Knowledge that Transforms

We survey 153 empirical studies of family firms and document 192 operational definitions representing 25 distinct definition types. These definitions can be decomposed into five recurring, codable dimensions: ownership, management, board representation, embeddedness, and succession. We relate these dimensions to economic mechanisms including agency conflicts, residual control rights, transaction costs, and dynastic control. Alternative definitions select systematically different populations and yield materially different estimates of firm performance and innovation. Definition choice is largely unrelated to the research question, except in succession studies. Ownership thresholds track private enforcement of self-dealing rules, but not statutory shareholder rights or rule of law. We conclude that the family firm is a family of related constructs rather than a single latent construct. Definitions should therefore match the family-firm construct implied by the research question, and results should be reported across alternative classification rules.

We examine how GAAP‐based restrictions on managers' discretion over financial reporting influence financial statement users' efforts to acquire disclosure from management. During the question‐and‐answer part of a firm's conference call, we find that GAAP‐based restrictions are associated with more “account‐specific” questions by analysts (i.e., questions related to specific financial statement accounts). Managers appear to adjust current and future disclosure in response to analysts' questions, particularly when GAAP is restrictive: When an analyst asks a question about a particular account, managers are more likely to provide corresponding account‐specific information in their very next comment during the current call and in the presentation part of the next quarter's call. Furthermore, our tests suggest that when managers answer analysts' account‐specific questions, analysts' forecast quality is higher. Our study sheds light on the dynamic nature of the disclosure process between the constraints that managers face when preparing financial reports, users' efforts to acquire more financial statement information, and managers' provision of additional information. Overall, our findings suggest that users play an important role in triggering management disclosures and identifying the disclosures that are useful. Our analyses inform (1) standard setters, by showing that restrictions of reporting discretion shape not only mandatory reports but also the voluntary disclosure that emerges through manager–user interactions, and that restrictive GAAP may impose information acquisition costs on financial statement users; (2) managers, by showing that they can preempt the information deficiency created by restrictive GAAP through supplemental disclosure; and (3) analysts, by showing that they can achieve higher quality forecasts by actively soliciting information about accounts for which GAAP constrains what financial statements convey.

Recent AICPA surveys indicate disproportionate attrition among Black professionals attaining partnership in US public accounting firms, underscoring the need to better understand their experiences. Despite repeated calls for examination, understanding of these experiences remains limited, partly due to the difficulty in accessing the few Black partners in public accounting. To address this gap in the literature, we interview 26 Black professionals (20 partners and 6 aspirants) to explore how they navigate their journey to partnership in predominantly White firms. We identify three key milestones necessary for partnership: finding mentors who provide honest feedback, gaining career‐building experiences, and being seen as a culturally legitimate leader who aligns with organizational norms. By recalibrating their practices, Black professionals achieve partnership by decoding unwritten rules of the organization to build relationships with decision‐makers, obtain developmental feedback, access challenging assignments, and carefully balance the organization's cultural fit requirements with their personal identity. While these practices help some professionals reach partnership, the path remains uncertain, emotionally taxing, and often shaped by sponsorship, timing, and luck. Our findings suggest that firms can streamline the path to partnership by formalizing mentoring and sponsorship, distributing candid feedback and high‐visibility assignments more equitably, and making promotion criteria transparent—so that advancement depends less on luck and on the ability to decode unwritten rules. More broadly, our findings indicate that lasting change rests with organizations reshaping these conditions, rather than with individuals' efforts alone.