While there is universal agreement that the ecosystems approach to family resource management is the most influential currently, questions have arisen about the broad applicability of the Deacon & Firebaugh (1988) ecosystems framework. Engberg (19 ...

While there is universal agreement that the ecosystems approach to family resource management is the most influential currently, questions have arisen about the broad applicability of the Deacon & Firebaugh (1988) ecosystems framework. Engberg (1996) has characterized the dominant approach in family resource management as technical and argued that a technical approach substantially restricts feasible actions in much of the world and should not be used in ethical practice.

The purpose of the present paper is to compare the family resource management patterns by dual role manager of business owning families in Korea and The United States. Such a comparison is an essential step in the assessment of the usefulness of the Deacon & Firebaugh framework, in particular, and the ecosystems framework, more generally. Korean respondents are 105 family and business managers interviewed in 2000 as part of a survey of owners of small to medium size family business enterprises in Seoul. U.S. respondents are 259 dual role managers in the National Family Business Survey(NFBS 1997). Chi squared statistics indicated country differences on each of the ten(goal setting, standard setting, demand clarification, resource assessment, action sequencing, actuating, checking, adjusting, demand responses, resource change) management practices. Mean responses on eight of the practices(goal setting, standard setting, action sequencing, actuating, checking, adjusting, demand responses, resource changes) were significantly different between two countries. U.S. total score means of family resource management were higher than Korea. Factor analysis of the management scale items yielded different patterns for Korea, and the United States. Korean dual role manager of family business were categorized into three different patterns as classic oriented manager, goal oriented manager, action oriented manager and U.S. were categorized into process oriented manager and production oriented manager. Both the number of managerial strategies and the types of strategies used varied in the two countries.

Ⅰ.문제의 제기
Ⅱ.이론적 배경
Ⅲ.연국방법
Ⅳ.결과 및 해석
Ⅴ.결론 및 제론

Ⅰ.문제의 제기
Ⅱ.이론적 배경
Ⅲ.연국방법
Ⅳ.결과 및 해석
Ⅴ.결론 및 제론