Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560

Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses

in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors
Donald Getz *, Jack Carlsen

Faculty of Management, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4

School of Marketing and Tourism, Edith Cowan University, Canada
Received 16 April 1999; accepted 1 June 1999

Abstract

This research examines goals pertaining to start-up, operations, the family, and ultimate disposition of the enterprise by family and
owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. The sample is from a survey in rural Western Australia.
A large majority of respondents were from middle-aged couples, new to the business, with strong motivation to live and work in
the countryside. Lifestyle and family-related goals were predominant, but there was also recognition that the business had
to be pro"table. Most respondents were uncertain about the ultimate disposition of their business; only about one-third had de"nite
succession plans to involve children or other family members. Implications are drawn for business and destination
development.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Family business; Owner operators; Business goals; Rural tourism; Western Australia

1. Introduction tional goals, succession goals, the nature of the business,

Although it is a widely held belief that the rural
tourism and hospitality sectors are dominated by small
family and owner-operated business, little research has
been done on the characteristics and goals of this group.
It is important to business development and destination
planning programs to understand what motivates entre-
preneurs and investors in rural businesses, and what
impact their values and goals might have on the nature
and performance of these sectors. For example, are fam-
ily and owner-operated businesses motivated primarily
by lifestyle and family-centered goals, and if so does this
impact on their growth and pro"tability?
In this paper the "eld of family business studies is
outlined, with emphasis on goals. Literature on rural
tourism and hospitality family and other small businesses
is reviewed, before pro"ling a sample from exploratory
research conducted in Western Australia that was
directed at family and owner-operated business in
non-urban settings. A postal questionnaire incorporated
questions on reasons for starting the business, opera-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-403-220-7158; fax: #1-403-282-
0095.
E-mail address: getz@acs.ucalgary.ca (D. Getz).
and family-related issues and goals.
Implications for business and destination development
policies and programs are discussed in the conclusions,
and speci"c research questions are identi"ed.
1.1. Research on family business
Interest in, and research on family businesses, has been
accelerating rapidly (Sharma, Chrisman & Chua, 1996;
Smyrnios, Romano & Tanewski, 1997). This attention is
long overdue, given the scale and importance of family
businesses in most countries (Lank, 1995; Wortman,
1995). Small businesses predominate in emerging sectors
such as nature tourism (McKercher, 1998), and most of
these are run by owner-operators and families. Rural
studies in general almost inevitably touch on family busi-
ness matters (see, for example, Page & Getz, 1997).
The literature on family businesses overlaps in many
ways with that pertaining to small businesses, but there
are a number of key di!erentiating components. Inter-
generational ownership transference (succession) ac-
counts for about 20 per cent of the family business
literature (Sharma et al., 1996, p. 9). The interactions
between family dynamics and business operations are
important, including such topics as gender roles, dealing

0261-5177/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 4 - 2
548 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
with family issues, ownership, family involvement, and
evolution of the business within the family life cycle.
A third major element is that of goals and their impact on
business performance.
`Family businessa has no commonly accepted mean-
ing; indeed Sharma et al. (1996) comprehensively re-
viewed related literature and found 34 de"nitions. At the
most basic level a family business can be de"ned as `an
enterprise which, in practice, is controlled by members of
a single familya (Barry, 1975). This de"nition can en-
compass businesses that involve only one member, often
called owner-operator "rms.
There are several potentially important de"nitional
considerations, namely: ownership and control of the
enterprise; involvement of family members; family-busi-
ness interdependencies, and generational transfer. The
1995 Business Longitudinal Survey (BLS) involving
about 9000 businesses in Australia (Commonwealth of
Australia, 1997) found characteristics of family businesses
to be `somewhat elusivea, but the three main elements
were said to be: succession (ownership remaining within
the family); employment of family members (with or
without management involvement); and shared manage-
ment responsibilities (family members are jointly respon-
sible for running the business). In Australia, about half of
all enterprises qualify as family businesses * that is,
businesses where there is more than one proprietor from
the same family (Commonwealth of Australia, 1997), but
depending on the de"nition used, the number of family
businesses might vary a great deal.
In this current research the sole criterion for including
businesses in the &family business' category was that re-
spondents answered in the a$rmative to this question: Is
your business family owned (i.e., owner-operated, or one
family owns controlling interest)? This self-selection
method has the advantage of being easily understood by
respondents and does not impose a narrow de"nition.
However, as a result, the sample consists of a mixture of
sole proprietors and respondents from couples and larger
families.
1.2. Goals and objectives in family businesses
Sharma et al. (1996, p. 9) observed that family business
goals `are likely to be quite di!erent from the "rm-value
maximisation goal assumed for the publicly traded and
professionally managed "rmsa, but there have been few
attempts to identify the imputed di!erences. At the heart
of this issue is whether family business owners will place
family concerns over business success or growth, and
what impact this has on the business (and by implication,
the industry sector or destination).
Singer and Donahu (1992) touched on this issue by
identifying two distinct types: the family-centred busi-
ness, where the business is a way of life, and the business-
centred family in which business is a means of livelihood.
File, Prince and Rankin (1995) also categorised family
businesses, distinguishing between those which were un-
involved in issues of family dynamics, those balancing
family and business needs, some which had family con-
cerns as their primary goal, and others which were most
concerned with adapting to changing conditions.
As noted by Westhead (1997), economic theory postu-
lates the decision to establish a business should be based
on an assessment of the best alternative use of the entre-
preneur's time, but family business owners are distin-
guished by providing employment for family members of
the management team and by ensuring independent
ownership of the business. Dunn (1995) found it was not
uncommon for family businesses to accept lower returns
or longer paybacks on their investments or to sustain
a lifestyle rather than to maximise pro"ts or personal
revenue. Gersick, Davis, Hampton and Lansberg (1997)
found that businesses in the start-up stage were charac-
terised by informal organisational structure, owner-
manager control and having a single product. When it is
also a family business they are more likely to be asso-
ciated with personal, family or lifestyle dreams than with
objective business projections.
1.3. Family businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality
sectors
Within the rural tourism and hospitality sectors there
are good reasons to believe that motives and goals will be
somewhat di!erent from other sectors and from non-
family businesses in general. Frequently small, farm-
based family businesses (e.g., farmstays, caravan and
campsites, bed and breakfast operations) are established
to support the main farm business (Pearce, 1990; World
Tourism Organisation, 1997), but are also set up as
a sideline or hobby, usually by females (Kousis, 1989;
Lynch, 1996; Oppermann, 1997). Another major goal is
that of experiencing a desired lifestyle, and McKercher
(1998) concluded that this applies to many nature-tour
operators in Australia.
In a study of small tourism businesses in Victoria,
Australia, Bransgrove and King (1996) found that the top
goals of owners/managers were challenge/stimulus, busi-
ness opportunity, lifestyle, and long-term "nancial gain
(accounting for 18}24 per cent each). But lifestyle goals
were twice as frequent in rural areas. Other rural tourism
researchers have pointed to the goals or rewards of
improved social lives (Pearce, 1990; Frater, 1982), and
social standing (Pearce, 1990).
Smith (1998) speci"cally evaluated small, third-world
tourism enterprises, noting that powerful incentives exis-
ted for their establishment. These included: taking local
control over development; acquiring status; gaining ac-
cess to clubs and business networks; building equity for
a family legacy or retirement assets; hiring family mem-
bers who might otherwise be unemployable, and being
 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
one's own boss. Western home-stay operators, however,
have considerable advantages over their third-world
counterparts in terms of income, technology, basic busi-
ness skills and support systems.
A study by Mendonsa (1983) of family tourism busi-
nesses in Portugal concluded that those with capital
could bene"t from tourism, but others in the community
could not. It was also observed that running tourism
businesses put considerable strain on families, and
especially women who did most of the work. Mendonsa
(1983, p. 235) found that `families have consciously alter-
ed their patterns of behaviour in order to cope with and
bene"t from tourism.a
Kousis (1989) studied tourism development in rural
Crete, revealing growth in family tourism businesses by
spouses, with children and parents helping out. Social
activities of families were a!ected, and parents helped
newlyweds to set-up businesses. Females ran most
of these family tourism businesses, with men working
elsewhere.
1.4. Problems and failures
Clearly the establishment and operation of family
tourism and hospitality businesses o!ers both bene"ts
and costs. Smith (1998) concluded that in the third world
employees of hotels and resorts were often better o! than
their self-employed neighbours, owing to easier work and
higher pay. Family business owners, especially women,
have frequently complained to researchers of long hours,
minimal "nancial rewards, and disruptions to family and
community life. The ability to preserve privacy is a major
issue (Stringer, 1981).
Small businesses frequently fail for lack of ade-
quate revenue, or their owners give up. McKercher and
Robbins (1998, p. 173), based on data from nature tour
operators in Australia, concluded that most `are run by
owner/operators who have no formal business or mar-
keting background and no prior experience in the
tourism industry.a Marginal tourism businesses threaten
the industry as a whole, by driving down prices and
lowering standards, and the environment su!ers because
trade-o!s are necessitated.
A handbook prepared by the Queensland (Australia)
Tourist and Travel Corporation (1993, p. 11) for people
setting up tourism business noted that `one-third of all
new businesses fail in the "rst year, and two-thirds fail by
the "fth year.a Tourism Victoria (no date), in its hand-
book Starting Up in Tourism, asks readers why they
want to get into tourism and if they are the right type of
person for the task. Potential entrepreneurs are advised
that it often takes years to generate a pro"t, it will
probably take more hours of work than any o$ce job,
guests can be very demanding, and privacy will be scarce.
Readers of the document are asked (p. 4): &&Have you
considered how your tourism business will a!ect your
549
family?a These, and other advisory documents prepared
by tourism agencies around the world, seek to instill
a sense of realism and hopefully prevent future business
disasters.
2. Method
Questionnaire design and results were informed by
prior interviews with 12 family and owner-operated busi-
nesses in early 1998, sometimes including more than one
family member. In these interviews the researchers asked
respondents to relate their background, motives for en-
tering their current tourism and hospitality businesses,
and goals for the business and the family * roughly the
pattern of the ensuing questionnaire. In the course of
interviews a great deal was also learned about a variety of
issues facing owners and the rural tourism environment
in general.
Taking a random sample of rural, family businesses in
tourism and hospitality was found to be impossible,
owing to the lack of a suitable database in Western
Australia. Even if `rurala and `tourism/hospitalitya busi-
nesses can be isolated, there remains the di$culty of
determining in advance what businesses are owned and
operated by families, no matter what de"nition of `fam-
ilya is to be used.
The sample consists of a combination of two, mutually
exclusive subsets: (a) a general sample of rural tourism/
hospitality businesses in Western Australia, and (b)
a more focused sample from one well-known tourist
region. The state-wide sample was partially derived from
a list provided by Farm and Country Holidays Associ-
ation Inc., and augmented by selections from the Royal
Automobile Club 1997 Western Australia Touring and
Accommodation Guide. Metropolitan Perth and other
cities were excluded from the sampling frame. The result
was a non-random sampling covering all types of tourism
and hospitality businesses. Western Australia is a very
large, predominately rural state. Outside the main metro-
politan centre of Perth, tourism opportunities abound in
small-town, beach, farm, and wilderness settings.
The entire membership of the Augusta-Margaret River
Tourist association was also surveyed, which yielded
a few types of business that might not appear to be
tourism-oriented, yet membership in the organisation
suggests that the owners believe they at least bene"t from
tourism. This tourist region is located south of Perth,
approximately a 3-h drive by car, and includes very
popular beaches, wineries, natural areas and small towns.
It is more intensively developed for tourism than the
majority of the state, and enjoys a reputation for good
climate, attractive landscapes and a lifestyle associated
with "ne dining and wine. Consequently, it has a di!erent
character and appeal than most of the rural regions of the
state.
550 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
The mail-out survey, and a subsequent reminder card,
went to 357 in the Margaret River area and another 455
businesses in the remainder if the state. The response rate
was 33 per cent in Margaret River and 20 per cent in the
remainder of the state. The total number of useable
responses was 210 (for an overall response rate of ap-
proximately 26 per cent), but included only 198 family or
owner-operated businesses which have been used in the
analysis.
3. Pro5le of the respondents and characteristics of
their businesses
All 198 respondents used in the analysis indicated that
they had a `family-owneda business, that is, `owner oper-
ated, or one family owns controlling interesta. They are
dominated (66.2 per cent), by businesses owned by a mar-
ried couple, which are sometimes called `copreneursa
(Sharma et al., 1996), and 82.2 per cent of respondents
were married. Sole proprietors accounted for 14.4 per
cent, a partnership of two or more family members 9.7
per cent, limited company 5.6 per cent, a partnership
including family members 1.6 per cent, and &&other'' 2.5
per cent. Fully 96.4 per cent of respondents reported they
were an owner, and it is likely that the others, who said
they were `managersa, were family members.
Females were the largest group, accounting for 59 per
cent of respondents. This imbalance possibly re#ects the
dominance of women in bed and breakfast and farmstay
operations. In terms of education, the largest group (42.2
per cent) of respondents had high school quali"cations,
although 19.8 per cent had received a college diploma,
13.9 per cent a university degree, 11.2 per cent an
advanced degree, and another 12.8 per cent a trade
quali"cation.
The dominant age category of respondents was 45}54
(41.4 per cent), followed by 35}44 (24.1 per cent). Only
2 respondents (1 per cent) were under age 25, and only 11
(5.8 per cent) were aged 25}34. The 55}64 age category
accounted for 19.4 per cent of the sample, and the 65-plus
category was 8.4 per cent. Children (ages not de"ned) of
the respondents worked in only 23 per cent of the busi-
nesses, although it is likely that parents will not count
young children as employees, regardless of any involve-
ment in the business operations. There were 21 respon-
dents with 1 child in the business, 12 with 2, 9 with 3, and
4 with 4 involved children. For comparison, a study in
the United States (Massachusetts Mutual Life Assurance,
1993) found that in 81 per cent of family businesses some
family member(s) worked on a day-to-day basis, with
spouses and sons most often involved, but de"nitional
and sampling di!erences can make such a comparison
invalid.
Based on the respondents' own descriptions of their
business, 75 per cent of the sample are accommodation
operators, with the largest block running guest ranches
or farm-stays (47"25.1 per cent). `Campground/re-
sort/self-cateringa operations was the next largest group
(42"22.6 per cent), and bed and breakfast operations
accounted for 40 (21.4 per cent). Only 7, or 3.7 per cent
of the businesses were hotels or motels. Other types of
operations included: `food or retaila (13"7 per cent);
`tour operationa (12"6.4 per cent); `winerya (12"6.4
per cent); `tourist attractiona (7"3.7 per cent); `other
servicesa (6"3.2 per cent) and `manufacturinga (1"0.5
per cent). This breakdown cannot be interpreted as an
accurate re#ection of the rural tourism and hospitality
sectors overall, owing to limitations of the two sampling
frames and response rates.
Eighty-three per cent of the respondents had started
up the business, with only 4.2 per cent having inherited it.
Also, most of the businesses were recently started, with
65.1 per cent commenced in the 1990s, 24.6 per cent in the
1980s, and 5 per cent in the 1970s. Seven respondents (3.5
per cent) indicated the business had started up in the
1800s (these could be farms). Fully 44.4 per cent of
businesses had been started within "ve years of the sur-
vey. In response to the question how many years you
have been involved in the business, the modal category
was one to "ve (54.6 per cent). Only 16.5 per cent had
been involved longer than ten years (with 5.7 per cent
under 1 year and 23.2 per cent between 5 and 10).
Most are small businesses. Ninety-"ve per cent em-
ployed 10 or fewer persons, with 4 per cent reporting
between 10 and 50 and 1 (0.5 per cent) reporting over 100
persons. This corresponds with "ndings of the Australian
Business Longitudinal Survey (Commonwealth of
Australia, 1997) where "rm size and family ownership
were found to be inversely related: 61 per cent of "rms
employing 5}9 persons are family businesses, while only
19 per cent employing more than 500 persons are family
owned. As well, 80 per cent of the tourism and hospitality
businesses in this current sample reported annual
revenue of under $100,000 (Aus.), while 14 per cent had
revenues of between $100,000 and $500,000 and 2.6 per
cent over one million dollars. Sixty-nine per cent
reported fewer than 1000 customers per year.
The Margaret River sample was somewhat di!erent
from the overall state sample, although di!erences on
goals were not evaluated because of the quite di!erent
sampling frames. Compared to the state-wide sample,
Margaret River respondents were less dominated by
accommodation (89}63 per cent) and had fewer female
respondents (64}54.5 per cent).
These data portray a population of mainly middle-
aged business operators; they might have rural roots or
connections, but they are typically not young rural
natives taking over family businesses or starting "rst ca-
reers. This pro"le of respondents and their businesses can
be compared to a major survey of Australian family busi-
nesses called the Australian Family and Private Business
 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
Survey or AFPBS (Smyrnios et al., 1997), but with cau-
tion, owing to quite di!erent samples. The AFPBS
sample was drawn from Dunn and Bradstreet lists (30 per
cent response rate from a mail-out to 5000 businesses)
which were assumed to be representative of Australian
family businesses. But respondents were predominantly
from manufacturing (32 per cent), retail and wholesale
companies (24 per cent) and were dominated (97 per cent)
by male owners. The average business had been estab-
lished for over 30 years, which is much longer than the
current sample. This pro"le was said to be similar to that
of the family business sector in the USA. But the present
study is contrasting in that it contains newer, smaller
businesses (many at the smallest scale possible), with
much more female involvement. Some major points of
similarity do exist, however. Respondents in the national
survey were also older (average age 52, with 20 per cent
over age 60), mostly married (87.5 per cent), and well
educated (almost 40 per cent with tertiary quali"cations).
In both surveys a large majority of respondents were
"rst-generation (71 per cent in the national and 83 per
cent in the current study had started up their business).
4. Analysis
4.1. Start-up goals
Respondents were "rst asked an open question:
`Please describe why you got started in this business.a
Answers were grouped for coding purposes, with results
displayed in Table 1. The largest single category (34.1 per
cent) concerned lifestyle decisions, and the second main
category concerned business opportunities and invest-
ments (27.6 per cent) Business-related answers were the
most frequent.
Table 2 presents responses to the question: `How
important were the following goals to you when getting
started in this business?a Respondents were asked to tick
one box of "ve beside each of 12 statements, with the
anchors being `not at all importanta and `very impor-
tanta. Means and standard deviations are shown. The
most striking results are that living in the right environ-
ment (mean"4.51, out of 5) and enjoying a good lifestyle
(4.37) are the strongest goals by far, with hardly any
respondents not ranking them as `importanta or `very
importanta. The lowest-ranked goals were `to gain pres-
tigea (mean"2.16; almost 46 per cent considered it to be
`not at all importanta) and `to make lots of moneya
(mean"2.88). Statistical tests were performed to see if
there were any signi"cant di!erences between the above-
mentioned goals and demographic, business and owner-
ship variables, but no statistically signi"cant di!erences
were found.
A factor analysis on the variables making up the 12
goals was run, employing principal component analysis.
551
Table 1
Please describe why you got started in this business (categorised from
an open-ended question)
Categories Valid % of total
responses
Appealing lifestyle 34.1
Business opportunity/investment 27.6
Worked in related business/to diversify 9.7
To preserve the home 6.5
Retirement project 6.5
Meeting people 3.8
Recover debt on acquired land 2.7
Assistant to husband 2.7
Build business then sell for retirement 2.2
Thought it would be fun/good idea 1.6
Saw a market need for the business 1.6
The factors were then rotated using Varimax rotation
with Kaiser Normalisation. This resulted in four factors
that explained 60.4 per cent of the variance (see Tables
3 and 4). The factors have been given names that try to
convey the underlying dimensions of the data, based on
the variables that load highly on each factor. It is clear
that the "ve `Lifestylea variables group well together,
and are by far the most important (in light of the mean
scores and factor loading). The three variables in factor 2,
called `Moneya, also clearly load onto that factor, al-
though the variable `to make lots of moneya also loads
onto factor 4. Factor 3 has been called `Stimulationa and
contains four statements, but `to keep this property in
the familya has a negative loading, indicating an inverse
relationship. `To live in the right environmenta has
a much stronger loading on `Lifestylea. Factor 4 is called
`Independencea, assuming that prestige is one of the
appeals of being one's own boss, as well as achieving
a level of "nancial independence.
Further analysis was conducted to determine if there
were any statistically signi"cant di!erences between de-
mographic, ownership and business-type variables and
new variables based on the four factors. In other words,
do these sets of goals represent di!erent types of people
or business? The new variables were created by summing
the variables that loaded on the factor. Either ANOVA
or independent T tests were used, depending on whether
or not the variables in question were dichotomous, to
determine if there were signi"cant di!erences. Where
a signi"cant di!erence was found using ANOVA,
the Tukey test was then used to determine which
groups were di!erent; several proved to be statistically
signi"cant.
Business type made a di!erence (after re-grouping to
combine the manufacturing, food/retail and `other servi-
cesa categories) with regard to the `moneya factor. Tour
operators, compared to the hotel and motel owners, were
much less oriented (a"0.05) toward making money.
Hotel and motel operators probably have invested
552 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560

Table 2
How important were the following goals to you when getting started in this business? (n"198)

Goals 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD
Not at all Very
important important
(valid % of
responses)

To be my own boss 7.4 8.4 12.6 26.3 45.3 3.94 1.28

To keep my family together 11.7 6.9 22.3 16.5 42.6 3.71 1.38
To keep this property in the family 22.7 4.3 16.2 18.9 37.8 3.45 1.57
To live in the right environment 2.1 1.1 8.5 20.7 67.6 4.51 0.86
To support my/our leisure interests 11.5 11.0 23.6 17.3 36.6 3.57 1.38
To enjoy a good lifestyle 2.1 1.1 12.1 26.8 57.9 4.37 0.89
To make lots of money 17.9 18.4 32.1 20.5 11.1 2.88 1.24
To gain prestige by operating 45.8 16.1 19.8 13.0 5.2 2.16 1.28
a business
To meet interesting people 5.7 5.7 13.5 36.5 38.5 3.96 1.13
To provide a retirement income 11.0 9.9 25.7 18.8 34.6 3.56 1.34
To provide me with a challenge 5.8 6.8 16.2 31.4 39.8 3.93 1.16
To permit me to become "nancially 7.8 5.2 15.1 26.0 45.8 3.97 1.24
independent

Table 3 The age of respondents was also important, speci"cally

Principal component analysis of start-up goals, total variance explained
(eigenvalues'1)
Component Rotation sums of squared loadings
Eigenvalues % Of variance Cumulative %
1 2.560 21.338 21.333
2 1.700 14.169 35.502
3 1.523 12.688 48.190
4 1.465 12.211 60.401
considerable "nancial resources to their businesses and
expect a good return on investment. Although other
inter-group di!erences were not statistically signi"cant,
a plausible hypothesis emerges: the more money one
invests in the business, the more likely that "nancial
goals dominate. That is not to say, however, that the
reason for investing in a rural business was not in part
related to environment and lifestyle considerations. On
some of the cases, existing farm operations were likely
converted in whole or part to tourism operations (e.g.,
bed and breakfast or caravan park), so the level of invest-
ment was less than if a new enterprise was started from
scratch.
Another variable found to be signi"cant is that of
ownership type. Married couples and sole proprietors
displayed statistically signi"cant di!erences in their re-
sponses to the variable that comprises the `indepen-
dencea factor (a"0.008). Sole proprietors (i.e., one
person owing and operating the business, not a couple or
family) were much more likely to agree that being one's
own boss and gaining prestige were important start-up
goals.
with regard to the `lifestylea factor. Those aged 35}44
had signi"cantly di!erent responses (a"0.045) from the
45}54 cohort, with the younger owners displaying much
higher agreement with the "ve statements in this factor.
This is presumably linked to the prime family-formation
stage, with those aged 35}44 being more likely to have
children at home.
As well, both the 25}34 and 35}44 age groups were
signi"cantly di!erent from the 65# group regarding the
`independencea factor (a"0.040; 0.044). Younger re-
spondents were much higher in their agreement with the
two statements in this component. Apparently the 65#
category, which coincides with normal retirement ages, is
less likely to be interested in prestige and self-employ-
ment than in the other goals for starting a business.
Younger, sole proprietors favoured these goals.
4.2. Goals pertaining to operation of the business
As displayed in Table 5, respondents were asked for
their level of agreement or disagreement with 16 state-
ments, most of which pertain to goals for operating their
business, while several relate to the nature of the business.
The table shows percentages of respondents in each col-
umn, plus means and standard deviations. The three
highest means, indicating very high levels of agreement,
were for three items that might be interpreted as being
di$cult for any business operator to disagree with: `runs
on high moral standardsa (mean"4.79); `high quality is
prioritya (4.83) and `present good corporate imagea
(4.57). `It is crucial to keep the business pro"tablea was
also ranked very high (4.51). Four statements were as-
signed very low importance, but these and other related
 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
Table 4
Principal component analysis of start-up goals, rotated component matrix
Statements Component factor loadings
1 2
Lifestyle
To support my/our leisure interests 0.734
To enjoy a good lifestyle 0.728
To keep my family together 0.697
To live in the right environment 0.697
To keep this property in the family 0.626
To permit me to become "nancially
independent
To provide a retirement income
To make lots of money
To meet interesting people
To provide me with a challenge
Gain prestige by operating a business
To be my own boss
topics are discussed later, following presentation of the
principal component analysis.
Five factors (with eigenvalues greater than or equal to
1) were generated by doing a Varimax Rotation with
Kaiser Normalisation; they cumulatively explain 55.3 per
cent of the variance in responses (see Table 6). These have
been given names in an attempt to identify their core
concept (see Table 7). The `Good business reputationa
factor seems to be a generic group of goals with which
almost everyone can agree, while the `Nature of the
businessa factor does not actually address business goals.
Similarly, the `Performancea factor does not actually
relate to goals for operating the business. Therefore, the
`Business "rsta and `Family "rsta factors provide the
clearest separation of goals. Within the `Business Firsta
component there is one statement showing a negative
loading (`keep the business modesta) which is inversely
related; it was deleted for purposes of further analysis.
Further analysis was conducted to determine if there
were any statistically signi"cant di!erences between de-
mographic and business-type variables and variables
based on the "ve factors. These variables based on "ve
factors were created by summing the variables that
loaded on the factor. Either ANOVA or independent
T tests were used, depending on whether or not the
variables in question were dichotomous, to determine if
there were signi"cant di!erences. Where a signi"cant
di!erence was found using ANOVA, then the Tukey test
was used to determine which groups were di!erent. Only
two statistically signi"cant di!erences were detected.
Regarding the `business "rsta factor, age made a sig-
ni"cant di!erence in responses, with the 45}54 category
showing higher agreement with these statements than
both the 55}64 (a"0.007) and 65 plus (a"0.015)
groups. As well, gender made a di!erence (a"0.025) in
response to the statements contained in the `good busi-
553
3 4
Money Stimulation Independence
0.361
!0.482
0.745
0.714
0.574 0.490
0.746
0.641
0.858
0.483
ness reputationa factor, with females ranking these items
higher than males.
4.2.1. Formal business goals
Respondents were asked in a separate question if they
had formal business goals, to which 52 per cent re-
sponded in the a$rmative. In Table 5 it is revealed that
47 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the
statement: `It is not necessary to have formal business
goalsa (mean"2.59). These answers suggest a low level
of formal business planning, which likely re#ects the
newness and smallness of many of the operations. It
could also re#ect the nature of family decision making
wherein couples work out their goals together. However,
a major study of Australian family businesses (Smyrnios
et al., 1997) found that 39 per cent of owners did not have
a business plan and concluded that management plann-
ing was a shortcoming in this sector.
The absence of formal business goals might not be
a problem in many micro-businesses, but according to
the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (1993)
there are far fewer business failures among those that
have prepared a business plan. McKercher and Robbins
(1998) argued that too many nature tour operators did
not have clear or realistic goals for their business, and
more emphasis on business plans was essential.
Respondents were also asked to write in their `three
main business goalsa, and this generated a substantial
list. Providing excellent customer service was mentioned
62 times, and other frequently mentioned goals were:
retain or increase market share (36 mentions); higher
pro"ts (32); support lifestyle (30); improve facilities and
add to the business (25); supplement old age income (23);
make it more "nancially viable (20). What this list indi-
cates is that most respondents could at least articulate
business goals, although some of the most frequent
554 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560

Table 5
Business management goals of family business owners (n"198)

Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD
Totally agree Totally
(Valid % of disagree
responses)

It is crucial to keep the business pro"table 2.1 2.6 7.3 18.2 69.8 4.51 0.90
I want to keep the business growing 4.2 7.3 10.4 16.1 62.0 4.24 1.16
Enjoying the job is more important than 2.1 5.7 19.8 29.7 42.7 4.05 1.02
making lots of money
In this business customers cannot be 18.2 19.3 26.6 18.8 17.2 2.97 1.34
separated from personal life
This business currently meets my performance 3.1 20.3 26.0 31.8 18.8 3.43 1.10
targets
It should run on purely business principles 13.6 26.2 25.1 21.5 13.6 2.95 1.25
I would rather keep the business modest 2.1 7.3 14.1 20.3 56.3 4.21 1.07
and under control than have it grow too big
My personal/family interests take priority 5.7 13.5 25.5 24.0 31.3 3.61 1.22
over running the business
Eventually the business will be sold for 34.9 10.4 20.8 7.8 26.0 2.80 1.61
the best possible price
This business is highly seasonal 9.3 13.0 17.1 26.4 34.2 3.63 1.32
I come into daily contact with customers 11.3 8.2 9.3 19.6 51.5 3.92 1.40
It is hard to separate work and family life 7.3 14.7 17.8 32.5 27.7 3.59 1.24
in a tourism business
I want to present a good public/corporate 2.6 5.7 21.2 70.5 4.57 0.82
image
Delivery of a high-quality product or 0.5 2.1 11.3 86.1 4.83 0.46
service is a high priority
This business runs on high moral 1.0 0.5 3.6 8.2 86.6 4.79 0.63
standards
It is not necessary to have formal business 31.8 15.1 25.5 17.2 10.4 2.59 1.36
goals

Table 6 lots of moneya (4.05). This apparent contradiction be-

Principal component analysis of business operation goals, total tween growth and enjoyment is surely indicative of an
variance explained (eigenvalues'1) underlying tension between family and lifestyle goals on
Components Rotation sums of squared loadings the one hand, and business ambitions on the other. Even
though the business is intended to support family and
Eigenvalues % Of variance Cumulative % lifestyle goals, it must be a success in generating income.
The desire for some growth is likely to be based on less
1 2.041 12.759 12.759 than acceptable performance and pro"tability. In re-
2 1.916 11.978 24.737
3 1.759 10.992 35.729 sponse to the statement `It is crucial to keep the business
4 1.756 10.974 46.703 pro"tablea, 88 per cent were in agreement (mean"4.51),
5 1.382 8.638 55.342 and with regard to the statement `This business currently
meets my performance targetsa, 23 per cent disagreed
and 26 per cent were uncertain (mean"3.43). Many of
responses had more to do with goals for starting the these businesses were quite new and small, so a lack of
business. pro"ts or a fear of failure might be common.

4.2.2. Goals regarding proxts and business growth
Seventy-six per cent of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed that `I want to keep the business growinga (see
Table 5; mean"4.24), yet 76 per cent agreed or strongly
agreed that `I would rather keep the business modest and
under control than have it grow too biga (4.21). As well,
there was a very high level of agreement (42.7 per cent
totally agreed and 29.7 per cent agreed) with the state-
ment `Enjoying the job is more important than making
4.2.3. Nature of the business
Two important elements relating to the nature of
tourism businesses were examined. Seasonality of
demand is a typical rural tourism problem, and in this
sample 61 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that their
business was highly seasonal (see Table 5; mean"3.63).
Another 17 per cent were uncertain, which possibly re-
#ects the newness of many of these businesses. The main
problems presented by seasonality relate to cash #ow and
 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560 555

Table 7
Principal component analysis of business operation goals, rotated component matrix

Statements Component factor loadings

1 2 3 4 5
Good business Business "rst Nature of the Family "rst Performance
reputation business

This business runs on high moral 0.829

standards
Delivery of a high-quality product or 0.807
service is a high priority
I want to present a good corporate 0.598
image
I want to keep the business growing 0.756
It is crucial to keep the business pro"table 0.706
Eventually the business will be sold for 0.611
the best possible price
I would rather keep the business modest !0.378 0.344
and under control than have it grow
too big
It is hard to separate work and family life 0.822
in a tourism business
In this business customers cannot be 0.704
separated from personal life
I come into daily contact with customers 0.697 0.305
Enjoying the job is more important 0.672
than making lots of money
It is not necessary to have formal business 0.662
goals
My personal/family interests take priority 0.556
over running the business
It should be run on purely business 0.306 !0.457
principles
This business currently meets my 0.718
performance targets
This business is highly seasonal !0.711

overall pro"tability, but it does o!er families a lull during
which pursuit of family and lifestyle goals can dominate.
Close contact with customers is central to small hospi-
tality and tour companies, and is almost inescapable in
bed and breakfast operations. Sometimes this causes
trouble for owners, resulting in stress and a desire to
separate themselves from their guests, whiles others crave
meeting new people and engaging them in conversation.
Of this sample, 37.5 per cent disagreed or strongly dis-
agreed that `In this business customers cannot be separ-
ated from personal lifea (mean"2.97), while 36 per cent
agreed or strongly agreed. This mixed result could indi-
cate real di!erences in business or merely of perception.
It can be interpreted better by looking at responses to the
statement `I come into daily contact with customersa, to
which fully 80 per cent agreed or strongly agreed
(mean"3.92).
4.2.4. Family-related goals
Respondents were asked, `How important were the
following family-related goals for you?a, using a "ve-
point scale from not at all important to very important
(see Table 8). The most important family goal was the
sharing of key decisions, which 82 per cent of respon-
dents (the majority of whom are co-owning spouses)
indicated was somewhat important or very important
(mean"4.34). This relates closely to the goal of preven-
ting disharmony among family members (73 per cent
rated it somewhat or highly important; mean"3.86).
Earning enough money to support the family was rated
fairly highly as 68 per cent rated it somewhat or very
important (3.86).
Least important was `elevating our family position in
societya (mean"1.18), although a small percentage did
"nd it important. Creating jobs for family members and
training children for future ownership of the business
were also of minor importance overall. The largest neu-
tral or uncertain response was for the goal `Ensure the
family has lots of free time togethera. It was somewhat or
very important to only half the respondents, so either
a lot of respondents were uncertain whether they were
going to be able to have a lot of free time together, or it
was not a major concern. To some extent time spent
working together might obviate the need or desire for
556 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560

Table 8
Importance of goals pertaining to the family

Statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD
Not at all Very
important important
(valid % of
responses)

Prevent disharmony among 11.3 3.8 11.8 16.1 57.0 4.04 1.37
family members
Share all key decisions with the 4.8 2.7 11.2 16.6 64.7 4.34 1.09
spouse or family
Train the children for future 34.8 8.8 22.1 17.7 16.6 2.72 1.50
ownership of the business
Provide family members with jobs 42.1 12.0 16.9 18.0 10.9 2.44 1.45
Share the work equally with 14.7 8.7 18.5 20.1 38.0 3.58 1.44
my spouse
Pass on the family business to 35.2 12.6 24.2 12.6 15.4 2.60 1.46
children/family
Earn enough to support the family 11.9 7.6 12.4 18.9 49.2 3.86 1.41
Elevate our family position in society 60.7 9.8 19.1 6.6 3.8 1.83 1.18
Ensure the family has lots of free 14.8 6.6 28.4 25.1 25.1 3.39 1.33
time together

families to spend leisure time together, and a complete Table 9

break from the family unit might be more appropriate for
some of the respondents.
Respondents were also asked to write in other impor-
tant family-related goals for the business. A total of 62
were listed, from which several groupings seem to be
important. The largest (14 mentions) was related to the
enjoyment of working together or allowing time to enjoy
the family. Eleven pertained to having children growing
up working in the business. Sharing the "nancial reward
with family was mentioned by eight respondents, as was
having work that suited one's lifestyle. Another seven
speci"ed the ability to shape children's education.
4.2.5. Satisfaction and problems
A great deal of insight on the nature of the business can
be gained by examining what aspects of the business
generated the greatest satisfaction or di$culties (see
Tables 9 and 10). Responses on satisfaction can be
grouped into three main themes: working as a family (time
spent working together and team work); pride in the busi-
ness (of ownership, developing the business and satisfying
customers); independence or making one's own decisions.
Expressed di$culties of family businesses can also be
grouped into several themes. The most important ap-
pears to be time: the number of hours worked: lack of free
time, time lost with partners. Related to this problem is
the di$culty in balancing work and family life, and the
need to "nd space away from customers. Another theme
is that of internal family con#icts, speci"cally over goals
and agreement on solving problems, plus the issue of
"nding equal worth within the family business or within
the family in general. Speci"c business problems were
also a theme, including doing the administrative and
Plans for disposition of the business
Plans Valid % of
responses
Part ownership has already been transferred/ 1.1
sold to one or more children or family members
Ownership will be transferred/sold in the future to 7.0
one or more children
The business will be sold, but not to family 20.5
or children
Ownership to be willed to children/family 24.9
Uncertain 46.5
"nancial tasks, marketing and promotion, and providing
good service at all times.
4.2.6. Plans for disposition of the business
Respondents were asked to tick one box beside a num-
ber of statements pertaining to disposition of the busi-
ness, and to expand on plans if possible. Results of the
close-ended question are shown in Table 11. Most strik-
ing is the very high percentage of owners (46.5 per cent)
who are uncertain about disposition. One-"fth of respon-
dents have no plans to keep ownership within the family,
while one-quarter plan to will it to children or family
members on their death. A very small proportion have
already involved children or other family in ownership
(1 per cent) or plan to do so by means other than a will
(7 per cent). In total, only 33 per cent of respondents
had done so already or indicated a plan to involve
children or family. When interpreting these results it
should be remembered that 82 per cent of respondents
were married, and that children worked in only 23 per
cent of the businesses covered.
 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
Table 10
Aspects of family business that give the most satisfaction (number of
mentions, categorised from an open-ended question)
Team work
Seeing customers enjoying themselves
Time spent together; work from home
Pride of ownership
Running a good business
Developing business goals
Making own decisions
Independence
People enjoy the place
Resort we have built
Seasonal nature of the business
Having a good day or season
Table 11
Most di$cult aspects of a family business (number of mentions,
categorised from an open-ended question)
Time commitment
O$ce/"nancial work
Takes up free time/no leisure
Balancing family with business
Dealing with di!erent goals
Time lost with each other
Finding own space away from customers
Long working hours
Don't agree on problems
Unequal feelings of worth
Having to give it up owing to old age
Providing good service at all times
Marketing and promotion
Age of respondents was not a statistically signi"cant
explanatory variable (P"0.079), but data do tend to
suggest the hypothesis that the older the respondent the
more likely they were to will or transfer ownership to
children or family in the future. Speci"cally, the propor-
tions planning to will the business to family or children
for the age categories 25}34, 35}44, 45}54, 55}64 and
65# were, respectively, 36.4, 15.6, 23.7, 39.4 and 20 per
cent. It must be remembered that only 7 per cent of the
sample were aged 34 or less, and only 8 per cent were 65
or more. Gender and education di!erences were not
statistically signi"cant, nor was the involvement or lack
of involvement of children or other family members in
the business.
A parallel look at this question was provided in Table
8. Only 25.7 per cent indicated that the goal `pass on
the family business to children/familya was important
or very important (mean"2.60). Regarding the goal,
`train the children for future ownership of the businessa,
only 31.2 per cent indicated it was important or very
important (mean"2.72).
Included in the statements in Table 5, pertaining to
business management, was the following: `Eventually the
557
business will be sold for the best possible price.a Only 34
per cent agreed or strongly agreed (mean"2.80), com-
pared to 45 per cent who disagreed or strongly disagreed.
29 Cross-tabulation with business type did not reveal a
28 statistically signi"cant di!erence.
23 The literature on family businesses in general demon-
20 strates that intergenerational succession is achieved in
15 only a minority of the businesses, and in some cases is
12
9 actually considered to be undesirable. In Australia, 46
6 per cent of sampled "rst-generation, family-business
5 owners set it up with the intent to sell it, not pass it on to
3 family (Smyrnios et al., 1997). Seventy-one per cent of
1 their sample consisted of "rst-generation owners, while
1
only 3 per cent were in the fourth generation. Only 30 per
cent of respondents had a succession plan, and only 12
per cent had a written plan (p.18). In the United States,
Frieswick (1996) found that one-third of family business-
es made it to the second generation. Low succession rates
have been attributed to a lack of planning, reluctance by
28 parents to choose a successor, and owners who see no life
16 beyond the business. Children of "rst-generation Chinese
15 business owners in the United States were not interested
12 in taking over because the perceived it to be too di$cult
11 and less reward, and were alienated by the management
11
8 style of parents (Wong, McReynolds & Wong, 1992).
8 A study of African}American family businesses (Dean,
8 1992) found that succession was not a priority because
5 the business was seen as a means to develop the children
4 into professionals.
3
2
5. Disussion and conclusions
Major topics covered in the analysis are discussed in
sequence, followed by conclusions on research directions
and hypotheses.
5.1. Characteristics of the owners and their businesses
The sample consisted of mostly (66 per cent) small
businesses owned by couples (called `copreneursa), with
14 per cent reporting to be sole proprietors. In total, 82
per cent of respondents were married. Only 23 per cent
reported that one or more children worked in their busi-
ness. Small accommodation businesses dominated the
sample (75 per cent), some of which (i.e., bed and break-
fast) are likely to require only part-time operations. Most
respondents were middle-aged, with 65.5 per cent in the
35}54 bracket. Eighty-three per cent had started up the
business (44 per cent within the previous "ve years), and
only 4.2 per cent had inherited it.
Whether or not this population is similar to other rural
areas is open to future comparisons. In some traditional
communities, for example, it might be expected that most
family businesses are inherited rather than new business-
es set up by in-migrants. Even within Western Australia
558 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
di!erences were noted, as the Margaret River sub-sample
had a di!erent mix of business types. It can be hy-
pothesized that more developed rural tourism destina-
tions attract and sustain di!erent types of businesses and
quite likely di!erent types of investors. Developed desti-
nations can count on higher levels of publicity and de-
mand, less seasonality, and a broader range of attractions
and services.
Results are clearly not generalisable to the entire fam-
ily business sector. For example, the Australian Family
and Private Business Survey covered mostly larger busi-
nesses listed in the Dunn and Bradstreet directory that
consisted mostly of manufacturing, retail and wholesale
businesses. Tourism and hospitality sectors are clearly
di!erent, encompassing many micro-businesses, part-
time operations, and types of business which do not
necessarily require large initial investments.
The Western Australian sample strongly suggests that
tourism and hospitality sectors are attracting many
middle-aged couples and families to live and invest, for
predominantly lifestyle and family reasons. In addition,
there is a group of sole proprietors, without family in-
volvement in the business, who appear to be motivated
more by normal pro"t-making goals, but who also prefer
the rural environment.
5.2. Start-up goals
Factor analysis revealed four components that ex-
plained about 60 per cent of the variance regarding goals
for starting the business. By far the most important was
`lifestylea, both in terms of high means and factor load-
ings, and the fact that hardly any respondents indicated
that any of the four statements were unimportant. Two
lesser components related to the desire to have a chal-
lenge and meet people (called `stimulationa) and `inde-
pendencea. The second major factor has been called
`moneya, and while most respondents did indicate the
importance of pro"tability and "nancial independence,
there is evidence from signi"cance tests that some re-
spondents are much more oriented than the majority to
making money. Those respondents whose answers
loaded onto the `money a factor are more likely to be
running hotels and motels, suggesting the hypothesis that
the more one invests the more normal pro"t goals will
dominate. Nevertheless, few respondents were in business
to make lots of money.
Overall, the analysis tends to con"rm the presence of
both family oriented businesses and business-oriented
families (or sole proprietors) as suggested by Singer and
Donahu (1992). But in these rural tourism and hospitality
sectors, living in the rural environment plus family
and lifestyle considerations were signi"cant for almost
everyone.
Start-up goals were not speci"cally covered in the
Australian national AFPBS survey of family businesses
(Smyrnios et al., 1997). However, it did demonstrate that
family business objectives were di!erent across the gen-
erations, perhaps most interestingly with regard to life-
style. Among "rst-generation respondents, 19.2 per cent
agreed that `to improve their lifestylea was an objective,
compared to 18.5 per cent in the second generation and
only 8.3 per cent in the third.
5.3. Business operation goals
Five factors arising from principal component analysis
explained about 55 per cent of the variance pertaining to
goals for operating the business. Two factors clearly
di!erentiate between family/lifestyle and business, and
they have been called `family "rsta and `business "rsta.
These results also support the Singer and Donahu hy-
pothesis, but while the 45}54 age group was more in
agreement than older respondents with the statements
in this component, there were no other di!erentiating
variables related to the owners or types of business.
The various analyses reveal a family and lifestyle
oriented sector, but respondents also understand the
importance of being pro"table and running a quality
business. Few are oriented primarily to making lots of
money, indeed most put family "rst. But there appears to
be tension between pursuing business growth and keep-
ing it manageable.
About half the respondents do not have formal busi-
ness goals, and this fact should cause some alarm given
the high failure or closure rates among small businesses
in general. Many did appear to be underperforming in
the context of their own (unde"ned) performance targets.
In a group that is "rst and foremost devoted to family
and lifestyle, ensuring that the business is pro"table be-
comes a matter of some urgency unless the business is
part-time and non-essential to family survival. Some
of the micro-businesses surveyed likely fall into that
category.
5.4. Family goals
There was a strong desire by respondents, most of
whom are `copreneursa, to share decisions with the
spouse and/or other family members. Earning enough to
support the family was important, as was the prevention
of family disharmony. Certainly one major point of con-
tention within the family business relates to the bene"ts
of being together on the job but "nding that this entails
risks of disharmony and often results in less free time to
spend together on desired leisure pursuits.
5.5. Nature of the business
Rural tourism and hospitality businesses are fre-
quently subject to high seasonality of demand (61 per
cent agreed) which impacts on the family in a number of
 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
ways. Some are forced to worry about the loss of income,
while others welcome the respite. Daily contact with
visitors is another hallmark of these types of services (80
per cent agreed), especially where guests stay in the
owners' homes or land. However, many felt it was pos-
sible to keep personal and business lives separate. Satis-
faction comes from working with family, pride in the
business and independence. Major problems or sources
of dissatisfaction include time commitments, interference
with family life and leisure, and internal family con#icts.
5.6. Goals for disposition of the business
A large proportion of respondents (46.5 per cent) were
uncertain about the ultimate disposition of their busi-
ness, but it is not possible from the data to conclude that
most will or will not be passed on to family and children.
Longitudinal research and examination of terminated
family businesses is necessary on this point. A minority
did involve children in the business and about
one-quarter of respondents in total believed that it was
important to `train the children for future ownershipa.
5.7. Implications for business and rural development
In rural areas with a history of agriculture or other
resource development it might be expected that many
tourism and hospitality enterprises will emerge from
long-time residents, and that family businesses will be
passed on from one generation to the next. In the West-
ern Australian context, however, most of the businesses
sampled were recently established, and very few were
inherited. The degree of previous connection between
respondents and their rural environments is not known
(i.e., were they born in the regions?), but most clearly
chose to live there. It can even be hypothesised that most
of them had employed tourism and hospitality businesses
as a tool to achieve their lifestyle aims, but it is also likely
that some families and other owner-operators have a
lifelong interest which leads them into these sectors.
Rural areas desiring population and economic growth
can e!ectively focus on attracting families with these
predispositions. A stream of in-migrant investors could
have very positive impacts in depressed or de-populating
areas. Analysis of population trends between 1991 and
1996 found that small towns in Australia along the Mur-
ray River, in the Snowy Mountains, and in the Hunter
Valley, had increased their population by more than 100
per cent through the growth of industries such as wine
and tourism (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1998).
To attract and sustain investment in rural tourism and
hospitality enterprises, an understanding of family and
sole-proprietor business goals is imperative. Some will be
content with small businesses and no growth, while this
research suggests that a segment (especially the sole pro-
prietors) is more inclined to heavier investment, growth
559
and pro"t. Newcomers to a rural area can inject a great
deal more than money. They can be leaders, innovators
and catalysts for development. The nature and roles
of newcomers within a rural tourism context has been
analysed by Getz (1994) in the context of Spey Valley,
Scotland, where it was also found that lifestyle consider-
ations were extremely important and that newcomers
were more inclined to support conservation and to
oppose tourism growth. Therefore, cultural and political
di!erences must also be considered.
Rural family business owners might not be adequately
prepared for their business ventures and many will not be
growth oriented. They might place job satisfaction and
family "rst, but they certainly recognise the need to
operate sound, competitive businesses. Financial and
managerial help could be crucial to their business success
and their continued residency in the area. Training pro-
grams o!ered by the agricultural sector, tourism industry
or economic development agencies should incorporate
material speci"c to small family and owner-operated
businesses, recognising their special goals and needs.
5.8. Research directions
The current research has been very exploratory and
"ndings are not generalisable to other populations and
areas. But the analysis does suggest issues, lines of research
and a few speci"c hypotheses. Future research in this "eld
should therefore address the following questions:
E What is the proportion of family and owner-operated
businesses in rural areas?
E Are family businesses di!erent when comparing re-
gions and cultures? For example, do highly developed
destinations attract and sustain di!erent types of fam-
ily businesses, with di!erent goals?
E How do the goals of family business owners and
owner-operators compare with each other and with
the operational goals of professionally managed busi-
nesses and public-sector agencies in rural areas?
E Do family goals for their businesses change over time,
particularly with regard to involvement of children or
other family members and to succession?
E Is business failure or success linked to motives, opera-
tional goals or lifestyle preferences?
E What are the impacts of major environmental factors
on family businesses, especially seasonality of demand,
contact with customers, service orientation and the
nature of services provided?
E Where do the owners come from? (i.e., types of educa-
tion; previous work and business experience; rural or
urban upbringings, etc.)
There is a global need for longitudinal studies covering
the life-cycle of business start-up through succession or
termination, and a study of terminated family businesses.
Much can be learned by evaluating why tourism and
560 D. Getz, J. Carlsen / Tourism Management 21 (2000) 547}560
hospitality businesses cease, and what exactly in#uences
the decisions of parents and children regarding possible
succession.
One speci"c hypothesis generated in this research is
that accommodation businesses are not all alike; the
greater the investment, the more that pro"t is likely to be
a dominant goal. Growth of the business, on the other
hand, is unlikely to be pursued if it is perceived to
interfere with family and lifestyle preferences.
The study of family businesses in tourism and hospital-
ity is in its infancy, so many other key research questions
will arise from the broader "elds of small and family
businesses. Unique aspects of the tourism and hospitality
sectors must be revealed through speci"c study and com-
parisons with other types of business. It is suggested from
this research in Western Australia, and other literature
available, that the most distinctive features of the
tourism/hospitality sectors will prove to be related to
their business environment (i.e., seasonality; close contact
with customers; high demands on time; rural locations)
and the lifestyle and location preferences of those attrac-
ted to the sectors.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for co-operation received
from the Augusta * Margaret River Tourist Associ-
ation, and from Mr. Gary Palmer of the Farm and
Country Holidays Association Inc. Special thanks are
owed to Jane Ali-Knight and Brian Smith, research as-
sistants. Funding was provided by the Family Business
Research Endowment of the University of Calgary, Fac-
ulty of Management, and from Edith Cowan University's
Small and Medium Enterprise Research Centre
(SMERC).
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998). Australian Social Trends. Cat.
4102.0 (pp. 10}14).
Barry, B. (1975). The development of organisation structure in the
family "rm. Journal of General Management, Autumn, 42}60.
Bransgrove, C., & King, B. (1996). Strategic marketing practice
amongst small tourism and hospitality businesses. In: R. Thomas,
Spring symposium proceedings of international association of hotel
management schools, (pp. 29}38). Leeds Metropolitan University.
Commonwealth of Australia. (1997). A portrait of Australian business.
Department of Industry, Science and Tourism. Canberra.
Dean, S. (1992). Characteristics of African American family-owned
businesses in Los Angeles. Family Business Review, 5(4), 373}395.
Dunn, B. (1995). Success themes in Scottish family enterprises: Philos-
ophies and practices through the generations. Family Business Re-
view, 8(1), 17}28.
File, K., Prince, R., & Rankin, M. (1995). Organisational buying behav-
iour of the family "rm. Family Business Review, 7(3), 263}272.
Frater, J. (1982). Farm tourism in England and overseas. Research mem-
orandum 93. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Birmingham.
Frieswick, K. (1996). Successful transmission. Industrial Distribution, 85,
61}64.
Gersick, K., Davis, J., Hampton, M., & Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation
to generation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Getz, D. (1994). Residents' attitudes toward tourism: A longitu-
dinal study in Spey Valley, Scotland. Tourism Management, 15(5),
247}257.
Kousis, M. (1989). Tourism and the family in a rural Cretan commun-
ity. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(3), 318}332.
Lank, A. (1995). Key challenges facing family enterprises. Lausanne,
Switzerland: IMD Publication.
Lynch, P. (1996). Microenterprises and micro-"rms in the hospitality
industry: The case of bed and breakfast enterprises. In: R. Thomas,
Spring symposium proceedings of international association of hotel
management schools, (pp. 231}236). Leeds Metropolitan University.
Massachusetts Mutual Life Assurance. (1993). Major xndings of the
family business survey. Spring"eld, MA.
McKercher, B. (1998). The business of nature-based tourism. Melbourne:
Hospitality Press.
McKercher, B., & Robbins, B. (1998). Business development issues
a!ecting nature-based tourism operators in Australia. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 6(2), 173}188.
Mendonsa, E. (1983). Tourism and income strategies in Nazare, Portu-
gal. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(2), 213}238.
Oppermann, M. (1997). Rural tourism in Germany * farm and rural
tourism operators. In S. Page, & D. Getz, The business of rural
tourism: International perspectives (pp. 108}119). London: Interna-
tional Thomson Business Press.
Page, S., & Getz, D. (1997). The business of rural tourism: International
perspectives. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Pearce, P. (1990). Farm tourism in New Zealand: A social situation
analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 117}125.
Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (1993). Tourism * taking
the "rst steps: Getting started series. Brisbane.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J., & Chua, J. (1996). A review and annotated
bibliography of family business studies. Boston: Kluwer.
Singer, J., & Donahu, C. (1992). Strategic management 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, Global tourism (2nd ed.) (pp. 205}215).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Smyrnios, K., Romano, C., & Tanewski, G. (1997). The Australian family
and private business survey. Melbourne: Monash University.
Stringer, P. (1981). Hosts and guests: The bed and breakfast phenom-
enon. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(3), 357}376.
Tourism Victoria. (no date). Starting Up In Tourism. Melbourne.
Wong, B., McReynolds, S., & Wong, W. (1992). Chinese family "rms in
the San Francisco bay areas. Family Business Review, 5(4), 355}372.
World Tourism Organisation. (1997). Rural tourism: A solution
for employment, local development and environment. Madrid:
WTO.
Westhead, P. (1997). Ambitions, &external' environment and strategic
factor di!erences between family and non-family companies. Entre-
preneurship and Regional Development, 9, 127}157.
Wortman, M. (1995). Critical issues in family business: An international
perspective of practice and research. Proceedings of the 40th Interna-
tional council for small business conference, Sydney. NCP Printing.
Newcastle: University of Newcastle.