If the eldest child does best in life, does the same apply to employees in smaller firms? Does the first person hired do best? Does the firm put more effort into helping this person succeed? And does their dominance within the firm mean others will inevitably have fewer chances to shine or have their say so?

A new study by the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration has found that a family's eldest child does better academically and financially than his or her siblings, regardless of their sex. Of course there are always going to be numerous exceptions where this doesn't apply, but broadly speaking it's the first born who does the best in life.

He or she is the most successful at school, gaining the best grades and securing entry to the more prestigious seats of learning. Attending a 'better' university usually produces more career possibilities, and means the first born lands a 'good' first job. Over time, this leads to him enjoying a higher-earning, higher-status career compared to his brothers and sisters.

The first child does better because he has more of his parents' attention, and because he can dominate his younger brothers and sisters. Most crudely put, the first born is more able to get things his or her way and have the lion's share of the key resources, including parental time. By dint of being born first, the eldest child has stronger language skills and more physical strength than his younger siblings, again enabling him to control the family environment to his own advantage.

That's family life, but what about business? Can we learn anything from this? And is there anything useful we can apply to the smaller companies I often deal with, which according to recent estimates, account for some four million commercial enterprises. I think we can.

Smaller businesses function along similar lines to most nuclear families. Usually there is a strong head of the firm, commanding a role similar to the old-fashioned Head of the Household, and there is a strong sense of the need for mutual cooperation. There is, also, intense rivalry and internal competition.

Like families, small firms produce tight, often unique, cultures. They become small worlds, operating by their own rules. While these rules might suit each firm's particular circumstances, they might not be best for getting on in the outside world.

Strong workplace cultures are forged in small businesses by having to battle each day with adversity. These businesses do not have surplus cash or enough staff, especially at senior level, to allow them to breathe easily, especially if there's an economic downturn or a major customer has been lost.

But the very act of struggling to stay afloat can drive staff together rather than apart. There's nothing like knowing your firm has battled against the odds and lived to fight another day, and knowing that you and all your colleagues have done their bit to aid its survival.

Small firms generate strong cultures because their survival depends on good team play and strong communications. No smaller business can succeed without its staff being willing to muck in. In a micro business, there's just too few employees to allow for anyone to get ideas above their station and not respond to the day to day needs of the enterprise.

Much of this is really positive. People often want to work for smaller businesses because they like being part of a tight team where everyone's effort counts. They seek workplaces that have a strong esprit de corps, and where their individual contribution will be highly visible (for good or ill).

So, to return to my main question. If the eldest child does best in life, does the same apply to employees in smaller firms? Does the first person hired do best? Does the firm put more effort into helping this person succeed? And does their dominance within the firm mean others will inevitably have fewer chances to shine or have their say so?

I think, on balance, after many years dealing with smaller companies, I can give a qualified 'yes' to all three points.

Undoubtedly, there is much agonising that goes into hiring employee number one. Once the founders have set up the business, especially if they haven't run one before, they will debate long and hard about who they first take on.

Most founders of a business will have some sense that whoever they first hire will have a very important role in shaping things to come for others. The founders will want someone with a strong sense of responsibility, someone they can utterly rely on, but also someone who can be moulded into the way the founders like to work.

Like the first born, this first employee will get the full attention of the founders. Subsequent employees will have to compete for their time. As firms grow larger, the first employee will have a large degree of "founders' rights", meaning they probably will enjoy a degree of largess that other staff might consider unfair.

If the first employee is, or is perceived to be, on a looser reign with more privileges than subsequent hires, this can cause problems later on. It is especially difficult if the first employee no longer pulls their weight, or has a drastic reduction in job performance.

This is something that owner managers must watch out for. They should be wary about creating a culture where new joiners perceive that there is an "old guard" and that this old guard is treated with kid gloves. Naturally, new joiners will resent employers who do not treat all their staff equally.

Founders must be aware that with each new employee, the firm changes. New staff are not joining the initial organisation, but one that has evolved over time. It may be the case that the firm has developed to such an extent that the early joiners are no longer of high enough calibre or quality to maintain their roles. If this has happened, the organisation should look to replace them; there should be no room for sentiment in a successful operation.

If management doesn't act and allows the first joiners to set the tone and become too dominant, they risk the company becoming moribund and too set in its way to respond to dynamic or difficult markets.

The chief problem will be cultural, however. Ineffective management will lead to a collapse in workplace morale, signalling that it is acceptable for an "old guard" versus new joiners position to have become established. This in turn will produce an unhealthy working atmosphere, and a noticeable falling off in team communication.

How do you spot if this is happening to your organisation? Some tell tale signs of trouble ahead will be normally happy and vocal staff, who start to clam up at staff meetings. They will be much less enthusiastic than usual about the prospects of change, and will be polite but not motivated.

If you don't work hard at getting them to express their hidden resentment it will lead to more 'by the book' behaviour, which spells a long and protracted death of your business as people become increasingly reluctant to stay late at work or go the extra mile.

The other consequence of favouring the first born in the work place, is that even fairly fresh staff will start not to bother with offering the management new ideas or useful suggestions towards the firm's development. Instead, they will take the path of least resistance, remaining quiet in the hope of not offending anyone.

As most small businesses sadly remain small all their lives, bringing about change and keeping products and services fresh and in line with the market place is no cosmetic challenge. It is the lifeblood of the business.

As someone who deals regularly with struggling small and medium-sized businesses, I recognise that they can become a little inbred, and they must fight to prevent themselves from becoming inflexible and ill adapted for change.