1. Factors that influence perceptions
of work-life balance in owners
of copreneurial firms
Jill R. Helmle
Citrix, San Diego, California, USA
Isabel C. Botero
Fediuk Botero LLC, Lexington, Kentucky, USA and
Gatton College of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky, USA, and
David R. Seibold
College of Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara,
California, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors that influence perceptions of work-life
balance among owners of copreneurial firms. Research on work-life balance in the context of family firms
has focussed on the effects that perceptions of balance can have on the emotional well-being of business
owners and performance of the firm. Less attention has been given to understanding the factors affecting
an owner’s perceptions of work-life balance. This paper not only explores the antecedents of perceptions
of work-life balance but does so with copreneurs, or couples who own and manage a firm.
Design/methodology/approach – Data for this study were collected using surveys. In all, 210
copreneurs with businesses in nearly 20 industries answered questions about their perceptions of
work-life balance, work-life conflict (WLC), life-work conflict, communication practices, characteristics
of their jobs, and spousal support.
Findings – WLC was negatively related to perceptions of work-life balance. Job involvement,
flexibility at work, and permeability of communication were significantly related to perceptions of
WLC. Interestingly spousal support did not affect individual perceptions of life-work balance, but had
a direct influence on perceptions of work-life balance.
Research limitations/implications – The sample was not randomly selected, and participants
were surveyed at only one point in time. Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings have
implications for advancing research and theory in the areas of family business, work-life issues, and
communication. While the paper focus on copreneurial firms, the findings may have implications for
family firms and co-founded ventures.
Practical implications – The potential benefits of copreneurs’ increased awareness of these findings
(from readings or through coaching) are important given prior research demonstrating that family to
work conflict and work to family conflict affect the emotional well-being of family business owners,
their satisfaction with work, and firm performance.
Originality/value – This project offers two important contributions to research in family firms.
First, it focusses on copreneurial firms as a unique type of family firm which has the potential to shed
light on the differences between family firms. Second, results from this study provide a picture of the
predictors of work-life balance for couples who are firm owners.
Keywords Communication, Conflict, Work-life balance, Copreneurs
Paper type Research paper
Shifts in the demographic composition of the labor market, increases in work hours,
and changes in the pace and intensity of work have led scholars and practitioners to
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2043-6238.htm
Received 8 June 2014
Revised 8 June 2014
Accepted 15 July 2014
Journal of Family Business
Management
Vol. 4 No. 2, 2014
pp. 110-132
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2043-6238
DOI 10.1108/JFBM-06-2014-0013
110
JFBM
4,2

2. focus on the interface between work and life (Kossek and Distelberg, 2009). The thrust
of this work has been understanding the challenges, benefits, and strategies that
employees and organizations use to manage, balance, and integrate work and life
spheres[1] (Rothausen, 2009). Research has underscored the importance of employee
well-being (both physical and mental) and its impact on organizational success.
For example, empirical findings indicate that employees who feel good and experience
limited stress at work and at home are more likely to feel satisfied with their work
(Wright and Cropanzano, 2000), to be committed to the organization (Mathieu and
Zajac, 1990), and to engage in supportive behaviors toward the organization (Rosen
et al., 2010). All of these behaviors have been linked to organizational success (Birdi
et al., 2008). However, when employees feel stressed, this can have a significant impact
on their well-being and, indirectly, on the organization. In particular, employees
who feel stressed are likely to exhibit depression, anger, and physical symptoms
of cardiovascular disease (Ganster et al., 1986; Landsbergis et al., 2011), which can
affect organization-related outcomes such as job satisfaction, motivation,
organizational commitment, and employee performance (Crawford et al., 2010;
De Jonge et al., 1999).
Family businesses represent a unique context to study the different ways in which
aspects of work affect the quality of home life and vice versa (Frone et al., 1992).
In these organizations, individuals enact multiple roles that are interdependent (Beehr
et al., 1997), and these interdependencies can create opportunities for conflict in the
work and home spheres. Karofsky et al. (2001) argue that, although there is a general
belief that owning and/or running a business enables individuals greater control over
their work life and the amount of intrusion that it can have into home life sphere, there
is no empirical support for this notion. On the contrary, most of the empirical work
supports the view that in family firms there is a greater intrusion of work into personal
life (Karofsky et al., 2001; Smyrnios et al., 2003). Empirical research reveals that work
to family conflict and family to work conflict affect the emotional well-being of family
business owners, the degree of satisfaction they feel toward work, the development
of social networks, and the performance of family firms (Barnett et al., 2009; Karofsky
et al., 2001; Kwan et al., 2012; Smyrnios et al., 2003).
Although interest in, and research on, the intersection of work and home life
have increased in the family business area, there are two important gaps in our
understanding. First, most of the research exploring the work-life interface in family
firms has examined these types of organizations in general and has not considered the
differences between family firms. Research suggests that family firms can differ from
each other (Chrisman et al., 2005; Sudaramurthy and Kreiner, 2008; Zellweger et al.,
2010). We believe these differences may affect how family business owners manage
their work and life spheres. For example, when couples in a marriage or marriage-like
relationship share ownership and management of a firm they are likely to have to deal
with the issues felt by couples at the same time that they are dealing with issues about
their entrepreneurial venture, and this can create stress both in their work and life
spheres. Thus, these family business owners might deal with different challenges than
those in which only one member of the couple is active in the family business. A second
gap in our understanding of work and life issues in family firms is the limited
knowledge that we have about the factors that can help family business owners
manage work and life spheres. Most of the empirical research on work-life issues in
family firms has focussed on the consequences that these behaviors/feelings have on
the individual and the organization. To continue our understanding of work-life issues,
111
Perceptions of
work-life balance

3. we also need to explore the factors that can affect the extent to which family business
owners feel conflict in their work and life spheres.
To address these two gaps, we conducted a survey-based study to explore how
communication processes, spousal support, work involvement, and flexibility at
work help ease work-life and life-work conflicts (LWCs) that influence perceptions of
work-life balance in copreneurial firms. In the remainder of this paper, relevant
literature on work-life issues and on family business is reviewed to present the
rationale for this study. Then the methodology is explained, followed by the results and
discussion of implications.
Literature review
Copreneurial firms
Barnett and Barnett (1988) introduced the term “copreneur” to describe couples that
have joint ownership, commitment, and responsibility in a business. Copreneurial
firms represent a type of family business in which a married couple, or couple in a
marriage-like relationship, shares a personal relationship, and a work relationship in
a business that they own and operate together (Fitzgerald and Muske, 2002; Hollander
and Elman, 1988). Implicit in this definition is an equality (or at least equity) between
the two parties of the relationship when sharing the responsibility for the entrepreneurial
venture. Although it is difficult to find statistics that accurately depict the prevalence
of these types of firms, the US 2007 census survey of business owners indicates that
3.7 million American firms are jointly owned and run by copreneurs (Gannon, 2012).
Thus, they represent an important source of economic development for different regions
in the USA and around the world.
There is not much published research on copreneurial firms or copreneurial couples.
There are several reasons for this lack of research. First, it is difficult to identify these
types of organizations, which makes contacting study participants a difficult task.
Second, researchers often include these types of organizations as small firms or as a
sole- or dual-proprietor firms, paying less attention to the nuances of couple-owned and
-managed firms. Third, research on entrepreneurship tends to focus on other forms
of entrepreneurship and venture creation. In the family business literature, research on
copreneurship has focussed on the development of copreneurial identity (Danes and
Jang, 2013), power dynamics and decision making of copreneurial couples (Hedberg
and Danes, 2012; Ponthieu and Caudill, 1993), who becomes a copreneur (Muske and
Fitzgerald, 2006), role transitions in copreneurial couples (Cole and Johnson, 2007;
Marshack, 1993), and how copreneurial firms differ from other types of family
businesses (Fitzgerald and Muske, 2002).
Empirical findings indicate that, in comparison to other types of family firms,
copreneurs are more likely to live in rural areas, have spouses that work more weeks in
the year, be home-based businesses, have lower business success, and view the
business as a way of life rather than a way to earn income (Fitzgerald and Muske,
2002). Additionally, couples who begin a copreneurial business are more likely to be
older, more educated, and running more successful businesses compared with those
who stop their copreneurial ventures (Muske and Fitzgerald, 2006). Research also has
found that although copreneurial firms are more likely to be managed by men than
women, the woman/partner shares equally in the decision making about a firm
(Ponthieu and Caudill, 1993). Findings suggest that copreneurial businesses in which
the spouses are viewed as equal partners are more likely to have more effective decision
teams when solving business problems (Hedberg and Danes, 2012). Furthermore,
112
JFBM
4,2

4. communication efforts between spouses are likely to affect the development and
identification of their copreneurial identity (i.e. the re-negotiation and construction of a
type of relationship that is both personal and professional; Danes and Jang, 2013).
In this project, we are interested in the work-life issues of copreneurial couples.
Copreneurial firms represent a unique context in which to study the juxtaposition of
work and life spheres of business owners in general and family business specifically
due to the blurring of boundaries between work and life (Fitzgerald and Muske, 2002).
In this context, couples need to constantly negotiate work responsibilities, duties, and
roles, as well as manage their home and family lives (which may include children), and
these negotiations create opportunities for tensions to occur. There are numerous
advantages and disadvantages associated with the development of a business
venture with one’s partner (Barnett and Barnett, 1988; Jennings and McDougald, 2007;
Marshack, 1993; Nelton, 1986). On the positive side, a couple’s proximity and access to
one another can facilitate communication behaviors that help enhance the relationship
(Marshack, 1993), can facilitate an individual’s ability to learn how to manage conflicts
and reduce tension more effectively (Barnett and Barnett, 1988; Nelton, 1986), can
enhance positive feelings (i.e. personal satisfaction, joy, and autonomy) that result from
being in control and doing enjoyable work with one’s partner (Barnett and Barnett,
1988), and can lead to better understanding between spouses and greater commitment
to the business (Nelton, 1986). On the negative side, when couples work and live
together they may face problems due to having different management styles and work
habits, having disagreement over the availability or use of money in the business,
not being able to separate business life from personal life, disagreeing on business
decisions or goals, not having enough time to be a couple or family, being together too
much, and not listening to each other (Nelton, 1986). These problems can create stress
and escalate into negative conflict situations that can harm the couple’s relationship
and firm performance.
To date, there has been little empirical research exploring work-life issues in the
context of copreneurial firms (Helmle et al., 2011) or in family firms (Rothausen, 2009).
This is interesting given that, as mentioned earlier, copreneurial firms provide a rich
context to study how individuals manage work and life issues. In the following section
we summarize research on work-life balance and explain the factors that can affect
perceptions of conflict between life and work domains.
Research on work and life domains
Research in the work-life area has been characterized by four themes: organizational
responses to work-life conflict (WLC), the gendered nature of work-life issues, WLC,
and work-life balance (Allen, 2013; Rothausen, 2009). Initially, work-life research
focussed on the impact of organizational services and policies designed to help
employees with work and life conflicts. This literature tried to understand the role
that organizations had in helping alleviate the conflict that employees felt from the
demands of the work and home roles. Findings from this work indicate that when
employees have access to services like childcare, parental leave, flexible schedules, and
have supervisor support, they are more likely to feel lower WLC, have higher job
satisfaction, have lower stress, and are less likely to have intentions to quit (Grover,
1991; Kossek and Nichol, 1992; Rothausen et al., 1998; Thomas and Ganster, 1995).
Research on work-life issues has also explored the topic of gender, and how gender
roles and expectations affect the perceptions of work and family roles. In this area,
findings indicate that gender expectations in a situation affect the extent to which
113
Perceptions of
work-life balance

5. individuals experience incompatibility between work and life roles, which can raise
the perceived stress level and the perceptions of conflict between work and life roles
(Duxbury and Higgins, 1991; Simon, 1995; Williams, 2000).
The third area of research in work and life domains, and most prevalent, has
focussed on the struggle and conflict that individuals feel while managing work and
life roles (Allen, 2013). Although studies in this domain initially were motivated
by concerns of the negative impact that deviating from traditional sex roles would
create when women began to work outside the home (MacDermid, 2005), current
research explores the conflicts that individuals have when work roles interfere with life
roles and when life roles interfere with work roles (Allen, 2013). There are a wide
variety of outcomes associated with WLC (see Allen et al., 2000; Amstad et al., 2011;
Greenhaus et al., 2006; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998 for reviews of the literature);
and empirical findings indicate that WLC affects feelings of job satisfaction, life
satisfaction, marital satisfaction, burnout, and both physical and psychological strains
(Allen, 2013).
In recent years, work-life balance has emerged as a fourth, distinct topic in the work-
life literature (Greenhaus and Allen, 2010). Work-life balance has been defined multiple
ways. For example, Clark (2000) describes work-life balance as the level of satisfaction
that individuals feel when they can function at work and at home with a minimum
of role conflict. Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) define work-life balance as the
accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between
an individual and their role-related partners in the work and family domains.
Greenhaus and Allen (2010) define work-life balance as “the extent to which an
individual’s effectiveness and satisfaction in work and family roles are compatible with
the individual’s life role priorities at a given point in time.” Although these definitions
vary, they all reflect the individual’s overall interrole assessment of the compatibility
between work and life roles (Allen, 2013). Empirical findings suggest that an individual’s
perceptions of work-life balance are associated with job satisfaction, family satisfaction,
life satisfaction, family functioning, and organizational commitment (Allen et al., 2010;
Carlson et al., 2009).
This paper focusses on two areas of the work and life domains: WLC and work-life
balance. We are interested in exploring two issues about them in the context of
copreneurial firms. First, we seek to understand the effects that WLC has on the
perceptions of work-life balance of individuals involved in copreneurial firms. Second,
we are interested in the roles that communication processes, spousal support, work
involvement, and flexibility at work play in the perceptions of conflict between the
work and life/home domains. In the following sections we outline the rationale for
the relationships proposed in this project.
WLC and work-life balance in copreneurial firms
Work-life balance describes an individual’s assessment of their satisfaction with their
work and life roles given their priorities at one point in time (Greenhaus and Allen,
2010). Researchers have found that the level of perceived WLC is a predictor of work-
life balance perceptions (Allen et al., 2010; Carlson et al., 2009; Greenhaus and Allen,
2010). The general belief is that individuals who juggle multiple work and life roles are
more likely to feel conflict between their work and life domains. This is based on the
scarcity hypothesis (Goode, 1960), which suggests that individuals have a finite
amount of energy, time, and attention; thus, the number of roles an individual enacts
will affect the amount of resources available to the person. The more roles a person has
114
JFBM
4,2

6. to manage, the more resources they consume, and the more likely they are to
experience conflict.
Current research in the WLC domain recognizes the bidirectional nature of these
types of conflict (Allen, 2013; Shockley and Singla, 2011). Work roles can interfere with
the life domain (i.e. WLC) and life roles can interfere with the work domain (i.e. LWC).
Thus, it is important to differentiate the types of conflicts that individuals can have
when evaluating work and life domains. In this project, we are interested in how these
two types of conflict affect perceptions of work-life balance. Based on the work of Kahn
et al. (1964), we define WLC as a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures
from the work domain are incompatible in some respect with the pressures from the life
(home or family) domain. On the other hand, LWC represents an interrole conflict
in which the pressures from the family roles are incompatible in some respect with the
work domain.
There are two important assumptions that are relevant for how individuals define
and evaluate work-life balance. First, implied in the idea of “balance” is the belief
that individuals should try to manage the two domains equally (Botero, 2012).
This assumption is incorrect because individuals differ in the extent to which they
prioritize work and family roles (Bielby and Bielby, 1989; Yogev and Brett, 1985). There
might be some stages or circumstances that will lead an individual to prioritized
differently their work and life roles. The second assumption that is important to
note is the belief that work and family lives are and should be separate and
independent of one another (Helmle, 2010). Scholarly work suggests that this complete
separation between work and life roles is a myth because the nature of these roles is
inherently integrated (Kanter, 1977; Jennings and McDougald, 2007; Marshack, 1993).
Given the arguments advanced above, we explore how WLC and LWC independently
affect perceptions of work-life balance in married or partnered owners of copreneurial
firms.
Family businesses provide a unique context for the exploration of work and life
domains because of the high level of integration between work and family roles
(Karofsky et al., 2001; Smyrnios et al., 2003). As a subset of family businesses,
copreneurial firms provide a greater integration between work and life domains
(Marshack, 1993). In these types of organizations, individuals have interactions
and interdependencies in their personal relationships and business partnerships and
they have to manage multiple transitions between their roles throughout the day,
which can affect the perceptions of conflict and balance in their work and life domain.
Similar to other authors (Allen, 2013; Goode, 1960; Greenhaus and Allen, 2010), we
believe that in copreneurial firms individuals have limited time, energy and resources
that can affect their perceptions of conflict between their work and life domains.
In turn, this is likely to affect the assessment of an individual’s satisfaction with
their work and life roles and their perceptions of balance. In particular, the more
conflict in the work and life domains the lower the perceptions of balance
between these two spheres. Building off this rationale, the following hypotheses are
advanced:
H1. Perceptions of WLC will be negatively related to individual evaluations of
work-life balance.
H2. Perceptions of LWC will be negatively related to individual evaluations of
work-life balance.
115
Perceptions of
work-life balance

7. Factors that influence perceptions of conflict between work and life domains
In the last decade, researchers have focussed on understanding the multiple predictors
of work-life and LWCs (Byron, 2005; Ford et al., 2007; Michel et al., 2011). The purpose
of this work has been to identify the predictors so that employers can create
mechanism to help employees deal with work-life issues (i.e. policy changes, or
business initiatives; Michel et al., 2011). Antecedents to life-work and WLC have
been grouped into two domains: work and family. Meta-analysis work suggests that
work-related antecedents tend to have a stronger influence on WLC, while family
antecedents tend to have a stronger influence on LWC (Byron, 2005). There are two
antecedents that are relevant to the current project (i.e. job involvement and flexibility
of schedule at work). Although job involvement has been defined multiple ways (Blau,
1985), in this project job involvement describes the degree to which a work situation is
central an individual and their level of psychological identity (Lodahl and Kejner,
1965). Previous research has found that the importance that a person gives to their job
is likely to intensify the WLC (Frone et al., 1992). Individuals who are highly involved
in their jobs are more likely to increase the amount of time that they dedicate to the
job, making it more difficult to comply with the expectations and activities expected
from other jobs (Michel et al., 2011). Additionally, individuals with high levels of job
involvement are more likely to be preoccupied with their jobs and tend to devote more
effort and energy to their work, at the expense of their family (Greenhaus et al., 1989).
Because of this, they are more likely to perceive higher levels of WLC. Following this
rationale, the following hypothesis is advanced:
H3a. Job involvement will be positively related to perceptions of WLC.
Principles from role boundary theory suggest that individuals try to simplify and order
their environment by creating and maintaining boundaries around their work and life
domains (Ashforth et al., 2000). Thus, individuals differ in the extent to which they
integrate or segment their work and life domains (Olson-Buchanan and Boswell, 2006).
Individuals who segment their work and life roles are less likely to think about work
while they are at home and vice versa (Ilies et al., 2009). Flexibility at work is a
construct that is often used to assess the level of malleability that a role has regarding
spatial and temporal boundaries (Ashforth et al., 2000). In the copreneurial context we
believe that individuals who perceive lower levels of flexibility are more likely to
experience WLC. Given the high juxtaposition between work and life roles that
copreneurial couples face in their day-to-day experiences, those who perceive lower
levels of flexibility are more likely to feel a need to clearly segment work and life
domains. This can affect the level of WLC they perceive. Thus, those who perceive little
flexibility at work will be more likely to experience higher levels of conflict, while those
who perceive that their job offers greater flexibility will be less likely to experience/
feel conflict while working for their copreneurial business. Based on this logic, the
following hypotheses is advanced:
H3b. Flexibility at work will be negatively related to perceptions of WLC.
Spousal support is a family factor that can play an important role in the degree
of LWC that an individual experiences. Spousal support refers to the amount of
instrumental aid, emotional concern, and informational and/or appraisal functions
from a spouse (Michel et al., 2011). Previous research has found that degree of spousal
116
JFBM
4,2

8. support is negatively related to the amount of LWC that an individual experiences
(Michel et al., 2011). Role theory and the scarcity hypothesis suggest that individuals
have multiple roles that they need to manage, and they also have a finite amount of
time energy and attention to deal with the roles that they have. Thus, when a person
receives the support from a spouse, they will have more time, energy and attention to
dedicate to their work roles and will be less likely to feel that their life roles are
interfering with their work roles. Building on this rationale, the following hypothesis
is advanced:
H4. Spousal support will be negatively related to perceptions of LWC.
In recent years, communication scholars have begun to explore the role communication
processes can play in the way that individuals manage work-life balance. In her work on
work-family border theory, Clark (2000) asserts that communication is a tool that can be
used to attain better work-family balance by lowering the level of work-life and LWC that
individuals experience. In this paper, we explore two characteristics of communication
processes that can play a role in how communication can influence the degree of conflict
that individuals feel between their work and life domains: the flexibility of the content of
communication at work and at home, and the permeability of communication at work and
at home. As mentioned earlier, flexibility refers to the spatial and temporal malleability
between roles (Ashforth et al., 2000). In the context of communication, flexibility can be
used to describe the capability individuals have to share and discuss in their work and life
domains. For example, when individuals are able to discuss home matters during their
work hours, this would show high flexibility of communication about home at work.
On the other hand, when individuals are able to share and discuss work information at
home this shows high flexibility of communication about work at home. We believe that
the degree to which individuals are able to share information about work and life in the
two domains can be related to the amount of conflict in the work and life domains
that people feel. In particular, when individuals feel greater flexibility in the type of
information that they can share at home and at work, they are less likely to feel
constrained in their role and less likely to feel conflict between their work and life
domains. Building on this rationale, the following hypotheses are advanced:
H5a. Greater flexibility of communication about home at work will be negatively
related to perceptions of WLC.
H5b. Greater flexibility of communication about work at home will be negatively
related to perceptions of LWC.
Permeability is a concept used in role boundary theory to describe the extent to which
an individual can be physically located in one role domain and psychologically or
behaviorally involved in another role (Ashforth et al., 2000). In the communication
context, permeability has been used to describe the extent to which an individual is
able to receive information at work about home issues and vice versa (Helmle, 2010).
We argue that when individuals feel that they have higher permeability in their
communication practices between roles, they will be less likely to experience conflict
between the work and life domains. The reason for this is that when individuals
perceive that they can receive messages about work at home and about home at work,
they are less likely to perceive high segmentation between their work and home roles.
117
Perceptions of
work-life balance

9. In turn, when individuals feel less segmentation between work and home/life roles,
they are less likely to feel conflict between their work and life domains. Given this
logic, the following hypotheses are advanced:
H5c. Greater permeability of communication about home at work will be negatively
related to perceptions of WLC.
H5d. Greater permeability of communication about work at home will be negatively
related to perceptions of LWC.
Method
Participants
Participants for this study included 210 copreneurs. Initial contact of participants
was done based on their membership in the Santa Barbara County (CA) or the Ventura
County (CA) Chambers of Commerce, through family business centers, internet
searches, word of mouth opportunities, and snowball sampling. In all, 80 percent of
the participants were from California (58 percent from Ventura and Santa Barbara)
and 20 percent from 15 states throughout the USA ranging from Maine to Arizona and
from South Dakota to Virginia. The copreneurs’ businesses were associated with
nearly 20 different industries ranging from advertising and agriculture to trade and
transportation. More than 60 percent of the copreneurs had businesses with an average
of 2.29 departments (range 0-21 units), and an average of 12 employees (range 0-242
personnel). Demographic information about the participants and descriptive
information about their firms is presented in Table I.
Procedure
Participants were invited to complete a survey either by e-mail or on paper.
An invitation letter was initially sent to 428 copreneurial couples that were identified
as potential participants. This letter outlined the general purpose and the importance
of this project. Data for this paper were collected as part of a larger project that
explored communication in copreneurial firms, and included both survey and interview
data. For the purpose of this paper, we only focus on data collected in the survey.
The survey included 154 questions and took approximately 40 minutes to complete.
Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, the variables in this study were assessed using a seven-
point response scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree). Perceptions of
work-life balance (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.79) were measured with six items created for this
study. Work-home conflict (five items, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.92) and home-work conflict
(five items, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.92) were measured with the Netemeyer et al. (1996)
work-family and family-work conflict scales. Spouse support (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.82) was
measured using the eight items from Parasuraman et al. (1992). Job involvement
was measured with four items from the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) job involvement
scale. Flexibility around work (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.81) was measured with four items
from Clark (2002). For this paper we measured four communication processes:
communication about work with family (four items, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.90), communication
about family with work (four items, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.84), permeability of communication
at work (six items, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.86), and permeability of communication at home (six
items, Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.89) with items from Clark (2002). All items are listed in Appendix.
118
JFBM
4,2

10. Data analysis
We assessed discriminant validity with factor analysis. Results (eigenvalues41.0,
varimax rotation) produced nine clean factors (primary loadings ¼ 0.50-0.86; highest
cross-loading ¼ 0.32; variance explained ¼ 60.5 percent). Hypotheses were tested with a
set of hierarchical regressions using the principles for mediation from Baron and Kenny
(1986) and James and Brett (1984). Those authors suggest that to test for mediation using
regression analysis four steps need to be followed. First, independent variables (i.e.
communication processes, spousal support, job involvement, and flexibility at work)
should be related significantly to the dependent variable (i.e. work-life balance). Second,
independent variables should be significantly related to mediators (i.e. work-home
conflict and home-work conflict). Third, mediators should be significantly related to the
dependent variable. Fourth, a hierarchical regression should be conducted to evaluate
the effects of mediators (Step 2) and independent variables (Step 3) on the dependent
variable. If the effect of both mediator and independent variables is still significant in
Step 3 there is evidence for partial mediation. If the effect of mediators is significant but
not the effects of independent variables there is evidence of full mediation.
Results
Table II presents the mean, standard deviation, and correlations for the variables in
this study. We conducted a series of hierarchical regressions to test our hypotheses
Percentage Mean SD
Age
26-30 4.3
31-35 10.0
36-40 12.9
41-45 6.7
46-50 13.8
51-55 19.5
56-60 21.4
61-65 7.6
66 and above 3.8
Education
Did not finish high school 0.5
High school 7.7
Associate/technical degree 5.7
Some college 27.8
Bachelor’s 38.8
Masters 10.5
PhD, JD, or MD 9.1
Have kids
Yes 85.7
No 14.3
Number of kids 2.21 1.20
Years married 21.10 12.24
Number of hours worked 45.29 18.68
Business age 14.54 9.89
Number of employees 12.51 26.95
Became a couple
Before the business started 84.2
After the business started 15.8
Table I.
Sample description
119
Perceptions of
work-life balance

11. VariableMSD123456789101112131415
1.Work-lifebalance5.530.88
2.Home-workconflict2.541.39À0.40**
3.Work-homeconflict3.611.64À0.46**0.65**
4.Spousesupport5.650.970.50**À0.27**À0.25**
5.Jobinvolvement3.861.34À0.22**0.23**0.48**À0.07
6.Flexibilityatwork5.091.470.40**À0.26**À0.40**0.30**À0.29**
7.Permeabilitywork5.381.160.31**À0.03À0.100.36**À0.030.47**
8.Permeabilityhome4.981.300.070.040.080.130.14*0.31**0.40**
9.Comaboutwork5.501.100.27**À0.23**À0.110.37**0.010.31**0.40**0.41**
10.Comaboutfamily4.231.520.15*0.01À0.010.14*À0.040.17*0.31**0.20**0.46**
11.Relationshipsat6.370.920.40**À0.26**À0.15*0.44**À0.080.20**0.32**0.14*0.14*0.11
12.Timemarried21.1312.240.13À0.29**À0.26**0.01À0.080.09À0.07À0.20**À0.11À0.140.05
13.Havingkids0.850.350.16*0.07À0.050.07À0.140.090.17*0.050.01À0.01À0.020.18*
14.Age5.212.100.10À0.24**À0.24**0.01À0.040.09À0.08À0.15*À0.12À0.18**0.010.82**0.13
15.Sex0.490.50À0.130.110.05À0.21**À0.120.05À0.09À0.05À0.020.06À0.110.010.02À0.09
16.Education4.651.28À0.040.18*0.130.070.020.040.010.070.11À0.03À0.18**À0.120.01À0.040.02
Notes:*po0.05;**po0.01
Table II.
Descriptive statistics and
bivariate correlations
120
JFBM
4,2

12. and, although it was not hypothesized, we tested whether work-life and LWC
mediated the relationship between the predictors of WLC/LWC and work-life
balance. As can be seen in Table III-Model 3, in this study WLC was negatively
related to perceptions of work-life balance (b ¼ À0.41, po0.01), while LWC was
not related to work-life balance (b ¼ À0.10, p40.05) providing support for H1.
Results from our study also indicate that job involvement was positively related
to WLC (b ¼ 0.32, po0.01) and flexibility at work was negatively related to WLC
(b ¼ À0.35, po0.01). These results support H3a and H3b (see Table III-Model 2).
In this study, spousal support was not related to LWC (b ¼ À0.41, po0.01). Thus,
H4 was not supported. When examining the effects of communication processes
on WLC and LWC, results did not support H5a, H5c, or H5d, but do support H5b.
As can be seen in Table III-Model 2, communication about home at work was
not related to WLC (b ¼ 0.03, p40.05). Although, we expected permeability of
communication to be negatively related to WLC and LWC, results show significance
in the opposite direction of what we predicted. That is, permeability of
communication at home was positively related to WLC (b ¼ 0.14, po0.05), and
permeability of communication at work was positively related to LWC (b ¼ 0.18,
po0.05). Flexibility of communication about work at home was negatively related
to LWC (b ¼ À0.29, po0.01).
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Work-life
balance
W-L
conflict
L-W
conflict
Work-life
balance
Work-life
balance
Controls
Age À0.01 À0.08 À0.03 À0.01 À0.01
Sex À0.11 0.12*** 0.07 À0.11 À0.11
Education À0.03 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.03
Years married 0.07 À0.11 À0.24* 0.06 0.07
Relationship satisfaction 0.37** À0.15* À0.24** 0.37** 0.37**
Having kids 0.18** 0.01 0.10 0.18** 0.18**
Hours worked 0.03 0.35** 0.01 0.05 0.03
F 6.65** 6.75** 5.81** 6.63* 6.65*
Mediators
Work-life conflict À0.41** À0.41**
Life-work conflict À0.10 À0.11
DF 29.34** 30.15**
Independent variables
Spouse support 0.33** À0.11 À0.10 0.29**
Job involvement À0.13* 0.32** 0.15* À0.02
Flexibility at work 0.20** À0.35** À0.20* 0.08
Com about home at work 0.01 0.03 0.13*** 0.03
Com about work at home 0.13*** À0.11 À0.29** 0.07
Permeability of com at home À0.11 0.14* 0.06 À0.06
Permeability of com at work 0.01 0.05 0.18* 0.02
DF 9.37** 13.81** 5.96** 4.19**
R2
0.41 0.48 0.33 0.39 0.48
Adjusted R2
0.37 0.44 0.28 0.36 0.43
Notes: * po0.05; ** po0.01; *** po0.10
Table III.
Hierarchical regression
for work-life balance
121
Perceptions of
work-life balance

13. Discussion
This paper focusses on the copreneurial firm, a special type of family firm in which a
married couple, or individuals in a marriage-like relationship, share a personal and a work
relationship in a business that they own and operate. Because of this, these firms represent
a context in which work and life domains greatly overlap, creating situations in which
individuals need to manage their work and life domains to avoid individual, work, and
family conflicts. In this survey-based project we explore the factors that affect perceptions
of work-life balance for individuals who own copreneurial businesses. Our results indicate
that individuals who perceive that work roles interfere with family roles are less likely to
feel that they have work-life balance. However, the extent to which they perceive that life
roles interfere with work is not relevant in their perceptions of work-life balance. Similar to
previous studies, we found that job involvement and flexibility of work were significantly
related to WLC. Interestingly, and despite previous work supporting this relationship, we
found that spousal support among copreneurial couples was not related to perceptions
of LWC. Finally, one of the most interesting contributions of this paper stems from
the relationships we found between the characteristics of communication processes and
the role they play in the perceptions of conflict between the work and life domains.
Specifically, we found that the permeability of the communication between home and
work was positively related to perceptions of WLC. Results also indicate that an
individual’s flexibility to communicate about work at home and the permeability of
communication at work significantly influenced perceptions of WLC.
Implications for theory and research
These results have important implication for research and theory in the areas of family
business, work and life issues, and communication. Our work also contributes to the
family business literature in at least two ways. First, it answers the call from Stafford and
Tews (2009) for further research and understanding of work-family balance in family
firms. This project represents an initial view of factors that can influence family business
owner’s perceptions of their work-life balance. In this sense, our work complements
previous studies that have found that work-life balance can affect the performance of
family firms (Shelton, 2006), the satisfaction of family business owners (Kwan, Lau, and
Au, 2012), and the perceptions of emotional well-being (Karofsky et al., 2001). In
conjunction with these studies, our work helps create an initial nomological network to
understand work-life issues in the context of family firms. A second contribution in the
family business arena is the focus on copreneurial firms as unique types of family
businesses. Our work complements previous research by Hedberg and Danes (2012) and
Danes and Jang (2013) in identifying and explaining the unique characteristics and
processes that copreneurial firms, which are different than other types of family firms.
For researchers in the area of work-life issues, our results have four important
implications. First, some of the results from this paper replicate previous findings from in
the work-life balance, WLC, and LWC. For example, our results are consistent with the
work of Greenhaus and Allen (2010) who suggest that WLC is negatively related
to work-life balance. Results of this investigation also are consistent with previous
meta-analytic work that found that job involvement and flexibility at work were positively
and negatively related to WLC (Byron, 2005; Ford et al., 2007; Michel et al., 2011). This
points to the generalizability of some of the predictors across different organizational
contexts and highlights the generalizability of these results. A second implication of our
results comes from not finding a significant relationship between perceptions of LWC
and work-life balance. Although there have been multiple authors who have argued that
122
JFBM
4,2

14. work-life (i.e. family interference with work) and LWC (i.e. life interference with work) are
independent constructs and have independent effects on work-life balance, our results
indicate that, at least in our sample of 210 copreneurs, LWC does not interfere with the
perceptions of work-life balance. It may be that copreneurs do not perceive that family
issues can interfere with work issues because the two domains are highly related in these
types of firms (see Allen, 2013 for a detailed review). It also may be that our sample
perceived that the family role was more permeable than their work role, thus replicating
the findings from Bellavia and Frone (2005). Future research should try to explore when
LWC is likely to influence a copreneur’s perception of work-life balance.
A third implication of our results for work-life issues scholars derives from the
non-significant results from the effects of spousal support on LWC. Even though
the meta-analysis of Michel et al. (2011) found that spousal support was negatively
related to LWC, the results from our paper suggest that spousal support does not play a
role in copreneurs’ perception of LWC. Our results seem to indicate that spousal
support has a direct relationship to perception of work-life balance that is not mediated
through perceptions of conflict. This is interesting because it may indicate that in
different organizational contexts or different organizational positions, spousal support
may have different relations with constructs like work-life balance, WLC, or life
work conflict. Future research should continue to explore under which conditions
spousal support affect work-life balance directly and under which conditions it affects
perceptions of conflict between life and work domains. The fourth and final implication
of our results for work-life scholars is the influence that job involvement and flexibility
at work have on perceptions of LWC. Research to date suggests that only predictors in
the family domain are likely to affect perceptions of LWC (see Byron, 2005; Ford et al.,
2007; Michel et al., 2011 for meta-analytic reviews). In this study we found that work
factors can also play a role in the extent to which individuals perceive that family roles
interfere with work roles. We suggest that future research should continue to explore
whether and which work factors can also influence LWC.
Results from this study empirically show that communication processes have
positive and negative effects on work-life balance. On the positive side, the extent to
which copreneurs were able to communicate about work at home diminished the level
of LWC experienced. As Clark (2002) suggests, communication can serve as a vehicle
that diminishes the tension that individuals experience in their work and life domains.
Having the flexibility to talk about work issues in the home or life context appears to
lead individuals to perceive that, although there is limited time, resources and energy,
they can make time if needed to address work issues while performing a different role.
On the negative side, it appears that the permeability of communication at work and
at home works contrary to what we expected. In our study, having the opportunity
to receive information about work at home and about home at work increased the level
of conflict that individuals experienced. It may be that among the copreneurs we
surveyed, being able to receive information about other roles acted as a stressor for
individuals who suddenly have to deal with a lot of other issues that they did not
anticipate in the life or work domain. This would be consistent with research
concerning the ways in which communication can contribute to the level of stress
experienced by any organizational member when the frequency, duration, or content of
messages received leads to overload, role conflict, or role ambiguity (Miller et al., 1990),
findings that also relate to stress, communication, and work-life balance (Kirby and
Buzzanell, 2014). Future studies should continue to explore how communication factors
influence the conflict between work and life domains.
123
Perceptions of
work-life balance

15. Implications for practice
The results of this investigation proffer implications for copreneurs and practitioners
(including human resources personnel and consultants). In the first area, and to the
extent that they are not already aware, copreneurs need to be mindful of not only
the potential for work roles to interfere with their family roles but the commensurate
likelihood that they will not have feelings of work-life balance. Copreneurs also must
be fully cognizant of the potential for their communication with each other to have
direct (and potentially salutary) effects on their perceptions of work-life balance.
In copreneurial firms with human resources experts (who are valued and relied upon
for their expertise by the coprenuers), or with the resources to secure the services of
external consultants, the married or partnered copreneurs can be helped understand
the value of permeability of their communication about home at work (i.e. for its
potential to moderate perceptions of WLC), enhancing each individual’s flexibility to
communicate about work at home (i.e. for its potential to mitigate perceptions of WLC),
and the significant relationship between WLC and both job involvement (including the
degree to which work is central to copreneuers and their psychological identity
according) and flexibility of work (i.e. the level of malleability that they feel in their
role as owners and managers). The beneficial implications of copreneurs’ increased
awareness of these relationships (from readings provided, through coaching, from peer
groups of copreneurs) are powerful given prior research demonstrating that family to
work conflict and work to family conflict have effects on the emotional well-being of
family business owners, their level of satisfaction with work, and the performance
of the family firm (Barnett et al., 2009; Karofsky et al., 2001; Kwan et al., 2012; Smyrnios
et al., 2003). While our focus has been on copreneurial firms, the findings may have
similar implications for family firms and for co-founded ventures (Hill et al., 2013).
Strengths and limitations
The sample of this study represents both a strength and a limitation of this work.
Few researchers have been able to collect data from copreneurs. Thus, having a sample
of 210 copreneurs (and who co-manage such a wide range of businesses) is
quite consequential for the ability to derive insights into the understudied area of
copreneurship. At the same time, participants were not randomly sampled to take part in
this study. While drawn from a total of 16 USA states, our convenience sample may not
be representative of all types of copreneurs and the generalizability of our results might
be limited. Given this, future research should try to collect data from copreneurs through
census information, or other forms of sampling to obtain a more representative sample,
and to test the generalizability of these results.
A second limitation is that our data are cross-sectional. Instead of following
copreneurs overtime we collected data at one point in time only. It may be that by
not using a longitudinal design, we are only at how copreneurs deal with work-life
issues at one point in time (although the survey items prompted recall of multiple
experiences). Future research should consider the possibility of longitudinal work
to explore how the relationship between work and life issues evolves and changes
over time.
A third limitation of this work comes from the measure of work-life balance. In this
study we developed a measure of work-life balance that had not been previously tested
with other samples. It is always possible that our measure could have affected
the results that we obtained. Given this, future research should be conducted using
different measures of work-life balance to see whether our results are similar to other
124
JFBM
4,2

16. findings using other scales, and our measure should be used in other studies with
other samples of copreneurs.
Conclusions
In this project we explored factors that influence perceptions of work-life balance
among copreneurs. Our results indicate that WLC and spousal support are directly
related to perceptions of work-life balance in these copreneurial firms. At the same
time, job involvement, flexibility at work, and permeability of communication at home
were significantly related to WLC. Although communication about work at home and
permeability of communication were significantly related to LWC, this type of conflict
did not influence perceptions of work-life balance. We believe that this exploratory
study provides an initial nomological network for understanding the predictors of
work-life balance, and that the findings shed light on how work, family, and
communication factors play a role in perceptions of work and life domains in the
context of copreneurial firms and possibly family firms in general. Future research
should continue to build to explore how these three groups of factors can influence
aspects of work and life domains, especially among copreneurs.
Note
1. Some literature uses the terms work-family, work-life, and/or work-nonwork ok as
interchangeable (Allen, 2013). In this paper we use the term work-life as the umbrella term to
include issues involving the overlap of work and life or home roles.
References
Allen, T.D. (2013), “The work-family role interface: a synthesis of research from industrial and
organizational psychology”, in Weiner, I.B. (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed., John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 698-718.
Allen, T.D., Shockley, K.M. and Biga, A. (2010), “Work and family in a global context”, in
Lundby, K. (Ed.), Going Global: Practical Applications and Recommendations for
HR and OD Professionals in the Global Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 377-401.
Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with work-
to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 278-308.
Amstad, F.T., Meier, L.L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A. and Semmer, N.K. (2011), “A meta-analysis of
work-family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain vs
matching-domain relations”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 151-169.
Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E. and Fugate, M. (2000), “All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro
role transitions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 472-491.
Barnett, F. and Barnett, S. (1988), Working Together: Entrepreneurial Couples, Ten Speed Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Barnett, T., Eddleston, K. and Kellermanns, F.W. (2009), “The effects of family versus career role
salience on the performance of family and non family firms”, Family Business Review,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
125
Perceptions of
work-life balance

17. Beehr, T.A., Drexler, J.A. and Faulkner, S. (1997), “Working in small family businesses: empirical
comparisons to non-family businesses”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 297-312.
Bellavia, G. and Frone, M.R. (2005), “Work-family conflict”, in Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and
Frone, M.R. (Eds), Handbook of Work Stress, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 113-147.
Bielby, W.T. and Bielby, D.D. (1989), “Family ties: balancing commitments to work and family in
dual earner households”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 776-789.
Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C., Wall, T. and Wood, S.J. (2008), “The
impact of human resources and operational management practices on company
productivity: a longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 467-501.
Blau, B.J. (1985), “A multiple study investigation of the dimensionality of job involvement”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Botero, I.C. (2012), “Enhancing our understanding of work-life balance from a communication
perspective: important considerations for future research”, in Salmon, C. (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook, Vol. 36, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 231-235.
Byron, K. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 169-198.
Carlson, D.S., Grzywacz, J. and Zivnuska, S. (2009), “Work-family balance: is balance more than
conflict and enrichment?”, Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 1-28.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H. and Steier, L. (2005), “Sources and consequences of distinctive familiness:
an introduction”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 237-247.
Clark, S.C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance”, Human
Relations, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 747-770.
Clark, S.C. (2002), “Communicating across the work/home border”, Community, Work, and
Family, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-48.
Cole, P. and Johnson, K. (2007), “An exploration of successful copreneurial relationships post
divorce”, Family Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 185-198.
Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010), “Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 834-848.
Danes, S.M. and Jang, J. (2013), “Copreneurial identity development during new venture
creation”, Journal of Family Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
De Jonge, J., van Breukelen, G.J.P., Laneweerd, J.A. and Nihius, F.J.N. (1999), “Comparing group
and individual level assessments of job characteristics in testing the job-demand-control
model: a multilevel approach”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 95-122.
Duxbury, L.E. and Higgins, C.A. (1991), “Gender differences in work-family conflict”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 60-74.
Fitzgerald, M.A. and Muske, G. (2002), “Copreneurs: an exploration and comparison to other
family business”, Family Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Ford, M.T., Heinen, B.A. and Langkamer, C.L. (2007), “Work and family satisfaction and conflict:
a meta-analysis of cross-domain relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 57-80.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Gannon, D. (2012), “Copreneurs: when work and love mix”, The Fiscal Times, 10 February,
available at: www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/02/10/Copreneurs-When-Work-and-
Love-Mix.aspx (accessed 5 October 2014).
126
JFBM
4,2

18. Ganster, D.C., Fusilier, M.R. and Mayes, B.T. (1986), “Role of social support in the experience of
stress at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 102-110.
Goode, W.J. (1960), “A theory of role strain”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 483-496.
Greenhaus, G.H. and Allen, T.D. (2010), “Work-family balance: a review and extension of the
literature”, in Tetrick, L. and Quick, J.C. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational Health
Psychology, 2nd ed., American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 165-183.
Greenhaus, J.H., Allen, T.D. and Spector, P.E. (2006), “Health consequences of work-family
conflict: the dark side of the work-family interface”, in Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C.
(Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 5, JAI Press/Elsevier, Oxford,
pp. 61-99.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C.S., Rabinowitz, S. and Beutell, N.J. (1989), “Sources
of work/family conflict among two-career couples”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 133-153.
Grover, S.L. (1991), “Predicting the perceived fairness of parental leave policies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 247-255.
Grzywacz, J.G. and Carlson, D.S. (2007), “Conceptualizing work-family balance: implications for
practice and research”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 455-471.
Hedberg, P.R. and Danes, S.M. (2012), “Exploration of dynamic power processes within
copreneurial couples”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 228-238.
Helmle, J.R. (2010), “Copreneurs and communication: work-family balance in married couples’
family businesses”, dissertation project, Department of Communication, University of
Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.
Helmle, J.R., Seibold, D.R. and Afifi, T.D. (2011), “Work and family in copreneurial family
businesses”, in Salmon, C.T. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 35, Routledge, New York,
NY, pp. 51-91.
Hill, A.D., Wallace, J.C., Ridge, J.W., Johnson, P.D., Paul, J.B. and Suter, T.A. (2013), “Innovation
and effectiveness of co-founded ventures: a process model”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 145-159.
Hollander, B.S. and Elman, N.S. (1988), “Family-owned businesses: an emerging field of inquiry”,
Family Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 145-164.
Ilies, R., Wilson, K.S. and Wagner, D.T. (2009), “The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto
employees’ family lives: the facilitating role of work-family integration”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 87-102.
James, L.R. and Brett, J.N. (1984), “Mediators, moderators, and test of mediation”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 307-321.
Jennings, J.E. and McDougald, M.S. (2007), “Work-family interface experiences and coping strategies:
implications for entrepreneurship research and practice”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 747-760.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Kanter, R.M. (1977), Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda for
Research and Policy, Sage, New York, NY.
Karofsky, P., Millen, R., Yilmaz, M., Smyrnios, K.X., Tanewski, G.A. and Romano, C.A. (2001),
“Work-family conflict and emotional well-being in American family businesses”, Family
Business Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 313-324.
Kirby, E.L. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2014), “Communicating work-life issues”, in Putnam, L.L. and
Mumby, D.K. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in
Theory, Research, and Methods, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 351-373.
127
Perceptions of
work-life balance

19. Kossek, E.E. and Distelberg, B. (2009), “Work and family employment policy for a transformed
work force: trends and themes”, in Crouter, N. and Booth, A. (Eds), Work-Life Policies,
Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3-51.
Kossek, E.E. and Nichol, V. (1992), “The effects of on-site child care on employee attitudes and
performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 485-509.
Kossek, E.E. and Ozeki, C. (1998), “Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction
relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior human resources
research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 139-149.
Kwan, H.K., Lau, V.P. and Au, K. (2012), “Effects of family-to-work conflict on business owners:
the role of family business”, Family Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Landsbergis, P.A., Schnall, P.L., Belkic, K.L., Baker, D., Schwartz, J.E. and Pickering, T.G. (2011),
“Workplace and cardiovascular disease: relevance and potential role for occupational
health psychology”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational Health
Psychology, 2nd ed., American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 243-264.
Lodahl, T.M. and Kejner, M. (1965), “The definition and measurement of job involvement”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 24-33.
MacDermid, S.M. (2005), “(Re)considering conflict between work and family”, in Kossek, E.E. and
Lambert, S.J. (Eds), Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural, and Individual
Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 19-40.
Marshack, K. (1993), “Copreneurial couples: a literature review of boundaries and transitions
among copreneurs”, Family Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 355-369.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2,
pp. 171-194.
Michel, J.S., Kotrba, L.M., Mitchelson, J.K., Clark, M.A. and Baltes, B.B. (2011), “Antecedents of
work-family conflict: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 689-725.
Miller, K.I., Ellis, B.H., Zook, E.G. and Lyles, J.S. (1990), “An integrated model of communication,
stress, and burnout in the workplace”, Communication Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 300-326.
Muske, G. and Fitzgerald, M.A. (2006), “A panel study of copreneurs in business: who enters,
continues, and exits?”, Family Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 193-205.
Nelton, S. (1986), In Love and in Business: How Entrepreneurial Couples are Changing the Rules of
Business and Marriage, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation of
work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 400-410.
Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and Boswell, W.R. (2006), “Blurring boundaries: correlates of integration
and segmentation between work and non- work”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68
No. 2, pp. 432-445.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J.H. and Gransrose, C.S. (1992), “Role stressors, social support, and
well-being among two-career couples”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 339-356.
Ponthieu, L. and Caudill, H. (1993), “Who’s the boss? Responsibility and decision making in
copreneurial ventures”, Family Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Rosen, C., Chang, C.H., Djurdjevic, E. and Eatough, E.M. (2010), “Occupational stressors and
performance: an updated review and recommendations”, in Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C.
(Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being: New Development in Theoretical and
Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress, Vol. 8, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 1-60.
128
JFBM
4,2

20. Rothausen, T.J. (2009), “Management work-family research and work-family fit: implications
for building family capital in family business”, Family Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 220-234.
Rothausen, T.J., Gonzalez, J.A., Clarke, N.E. and O’Dell, L.L. (1998), “Family-friendly backlash –
fact or fiction? The case of organizations’ on-site child care centers”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 685-706.
Shelton, L.M. (2006), “Female entrepreneurs, work-family conflict, and venture performance: new
insights into the work-family interface”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 285-297.
Shockley, K.M. and Singla, N. (2011), “Reconsidering work-family interaction and satisfaction: a
meta-analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 861-886.
Simon, R.W. (1995), “Gender, multiple roles, role meaning, and mental health”, Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 182-194.
Smyrnios, K.X., Romano, C.A., Tanewski, G.A., Karofsky, P.I., Millen, R. and Yilmaz, M.R. (2003),
“Work-family conflict: a study of American and Australian family businesses”, Family
Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 35-52.
Stafford, K. and Tews, M.J. (2009), “Enhancing work-family balance research in family firms”,
Family Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 235-238.
Sudaramurthy, C. and Kreiner, G. (2008), “Governing by managing identity boundaries: the case
of family businesses”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 415-436.
Thomas, L.T. and Ganster, D.C. (1995), “Impact of family-supportive work variables on
work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 6-15.
Williams, J. (2000), Unbending Gender: Why Work and Family Conflict and What To Do About It,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wright, T.A. and Cropanzano, R. (2000), “Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 84-94.
Yogev, S. and Brett, J. (1985), “Patterns of work and family involvement among single- and dual-
career couples”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 754-768.
Zellweger, T.M., Eddleston, K.A. and Kellermanns, F.W. (2010), “Exploring the concept of
familiness: introducing family firm identity”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 54-63.
Appendix. Measures and items
Work-life balance – created for this study
. I am ok with how much my work life carries over into my home/family life.
. I am ok with how much my home/family life carries over into my work life.
. My family [or spouse] is supportive of my choice of work.
. My family [or spouse] has an understanding of what it takes to run my own business.
. My business has had a positive impact on my home/family life.
. My family [or spouse] has had a positive impact on the success of my business.
Work-home conflict – Netemeyer et al. (1996)
. The demands of my work interfere with my home/family life.
. The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill home/family responsibilities.
129
Perceptions of
work-life balance

21. . Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me.
. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill home/family duties.
. Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for home/family
activities.
Home-work conflict – Netemeyer et al. (1996)
. The demands of my family [or spouse] interfere with work-related activities.
. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home.
. Things I want to do at work don’t get done because of the demands of my family
[or spouse].
. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time,
accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime.
. Home/family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties.
Spouse support – Parasuraman et al. (1992)
. To what extent is your spouse willing to listen to your problems?
. To what extent is your spouse concerned about your welfare?
. To what extent does your spouse participate in the housework and/or childrearing
activities?
. To what extent does your spouse encourage the use of outside help (e.g. childcare, cleaning
service)?
. To what extent does your spouse give you advice or suggestions when you have a
problem?
. To what extent does your spouse support your need to do things you want to do?
. To what extent does your spouse provide you with honest feedback about yourself?
. To what extent does your spouse praise you for your accomplishments?
Job involvement – Lodahl and Kejner (1965)
. Sometimes I lie awake at night thinking ahead to the next day’s work.
. The most important things that happen to me involve my work.
. I live, eat, and breathe my business.
. I feel depressed when I fail at something connected with my business.
Flexibility around work – Clark (2002)
. I am able to arrive and depart from work when I want.
. I am free to work the hours that are best for my schedule.
. I could easily take a day off of work, if I wanted to.
. The nature of our business allows me to carry out non-work projects during spare time
at work.
130
JFBM
4,2

22. Communication about work with family – Clark (2002)
. I tell my family about my current work projects.
. I share pleasant things that happened at work with family.
. I share unpleasant things that happened at work with family.
. I talk with my family about what kind of day I had at work.
Communication about family with work – Clark (2002)
. I talk about my current family activities at work.
. I share pleasant things that happened at home with others at work.
. I share unpleasant things that happened at home with others at work.
. I talk with others at work about what kind of day I had at home.
Permeability of communication at work – Clark (2002)
. My family contacts me while I am at work.
. I have family-related items at my work place.
. I think about my family members when I am at work.
. I hear from my family while I am at work.
. I stop in the middle of my work to address a family concern.
. I take care of family business while I am at work.
Permeability of communication at home – Clark (2002)
. I receive work-related calls while I am at home.
. I have work-related items at my home.
. I think about work-related concerns while I am at home.
. I hear from people related to my work while I am at home.
. I stop in the middle of my home activities to address a work concern.
. I take care of work-related business while I am at home.
About the authors
Dr Jill R. Helmle (PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara) is a Researcher at the Citrix
Systems Inc. Her research interests include work and family issues, family businesses, and the
role of technology in work-life balance.
Dr Isabel C. Botero is a Researcher, Consultant, and Educator in the areas of communication
and family business. She is a Principal at Fediuk Botero LLC and is an Adjunt Instructor in the
Department of Management at the Gatton College of Business in the University of Kentucky.
Her area of specialty is strategic communication, and her research focusses on topics related to
behavioral, social, and scientific understanding of communication processes in different
organizational contexts. Her areas of interest include communication in and around family firms,
131
Perceptions of
work-life balance

23. influence processes in the organization, team decision making, information sharing, and crisis
communication. Dr Isabel C. Botero is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
isabel.botero@uky.edu
Dr David R. Seibold is a Professor of Technology Management (and Vice Chair) at the
University of California, Santa Barbara, and an Affiliated Faculty member in the Department of
Communication. His research interests include innovation and organizational change,
collaborative technologies, family business, group interaction and decision making, and
workplace temporality. He has published two books and nearly 150 articles and chapters.
A former Editor of the Journal of Applied Communication Research, he has been a member of
the Editorial Boards of numerous journals. He has been elected a Distinguished Scholar in the
National Communication Association and a Fellow of the International Communication
Association.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
132
JFBM
4,2