This study examines how firm performance and family income are affected when an “owner-managed” firm transitions to a “copreneurial” business. Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics were used to track changes in firm performance and family income from 1996 to 2006 during which time an owner-manager decided to partner with his spouse. The findings suggest that (a) involvement of one’s spouse in the business had no significant impact on firm profits and (b) working with one’s spouse had a significant impact on family income. The authors hypothesize that the lack of spousal influence on firm performance is because of their inability to influence their spouses, their lack of education and skills needed by the firm, and organizational “imprinting.” Moreover, since it is hypothesized that many spouses work for little or no pay, there would not be a significant impact on family income as the result of one’s partnering with a spouse. However, this hypothesis was not confirmed.
AcockA. (in press). What to do about missing values. In CooperH. (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
AndersenR. C.ReebD. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S & P 500. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-1328.
3.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086-1120.
4.
BarnettF.BarnettS. (1988). Working together: Entrepreneurial couples. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
5.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
6.
BaronJ.BurtonM.HannanM. (1996). The road taken: Origins and evolution of employment systems in emerging companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 239-275.
7.
BeckmanC. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 741-758.
8.
BeckmanC. M.BurtonM. D. (2008). Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19, 3-24.
9.
BelenzonS.ZarutskieR. (2011). Family ownership and performance in new firms. (Working Paper). Durham, NC: Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.
10.
BirdB. J. (1989). Entrepreneurial behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
11.
BoekerW. (1989). Strategic change: The effects of founding and history. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 489-515.
12.
ChildJ. (1972). Organizational structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1-22.
13.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.LitzR. A. (2004). Comparing the agency cost of family and non-family firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28, 335-354.
14.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.KellermannsF. W. (2009). Priorities, resource stocks, and performance in family and nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33, 739-760.
15.
CortinaJ. M.FolgerR. G. (1998). When is it acceptable to accept a null hypothesis: No way Jose?Organizational Research Methods, 1, 334-350.
16.
DailyC. M.DollingerM. J. (1992). An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally managed firms. Family Business Review, 5, 117-136.
17.
DyerW. G.Jr. (1992). The entrepreneurial experience: Confronting career dilemmas of the start-up executive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
DyerW. G.Jr. (2006). Examining the “family effect” on firm performance. Family Business Review, 19, 253-273.
19.
DyerW. G.Jr.DyerW. J. (2009). Putting the family into family business research. Family Business Review, 22, 216-219.
20.
EddlestonK.KellermannsF. W. (2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 545-565.
21.
EisenhardtK. M.SchoonhovenC. B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 504-529.
22.
FamaE.JensenM. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301-325.
23.
FitzgeraldM. A.MuskeG. (2002). Copreneurs: An exploration and comparison to other family businesses. Family Business Review, 15, 1-16.
24.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.CruzC.BerroneP.de CastroJ. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653-707.
25.
Gomez-MejiaL. R.Nuñez-NickelM.GutierrezI. (2001). The role of family ties in agency contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 81-95.
26.
HabbershonT. G.WilliamsM. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12, 1-25.
27.
HannanM. T.FreemanJ. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Journal of Sociology, 49, 149-164.
28.
HaynesG. W.WalkerR.RoweB. R.HongG. (1999). The intermingling of business and family finances in family-owned businesses. Family Business Review, 12, 225-239.
29.
Hilburt-DavisJ.DyerW. G.Jr. (2003). Consulting to family businesses: A practical guide to contracting, assessment, and implementation. New York, NY: Wiley.
30.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
31.
JaffeD. (1990). Working with the ones you love. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.
32.
JenningsJ. E.McDougaldM. S. (2007). Work-family interface experiences and coping strategies: Implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 32, 747-760.
33.
JensenM.MecklingO. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
34.
KayeK. (1991). Penetrating the cycle of sustained conflict. Family Business Review, 4, 21-44.
35.
KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. (2004). Feuding families: When conflict does a family firm good. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28, 209-228.
36.
Kets de VriesM. F. R. (1977). The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. Journal of Management Studies, 14, 34-57.
37.
LevinsonH. (1971). Conflicts that plague family businesses. Harvard Business Review, March/April, 90-98.
38.
MarshackK. J. (1993). Copreneurial couples: A literature review on boundaries and transitions among copreneurs. Family Business Review, 6, 355-369.
39.
MarshackK. J. (1994). Copreneurs and dual career couples: Are they different?Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 19, 49-69.
40.
MarshackK. J. (1998). Entrepreneurial couples: Making it work at work and at home. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
41.
MauryB. (2006). Family ownership and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Western European corporations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12, 321-341.
42.
McKnightP. E.McKnightK. M.SidaniS.FigueredoA. J. (2007). Missing data: A gentle introduction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
43.
MereiF. (1949). Group leadership and institutionalization. Human Relations, 2, 23-39.
44.
MorrisJ. R. (2009). Life and death of businesses: A review of research on firm mortality. Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, 4, 1-39.
45.
MuskeG.FitzgeraldM. A. (2006). A panel study of copreneurs in business: Who enters, continues, and exits?Family Business Review, 19, 193-205.
46.
MuthénB. O.MuthénL. K. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
47.
National Federation of Independent Business. (2002). Small business poll: Families in business. Washington, DC: Author.
48.
NeltonS. (1986). In love and in business: How entrepreneurial couples are changing the rules of business and marriage. New York, NY: Wiley.
49.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
50.
PonthieuL.CaudillH. (1993). Who’s the boss? Responsibility and decision making in copreneurial ventures. Family Business Review, 6, 3-17.
51.
RosenblattP. C.de MikL.AndersonR. M.JohnsonP. A. (1985). The family in business. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
52.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley.
53.
RuefM.AldrichH. E.CarterN. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195-222.
54.
ScheinE. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational cultures. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 13-28.
55.
SchulzeW. G.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N. (2003). Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 179-194.
56.
SchulzeW. G.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N.BuchholtzA. K. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12, 99-116.
57.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
SirmonD. G.HittM. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 27, 339-358.
60.
StawB. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chose course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27-44.
61.
StinchcombeA. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In MarchJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142-193). Chicago, IL: Randy McNally.
62.
WainrightJ. L.RussellS. T.PattersonC. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same sex parents. Child Development, 75, 1886-1898.
63.
WestheadP.CowlingM. (1998). Family firm research: The need for a methodological rethink. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23, 31-56.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
