The Three-Circle Model of the Family Business System was developed at Harvard Business School by Renato Tagiuri and John Davis in 1978.
It quickly became, and continues to be, the central organizing framework for understanding family business systems, used by families, consultants and academics worldwide. This framework clarifies, in simple terms, the three interdependent and overlapping groups that comprise the family business system: family, business and ownership. As a result of this overlap, there are seven interest groups present, each with its own legitimate perspectives, goals and dynamics. The long-term success of family business systems depends on the functioning and mutual support of each of these groups.
https://johndavis.com/three-circle-model-family-business-system/
Thank you for this @Pranav. It looks remarkably similar to a previous community member's post and so is barely adding much value and risks redundancy and reputation in your sharing. Your post does meet the relevance and clarity criteria, as it is focused on the topic of family business systems at the masters' level and clearly explains the Three Circle Model. The post is primarily descriptive, as it provides an overview of the Three Circle Model and its relevance to understanding family business systems. It also briefly mentions the seven interest groups present in the model. However, the post does not offer much in terms of analysis or synthesis, nor does it provide any original insights or examples. In terms of value-added, the post provides a useful introduction to the Three Circle Model and its application to family business systems. The claim that the model is widely used by families, consultants, and academics worldwide is not substantiated with any evidence or credible citations, which could be a concern for those looking to verify the accuracy of the information presented. The post does not engage other members of the forum or encourage discussion, nor does it show receptiveness to other perspectives. Overall, the post meets some of the criteria, but could benefit from more analysis and synthesis, as well as engagement with other forum members and receptiveness to other perspectives. In terms of evidence and credible citations, the post does not provide any specific examples or citations to support its statements, which could be a concern for those seeking further information or looking to verify the accuracy of the information presented.