| Date post: | 21-Nov-2014 |
| Category: |
Technology |
| Upload: | glenn-muske |
| View: | 72 times |
| Download: | 2 times |
A Longitudinal Study of Copreneurial Couples: Factors Contributing to Continuance Over a DecadeMargaret Fitzgerald, Ph.D.Department of Human Development and Family ScienceGlenn Muske, Ph.D.Center for Community Vitality
NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY
NE 167/NC 1030 Family Business Research Group Multi-state, multi-disciplinary research team Ag Experiment Stations on respective campuses 5 year projects At-Home Income Generation: Impact on Management, Productivity
and Stability in Rural/Urban Families (9 state study) Family Business Interaction in Work and Family Spheres Family Business Viability in Economically Vulnerable Communities Family Firms and Policy Family Firms and Policy in Times of Disruption (2011- present)
Copreneurs Couples who own and operate businesses
together Represent about 30% of family businesses in the
United States Limited empirical research Qualitative, small sample & cross-sectional
Defined inconsistently? Difficult to gather information, diverse structures? Outliers vs. too common? Invisibility of women in FOBs?
Popular press
Advantages Share values and vision w/
partner Trust Ability to blend work and
family Strengthen family and
business relationship Pursuit of goals, dreams and
ideals, > commitment to long-term goals
Common language, history Communicate w/ ease &
effectiveness
Disadvantages Boundaries—collision of personal
and professional problems, intrusion of work into the home
Complexity of maintaining a romantic relationship
Conflict, carry-over Neglect of personal needs,
increased demands on time & energy
Inequitable division of labor Time and financial pressures Lack of “sounding board” or
“venting” Competition between spouses
Sustainable Family Business Theory
Data National Family Business Survey
1997, 2000, and 2007 panels 1997 nationally representative sample of U.S.
households, telephone interviews Attempted to followed same businesses in 2000 & 2007 HH and BM interviews or combined Screened over 14,000 U.S. households, 1,116 eligible
households 1997 NFBS, 794 families w/ a FOB (71% response rate) Both HH and BM interview, n=673 (60.3% response rate) Citations for methodological articles, end of handout
Definition of Copreneurs (Fitzgerald & Muske, 2002)
BM reported that he or she was married or involved in a marriage-like relationship
HHM reported that he or she was the partner or spouse of the BM
HHM had to be working in the business & BM had to acknowledge that HHM was
working in the business Partner had to be a major decision-maker
in the business
1997 Copreneurs (n=211 of the 673) were significantly
more likely than noncopreneurial businesses to: Have spouse working more weeks per year in the
business Earn less (GBI, profit & income to the HH, HH
income) Be home-based Employ fewer people Lower perceptions of business success More likely to see business as a way of life
673 family businesses interviewed 211 copreneurs identified
88 couples remain copreneurs(“on-going”) in 2000
By 2000: 43 - could not be located44 - do not meet copreneur criteria(“discontinued”)28 - not in business8 - not involved, business still open444
businesses reinterviewed
42 couples defined as copreneurs(“started”)
1997
2000
Copreneurial couples in 2000, n = 130
Figure 1: Defining copreneurs
2000 “Dynamic Nature of Copreneurs”
2000
“Dynamic nature of copreneurial businesses”(Muske & Fitzgerald, 2006)
Of the 211 in 1997, 88 continued as copreneurs 43 could not be located 44 were no longer copreneurs, but still in business
(and still married) 28 were no longer in business 8 were no longer involved, but the business was still
open There were also 42 “new” copreneurial couples in 2000
2007Continued with exploration of the dynamic nature of copreneurs!
27 couples, copreneurs in all three waves 10 new copreneurs 10 were “interrupted” (1997 & 2007 but not 2000) 6 were copreneurs in 2000 & 2007 (not 1997) 25 were no longer copreneurs but business is still
open (3 of which are separated or divorced) 4 could not be located, 14 businesses closed, 4
business open but respondents no longer involved
1997 673 Family Businesses
interviewed; 211 copreneurs identified
By 2000, of the 211 copreneurs in
1997
88 Couples continued as copreneurs
"ongoing"
2007 290 Family Businesses
Reinterviewed
27 couples were copreneurs in all 3
waves of data (1997, 2000, 2007)
"ongoing"
10 couples were copreneurs in 1997
& 2007, but not 2000 "interupted"
10 additional couples became
copreneurs; hadn't been copreneurs in
1997 or 2000"started"
6 couples were copreneurs in 2000 and 2007 but not
1997
25 no longer copreneurs but
business is still open in 2007
"discontinued"3 are divorced or
separated
54 could not be located
14 businesses closed
4 businesses open, no longer involved
(n=72)
44 no longer copreneurs but
business is still open "discontinued"29 are divorced or
seperated/ 15 could not be located
43 could not be located 28 no longer
in business 8 no longer involved in the
business: but business still open
(n=79)
2000 444 Family Businesses
reinterviewed
42 additional couples became
copreneurs between 1997 & 2000 "started"
n=130
n=211
Thus in 2077 – 53 copreneurial couplesn=130
Results Copreneurs who continued in business
for over a decade resembled other forms of family business that sustained over time
Similar profiles Business manager most often male Average age about 49 Some college
Continuance in Copreneurs Copreneurs who stayed in business over
time were more likely than other family businesses to Be located in rural areas Be in non-service businesses, agriculture in
particular More likely to employ higher numbers of
family members No differences: revenue, profit, numbers of
employees in general
Discussion Dynamic Nature As predicted, copreneurial choice as a way of life More in agriculturally related business—farming &
ranching More likely rural—is choice/mobility an issue? Male business managers more likely to continue Risk management—inclusion of family members
helps hold costs down? Sustainability – steady income Influence of Affordable Care Act—more likely to stay
in copreneurial relationship?
Citations: NFBS Methods Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M.A., Heck, R.Z.K., Haynes, G., & Danes, S. (1998).
Revisiting the study of family Businesses: Methodolocial challenges, dilemmas, and alternative approaches. Family Business Review 11(3), 239-252.
Winter, M., Danes, S.M., Koh, S., Fredricks, K., & Paul, J.J. (2004). Tracing family businesses and their owners over time: Panel attrition, manager departure, and business demise. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 535-559.
Stafford, K., Bhargava, V., Danes, S.M., Haynes, G., & Brewton, K.E. (2010). Factors associated with long-term survival of family businesses: Duration analysis. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31: 442-457.
Stafford, K., Danes, S.M., & Haynes, G.W. (2013). Long-term family firm survival and growth considering family adaptive capacity and federal disaster assistance receipt. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4, 188-200.
Copreneurs Fitzgerald, M.A., & Muske, G. (2002). Copenerus:
An exploration and comparison to other family businesses. Family Business Review, XV(1), 1-16.
Muske, G., & Fitzgerald, M.A. (2006). A panel study of copreneurs in business: Who enters, continues, and exits? Family Business Review, XIX(3), 193-205.
