Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Acci full content 2014 as of april 7 final

369 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Acci full content 2014 as of april 7 final

  1. 1. A Longitudinal Study of Copreneurial Couples: Factors Contributing to Continuance Over a Decade Margaret Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Department of Human Development and Family Science Glenn Muske, Ph.D. Center for Community Vitality NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY
  2. 2. 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)
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Sustainable Family Business Theory
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 673 family businesses interviewed 211 copreneurs identified 88 couples remain copreneurs (“on-going”) in 2000 By 2000: 43 - could not be located 44 - do not meet copreneur criteria (“discontinued”) 28 - not in business 8 - 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”
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 2007 Continued 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
  13. 13. 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 couples n=130
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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?
  17. 17. 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.
  18. 18. 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.
  19. 19. For presentation copies, contact: Margaret.Fitzgerald@ndsu.edu or Glenn.Muske@ndsu.edu Questions

×