 

INTRODUCTION:

1.1.- The research objective addressed by this article is not clear. In this way, the storyline followed in this section should be improved. In particular, it is necessary to specifically contextualize the research problem to link it with the justification of your topic.

In addition, it is necessary to justify why it is relevant to focus on the topics selected (i.e., performance, management practices, succession, internationalization, property, etc). This should be justified in the introduction.

1.2.- In the introduction, authors should also answer the following question: What is the relevance of focusing on Portuguese context? What are the peculiarities of this context that make its consideration interesting for the literature?

1.3.- A greater effort is required to identify the theoretical and practical contributions derived from this study. This is a prominent issue where authors should pay more attention to address it.

 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:

2.1.- If a systematic review of the literature is carried out (as indicated in this second section), what was the procedure used? What were stages followed? What were the criteria used for including and/or excluding the articles used in this review? All of this should be clarified. Much more information is necessary.

In this way, see the following articles (which include excellent systematic literature reviews):

• Lozano-Reina, G., & Sánchez-Marín, G. (2020). Say on pay and executive compensation: A systematic review and suggestions for developing the field. Human Resource Management Review, 30(2), 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.01.004
• Nolan, C. T., & Garavan, T. N. (2016). Human resource development in SMEs: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12062

2.2.- In this article, family involvement in ownership and management is discussed, but “family involvement in governance” is not addressed and this could be of great relevance to complement this article.

2.3.- The sub-sections 2.1.2. ("management practices") and 2.1.3. ("succession") are overlapped since both include aspects related to "succession" (see page 3). This must be clarified.

2.4.- In relation to "professionalization" (sub-section 2.1.5), I think that more relevance has the professionalization of the board of directors (which is linked to family involvement in governance, whose importance is vital, as I stated in my comment 2.2). Even the authors talk about this professionalization of boards in the last paragraph (see page 6), but they refer to it as family involvement in "management" rather than "governance". This should not be confused !!!

2.5.- In relation to sub-section 2.1.6. (property) what a company is considered as concentrated or dispersed? See second paragraph of this sub-section.

 

RESEARCH METHOD:

3.1.- In relation to the interviews, much more information is necessary. In particular, who performs these interviews? What procedure is used? When are they done? By what means are they carried out?

3.2.- More information is necessary about MAXQDA18. I think this software is of great interest for data analysis and this should be more highlighted in the article.

3.3.- In the literature, although qualitative research is quite important, it is true that several studies recommended that this approach should be complemented with a quantitative analysis. In your case, could your primary information (obtained from the interviews) to be complemented with secondary information to provide more robustness?

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

 

I think this section is very well designed and written. I do not have suggestions or comment for improvement. Well done!

 

CONCLUSIONS:

5.1.- Beyond the result discussion, it is necessary to enhance both the theoretical and practical contributions that this article implies to current literature. Thus, authors should pay more attention to these contributions that might improve their article and add value.

5.2.- Delve into the limitations and, based on them, into future lines of research is highly recommended. The authors dedicate a very limited space to this aspect and a greater effort must be made.

 

OTHER ISSUES:

6.1.- Throughout the article, there are many words that appear in italics. This should be checked.

6.2.- The summary should be more attractive. Specifically, the purpose addressed, the methodology used, and the main results obtained should be stated clearer.

6.3.- The title of the article is not representative, since it only includes a part of the topics address, i.e., this article talks about many other issues beyond "performance".

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for all your work revising this article.

We wish you all the best in this new year 2021.

Please, see changes in Green Color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the authors,

The article is interesting.

The theme is interesting.

The article is easy to read.

The work has an interesting methodology.

Authors should add the following improvements to the article:

Authors must adapt the article to the standards of the journal. The authors must adapt the citations to the format of the journal. The references are not adapted to the standards of the journal. In general, the authors should review the article and adapt it to the standards.

Authors must update the section “Systematic Literature Review” from 2012 to 2020. In MDPI there are current numbers of open access articles that can be referenced from 2012.

Authors should add the year or years in which they collected the interview data.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for all your work revising this article.

We wish you all the best in this new year 2021.

Please, see changes in Green Color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors:

Thank you for considering my suggestions and comments. I think the quality of your paper has improved, but I still has some major concerns that need to be addressed before your paper can be publishable. Please allow me to state these concerns – some of which I already pointed out in my previous review report:

1.- Regarding your introduction, I think there is still no coherence in your storyline. To address this issue, specifically, I recommend to include the following points in your next version: (a) delve into the GENERAL and SPECIFIC contextualization of the problematic addressed in your paper; (b) identification of the research gap; (c) description of the objective to be addressed and justification based on the established gap; (d) justify the importance of the Portuguese context for this study, and how the evidence obtained for Portugal could also be helpful for other studies; (e) delve into the novel contributions that this article intends to make to the existing literature; (f) state succinctly the structure of your article.

2.- Authors indicated that a systematic literature review has been carried out. In that sense, it is completely necessary to delve into the method related to this systematic review. The paragraph introduced in this new version is totally insufficient. A systematic literature review literature has, by consensus, several steps that should be followed, and authors have not been mentioned these. In my previous review report, I indicated two recent papers who carried out systematic literature reviews in the field of "management" – and both follow the procedures established by Tranfield et colleagues. This must be deepened, included, and justified; the work done by the authors in this sense is really insufficient.

3.- From my point of view, it remains unclear why the authors address the different sections indicated in their article (i.e., performance, succession, property, professionalization, etc.). It is not enough to indicate (as stated in the introduction) that they are based on the data obtained from the interviews, but rather a theoretical and empirical justification is necessary to show their importance in this specific case.

4.- I recommend to change the order of the "conclusion" and "discussion / contributions" sections. I think the "conclusions" should appear after the “discussion”. In addition, it is also necessary to delve into your discussion and contributions. These remain quite superficial in this revised version.

Moreover, the authors highlight in the contributions of their paper the systematic literature review; however, the information contained on this review is quite scarce (as I stated in my second concern).

I hope these comments can be useful for improving your work. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for all your work in this second revision.

Please, see changes in Green Color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations on the job. The work has been improved. The authors have included the changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for all your work revising this article.

We wish you all the best in this new year 2021.

Note: See, please, the changes in green color during all paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors:

Thank you for taking my comments and suggestions into consideration. I think this new version has improved a lot and the article is close to being publishable.

In this stage, I only have two minor comments:

1.- I think your “summary” could be improved a lot. First, I recommend to synthesize it and to get straight to the point. much more to the grade. Second, I think that it is necessary to emphasize the gap that is covered, the objective covered, as well as the main results. As you know, many readers, based on paper’s summary, decide whether or not to read an article.

2.- In the introduction, I think that the definition and explanation regarding the objective covered is a bit confusing. Thus, it is necessary to clarify and be more specific in the wording related to this objective. And, based on this, briefly indicate the contributions made by this goal to the existing literature.

Good luck! I hope these comments can be useful for improving your work.

Author Response

Acknowledgements to Reviewer:

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for all your work in this second revision.

Please, see changes in Yellow Color

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf