【正文】 es after the buyout were not necessary. If the managers of the family firm were not family members and did not hold equity stakes before the buyout, their influence on strategic direction before the buyout might have been very limited, since the ultimate decision might have rested \with the owners. These nonfamily managers without equity stakes were only able to effect change once the buyout had taken place and they had bee the new owners. Several changes in strategy were mon to firms with and without nonfamily management with equity stakes. Those strategies specific to firms without nonfamily managers with equity stakes were profit, cash flow, shortterm profitability, sales growth, and market value increment and market share expansion. Thus, the two different strategies of growth/expansion and efficiency improvements are fairly equally important. The governance of the family firm before the buyout could be in the hands of nonexecutive directors (NEDs) that did not belong to the family. The results indicate that more strategic changes are associated with the absence (of nonfamily NEDs before the buyout. If NEDs before the buyout were not family members, their advice should be more financially oriented (as opposed to family oriented). If good advice had been given before the buyout and some changes had already been implemented, major strategic changes may not be necessary postbuyout. In the absence of prebuyout, nonfamily NEDs, the new owners were able to implement their ideas postbuyout primarily in terms of efficiency gains. This could indicate that firms with NEDs were more effective and did not need to change their strategy so much postbuyout. Governance can also be applied at the time of succession planning, although many firms fail to plan for succession at all. In this study about 60% of the family firms questioned underwent succession planning in the period of up to two years before the event. Nevertheless, if succession was planned, management before the buyout as well as the financing private equity firm might participate in this planning and thus influence the strategic changes in the aftermath of the buyout. When management before the buyout was involved in succession planning, strategic changes were stronger pared to succession planning without the management39。 involvement prebuyout, ownership stake of nonfamily management prebuyout, existence of nonfamily, nonexecutive directors prebuyout, and management and private equity firm participation in succession planning. Our evidence is based on a representative survey of 104 private family firms across Europe which had a buyout funded by private equity between 1994 and 2020. A broad definition was adopted, with a family firm defined as having more than 50% of the ordinary voting shares owned or controlled by a single family group related by blood or marriage, and the firm is perceived to be a family business. The respondents were in senior positions: CEOspresidents (83%), directors including deputy CEO (15%), and senior management (2%). The strategy of the firm is pared before and after the buyout where growth/ expansion. The sample was divided into various subgroups related to the pany characteristics concerning ownership and management. University analysis was then used to determine whether the observed changes in strategy of these subgroups was significant. When the family firm had been founded by the previous owners, the changes in strategy postbuyout are generally more numerous and more significant than when the firm had been purchased or inherited by the prebuyout owners. This implies that the founder/owner has been dominant in terms of deciding pany strategy and that once she/he relinquishes ownership, the management is free to make the changes deemed necessary for the survival and growth of the firm. Several changes in strategy were mon to firms that were founded or nonfounded by the previous