Family Business Goals in the

Tourism and Hospitality Sector:

Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis
from Australia, Canada, and Sweden

Tommy Andersson, Jack Carlsen, Donald Getz

This paper compares three case studies of family businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality
sectors in Canada, Sweden, and Australia. Goals for start-up, development, and ultimate disposi-
tion of the businesses are examined through cross-case analysis within the theoretical framework of
the business and family life-cycle. Analysis reveals remarkable similarities reflecting the promi-
nence of lifestyle considerations, location preferences, and uncertainty over disposition of the busi-
nesses. This paper assesses goals revealed through these cases and pertinent literature from the
tourism and hospitality sectors in the context of three stages in family business evolution. It also
draws research and management implications.

Introduction cent publications on nature-based tourism

This paper investigates the goals of family busi-
nesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sec-
tors through a cross-case analysis drawn from
Sweden, Canada, and Australia. In particular, it
examines goals in the context of family business
evolution pertaining to business start-up, growth
and development, and ultimate disposition of the
business. It also examines unique aspects of fam-
ily business in the rural tourism and hospitality
sectors and explores cross-cultural differences.
Research concerning family businesses in the
tourism and hospitality sectors is limited, yet fam-
ily businesses predominate in many tourism re-
gions, particularly in rural areas. For example, in
a survey of the entire membership of the Augusta-
Margaret River Tourist Association in Western
Australia, 90% of respondents were family busi-
nesses (Carlsen, Getz, & Ali-Knight, 1999). Al-
though small business issues are featured in re-
(McKercher, 1998) and rural tourism (Page &
Getz, 1997), family businesses are rarely identi-
fied as a unique subset of tourism. Page and Getz
(1997) document special challenges facing rural
tourism businesses in general and note that fam-
ily businesses are an important element in rural
tourism development.
International comparison of family busi-
nesses in these sectors is at the exploratory stage.
Through selected cases studies, it is hoped that
areas of convergence might be identified, lead-
ing to a more systematic study. By selecting com-
parable family businesses, specifically small in
size, located in small towns or rural areas, and
within the tourism and hospitality sectors, simi-
larities were expected. In addition, the three
countries chosen for case studies are not substan-
tially different in terms of culture and economic
development.

FAMILY BUSINESS REVIEW, vol. XV, no. 2, June 2002 © Family Firm Institute, Inc. 89
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz
Family Business Goals
Chua, Chrisman, and Sharma (1999) argue that
the theoretical essence of a family business lies
in the vision of its dominant family members. The
vision must be to use the business for the better-
ment of the family—potentially across more than
one generation. In this approach, the vision (or
motives and goals) and behavior of the firm are
differentiated from nonfamily businesses and
from businesses in which family involvement
makes no difference to its operations or future
development. These same researchers (Sharma,
Chrisman, & Chua, 1996) observe that family
business goals “are likely to be quite different
from the firm-value maximization goal assumed
for the publicly traded and professionally man-
aged firms” (p. 9).
Singer and Donahu (1992) touch on this is-
sue by identifying two distinct types: the family-
centered business, where the business is a way of
life, and the business-centered family in which
business is a means of livelihood. File, Prince,
and Rankin (1994) also categorize family busi-
nesses, distinguishing between those that were
uninvolved in issues of family dynamics, those
balancing family and business needs, some that
had family concerns as their primary goal, and
others that were most concerned with adapting
to changing conditions.
Westhead (1997) notes that although eco-
nomic theory postulated that the decision to es-
tablish a business should be based on an assess-
ment of the best alternative use of the
entrepreneur’s time, family business owners were
distinguished by providing employment for fam-
ily members of the management team and by
ensuring independent ownership of the business.
Dunn (1995) found that it was not uncommon
for family businesses to accept lower returns or
longer paybacks on their investments or to sus-
tain a lifestyle rather than to maximize profits or
personal revenue.
Tagiuri and Davis (1992) conclude from a
sample of family business owners that they did
not have one, single most important goal; rather,
they wanted their companies to accomplish many
goals simultaneously. Factor analysis identified
90
six groupings of goals: quality of work (e.g., happy
and productive employees); desired benefits and
financial security; innovation (new and quality
products); personal growth, social advancement,
and autonomy; being a good corporate citizen;
and job security.
Lee and Rogoff (1996) develop a concep-
tual framework (based on Lansberg, 1983) to
illustrate family-business interactions and pro-
pose pertinent hypotheses for testing. In this
model, family and business systems of attitudes
and goals interact, leading to conflicts and ulti-
mately negative impacts on business perfor-
mance. Reduced performance occurs when and
if family goals and needs dominate. The Lee and
Rogoff research involved 118 owners of small
businesses (in four American cities) in which two
or more family members worked and another
113 without family workers. Analysis revealed
no significant differences between family par-
ticipant and nonfamily goals and attitudes con-
cerning both lifestyle and money. However,
those respondents with family participants in the
business ranked higher the goal of building
something for their families. They also felt more
family business conflicts.
Life-cycle models of family business evolu-
tion provide a base for exploring goals pertain-
ing to the start-up, growth and development, and
ultimate disposition of businesses. Ward (1991)
hypothesizes three development stages, consist-
ing of “early, middle and late” that are influenced
by a number of forces: nature of the business,
characteristics of the organization, motivation of
the owner-manager, extent of family dominance,
organizational climate, and the business environ-
ment. In Ward’s schema, “family goals” start with
achieving “business success,” progress to “growth
and development of children” in the middle stage,
and finally focus on “family harmony and unity.”
The more complex life-cycle model formu-
lated by Gersick, Davis, Hampton, and Lansberg
(1997) includes three axes: ownership, business
evolution, and family change. The individual
stages along each axis are descriptive of basic
characteristics (e.g., the young business family
stage); however, the authors discuss motivations
 Family Business Goals in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector:
Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis from Australia, Canada, and Sweden
and goals. With respect to the start-up business,
Gersick, Davis, Hampton, and Lansberg (1997)
say, “In its earliest stage, a business is rarely much
more than a dream or a project its creator is test-
ing, to see if it can come to life” (p.108). Disap-
pointment might follow if children or other fam-
ily members do not share the dream. Where a
family business tradition exists, the vision of fam-
ily involvement might be more realistic. The
desire to impart a family legacy might increase
over time, as a business evolves.
Both “push and pull” factors are used to ex-
plain start-ups, with the desire to be one’s own
boss (involving independence and control) and
the challenge or excitement of seizing an oppor-
tunity that has a lasting impact on the business.
Gersick Davis, Hampton, and Lansberg (1997)
suggest that many controlling-owner start-ups
are not family businesses and do not become such
until and unless the founder comes to see the
business as a family asset rather than merely a
personal activity. A spouse may be a co-owner,
but the term copreneur should be reserved for situ-
ations where both partners have significant man-
agement authority.
Following a review of literature specific to the
tourism and hospitality sectors and presentation
of the case studies, the concluding section of this
paper returns to the life-cycle concept to examine
goals revealed by the literature and cases within
the three stages of start-up, development and
growth, and ultimate disposition of the business.
Family Business in the Tourism and Hos-
pitality Sectors. Within the rural tourism and
hospitality sectors, there is good reason to be-
lieve that motives and goals will be somewhat
different from other sectors and from nonfamily
businesses in general. Frequently, small, farm-
based family businesses (e.g., “farmstays,” cara-
van and campsites, bed and breakfast operations)
are established to support the main farm busi-
ness (Pearce, 1990; World Tourism Organization,
1997). They are also set up as a sideline or hobby,
usually by females (Lynch, 1996; Opperman,
1997).
Another major goal is that of realizing a de-
sired lifestyle, and McKercher (1998) concludes
that this applies to many nature-tour operators
in Australia. Smith (1998) evaluates small, third-
world tourism enterprises, noting that powerful
incentives existed for their establishment. A study
by Mendonsa (1983) of family tourism businesses
in Portugal concludes that those with capital
could benefit from tourism, but others in the
community could not. It was also observed that
running tourism businesses put considerable
strain on families, especially women, who did
most of the work. Kousis (1989) studies tourism
development in rural Crete, revealing growth in
family tourism businesses by spouses, with chil-
dren and parents helping out. Social activities of
families were affected, and parents helped new-
lyweds to set up businesses. Females ran most of
these family tourism businesses, with men work-
ing elsewhere.
In a study of small tourism businesses in
Victoria, Australia, Bransgrove and King (1996)
find that the top goals of owner-managers were
challenge/stimulus, business opportunity,
lifestyle, and long-term financial gain—all evenly
spread with 18% to 24% each. But lifestyle goals
were twice as frequent in rural areas. Other rural
tourism researchers point to the goals or rewards
of improved social lives (Pearce, 1990; Frater,
1982) and social standing (Pearce, 1990).
There is only one study specific to family
business goals in tourism and hospitality (Getz
& Carlsen, 2000). Following interviews with 12
family and owner-operated businesses, a mail-
back survey was conducted in Western Australia,
yielding data from 198 family or owner-operated
businesses (75% were accommodation operators,
primarily farmstays, caravan parks, and bed and
breakfast operations). Factor analysis of responses
to several sets of goal statements identified four
main sets of start-up goals that explained 60% of
the variance, with “lifestyle” being dominant in
terms of high mean scores and high factor load-
ing. “Living in the right environment” rated the
highest of all statements pertaining to business
start-up (mean = 4.51 out of 5), followed by “en-
joying a good lifestyle” (mean = 4.37). The re-
maining three factors—“stimulation,” “indepen-
dence,” and “money”— were of considerably
91
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz
lesser importance.
Seventy-six percent of the Western Austra-
lian respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
“I want to keep the business growing,” yet 76%
also agreed or strongly agreed that “I would
rather keep the business modest and under con-
trol than have it grow too big.” In addition, there
was a very high level of agreement (42.7% to-
tally agreed and 29.7% agreed) with the state-
ment “Enjoying the job is more important than
making lots of money.” This apparent contra-
diction between growth and enjoyment is surely
indicative of an underlying tension between fam-
ily and lifestyle goals on the one hand and busi-
ness ambitions on the other. Even though the
business is intended to support family and lifestyle
goals, it must be a success in generating income.
A very high percentage of the Western
Australian survey respondents (46.5%) were
uncertain about the ultimate disposition of their
businesses. One-fifth had no plans to keep
ownership within the family, whereas one-quarter
planned to will it to children or family members
on their death. A very small proportion had
already involved children or other family in
ownership (1%) or planned to do so by means
other than a will (7%). In total, only 33% of
respondents had done so already or indicated a
plan to involve children or family. Cross-
tabulation with business type did not reveal a
statistically significant difference.
Conclusions from the Literature Review.
Two major expectations arise from the literature.
First, family business goals are different from
other businesses, particularly where the business
is a means to realize personal and family ambi-
tions or meet family needs. Such cases can result
in less emphasis on growth and profit and more
on creating jobs for family members. Desire to
create a family legacy might very well shape de-
velopment and disposition of the family business.
Second, family businesses within the tour-
ism and hospitality sectors respond to a some-
what unique set of opportunities and challenges.
The opportunities include a special set of ser-
vices found in rural areas and small towns or re-
sorts, microbusinesses that can enhance the in-
92
come of farmers, and more mainstream busi-
nesses (e.g., hotels and restaurants) that can be
successful in rural areas. Lifestyle and location
preferences of the founders are likely to have a
profound impact on many of these family busi-
nesses. Unique challenges include the high level
of direct personal service that is often required
and the intrusion of business activities directly
into the family home environment.
Method
As Tagiuri and Davis (1992) note, not only is little
known about the goals of family companies, it is
also difficult to determine what they are. Execu-
tive goals might conflict with those of employ-
ees, the company and family might hold differ-
ent goals, ideals might conflict with practical
goals, and a desired end result might entail mul-
tiple, sometimes inconsistent means. In addition,
goals are likely to change over time. But these
authors believe that in family businesses, where
owner-managers have a stronger voice, the best
place to begin is with the expressed goals of the
owners.
Cross-case analysis is a means of grouping
together common responses to interviews as well
as analyzing different perspectives on central is-
sues (Patton, 1990).
It begins with writing a case for each unit
studied, then grouping answers together accord-
ing to questions, themes, or central issues. In
this way, the interview questions provide the de-
scriptive analytical framework and the basis for
comparison of the family businesses studied.
The current analysis is based on three main
themes that are common to all family business
research—namely, goals of the family in rela-
tion to business start-up, growth and develop-
ment, and ultimate disposition of the business.
It should be noted that other strategies for ana-
lyzing case studies are possible, including a fo-
cus on key events, various settings, people, pro-
cesses, or issues.
Interviews leading to the preparation of case
studies were conducted during 1999 and 2000.
Questions covered basic business information,
 Family Business Goals in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector:
Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis from Australia, Canada, and Sweden
including ownership, the roles of family mem-
bers involved in the business, number of staff,
business operations, when the business was es-
tablished or acquired, financial turnover, and the
education levels and previous business experi-
ences of owners. The following questions spe-
cifically covered goals:
• What were your personal motives or goals
when starting up (or purchasing) this busi-
ness?
• Did all family members share these goals?
Were other reasons involved?
• What do you want to see happen to the
business? Have you any plans to develop
it? And what of your personal involvement
in the business?
• Will you sell the business, or will it stay
in the family? What do you prefer?
Interviews were conducted with individual
family members at a time and location conve-
nient for respondents, mostly at the place of busi-
ness or family home. All participants signed a
consent form. However, for the purposes of this
paper, only first names are used. The analysis
pertains to goals of founders and owners, not
those of other family members working in the
businesses.
The businesses selected for study are not
necessarily representative of all family businesses
in the three countries. They were selected on the
basis of personal contacts and, in some cases, with
a minimum of advanced knowledge about the na-
ture of ownership and family involvement. The
intent was to interview only businesses with chil-
dren or other family members directly involved,
but the analysis includes one sole proprietor. Al-
though different from the others, the sole pro-
prietor case is useful in revealing differences in
family involvement but similarities in goals.
The nine businesses selected for this analysis
consisted of accommodation, attraction, catering,
recreation, and tour operators—all in rural areas
or small towns. Some of these businesses
incorporate more than one type of revenue
source, with the simplest being cabins for rent
and the most complex consisting of a combined
campsite, cabins, motel, café, rental house,
catering, and recreational activities. Direct
comparison of identical types of businesses was
not possible with such limited coverage.
Figure 1 provides a summary comparison of
the nine cases, each of which is described in
greater detail below. The cases are identified as
A-1 to A-3 for Australia, C-1 to C-3 for Canada,
and S-1 to S-3 for Sweden.
Case Studies
Case A-1. Rob inherited a working farm in
Western Australia, but over time the viability of
grazing became more and more tenuous. To sup-
port his family and keep the land, a caravan park
and five cabins were established on the farm. His
wife, Julie, who believes that rural life is best for
their three children, supported this development.
Rob assessed the options and concluded that a
low-cost caravan park was needed in his region,
and he set out to develop it in stages. Although
his venture entailed a risk, the value of the land
remains higher than the capital costs. In addi-
tion, the mortgage necessary to finance the
project is served over the farm, which yields tax
advantages. The business now demands a full-
time, paid manager, especially because Rob wants
to devote more time to farming. Currently, they
use the unpaid services of an elderly couple who
are provided with free accommodations and food.
Case A-2. Ross and Marion established a
boat tour company as an opportunity to gener-
ate income for their retirement and as a self-em-
ployment opportunity for themselves and their
son, Gary. Gary later returned to the area from a
professional career to take part in the business,
which he plans to inherit and expand. There have
been seven generations of this family in the area,
as pastoralists renting land from the government,
and this was their first tourism-oriented venture.
An important motivator for the family is to live
and work in this beautiful coastal region, where
their ancestors were true pioneers. Marion is fi-
nancial manager and Ross and Gary handle the
cruises, but roles are not fixed and overlap. Cur-
rently, the business operates a 2-1/2-hour coastal
cruise at 10 a.m. every day departing from the
93
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz
town jetty. The other cruise is a 3-1/2-hour river
cruise that operates in the summer. Both tours
include a detailed interpretation of the natural
and social history of the area as well as guided
walks at selected sites.
Case A-3. This accommodation business is
situated on a 2,000-hectare subtropical rainforest
property adjoining a World Heritage-listed na-
ture reserve in eastern Australia. It features pris-
tine surroundings, luxury bungalows, walking
trails, fine cuisine, and a small functions center.
In keeping with the theme of peace and tranquil-
ity, accommodation is limited to seven couples
at any one time, and each bungalow provides to-
tal privacy amidst the rainforest. Bungalows have
all modern facilities and guests can order fine
cuisine prepared on the property by the owners,
Ralph and Judy. This couple established the busi-
ness in 1992 after retiring from their professional
careers. They explicitly sought a natural location
because of Ralph’s lifelong interest in wildlife and
nature, whereas Judy brought with her a love of
art and cooking. Professionals were hired to de-
sign the development, which has won several
environmental tourism awards. Two daughters
are involved on a part-time basis.
Case C-1. John and Mary are owners of an
inherited family farm in Western Canada. They
developed an equestrian facility and stables in
large part to provide their daughter, Sandra, with
her own business, but also from a love of horses
and riding. “Horses have always been an interest
to family members and a focus of family activi-
ties,” they admit. The decision was made through
family consensus and represented an ambitious
vision both in terms of the quality of the estab-
lishment and their financial and time commit-
ment to it. Sandra leases the facility from her
parents. Such a legal arrangement protects the
family farm and house from the risk of business
failure. John works off-site but contributes to the
business, whereas Mary works full time with her
daughter in running the stables. A second daugh-
ter works off-site and contributes on an occa-
sional basis. Sandra employs a full-time instruc-
tor, who is more of a partner in running the busi-
ness, and several working students are employed
94
seasonally. Mary has received permission to op-
erate a bed and breakfast in the adjacent family
house, and they have considered other possible
tourism-related developments on the farm.
Case C-2. This business is a seasonal,
lakeside campsite and resort development estab-
lished in 1984 on family farmland. Owners Sam
and Jean wanted to retain the family farm and
stay in their rural environment. Jean had the vi-
sion (she admits it was largely an emotional de-
cision) to create a tourism operation that would
supplement farm income and make life better for
her children. In part, it was realization of her
mother’s unfulfilled dream to operate a business,
as well as the desire to create a legacy for future
generations. The family is self-described as “con-
servative” and “thrifty,” and the notion of family
legacy runs deep. In fact, an on-site museum fea-
tures possessions passed down from Jean’s grand-
parents, who settled the area. Sam was too busy
to contribute at the start, and not all of the chil-
dren shared Jean’s goals, but the resort they es-
tablished proved to be successful and soon de-
manded all of their time and energy. The family
continues to raise some cattle. In addition, they
developed a small housing subdivision and ac-
quired a nearby house to offer as luxury accom-
modations. Jean functions as office manager, han-
dling financial and marketing elements of the
business, but also works in the cafe kitchen and
operates their off-site catering business. Sam is
in charge of the physical plant and makes con-
tinuous improvements to the infrastructure. Two
daughters work full time, and some of their chil-
dren are employed seasonally. One son was work-
ing toward taking over the business but was tragi-
cally killed in a car accident several years ago. A
second son does not participate in the business.
Case C-3. This business consists of a ma-
rina, rental motorboats, and a fishing charter and
boat tour operation within a Canadian National
Park. Land is leased from Parks Canada by own-
ers Ian and Brenda, who purchased the business
from an acquaintance. Ian had been working lo-
cally in the hotel and golf sector when the op-
portunity arose to purchase the company. He
specifically wanted “challenging, hands-on” self-
 Family Business Goals in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector:
Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis from Australia, Canada, and Sweden
employment, working with his wife.
Brenda supported the decision, but had no
specific interest in self-employment. Now they
operate the business full time with the help of
their niece, Diane, who is general manager and
being groomed to take over eventually. The
couple has no children of their own. Twenty sea-
sonal workers complement the three family mem-
bers, as the lakeside facility can run only four to
five months of the year. Ian is president and makes
major decisions, whereas Brenda is in charge of
the financial books.
Case S-1. Gunnar and Maude built cabins
in the Swedish mountains near a resort town to
rent to vacationers. Gunnar thought this would
provide easy income, but it turned out to be dif-
ficult. During the recession of the early 1990s,
they almost went bankrupt owing to debt charges
and low demand. Currently, they manage 10
rental units in five buildings, without assistance
of any staff or family members. The land was in-
herited, as was their nearby family farm. The
couple lives part of the year (winter) in the moun-
tains near their cabins and part in the valley on
their farm. They love the rural lifestyle and have
strong ties to the land, including a 100-year-old
tradition of the family having some connection
to the tourism sector. The idea of a continuing
family legacy appeals to them.
In addition, Gunnar’s brothers operate rental
cabins or build and sell them. The main tourist
attraction is cross-country skiing, and Gunnar
voluntarily helps maintain the areas’ trail system,
but the business is highly seasonal. Gunnar and
Maude have a son who attends university else-
where and has not been involved in the business.
Another son was killed in a car accident a few
years ago. That tragedy drastically affected the
family, in part because that son was interested in
staying in the rural area; he might have taken over
the business.
Case S-2. The business consists of a small
rural hotel situated along a river and close to down-
hill ski facilities. It is owned and operated by a
married couple, Johan and Malin, who have three
young children. Johan had worked in this resort
area as a ski instructor and hostel manager, and
the couple wanted to remain. They purchased the
hotel four years ago as an attractively priced busi-
ness opportunity when the previous owner went
bankrupt—they had no previous links to the site
or the business. The hotel is aimed at the budget-
conscious traveller and contains a restaurant; meals
are part of this “pensionnat’s” packaged service. It
also has a small meeting room for groups. The
family lives in part of the hotel building, and the
young children are growing up with hotel work
and guests as a natural part of their lives. Malin is
training as a chef and runs the food service, and
although Johan had previous hostel-management
experience, he is still learning a great deal about
the job.
Case S-3. This case is somewhat different
from the others in that it is owned by a sole pro-
prietor with only a minor degree of family in-
volvement. Ole, the owner, founded this guiding
service with two male friends who became busi-
ness partners, then purchased all shares after it
had evolved into a corporation with its own board
of directors. Ole had grown up in this resort town
and wanted to remain for the lifestyle and family
connections. Guiding for outdoor recreation ac-
tivities was originally a sideline to being an auto
mechanic, but it was definitely more fun. The
company now employs “guides” and other staff
on a part-time basis, mostly for winter sport ac-
tivities and, more recently, for corporate func-
tions tied to conventions held in local hotels. Ole’s
father was a permanent but unpaid fixture at the
company’s campsites, as cook, and his mother
provided some of the food. Ole’s female partner
helps out on a casual basis. Now Ole has definite
plans to sell and start another business.
Cross-Case Analysis of Start-Up Goals.
The nine cases make it very apparent that
founders of family businesses often have multiple
motives and goals, although lifestyle and loca-
tion goals are dominant. This finding reflects the
conclusions of the Western Australian research
(Getz & Carlsen, 2000).
As a subset, ties to the land (especially in-
herited property) are powerful motivators for
remaining in or returning to rural areas (A-1, C-
1, and S-1). Stimulation pertains to the challeng-
95
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz
ing work explicitly sought by some of the case
study respondents and seems to be closely related
to the desire for independence through self-em-
ployment (C-2, C-3, S-1, and S-2). Monetary
goals are reflected in the need to supplement farm
income (A-1 and C-1) or generate revenue dur-
ing or for retirement (A-2 and A-3). However, it
appears that although making money is impor-
tant to all of the respondents, it is not in itself
the primary motivator. Planning and developing
a family legacy (C-1 and C-2) was also revealed
to be an important goal, although other cases
certainly demonstrated a concern that the busi-
nesses are kept in the family, if possible.
Rural and small-town tourism and hospital-
ity businesses are often a means to an end. In
fact, these sectors provide a wide range of family
business opportunities, ranging from a
microbusiness (such as operating a bed and break-
fast service out of one’s home) to development of
resorts or recreational facilities on inherited land
to the operation of tour services independent of
land ownership to the development of luxury
bungalows in attractive natural settings. Previ-
ous experience in operating these types of busi-
ness is not necessarily required.
Business Development Goals
Case A-1. Rob has many development ideas, but
is cautious and will base decisions on profitabil-
ity. He thinks that when an average annual occu-
pancy rate of 60% is achieved, it is time to ex-
pand—or run the risk of turning away business.
This applies mostly to the cottages, which gen-
erate the majority of his revenue. Cottages cover
their costs at just 20% occupancy. He is also con-
sidering adding a tearoom, swimming pool, and
more caravan pitches. Diversification into bot-
tling rainwater is a possibility. Rob views these
developments as adding value to the caravan park,
rather than deliberate growth. What he really
wants most is to be able to turn over manage-
ment of the business to a professional so that he
can devote most of his time to farming.
Case A-2. Gary is an innovator, with plans
to grow and diversify the family business sub-
96
stantially. He works as a formal partner with both
his parents but also runs his own home-based
business in computer-assisted design, environ-
mental management consulting, and guide ser-
vices. His vision is to expand the business his
parents created, possibly partnering with his
cousin, Rob, whose family currently operates a
houseboat and bed and breakfast business locally.
Expansion would include a chalet/restaurant
complex along the main coastal highway that
would serve as company headquarters and base
camp for ecotours. Accommodation would be of
the backpacker category. But it will require a lot
of work and financing to become feasible. Part-
nership with his cousin is a real possibility, as both
are involved in separate, local tourism-related
businesses. Gary has already hired an employee
to do both marketing and tour interpretation, and
he speaks of retaining subcontractors to work
under the same company name. He would train
contractors to run the boat tours and get out of
that operation himself.
Case A-3: After eight years of running the
rainforest accommodation business in a hands-
on manner, Ralph and Judy want to hire more
staff. They have already made substantial im-
provements by adding spa baths to their bunga-
lows, but now envisage the addition of more ac-
commodation to generate the necessary revenue
for hiring employees. At the moment, they do
not want to borrow money and are also concerned
that too much development and many more
guests could destroy their natural attraction.
With a great deal of undeveloped land under their
ownership, opportunities for adding value are
great. They are weighing the pros and cons care-
fully.
Case C-1. Sandra’s equestrian center is a new
business, designed from the outset to be a high-
quality recreational attraction. The family seems
unanimous that major physical expansion is not
wanted in the near future. Rather, improved fi-
nancial returns are the main business goal, as so
far Sandra has been unable to draw a salary. This
will depend on establishing a loyal client base. In
addition, Sandra contemplates taking on a busi-
ness partner and hiring a full-time manager to
 Family Business Goals in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector:
Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis from Australia, Canada, and Sweden
leave more leisure time for everyone in the fam-
ily. The farm will certainly support more devel-
opment, and there is discussion of a range of
improvements to the stable’s infrastructure. A
number of tourism-related developments for the
farm are also being considered for the future.
Case C-2. Sam and Jean, who thought they
were close to retirement before the death of their
son, continue to work hard at the business. It is
developed to the point where the emphasis is on
quality improvements, not physical expansion,
but there has been recent growth in the form of
acquiring a nearby house to use as luxury accom-
modation and for functions. The family also
wants to develop off-site catering to ensure all-
year revenue. Such a move became more impor-
tant as the number of family members depen-
dent on the resort expanded, with grandchildren
now becoming involved. Another family goal is
to rely more on paid staff to ease the burden on
family members, but this, too, requires secure,
all-year income.
Case C-3. Development of Ian and Brenda’s
boat business is limited both by the lease arrange-
ments with Parks Canada and the short season
available for water activities. The family plans to
continue refreshment of its capital equipment
and, possibly, add a new tour boat, but they can-
not purchase the land. They explicitly rejected a
chance to buy a separate business somewhere else;
although it would have generated all-year in-
come, it would also have required moving or at
least losing focus on their operation in the na-
tional park. Growth in revenue, therefore, has to
occur mostly through enhanced marketing.
Case S-1. The priority for Gunnar and
Maude is to increase demand throughout the year
and thereby improve their cash flow. They want
to avoid taking on debt, having already had one
near-bankruptcy experience. With the recent
family acquisition of more forest land, the idea
arose to use their small sawmill to make wood
and build more cabins, perhaps selling some of
them. However, there is a lot of ongoing labor
associated with each unit, which makes this idea
less appealing. The couple has also considered
selling off all their units to generate retirement
income, but has so far resisted this option, say-
ing, “When they are gone, they are gone…”
Case S-2. Johan and Malin want to expand
low-season demand for greater profitability and
to permit hiring more staff. This move will re-
quire improved marketing and, perhaps, some re-
development. They have thought about reduc-
ing the number of bedrooms and expanding
meeting space to attract more groups. More ac-
tivities could be provided on site and through
packaging. The property includes an old, unoc-
cupied house and a barn, which both figure into
their expansion plans. In the house, a small cafe,
souvenir shop, and information center could be
developed to take advantage of the adjacent his-
torical site; some European Community funds
might be available. The local government might
also contribute to refurbishment of the house to
help develop the area’s tourism infrastructure.
The barn can be kept very much like it is, but
turned into a venue for historically themed func-
tions. This would also be aimed squarely at the
conference market, including those staying on
site or elsewhere. The family plans to do all of
the work and is looking five or six years into the
future for completion.
S-3. Ole has already decided to sell the busi-
ness and start a new venture. By way of making a
transition, he might stay on awhile and consult
to the new owners.
Cross-Case Analysis of Development
Goals. The international cases reveal that growth
and expansion of scope was a normal part of most
of the businesses, with owners clearly anticipat-
ing further development options. However, the
motivation often appears to be more family re-
lated—namely, to generate sufficient income to
support the hiring of staff (A-3, C-1, C-2, C-3,
and S-2)—thereby freeing up time and energy
for the family members. The owners seemed to
view business development more as “value add-
ing” than growth for the sake of growth. And
most were cautious about expansion. Constraints
to growth were noted, including a fear of debt
(A-3 and S-1) and deterioration of the resource
base (A-3).
Expansion of family businesses will enable
97
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz
the businesses to support an increased number
of family members or employees; however, ex-
pansion can also add significantly to the debt
burden of the businesses and requires a longer
term commitment by all family members to the
businesses. In many cases, the expansion plans
for family businesses are regarded with caution,
not only by family members, but also by poten-
tial lenders.
Disposition Goals
Case A-1. Both Rob and Julie are young enough
to plan to continue as owner-managers well into
the future. However, they have reached a point
where they must now appoint a paid manager,
as Rob is keen to devote more time to farming.
The decision whether the children will take over
the business will be made in consultation with
the whole family. The oldest, a 16-year-old boy,
has so far not expressed interest in taking over
the farm or caravan park. They have no clear
disposition plan, but Rob is adamant that he will
not sell the farm or business. A lease to other
managers might be considered, or the appoint-
ment of full-time managers as employees is an-
other option, with Rob and Julie getting out of
operations.
There is always some risk in developing a
new business. For Rob, the main risk was the
threat of losing the land, which he views as a part
of his heritage that should be passed on to his
children in the same way his parents bequeathed
the farm to him. He will always be reluctant to
sell any of his land—”Once it is gone, it is gone.”
Case A-2. The exact manner and timing of
ownership transference from parents to son has
not been finalized. Gary works in accordance with
a business plan, and a high level of professional-
ism is a hallmark of this small family business.
He suggests that many initiatives in family busi-
ness come from children rather than parents—a
fact that is corroborated by his cousin, Rob, who
started the houseboat business with his parents.
Although independent now, these two related
families might very well merge some of their
operations in the future. Gary is unmarried so,
98
for the moment, succession beyond his genera-
tion is not an issue.
Case A-3. Ralph and Judy are unsure about
their plans for disposition of the business. They
have enjoyed living and working in the rainforest
environment and would find it difficult to move
away. The nature of the business is such that it
would require a unique set of skills to take over
running the business successfully. Both Ralph
and Judy feel that they have not yet found any-
one who possesses those skills. They also dis-
play a deep commitment to maintaining the en-
vironmental integrity of the rainforest, which
would have to be considered in any disposition
decision. Their two daughters currently work
in the business on a part-time basis and are ac-
quiring the skills and experience to work in tour-
ism and hospitality. Fiona’s preferred option
would be to run the administration and office
of the business. She is currently completing a
small-business management course at the local
college, requiring such skills as basic bookkeep-
ing, business planning, and business negotiation
skills. Ralph and Judy agree that training the
children to take over running the business is a
difficult task because, in Ralph’s opinion, “…you
can’t treat your children like employees.” He
has observed that the children do not appear to
be as committed to the business as both he and
Judy are, which makes the issue of disposition
and succession a difficult one.
Case C-1. Because the stables were devel-
oped specifically for Sandra to operate, and it is
a separate legal entity, a major succession-related
question is already answered for Mary and John.
Both daughters will inherit the farm, and there
is potential scope for both of them eventually to
own and manage the stables. In addition, a full-
time employee works almost like a partner in
managing the stables, and her future involvement
in ownership is an open question. For this fam-
ily, maintenance of the family farm and home is
a given, even if the business goes in a different
direction.
Case C-2. Sam and Jean’s older son was
being groomed for taking over the business
before the fatal accident. The family then entered
 Family Business Goals in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector:
Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis from Australia, Canada, and Sweden
a period of retrenchment, contemplation, and
change in which both daughters started to play a
more important, full-time role in the business.
Succession plans have had to be rethought. Can
either or both daughters fully manage the
business if the parents completely retire? Their
roles are not completely determined and will
likely evolve. Another son, who has not been
active in the resort business, will be considered
when it comes to inheritance. The option of
selling the business outside the family has been
considered, but Sam and Jean have doubts that a
buyer willing to pay an acceptable price could be
found. In addition, they both express a strong
desire to keep the land and business in the family
as an ongoing legacy.
Case C-3. Ian and Brenda’s business could
be sold as a going concern, especially because a
long-term lease has been secured. But their niece,
Diane, is learning to become manager and it is
expected that she will eventually take over at least
part of the ownership. The business might work
best, they think, as a partnership arrangement
with the current and part-time operational man-
ager, who is not a family member. Because this
business does not involve a family farm or home,
there is less concern about inheritance. Never-
theless, the owners wanted a niece or nephew to
be given the opportunity to take over the busi-
ness, and it appears that this will occur.
Case S-1. Farming is no longer a subsistence
activity in this region, but rural traditions asso-
ciated with farming and forestry endure. Gunnar
recognizes that his family cabin business is re-
lated to a lifestyle preference and wants this to
continue through his retirement. However, the
future of the business is not certain. Could
Gunnar recommend this type of business to an-
other family? He is doubtful, citing hard work,
minimal financial returns, and the normal chal-
lenges of working with close family members. He
thinks his arrangement, with the brothers and
other family members, is somewhat unique and
definitely not typical of family businesses in this
region. With the loss of their son and intended
business heir, Maude and Gunnar are uncertain
about continuing this tourist-cabin business.
There is the possibility of selling cabins, but once
they are gone, the potential earnings from the
remainder might be inadequate for their needs.
Another option is to sell the whole operation as
their retirement fund.
Case S-2. Succession or disposal of the ho-
tel is not currently an issue for Malin and Johan,
as they are still in the self-defined “development
stage.” Their children are too young to partici-
pate in the business, but the parents would like
them to be able to continue to live in this attrac-
tive rural area.
Case S-3. Succession is not an issue for Ole,
given his decision to sell the business and the
absence of potential heirs. Although family mem-
bers have been involved informally in his guide
service, there was never an ownership or employ-
ment relationship.
Cross-Cases Analysis of Disposition Goals.
Analysis supports the frequent observation that
disposition plans are lacking in family businesses,
with only three of the nine cases having firm
inheritance plans (A-2, C-1, and C-3). Five were
uncertain about ultimate disposition, reflecting
their youth or a lack of obvious family successors,
but two of these expressed a desire to keep the
business in the family (A-1 and C-2). The one
sole proprietor decided to sell outside the family
(S-3), whereas at least two of the other cases at
least contemplated selling the business as a
retirement fund (A-3 and S-1).
Although there are no data specific to the
generational transfer of tourism and hospitality
family businesses, generally, the literature on fam-
ily businesses finds that very few survive beyond
the first generation (Stavrou, 1999). For example,
in Australia, 71% of a sample of family businesses
were first generation and only 3% were forth
generation (Smyrnios, Romano, & Tanewski,
1997).
This fact raises the issue of barriers to in-
heritance. Based on the nine case studies, at least
several categories of barrier can be suggested.
The first relates to the viability of the business—
namely, whether there is adequate income po-
tential to support the next generation or, perhaps,
too much debt to make the option attractive. A
99
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz
second category relates to the attitudes and pref-
erences of children, many of whom appear to be
uninterested in participating in and/or taking
over their parents’ business. The strong lifestyle
preferences of many family business owners who
locate in rural areas are based on a lifetime of
experiences and do not necessarily transfer to the
next generation.
A third type of barrier stems from the nature
of tourism and hospitality businesses, many of
which involve sharing the family home, intimate
and daily contacts with customers, long hours,
and seasonal demand resulting in cash-flow
concerns. This type of business might discourage
children. On the positive side, however, strong
ties to the land through inheritance appear to be
a factor that supports inter-generational
succession in family businesses. Furthermore,
there is the possibility that children growing up
immersed in a tourism or hospitality business
might acquire the necessary skills and a positive
attitude toward that line of work.
Another obvious barrier is the loss or
complete absence of children, in which case go-
ing beyond the immediate family is a possibility.
Some of the owners were concerned that their
children did not have the proper experience or
skills for all or part of managing the business,
and there appears to be a gender factor at work
in these cases (female children were thought by
several fathers to be less able to handle some
strenuous or mechanical aspects of the businesses
studied). Other owners might be tempted to sell
their business as a retirement fund or have little
choice in the matter.
Cross-Cultural Analysis of Goals. Notable
goal similarities exist across all three countries.
Regarding start-up (with implications for ulti-
mate disposition of the business), ties to the land
were strong in cases A-1, C-1, and S-1. Supple-
menting farm income was important in starting
up businesses A-1 and C-1, whereas pursuit of
independence through self-employment moti-
vated the owners of C-2, C-3, S-1, and S-2. Keep-
ing the business in the family was a major con-
sideration in A-1 and C-2, whereas owners of A-
3 and S-1 at least considered the possibility of
100
selling the business outside the family to finance
their retirement. An aversion to debt was impor-
tant in shaping the growth and development of
cases A-3 and S-1, whereas generating sufficient
income to hire staff was a consideration in five
cases (A-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, and S-2).
However similar the revealed goals, two of
the Swedish cases lacked the involvement of chil-
dren, and one respondent observed that it is un-
common in their part of Sweden to find children
working with parents in a family business. This
finding suggests that cultural differences might
be profound. It appears to contrast sharply with
the research of McGibbon (1999) in St. Anton,
Austria, where intergenerational, family-run ho-
tels are common. Certainly, a limited selection
of case studies cannot address this issue; larger
scale, systematic comparisons between regions
and cultural groups is required.
Summary and Conclusions
Theoretical Aspects. The nine case studies shed
light on a number of theoretical aspects of fam-
ily business studies. According to Chua,
Chrisman, and Sharma (1999), the fundamental
uniqueness of family businesses derives from a
vision to use the business for betterment of the
family, and most of the case studies revealed this
to be important for the founders. They wanted
to continue or create a family legacy, improve
their economic position, live in the right envi-
ronment, and pursue a desired lifestyle, with the
business providing the means. These start-up
motives and goals not only help explain the deci-
sion to create a business, but also the nature of
the business. Whether these types of businesses
perform better or worse than nonfamily busi-
nesses was untested, but might be a moot point
given that in many areas there are no comparable,
nonfamily businesses.
As to the dichotomy of family-centered and
business-centered families (Singer & Donahu,
1992), it seems clear from these cases that al-
though income generation must be assured, fam-
ily goals often come first and are predominant.
Value was added to the businesses to assure an
 Family Business Goals in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector:
Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis from Australia, Canada, and Sweden
adequate family income and to permit the hiring
of paid employees to free up the owners’ time.
Where children were involved in the business,
building a family legacy seemed to be more im-
portant. This finding tends to confirm the ob-
servation of Lee and Rogoff (1996).
Figure 2 summarizes the goals revealed by
the nine cases and previous literature specific to
the tourism and hospitality sectors. Based on the
cross-case analysis and previous literature, a
strong case can be made for examining industry-
specific aspects of family business. The rural tour-
ism and hospitality sectors present some unique
self-employment and family business opportu-
nities at the micro- and small-business levels,
enabling founders to live in their desired envi-
ronments and pursue lifestyle preferences, in-
cluding leisure activities. Where family farms or
other inherited land is involved, tourism presents
an opportunity for generating additional income,
even to the point of replacing farm revenues as
the principal means of livelihood for the family.
In addition, the nature of tourism and hospital-
ity impacts directly on the family through such
factors as seasonal demand (often leading to cash-
flow problems), high levels of contact with guests,
long hours of work, and the merging of home
and work.
Starting up a family business in the rural
tourism and hospitality sectors involves a num-
ber of generic entrepreneurial motives and goals,
but location, lifestyle, and legacy goals are re-
vealed to be very important in tourism and hos-
pitality businesses. This seems to hold true
in all three countries from which the nine case
studies originated. Even when the owners set out
explicitly to make money, their underlying pref-
erences were to move to or remain in the coun-
try or in small towns and resorts. This desire can
be a positive force for keeping rural populations
viable; rural development programs should con-
sider how to attract and assist family businesses.
Even where inheritance does not occur, it is likely
that other family businesses might replace those
that sell out.
The growth and development of such busi-
nesses is a real issue. Some will never create jobs
for nonfamily members, but in most of the cases
documented in this paper, there was a genuine
desire and effort to expand the business suffi-
ciently to permit the hiring of staff. The power-
ful motivator underlying expansion is not neces-
sarily increased wealth but the need to free up
leisure time and reduce the burden of long hours
with complete responsibility for all aspects of the
business. Tourism and hospitality businesses ex-
acerbate this problem because of the necessity
for high levels of contact with customers. Nev-
ertheless, the family business owners interviewed
in these nine cases all had limits to growth in
mind. They do not want the business to get out
of control, take on too much debt (in some cases
complete debt avoidance is the strategy), destroy
the natural resource base, or create an operation
that no one else could purchase or take over.
Disposition of the family business is a ma-
jor problem, although younger families in the
development stage do not think much about it.
The earlier Western Australian survey data and
the nine case studies reflect the widespread ob-
servation that formal succession planning is of-
ten lacking in family businesses. Two cases re-
vealed the serious consequences of the death of
a possible heir and highlight the many uncer-
tainties involved in family business planning. In
several of the cases, the creation of a family
legacy and, in particular, the continuation of a
family farm were seen to be powerful motiva-
tors for family business owners and for succes-
sion within the family.
Methodology. Regarding the cross-case
method of analysis, there are some limitations
and strengths. Although this type of analysis is
an excellent tool for revealing details and elabo-
rating on survey data, businesses are different and
results cannot be generalized. Cultural factors did
not seem to account for any major differences in
these nine cases; however, they will likely be im-
portant when making broader, more global com-
parisons. The utility of cross-case analysis for
identifying common themes in case studies has
been demonstrated. These themes of start-up
goals, business development goals, and disposi-
tion/succession fit well with the chronological
101
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz
case study approach. However, there is also scope
to analyze case studies through a focus on key
events (such as key investment decisions and fam-
ily events such as births, deaths, or marriages),
various settings (geographic settings, environ-
mental factors), people (family business networks
and support systems), processes (business plan-
ning, communication systems, decision-making
processes), or other issues. All of these topics
have some relevance to the current cases studied
and will be the subject of further research.
There is also scope to develop these case
studies for heuristic purposes and present them
in a form that is suitable for case teaching. The
high proportion of family businesses in rural tour-
ism in Australia, Sweden, and Canada are not
serviced by dedicated courses in family business
management. There is potential to develop and
deliver such courses based on case research and
case teaching. In this way, the issues common to
family businesses in tourism can be better un-
derstood and addressed, thereby improving the
chances of success.
In Sweden, families with children in busi-
ness were thought to be unusual (according to
two respondents), leading to the issue of case
study selection and possible bias. However, the
nine cases generally reflected observations and
conclusions from the extensive (but nonrandom)
Western Australian data. More rigorous re-
search on family business should be attempted
in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors, but
it will have to deal with several large problems.
It is difficult to determine ownership in advance,
and large-scale, random samples might prove
to be very difficult to obtain. Consequently,
combining surveys with case studies offers many
benefits.
Further research is needed to explore sev-
eral important issues arising from the Western
Australian survey and the nine case studies. Lon-
gitudinal research on individual businesses
through their life cycle would be highly benefi-
cial, especially to shed light on how families re-
spond to environmental and internal changes,
make and implement decisions, and plan for suc-
cession or disposition. The intricacies of mixing
102
family and business lives could also be explored.
Systematic comparisons between business
sectors and subsectors are desirable, such as com-
paring tourism with retailing or hotels with res-
taurants. The rural environment should also be
compared with family businesses in urban set-
tings, large with small family businesses, and so
on. Only through these comparisons is it pos-
sible to say anything definitive about the unique
characteristics of family businesses and different
types of family businesses. As previously dis-
cussed, research into barriers to inheritance
would be useful. There is reason to believe that
tourism and hospitality business characteristics
and rural/small town environments have an im-
pact on family succession.
Management Implications. There are
many possible motives and goals for starting up
a business and involving the family in its opera-
tions and ownership. Not all of them lead to suc-
cession within the family, and the relative impor-
tance of family vs. purely business goals is highly
variable. What has been learned from these nine
cases is that similarities exist across countries and
cultures, so some of the fundamentals of family
business appear to be universal. Respondents
were not asked to provide management implica-
tions, such as critical success factors, but the cases
nevertheless provide lessons for other family busi-
ness owners.
Many founders of family businesses are pur-
suing a dream. Generically, this can stem from a
desire to be independent, meet or create a chal-
lenge, or even get rich. Specific to the rural tour-
ism and hospitality sectors, it often links with
strong ties to the land and location and lifestyle
preferences. Many parents believe it is better to
raise a family in the country or in a small town,
and running their own business helps meet this
as well as other personal goals. But there are hid-
den dangers in the use of business ventures to
realize family and lifestyle goals. The work turns
out to be harder and the rewards often less than
founders anticipate. Debt is often a problem, and
the business tends to overwhelm family life and
destroy leisure time.
Family business owners clearly must remain
 Family Business Goals in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector:
Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis from Australia, Canada, and Sweden
committed to their vision or dream to make a
living and achieve their goals. The motives docu-
mented in these case studies are powerful, driv-
ing many families toward financial success and
creation of a family legacy. Ties to the land, es-
pecially inherited farms, both enable the creation
of a business and charge the owners with a desire
to continue the legacy. In rural areas, this land
component is a particularly important variable
in explaining tourism and hospitality initiatives.
Young families running their own businesses
will sooner or later have to face some of the is-
sues revealed by the case studies. These include
involvement of children in business operations,
treating them as employees or partners, and the
option of preparing them for eventual succession.
When the family is young it is not a pressing is-
sue, but as the children grow up with the busi-
ness, a number of barriers to succession must be
addressed. Tourism and hospitality businesses
specifically raise barriers related to the merging
of home and work, long working hours, seasonal
fluctuations, gender roles, and potentially high
debt levels and poor cash flow. Will children want
such a business/home life? The founders’ dreams
will not necessarily be inherited. In addition, in
two cases, the untimely deaths of potential heirs
caused serious disruptions and stress on the fami-
lies, showing how the unexpected must be fac-
tored into family business management. Not all
families will be as resilient or as flexible as those
documented here.
Growth and development of the family busi-
ness might not be desired, but according to the
cases studied in this paper, appears to be fre-
quently necessary to generate sufficient income
to support the family and especially to permit the
hiring of staff. There are revealed advantages to
staying small (i.e., avoid debt, reduce or avoid
labor costs) and clear advantages to getting big
enough to have employees relieve the owners’
burden.
In the nine cases studied, success is not guar-
anteed. Several of the respondents’ businesses had
grown and prospered, mostly through hard fam-
ily work, but ultimate disposition of the business
was in question. It might not be profitable enough
to attract buyers, and the debt load might be too
high to make it attractive for inheritance. Own-
ers must be cautious with expansion plans and
financing to avoid this double-edged trap.
References
Bransgrove, C., & King, B. (1996). Strategic market-
ing practice amongst small tourism and hospitality
businesses. In R. Thomas (Ed.), Spring symposium
proceedings of the International Association of Hotel
Management Schools (pp. 29-38). Leeds, England:
Leeds Metropolitan University.
Carlsen, J., Getz, D., & Ali-Knight, J. (1999). Envi-
ronmental management techniques for family
owned rural tourism operations: Examples from
Western Australia. In B. Weir, S. McArthur, & A.
Crabtree (Eds.), Developing ecotourism into the mil-
lennium. Bureau of Tourism Research [On-line].
Available: http://www.btr.gov.au/conf_proc/
ecotourism/ecotourism.html (accessed 30/10/2000):
Canberra.
Chua, J., Chrisman, J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining
the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19-37.
Dunn, B. (1995). Success themes in Scottish family
enterprises: Philosophies and practices through the
generations. Family Business Review, 8(1), 17-28.
File, K., Prince, R., & Rankin, M. (1994). Organiza-
tional buying behavior of the family firm. Family
Business Review, 7(3), 263-272.
Frater J. (1982). Farm tourism in England and overseas.
Birmingham: Centre for Urban and Regional Stud-
ies, Research Memorandum 93.
Gersick, K., Davis, J., Hampton, M., & Lansberg, I.
(1997). Generation to generation: Life cycles of the fam-
ily business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (2000). Characteristics and
goals of family businesses in the rural tourism and
hospitality sectors. Tourism Management, 21, 547-
560.
Kousis, M. (1989.) Tourism and the family in a rural
Cretan community. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(3),
318-332.
Lansberg, I. (1983). Managing human resources in
family firms: The problem of institutional overlap.
Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 39-46.
Lee, M., & Rogoff, E. (1996). Research note:
Comparison of small businesses with family
participation versus small businesses without family
participation: An investigation of differences in
goals, attitudes, and family/business conflict. Family
Business Review, 9(4), 423-437.
103
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz
Lynch, P. (1996). Microenterprises and micro-firms
in the hospitality industry: The case of bed and
breakfast enterprises. In R. Thomas (Ed.), Spring
symposium proceedings of International Association of
Hotel Management Schools (pp. 231-236). Leeds,
England: Leeds Metropolitan University.
McGibbon, J. (1999). The business of alpine tourism in a
globalising world: An anthropological study of interna-
tional ski tourism in the village of St. Anton am Arlberg
in the Tirolean Alps. Rosenheim: Vetterling Druck.
McKercher, B. (1998). The business of nature-based tour-
ism. Melbourne: Hospitality Press.
Mendonsa, E. (1983). Tourism and income strategies
in Nazare, Portugal. Annals of Tourism Research,
10(2), 213-238.
Opperman, M. (1997). Rural tourism in Germany—
farm and rural tourism operators. In S. Page & D.
Getz (Eds.), The business of rural tourism: Interna-
tional perspectives (pp. 108-119). London: Interna-
tional Thomson Business Press.
Page, S., & Getz, D. (1997). The business of rural tour-
ism: International perspectives. London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods. London: Sage.
Pearce, P. (1990). Farm tourism in New Zealand: A
social situation analysis. Annals of Tourism Research,
17(3), 117-125.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J., & Chua, J. (1996). A review
and annotated bibliography of family business studies.
Boston: Kluwer.
Tommy Andersson is a professor in the Department of Business Administration at the University of Gothenburg,
Sweden. Jack Carlsen is a professor of Tourism and Hospitality at Curtin University, Australia. Donald Getz
is a professor for the Faculty of Management at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
104
Singer, J., & Donahu, C. (1992). Strategic manage-
ment planning for the successful family business.
Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 39-51.
Smith, V. (1998). Privatization in the third world:
Small-scale tourism enterprises. In W. Theobald
(Ed.), Global tourism (2d Ed., pp. 205-215). Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Smyrnios, K., Romano, C., & Tanewski, G. (1997).
The Australian family and private business survey.
Melbourne: Monash University.
Stavrou, E. (1999). Succession in family businesses:
Exploring the effects of demographic factors on off-
spring intentions to join and take over the business.
Journal of Small Business Management, July, 43-61.
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1992). On the goals of suc-
cessful family companies. Family Business Review,
5(1), 43-62.
Ward, J. (1991). Creating effective boards for private en-
terprises: Meeting the challenges of continuity and com-
petition. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
World Tourism Organisation. (1997). Rural tourism:
A solution for employment, local development and envi-
ronment. Madrid: WTO.
Westhead, P. (1997). Ambitions, external environment
and strategic factor differences between family and
non-family companies. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 9, 127-157.
 Family Business Goals in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector:
Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis from Australia, Canada, and Sweden

Figure 1. Business Profiles and Goals of the Owners (A = Australia;

C = Canada; S = Sweden)
a) Business Type
b) Owners Growth and Development of Ultimate Disposition
c) Family Involvement Start-Up Goals the Business of the Business

A-1 a) Caravan park with • Inherited family farm; • Plans cautious growth • Uncertain, but will not
cottages need for additional to add value sell the land as it is the
b) Married couple income • Needs better revenue to family legacy
c) Children too young • Rural lifestyle preferred hire a manager • Children too young to
for work take over

A-2 a) Boat tours • Provide retirement • Son has big expansion • Son will take over; might
b) Married couple income plans for a diversified partner with cousin who
c) Son is partner • Strong family ties to area business also operates a local
keep them there business

A-3 a) Accommodation • Retirement business • Expansion needed to • Uncertain

b) Married couple reflecting life-long hire staff • Daughters might not
c) Two daughters work interests • Lots of potential to add want to take over
part time • Preferred rural location value to the business,
but wants to avoid
damaging the resource
base

C-1 a) Equestrian center/ • Create opportunity for • Priority is revenue • Not formally planned
stables daughter enhancement • Daughters will inherit
b) Daughter leases • Lifestyle considerations • Develop a loyal client the land
from parents (love of horses) base
c) Mother and • Remain on inherited • Hire staff or take on
daughter full family farm (family partner
time; father and legacy) • Some physical
sister occasional expansion is contem-
plated

C-2 a) Lakeside resort; • Inherited family farm • Priority to enhance • Chosen heir was killed in
catering • Desire for additional revenue and to hire staff car accident; daughters’
b) Married couple income • Some physical future roles not yet
c) Two daughters full • Personal challenge expansion is contem- determined; family
time; grandchildren • Create family legacy plated inheritance is preferred
seasonally

C-3 a) Boat tour and • Wanted self-employment
fishing charter and challenging, hands-
b) Married couple on work
c) Niece works full • Work together as couple
time • Preference to remain in
the area
• Priority is continuous • Niece is being groomed
quality improvement; to take over business,
purchase of new boat is with a nonfamily partner
contemplated contemplated
• Hire more full-time
staff

S-1 a) Rental cabins • Financial gain; be own • Priority to sustain • Uncertain future;
b) Married couple boss repeat business potential heir was killed
c) No other family • Lifestyle and location • Does not want to build in car accident
involved preferences more cabins; avoid debt • Might sell the assets as
retirement fund
Continues

105
Andersson, Carlsen, Getz

Figure 1. Business Profiles and Goals of the Owners (A = Australia;

C = Canada; S = Sweden), continued
a) Business Type
b) Owners Growth and Development Ultimate Disposition
c) Family Involvement Start-Up Goals of the Business of the Business

S-2 a) Small hotel • Business opportunity • Expand year-round • Disposition is not yet an
b) Married couple • Self-employment demand; hire staff; more issue
c) Children too young • Remain in area; lifestyle activities for guests; more • Children might
to work preference meeting space; site eventually be employed
developments in “real jobs”

S-3 a) Guide service; • Have fun while making • Has already developed • Plans to sell the business
functions money; lifestyle the business as far as • Has already started
b) Sole proprietor preferences desired another
c) Casual assistance • Become a professional
from mother, father, business manager
partner

Figure 2. Family Business Stages and Revealed Goals in the

Tourism/Hospitality Sectors
Personal and Family-
Stages Related Goals
(1) Start-Up • Pursue a desired lifestyle or
hobby
• Live in a preferred location (the
“right environment”)
• Be independent (one’s own boss)
• Generate income (primary or
secondary source)
• Develop or continue a family
legacy
• Improved social life or standing
• Independence; stimulation
Business-Related Goals
• Establish a business as a means
to achieve family goals (type of
business immaterial)
• Start up a specific type of
tourism/hospitality business
related to life interests
• Seize business/income opportu-
nities
• Make money; become finan-
cially independent

(2) Growth and Development
• Growth to permit the hiring of • Add value to enhance income
nonfamily employees or to and viability
support more family members • Avoid debt
• Enjoy the job
• Do not let it get too big
• Avoid overdevelopment
(conserve resources)

(3) Ultimate Disposition
• Continue/leave a family legacy
• Keep land in the family
• Create options for children
(children might not want to
continue the business or might
not be capable)
• Sell for retirement income (get
best price; might not be a going
concern or attractive property)
• Sell and move on to a new
venture

106