“At the beginning I was completely immersed in the entire venture, and I loved the thrill of it. It was brilliant watching all the jobs coming in and trying to get staff organised. It was amazing and I loved it. Very quickly though it became really hard because all that success needed minute organising and administrating otherwise we would go under. Then it became a love hate relationship for me. I loved the tenders, and the quotes and the clients and the jobs and the projects. At the start it was very much just that- an extension of my personality. It was fun, colourful (naive) creative, exciting, caring. When we realised that we would go bankrupt if we didn’t change the perspective, it became an extension of its own personality and we have to keep giving in to its demands. It’s not creative or fun now; its capitalist. It’s all about the money”.

From domestic to transgenerational contexts: the

distinctiveness of family business organisational forms

Denise Fletcher

How the human drives of love and work, ‘spring

complex social arrangements and small

business forms/structures/ that locate people in time

and space....’(Kanter, 1977).

Couple-owned businesses: the fastest-growing

segment of small business activity

(Marshack, 1993; Dub and James, 1997; Stewart-Gross

and Stewart-Gross, 2007)

Many industrial empires have been

built out of personalised

arrangements based on family and friends (Granovetter, 1985)

Family embeddedness perspective of

entrepreneurship (Aldrich and Cliff,

2003)

The genesis of organizational forms

(McKendrick & Carroll, 2001) and

how boundaries are constructed

‘Market work’ of the household – ‘the

economic assessments undertaken by

household members to generate income and evaluate commodities

that have market value.’ (Bryant & Zick, 2006).

WHY THIS MATTERS?

Informal arrangements – voluntary and emotional contributions that are allocated to entrepreneurial endeavours

Research themes on copreneurship• determinants and characteristics of successful copreneurship (Tompson and Tompson, 2000;

Muske & Fitzgerald, 2006).• differences between copreneurs and non-copreneurial couples (Muske & Fitzgerald (2007). • post divorce situations (Cole and Johnson, 2007).• occupational contexts such as farming (Amarapurkar and Danes, 2005) which tie couples in their

work together or where spouse is active in the vocation of their partner (Zablocki & Kanter, 1976).

• copreneurial activity related to ownership and managerial roles in the business (Fletcher 2010).• family contexts and resources and the relationships between spouses and family businesses or

business owning families (Smith, 2000).• outsourcing of child care (Avery et al., 2000). • joint careers in family businesses (De Bruin and Lewis (2004). • household management Duncan et al. (2000) and financial performance (van Auken and

Werbel, 1998).• spousal commitment and support to business owning families (Kirkwood, 2009).• women’s involvement in business-owning families (Danes and Olson, 2003) and the sometimes

‘invisible’ role of women in family businesses (Hamilton, 2006 and Gillis-Donovan and Moynihan-Bradt, 1990; Philbrick and Fitzgerald 2007).

• ‘third shift’ to highlight the multiple formal/informal work and family roles Lee et al (2006).• how small business impacts on the home/work life balance of the owner-manager (Campbell

Clark, 2000; Zody, 2006; Shumate & Fulk, 2004).

Work so far

1. How couples in busines share a commitment to and responsibility for entrepreneurial endeavours in terms of risk, ownership and – how this is enacted in their life together.

2. Demonstrate how couples in business align their skills, knowledge and resources in relation to each other to realise the endeavour.

3. Display the empirical variety of co-preneurial situations to illustrate diversity and different ways in which work and personal relationships are organised around the business.

Typical scenario Benefits

1. Joint aspirations to start a business together2. One partner starts the business and the other

partner joins in later

Joint commitment to the business.Life choices. Shared responsibility.Shared interests. Share tasks and roles.Flexibility. Autonomy. Helps to get business off the ground before second partner commits.

3. Business bought from the parent(s) by a couple.

4. Business inherited by a spouse/or couple from parents.

5. One partner keeps own career and the other runs the business (dual careers)

6. One spouse does not have career commitments & takes care of family or household

7. One partner keeps own career or work interests separate but has an ownership interest in the venture

8. Spouses jointly own several businesses together but divide up the management roles between them

Take on existing business with client baseLearning and knowledge sharing between generations.Help spouse/family members with employment or to gain new skills.Keep the business in the family.Retain family legacy/brand.Spouses informally provide labour, resources or knowledge to help business get off the ground.Cheap labour .Keeps costs lowFlexibilityOrganise household around business Retain identity from each otherMaintain separate interests and boundaries whilst retaining shared ownership to reflect legal ownership and financial commitment of couple

Luke & Lynn

Ltd companyIT solutions

2003 Created together – joint interest. Two sons now also brought into the business.

Susie & Richard Restaurant 2006 (2) Created business together – shared passion for cooking; always wanted to own restaurant. Third restaurant now open and successfully (venture capital from outside partner)

Melanie & John Construction 1987 Shared ownership and management of business. She does accounts/payroll; he runs construction projects. Business built from equity in home.

Carol & Pete Chiropody 1998 Met at university and created business together from joint interest. Phil had chance to join family business but wanted to run own business.

Elaine & Stuart Antiques He started the business, she joined later. His passion was antiques and she became interested. The business folded and they separated.

Maddy & Ben Journalism/magazines

2002 She started the business, he had own corporate career and when the magazines took off, he joined 2 years later. Now fully shared working out of home.

Gerry & Jo

Delicatessan and high quality hospitality events; Ltd Co

2nd business –same sector. 1st bus failed.

Negative equity in first premises from which they ran shop and business seriously affected first business. Started again in smaller premises. She manages catering and he does all accounts.. And they share hospitality organisation.

Type 3: Classic Co-preneurship

Name of couple

Nature of business Est Where business idea came from

Frances & Lionel

Ltd companyEngineering/pumps

1990 His business; she has own job working from home; she provides emotional support, help with decisions about business (esp. HR issues)

Mandy & Josh Ltd co.Ducting and ventilation

2000 (1 previous business)

His business; spouse does not work. She helps with books and admin.

Linda & Scott Ltd companyRoofing

2003 His business; capital given by parents; she is a teacher helps with invoicing, accounts, email, wages;

Abby & Matt Sound engineer/acoustics – TV industry

2004 His businesses. Recently marriesd and she has joined the business. She helps with web site and marketing. Sole trader but looking to move to partnership

Julie & Paul Sole traderElectrical business

1977 His business, she has own career. She does accounts for the business.

Kate & Bob

Wine shop and wine hospitalityLimited company

2002 She managed a wine shop for a chain. Then started on her own with help of contact in wine industry. Spouse has own business in property. He helps with wine evenings, PR and corporate hospitality.

Sally & Patrick

Home furnishingsPartnership

1999 She is a curtain maker and started her own business; her husband is a lawyer not involved in management.

Tam & Nick Limited liability partnershipPub management

1999 He started business with a friend; she had own sales career in early days but got made redundant; she provided marketing help, general admin) (now separated)

Type 1: Co-preneurial management

Debbie & Tom

Ltd. CompanyIT/electronics/home entertainment

1988 (2 previous business-es)

He started business; She is a management consultant and keeps own career .

Nigel & Jane Limited companiesManufacturing furniture

1960’s Bought company from their old boss and old premises. He managed manufacturing processes/staff. She did books and office management. Have now sold the manufacturing business to two employees but have kept ownership of the properties from which income is still drawn.

Teresa & Toby 2businesses: farm shop/café and home furnishings.Limited companies.

1985 He is a farmer and they set up farm shop/café together. She helped set this up but did not work in it. She developed her own business in high quality soft/home furnishings on the same site.

Stanley & Patricia (10 businesses) Property development and charitable initiatives

1991 He manages a investment property portfolio. Has involvement in multiple businesses. Works from home. Spouse provides emotional support and advice. She does not like admin so leaves it to him.

Nev & Beryl 3 businesses(farm, marketing, property development)

1988; 1993; 1997

3 businesses; Farm – his business and hobby; public relations her business; shared business – her property development (now separated).

Type 3: Co-preneurial ownership

Ken and Sheila Printing 1950’s Colleague suggested idea and they started up in partnership together but he then pulled out so spouse joined to do book work. 3 children came into business. £15m t/over.

Brenda and Glenn Travel Co 1950’s He took on father’s business; she kept own nursing career but when father stepped down she joined the business fully. Two children but did not want their children to come into business.

Judy and Richard Medals 1990 Spouse had taken redundancy so decided to buy the business from father. Now sold the business to a client (4 children from 2 marriages)

Ann & Robin Confectioners 1970’s Father and wife started business. Grew to several millions and employed 30 people. Brought in 3 daughters. Only 1 daughter stayed in business. Sold business out to major competitor after major robbery/assault on business.

Margaret & Roger

3 x business, (coal, garage, scrap metal)

1970’s Took on father’s business; she runs all businesses and manages finance and organisation. Roy is the ‘front man’ dealing with clients, sales and distribution. 5 children with two sons now in the business.

Type 4: Intergenerational co-preneurship

Challenges of spousal entrepreneurshipCLASSIC COPRENEURSHIP

• Balancing roles and work-life

• Building a business from personal to professional

• Leadership ambiguity for employees

• Life style v growth issues

• Maintain boundaries from each other’s work

• Managing emotions at work

• Second partner needs to gain ownership of the business idea/build up credibility

• Managing stress levels

COPRENEURIAL MANAGEMENT

• Balancing roles

• Balancing work and family

• Helping spouse to switch off

• Informality of business

• Unpaid work

• Unregistered work activity

• Moving to legitimate business

• Security of income from other partner

• Getting time/attention of partner

COPRENEURIAL OWNERSHIP

• Allocating time and resource to different businesses

• Not in touch with day to day operations

• Managing financial accounts can be complex

INTERGENERATIONAL COPRENEURSHIP

• Develop next generation and think about sustainability of the business

• Keeping the business fresh

• Maintaining or reducing loyalty to past generation

• Helping parents to let go

• Making the business ones’ own

• Getting buy in from employees/clients

• Distribution of rewards and dividends if parents still have some ownership

Revised conceptualisation of co-preneurship

In co- preneurship the couple share a commitment to and responsibility for the business venture in terms of risk, ownership and management and enact this in their life together.

There is emotion work, risk taking, life making and ‘market work’ characterised by the alignment of creative interests, knowledge, labour or skills with one’s spouse which are assessed as having commodity or market value and which lead to the creation (or repositioning) of an organizational entity.

(Fletcher, forthcoming ISBJ)

Inter-generational family

7Here a business is owned by a wider family (more than two family members, i.e. siblings, father-son etc) but only one family member has a management role in the business. Could have undergone inter generational transition.

8Here ownership is held between wider family but a couple from the family run/manage the business

9Classic family business Here ownership is held between wider family (not a couple) and family members are widely involved in management roles (two generations working alongside each other)

Couple 4Here a couple jointly own a business but only one of them is directly involved in management

5Here a couple own the business and are jointly involved in managing the business activities

6Here a couple own the business but wider family members are involved in managing the business

Individual

1Classic start up situation whereby an individual owns and manages the business by themselves

2Here one person owns the business but a couple manage it.

3Here one person owns the business but wider family members involved (typical start up situations drawing on family resources to build up business or provide jobs)

Individual Couple Intergenerational Family

Figure 2: The role of couples and families in business venturing (Adapted from Litz, 1995)

Management roles undertaken by.......

OwnershIp

RoleS

Next stage of research: ethnographic study of couples in business (from domestic to trans-generational)

1. Consider how organisational creation is realised within and between couples/household.

2. Evaluate how couples construct an account of their role/entry/absorption/integration into the business.

3. Examine what effect participation in the entrepreneurial endeavours has on the couple in terms of managing their business/private life.

4. Examine how couples in business - continuously manage the physical, temporal and emotional aspects of living and working together; whether the organisational demands of entrepreneurial endeavours lead them to seek segmentation/transitions between different aspects of their lives.

5. Assess the wider socio-economic effects of couples and families in business.

6. Consider wider structural and institutional influences

From domestic to trans-generational organisational forms

In a discussion on transgenerational wealth in family Habbershon & Pistrui argue to focus on the family as the unit of analysis (the enterprising family) and the need to track the transgenerational spread of wealth.

• They make a distinction between:– ‘families in business’ v ‘families as investors’ – two axes – acceleration of business v preservation of the business– generation v transgenerational wealth creation– managerial strategy as planned/efficient/internal continuity v entrepreneurial

strategy (as outward looking, creative, discovery).• Top right quadrant = Enterprising family domain (‘family as investor’ mind set,

employing entrepreneurial strategic methods).• Preoccupation with the family as the unit of analysis misses wider processes:

– the travelling, translation and movement of ideas, innovations or inventions across national borders;

– changing consumption patterns, industry norms etc– The transformative effects on regions/communities/localities etc.

Jeremy Clarkson – ‘Who do you think you are? Great, great, great, great grandson ofTracked family history - Kilner jar (Huddersfield).Very successful and innovative company – creating many patents for glass bottles; employing thousands of workers, setting up many factories.Jeremy Clarkson’s research into his family tree revealed ancestors who were at the heart of the industrial revolution. The Kilner family had established several glassworks across the north of England during the nineteenth century, when business boomed and vast fortunes were amassed; indeed, the Kilner name became associated with the production of a particular type of storage jar, with the brand-name still in use today. Unfortunately for Jeremy, the family fortunes were lost in the early twentieth century, partly through changes to the glass bottle manufacturing industry when more effective mechanisation was introduced from America, and partly because the family business passed into less capable hands – a fact demonstrated by the vastly reduced sums of money left in successive generations of Kilner wills.The impact of the Kilner’s Providence Glassworks in Conisbrough, the town where Jeremy’s great-great grandparents Caleb and Eleanor Kilner lived, was considerable. Not only were the glassworks the main source of employment – as demonstrated by census returns throughout the nineteenth century – but the Kilner family helped to finance the local Methodist minister, acting as trustees for the land on which the chapel was built. Even a bridge in the town bears the Kilner name. The changes made to Conisbrough by the industrial activity of the Kilners can be traced at The National Archives in two major land surveys, the Tithe Apportionments of the mid-nineteenth century and the 1910 Valuation Office survey. and skill

Where has my family’s wealth gone?

Theoretical re-balancingLife-makingLife making in evidence –income generation,

family demands, keeping family members in employment, career change, bereavements, parents retiring, labour market issues, income for the household.

Commercialisation of intimate lifeFor the good of the entrepreneurial

endeavour.Emotion workMaking sacrifices - covering of emotions,

resentment, not getting paid, the time the business takes from the children/family/personal time/effects on personal relationships – divorce); loneliness; emotional responsibility

Risk takingRaising finance, assuring collateral, employing

new members of staff, engaging family members, government regulations; ultimate responsibility for the business; propping up business from personal money; manage risks on daily basis.

BoundariesThe need to manage public/private identities

and intra/inter-firm relationshipsWider institutional issues shaping

organisational formsThe travelling, translation and movement of

ideas, innovations or inventions across national borders;

Changing consumption patterns, industry norms etc

The transformative effects on regions/communities/localities etc.

EMOTION WORKThe managed hearts (Hochschild, 2003) and ‘emotional ownership’ signifying the sense of closeness,

belonging and attachment that people feel for businesses that they own,

(Bjonberg &Nicholson, 2008).

MARKET WORK

The commercialisation of intimate relations (market work and

assessment of how skills and resources are adapted

commodities) with market valueZablocki & Kanter,

BOUNDARY WORKHow the temporal, emotional,

relational, social boundaries of the business are constructed–

(Ashforth et al, 2000)

Sensitising concepts

Organisational formsAre shaped by social worlds,

friendships, network practices industry norms, associations, wider institutional practices

Literature on boundariesBoundaries as ‘the physical, temporal, emotional, cognitive and/or relational limits that define

entities as separate from one another’ (Ashforth et al. 2000:474)• They mark the:

– social structure of an organisation, – resources held by the company or – sphere of influence operated by the organisation (Santos and Eisehardt, 2005) through boundary

conceptions (efficiency, power, competence and identity) to demark the organisational boundary between the organisation and its environment (p.491).

How boundary-spanning/crossing/segmentation or integration is important for: the functional work of the organisation:such as marketing Kellog et al. 2006); the identity/meaning work of the individual;

• maintaining work-family conflict/roles (Foley & Powell, 1997; Campbell Clark, 2000; Zody et al. 2006)

• or work-home distinctions (Shumate and Fulk, 2004; Kreiner, 2006; Sturges, 2008).• enabling flexible forms of work (Peper, 2005).• Managing conflict, strain and depletion (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985; Edwards and Rothbard,

2000) when roles are not clear.

In progressing from domestic to trans-generational situations, is there a point at which the question of ‘who is the ‘family’

in the family business’ is the wrong question to ask?

Entrepreneurial endeavours are ‘highly absorptive’ occupational pursuits

This term was introduced by Kanter (1977) ‘to distinguish occupational pursuits that not only demand the maximum commitment of the worker and define the context for family life, but which also implicate other family members in the work system’ (p.87).

Occupational contexts that activate an organisational demand on partners (political roles, small towns, total institutions (i.e. care homes or boarding schools), in times of controversy - and in entrepreneurial climates.

This is all just getting too much. The metaphor I have for how I feel on days like that is like being in a black hole with everything falling in on top of me and I am just small at the bottom of the hole watching these things come in. I knew things were going to be hard but did I really think they would be this hard? I feel…. because of my desire to help him to get things right. He is also trying to prove so much to himself that he can do it. He wants to be a successful business man. I want him to realise his aspirations but his business requirements impinge so much on our family life that I find it exhausting and what he wants for himself becomes my responsibility also. The incessant presence of the business is wearing me out and I like to put things into slots – I think through what needs to be done, then I break it up and allocate the jobs to slots. But you can’t do this when you are running a business, you can’t plan or organise yourself, so you have to change and adapt.