Its durability is because it is simple, has immediate face validity and captures enough complexity in family business systems to help researchers, academics, managers and families think more clearly about the strengths and challenges of these systems.
Before the Three-Circle Model, when the family business field first started, the few thinkers about family businesses were focused almost entirely on the business itself. Before too long, there was an understanding that family dynamics were influential in the business and vice versa, so researchers thought about two circles: family and business. People were already starting to think about a system where what happens in the family influences the business and vice versa.
Your post is descriptive and myopic in nature, providing an overview of the Three-Circle Model and its historical context. There is some synthesis involved, particularly in discussing the evolution of thought about family businesses in the field. However, there is little analysis or normative evaluation of the model or its implications.
The post does not provide any real examples or evidence to support its claims about the model's durability or usefulness, nor does it cite any published or peer-reviewed sources. This raises concerns about the credibility of the post's claims and the extent to which it accurately reflects the current state of knowledge about the Three-Circle Model.