PEOPLE.IDEAS.PERFORMANCE

44 immaterial wealth? If it can be operationalized properly, it is an actual demand even from the field of accounting (Kovács&Farkas, n.d.) to incorporate it in business reports in the future. As long as these issues are not clarified, the research results which try to measure and interpret firm performance for family businesses in the light of these theoretical frameworks should be evaluated with caution. Such research can easily further intensify the difficulties which have been characterizing family business research from the beginning due to the variability of definitions, for example what we can consider as a family business. The methodological and definitional diversity produced many contradictory results in the past in this field. One of such is presented by Farkas (2015) regarding the long-term survival of family businesses, which relies on a piece of research that has already become an „ urban legend”. Nevertheless, we should not give up examining the specific processes of family businesses further because, despite every opposing assumption, this business form has not lost its popularity even in modern, capitalist societies. Its managers seek to survive across generations in a way presented in the case study. Consequently, the explanation of their behavior will remain a relevant scientific question in the future and it can be a legitimate demand from family entrepreneurs that science support them with increasingly efficient management theories. 5()(5(1&(6 Bartholomeusz S., &Tanewski G. A., 2006, The relationship between family firms and corporate governance , Journal of small business management, 44 (2), 245-267. Beatty R. P., & Zajac E. J.,1994, Managerial incentives, monitoring and risk bearing: A study of executive compensation, ownership, and board structure in initial public offerings , Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (2), 313-335. Berrone P., Cruz C., & Gomez-Mejia L. R., 2012 , Socioemotional wealth in family firms theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research ,Family Business Review, 25 (3), 258-279. Bernhard F., & O'Driscoll M. P., 2011, Psychological ownership in small family- owned businesses: Leadership style and nonfamily- employees’ work attitudes and behaviors ,Group & Organization Management, 36(3), 345-384. Bertrand M.& Schoar A., 2003, Managing with style: The effect of managers on firm policies , Quarterly Journal of Economics , 118 (4), 1169-1208. Breton-Miller L. & Miller D., 2009, Agency vs. stewardship in public family firms: A social embeddedness reconciliation ,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 33 (6), 1169-1191. Chrisman J. J., Chua J. H., & Litz R. A., 2004, Comparing the Agency Costs of Family and Non-Family Firms: Conceptual Issues and Exploratory Evidence, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 28 (4): 335-354. Chrisman J. J. & Patel P. C., 2012 , Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives ,Academy of management Journal, 55 (4), 976-997. Davis J. H., Allen M. R., & Hayes H. D., 2010, Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business , Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (6), 1093-1116. Dodd S. D., &Dyck B., 2015, Agency, Stewardship, and the Universal-Family Firm A Qualitative Historical Analysis ,Family Business Review, 28 (4), 312-331. Donaldson L., & DavisJ. H., 1991, Stewardship theory or agency theory , Australian Journal of Management, 16 (1), 49-64.