Preparation

4.4.1 Piloting

A pilot case has been conducted to test the overall procedure as well as the planned design. Even though the pilot study had to be performed with another company than originally expected and the time schedule had to be adopted, the data collection showed that the expected level of information as well as the availability of management teams to participate has been achieved. The first and second level coding allowed for a useful deconstruction and later aggregation of the relevant data and already showed that data was able to pose answers to the formulated research propositions. The pilot study was conducted in June and July 2013 and has been included in the main study as Case 1.

Two areas of further improvement have been identified during the pilot study. The first area is a reduction in the number of questions of the interview guidelines as both interviews exceeded the envisaged timeframe of approximately 90 minutes up to 120 minutes by far. The questions were reduced to 23 questions. The second area of improvement applied to the sequence of data collection methods. The document review and the calculation of the key financial ratios after the interview presented

Develop research propositions Select cases Design data collection protocol Select cases Conduct 1st_case study (pilot) Conduct 2nd_case study Conduct remaining case studies Write individual case summary Write individual case summary Write individual case summaries Draw cross-case conclusions Reconstruct research propositions Write cross-case report Develop implications

findings that did not match responses from management and therefore required a re- interview during the sign-off of the interview protocol.

Given the unanticipated change of interview partners and the time restrictions of the pilot study, only one interview was performed during a personal meeting, whereas the interview with the CFO of the company of the pilot study was a telephone session.

4.4.2 Expert Review of the Interview Guideline

Prior to executing the pilot case, the developed interview guideline was presented to several financing advisors that the researcher had access to as well as to the professors of the supervisory team of the author. Guidelines were discussed with them for a critical review and refinement of the questions (Gillham, 2000b). The feedback from the experts led to changes in the order of the questions of the interview guideline as well as to the removal or improvement of some of the questions to ensure a consistent match with the research questions. The matrix of questions of the interview guideline with the underlying research question is provided in Appendix B.

4.4.3 Potential Study Limitations and Ethical Considerations

The potential limitations and ethical considerations for this research project have been carefully evaluated during the design and planning phase to avoid insufficient and poor data. The following areas were identified:

4.4.3.1 Informed Consent

As most of the envisaged interview partners will have worked with the researcher during his professional career, an uncoerced and voluntary participation is important (M. B. Miles et al., 2013). To ensure informed consent, several elements have been implemented. These included detailed pre-information on the aim and objective of the research, sign-off of the interview content protocol and the calculated key financial ratios as well as a re-interview mechanism in case some details might be found during the document review phase that were not corresponding to the interview (Gillham, 2000b).

4.4.3.2 Access to Data and to Interview Partners

As none of the firms that participated in the research is publicly listed, only limited data was available via general information tools and databases. In addition, family- owned businesses tend not to provide confidential information on management processes and company guidelines to external persons and researchers. Implemented confidentiality mechanisms mitigated this aspect (please refer to the following section 4.4.3.3). The second aspect was the bond of trust (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008), which developed between the company management and the researcher being its advisor during the refinancing. Most of the information and documents that are relevant were already with the researcher. However, the author did not use these documents but asked the management to resubmit the documents that are explicitly relevant for the research based on the information request list sent. The management was able to decide, whether they want to have an information to be included in the research or not. Interviews were scheduled via telephone calls but were held as personal meetings at the managements’ offices. For the pilot study, this mechanism could not be complied with completely, as presented in section 4.4.1.

4.4.3.3 Power Differential, Confidentiality and Bias

The researcher has worked for some of the firms that participated in the research on their refinancing, including the pilot study case. It is therefore important to protect the interests of the interview partner by ensuring accuracy at the same time. To ensure an unbiased process, no case was analysed where a contractual agreement to support in the refinancing between the researcher’s employer and the analysed firm was not completed at least six months prior the study. The minimum period of six months was chosen because this timeframe implies that at least one financial reporting cycle with financing partners was completed without the involvement of financial advisors. Another element of power differential exists between the two interview partners as they interacted during the refinancing process and the Head of Treasury is normally reporting to the CFO of the firm. Strict anonymity is therefore required to allow for non-politically motivated answers from the interview partner (Harvey, 2011). This is ensured in the research design via completely separated interview strings. Each interview took place at an individually scheduled meeting with the respective interview participant, and no answer from one participant was discussed with the other

involved interviewee. Coding and categorisation of the interview content protocols delivered a level of aggregation that did not allow for drawing conclusions on an individual interview.

Confidentiality regarding the information received and each analysed refinancing decision was ensured by signing a confidentiality agreement and by keeping relevant company information and the interview content protocols as well as electronic copies in safeguarded lockers and workplace areas of the researcher. These comply with German audit firm regulations.

The personal involvement of the researcher in some of the analysed refinancing situations made an unbiased data collection and analysis even more important. Therefore, experienced researchers and practitioners reviewed the interview guidelines to avoid that the questions pretended a certain trend for an answer, as described in section 4.4.2. In addition, the sign-off of the content protocol and the calculated ratios granted a further review by the interview partner to ensure unbiased and accurate data collection.

4.4.3.4 Translation

The interviews were performed in German as this is the native language of all interview participants and the interview content protocol as well as almost all documents to be analysed were in German. To avoid a distortion of the data and to facilitate the analysis these have been conducted in German as well, even though language and exact wording were not crucial for the analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2007; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). The interview content protocols as well as directly cited statements of the interview participants have been translated during the writing-up phase.