An examination of howhusbands, as key stakeholders,impact the success of women

entrepreneursAnna Nikina

Department of Innovation and Strategy Management,Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble, France

Lois M. SheltonDepartment of Management,

David Nazarian College of Business and Economics,California State University, Northridge, California, USA, and

Séverine LeLoarneDepartment of Innovation and Strategy Management,Grenoble Ecole de Management, Grenoble, France

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore: How do changes in the role of the husband affectthe marriage of a woman entrepreneur? How do changes in the marriage affect the womanentrepreneur and her relationship with her business?Design/methodology/approach – A novel theoretical approach based on marriage contract theory,gender role ideology and psychological contracts was used. Qualitative methodology included analysisof multiple cases based on rich interview data gathered from 12 Scandinavian couples.Findings – Research revealed that the pattern of dominance between the husband and wife, thegender role ideologies of the two spouses, and the interaction between this pattern and the gender roleideologies, and overall level of marital harmony were key determinants of husbands’ spousal support.Research limitations/implications – Sample size and geographical limitations. Future research:exploring other cultural settings, further application of marriage and psychological contracts in femaleentrepreneurship; studies of the impact areas of the husband in the wife’s business – also from theperspective of implicit contracts.Practical implications – Research sheds light on how women run their businesses and how thechanging roles of the spouse alter marriage dynamics and influence the wife-business relationship.Social implications – Findings benefit female entrepreneurs considering the launch of a business,couples in which the wife currently owns a business, state and governmental policymakers, businessconsultants, and entrepreneurship instructors. These findings can help couples better prepare for thedemands of entrepreneurship.Originality/value – For scholars: expanded understanding of the work-family interface of femaleentrepreneurs via novel theoretical approach. For business practitioners: understanding the impact of aspouse on life and career of female entrepreneur.Keywords Gender roles, Psychological contract, Marriage contract, Spousal support,Women entrepreneursPaper type Research paper

IntroductionAs the incidence of female entrepreneurship rises throughout the world (Fielden et al.,2003; Langowitz and Minniti, 2007), women entrepreneurs have garnered increasingattention in both the business and academic spheres. Women are starting new

Journal of Small Business andEnterprise DevelopmentVol. 22 No. 1, 2015pp. 38-62©EmeraldGroup Publishing Limited1462-6004DOI 10.1108/JSBED-01-2012-0002

Received 5 January 2012Revised 20 July 2012Accepted 24 May 2013

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

38

JSBED22,1

businesses at a rate that exceeds that of their male counterparts, and are becoming animportant economic and societal force (Langowitz and Minniti, 2007; Welter, 2004),Although a number of scholars have examined the integration of the work and familylives of these women (Buttner, 1993; Jennings and McDougald, 2007; Loscocco, 1997;Rehman and Roomi, 2012; Shelton, 2006), the role of their husbands has received littleattention, (e.g. Brush et al., 2009). This is surprising since the importance of spouses infamily businesses and in entrepreneurship has been acknowledged (e.g. Jianakoplosand Bernasek, 2008; Garcia et al., 2007; Winkler and Ireland, 2009). However, the wivesof male entrepreneurs have been the subjects of most of these studies (e.g. Danes andOlson, 2003; Poza and Messer, 2001; Danes et al., 2002).

Consequently, this study aims to fill this gap in the literature by examining theimpact of the husband of the female entrepreneur through his influence on theirmarriage. The two inter-related research questions addressed here are:

RQ1. How do changes in the role of the husband affect the marriage of a womanentrepreneur? and

RQ2. How do changes in the marriage affect the woman entrepreneur and herrelationship with her business?

It is proposed here that the role of the husband within a marriage changes when thewife starts a business, and that these changes in the husband’s role subsequentlyimpact the marriage, and the resulting marital adjustment influences the wife and herrelationship with the business.

These research questions were investigated using a qualitative researchmethodology informed by the concepts of marriage contracts (Sager et al., 1971;Sager, 1976, 1977) and psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1989, 1990). Comparativecase study methodology provided a rich basis for developing insights into the impact ofthe husband. Detailed data were obtained from both women entrepreneurs and theirspouses in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland through a combination ofsemi-structured interviews and qualitative questionnaires.

As a result, this study extends research on women’s entrepreneurship in severalways. First, it investigates an understudied topic – the spouses of femaleentrepreneurs, and sheds light on the nature of their influence (Philbrick andFitzgerald, 2007). Second, the use of marriage contract theory focusses the analysis atthe couple or marital dyad level as opposed to either the individual, or the familylevels observed in much previous research (e.g. Danes and Olson, 2003; Poza andMesser, 2001; Danes et al., 2002; Roomi et al., 2009). Third, the concept ofpsychological contracts is extended to include entrepreneurs. Previously,psychological contracts, which are between a person and an organization, weredefined in the context of an employee and an employing organization (Rousseau,1989, 1990). Fourth, the sample for this study was taken from a region recognized forgender equality – Scandinavia – which is a conservative test of the strength andimpact of gender role ideology on marriage and psychological contracts.The countries in this region are widely recognized as forerunners in enablingpublic and private gender equality through structures such as gender equalitylegislation, and child care support, and in achieving high levels of women’sparticipation in politics, state and local government, and the work force (Arenius andKovalainen, 2006). If gender role ideology is important in a relatively gender neutralresearch setting, it is likely to also be significant in more gendered national cultures.

39

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

This study is organized as follows. The next section provides a review of the currentliterature on spousal support, with an emphasis on the support provided by husbandsto wives. The theory and methods are discussed in the third and fourth sections,respectively. In fifth section, the results from the data analysis are introduced andan new exploratory theoretical framework is presented. The concluding sectionsummarizes the previous analysis, provides an inventory of future researchopportunities, and discusses the implications for both practitioners and academics.

Literature reviewMost previous studies of entrepreneur spouses have focussed on wives and haveinvestigated the following topics: the impact of the spouse on financial risk takingbehavior (Brindley, 2005; Jianakoplos and Bernasek, 2008), work-family balance(Kirkwood and Tootell, 2008), satisfaction with leisure time (Garcia et al., 2007),inclusion and control (Lee, 1997; Stewart and Danes, 2001) and tensions, conflict andsatisfaction of the spouse (Amarapurkar and Danes, 2005). Some other studies havealso examined wives who work in their husbands’ businesses (e.g. Danes and Olson,2003; Poza and Messer, 2001; Danes et al., 2002). Research has also been conducted onfemale entrepreneurs who do not have spouses, revealing the comfortable situationfaced by such women in terms of time management but also the lack of spousal supportas adviser or emotional and moral supporter (McKay, 2001). To date, only one empiricalstudy has observed women playing the dominant role in the family business, with theirhusbands helping out (Alcorso, 1993). In this literature, spouse contributions mirror thetraditional roles of women and men, with women adopting a less authoritative role,while men focus more on planning for the future of the business, budgeting, buying,and employing staff (Alcorso, 1993), or technical support (Baines and Wheelock, 1998).Only 35 percent of the spouses of female entrepreneurs take any part in the business,while 60 percent of male-owned businesses have help from a spouse (Miettinen, 1986).

The spousal support literature provides some insights into the role of the husbandof a female entrepreneur. An examination of previous work discussing the spousalsupport provided by husbands to their working wives is particularly relevant, giventhe proposed research questions. Since both entrepreneurial and organizationallyemployed wives are deviating from the traditional homemaker wife role by pursuingpaid employment, they are likely to face similar conflicts and challenges in combiningwork and home roles. Gendered expectations regarding women’s home responsibilitiesand roles in western societies and organizations can exacerbate tensions between workand family roles (Cha, 2010; Santos and Cabral-Cardoso, 2008). Prior research suggeststhat female managers feel stressed and guilty since they are frequently torn betweentheir managerial and family roles (Ruderman et al., 2002).

Scholars have noted that a husband’s support of his wife’s employment is critical tothe reduction of her role conflict (Berkowitz and Perkins, 1984; Beutell and Greenhaus,1983). Arnott (1972) determined that the husband’s support is crucial in determining ifthe wife’s employment negatively impacts the family system. In a similar vein, thesupport given by spouses has been found to be important in reducing work-familyconflict among female entrepreneurs (Kim and Ling, 2001; Marcinjus et al., 2007).Rosenbaum and Cohen (1999) note that since the stress of working mothers oftenresults from their perception of the effects of outside employment on their role asmothers, rather than from too many demands, women who receive support from theirhusbands are less likely to feel that their role in the family sphere is threatened by thefact that they also have a career. Both Sigle-Rushton (2010) and Välimäki et al. (2009)

40

JSBED22,1

find that the husband’s support in domestic work is significant to the wife, withSigle-Rushton (2010) concluding that the husband’s household support significantlycontributes to marriage stability.

Both Välimäki et al. (2009) and Kirkwood (2009) have developed typologies of thespouses of managerial and entrepreneurial women, respectively, based on the analysisof in-depth interviews and/or narratives. The sample of 29 Finnish women in the workof Välimäki et al. (2009) resulted in five types of husbands: determining, supporting,instrumental, flexible, and counterproductive. In contrast, Kirkwood (2009) interviewed68 entrepreneurs (45 men and 23 women) in New Zealand and found a continuum ofspousal support, ranging from co-founder, supportive to unsupportive/ambivalent.Her findings show that spousal support was more important to women than men with agreater proportion of women co-founding firms with their spouses and none starting aventure without the support of her spouse. By contrast, six of the men becameentrepreneurs with no support from their wives. Notably, these two typologiesare very similar, with roughly equivalent categories (counterproductive andunsupportive/ambivalent; determining and co-founder; supporting, instrumental,flexible, and supportive), which tends to suggest similarities between employed andentrepreneurial women.

Previous scholars have concluded that the social support provided by a spouse, orspousal support, is qualitatively different and often superior to other forms of socialsupport (Dehle et al., 2001). Numerous studies confirm the primacy of spousal supportto married persons (Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Burke and Weir, 1976; Coyne andDeLongis, 1986; Dakof and Taylor, 1990; Dehle et al., 2001), and the inability of otherfamily members to compensate for a lack of spousal support (Brown and Harris, 1978;Coyne and DeLongis, 1986; Lieberman, 1982; Verhofstadt et al., 2007). Since spousalsocial support also addresses how the marriage operates (Karney and Bradbury, 1995;Pasch and Bradbury, 1998), the nature of the marriage of the female entrepreneur isalso an important factor.

In conclusion, this review of previous work reveals that the spousal supportprovided by husbands is a critical form of social support for working women in general,and female entrepreneurs in particular. The relatively small number of studies on thistopic focus on examining support behaviors and/or the types of persons who exhibitthem rather than addressing the underlying causes of these support behaviors, and thedeterminants of when and how much spousal support a female entrepreneur willreceive. Since previous work is based on theories that focus on behaviors rather thanthe motivations underlying the behavior, a clear understanding of the determinants ofspousal support by husbands is lacking.

By utilizing marriage and psychological contracts to consider the impact of genderdifferences and gender ideology, this study answers the call made by de Bruin et al.(2007a, b) for work on female entrepreneurship that connects the field to theory in aninnovative way.

Theoretical frameworkTwo theoretical perspectives are relevant to the analysis here – gender role ideologies(Greenstein, 1996a; Minnotte et al., 2010); and marriage (Sager et al., 1971; Sager,1976, 1977) and psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1989, 1990). It is proposed here thatwhen the wife operates a venture, this activity impacts both the husband and themarriage, and acts as a stressor on previously established expectations and obligationswhich form the implicit marriage contract. The wife’s business also opens up a support

41

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

role for the husband (Kim and Ling, 2001), which either may be consistent with or maychallenge the gender role ideologies of one or both spouses.

A key focus here is on how the wife’s business impacts the expectations andobligations of the husband, and how these changes affect the marriage. It is proposedthat gender role ideologies (Greenstein, 1996a; Minnotte et al., 2010) affect marriages byinfluencing the expectations and obligations that each spouse brings to the marriage.Marriage contract theory (Sager et al., 1971; Sager, 1976, 1977) provides insights intohow wives and husbands renegotiate their relationships when the expectationsand obligations of individual spouses change. Next, the concept of psychologicalcontracts (Rousseau, 1989, 1990) is employed to analyze the wife-business relationship.Subsequently, the impact of the marriage contract on the psychological contractbetween the wife and her business is examined.

Gender ideology and marriage contractsGender ideology is defined as “how a person identifies herself or himself with regard tomarital and family roles that are traditionally linked to gender” (Minnotte et al., 2010,p. 426; Greenstein, 1996a, p. 586). Gender ideology is a lens through which maritaldynamics, such as the allocation of housework (Greenstein 1995, 1996a, b), wives’economic independence (Sayer and Bianchi, 2000) and spousal support (Mickelson et al.,2006), can be viewed. Women’s gender ideologies help to determine how they viewinequalities in housework and whether such inequalities impact women’s maritalquality. Women with egalitarian gender ideologies are expected to react morenegatively to inequalities, compared to women with traditional gender ideologies(Minnotte et al., 2010, p. 426).

In his seminal works on marriage contract theory (Sager et al., 1971; Sager,1976, 1977), which serve as the foundation for marriage therapy and formed the basisfor psychological contract theory (Rousseau, 1989, 1990), Sager (1976) conceptualizedthe expectations and obligations of each spouse in terms of individual marriagecontracts and the interactional contract. An individual contract is defined as “a person’sexpressed and unexpressed, conscious and beyond awareness concepts of hisobligations within the marital relationship, and to the benefits he expects to derive frommarriage in general and from his spouse in particular” Sager (1976, p. 4). It is arguedthat gender role ideologies impact marriage contracts, and consequently, maritaloutcomes and dynamics.

In additional to each spouse’s own individual marriage contract, every couple hasan interactional contract that is common, single and largely non-verbalized (Sager,1976, p. 27). This interactional contract describes the implicit marital system, andserves as “the operational one in which the two mates are trying to achieve the needsexpressed in their individual contracts” (Sager, 1976, p. 28). This contract coversevery aspect of the marriage, such as children, money, sex, leisure time, etc.The extent to which each spouse’s contractual expectations are satisfied determinethe quality of their marriage.

It is argued that the wife’s business impacts the husband’s individual contract,and the changes in the husband’s contract begin a dynamic, in which each spouseendeavors to achieve the fulfillment of his or her own individual contract through theinteractional contract. The nature of the interactional contract, which can be congruent,complementary, or conflicted (Sager, 1976), affects the level, rate, and type ofadjustment in the marriage. Thus, Sager identified three basic types of marriages –congruent, complementary, or conflicted (Sager et al., 1971; Sager, 1976, 1977).

42

JSBED22,1

In congruent marriages, harmony exists since the needs and expectations of bothpartners are internally consistent both individually and as a unit. For example, the wifeconsciously and unambivalently may want to enter into a certain line of business.If the husband, without ambivalence, is willing not to attempt to stop her although hecould discourage his wife’s ambitions, then the couple has achieved congruencein this area.

In complementary marriages, the needs of each spouse fit together to form aconfiguration or gestalt, and complementarity often forms the basis for successfullong-term marriages. Positive complementarity exists if the spouses experience mutualfulfillment in a way that promotes positive growth of both the individuals and therelationship; however, negative complementarity results when a couple builds defensesagainst conflict and anxiety. An example of negative complementarity would be a wifewho believes that she must completely control household cleaning and maintenance toavoid becoming anxious, and a husband would become anxious and upset if he wasforced to be involved in household upkeep. In this case, both spouses could effectivelycollaborate, although neither one would achieve much progress.

In conflicted marriages, the implicit or explicit needs of one spouse contradict orstand in opposition to those of the other, resulting in serious sources of anxiety ordiscontent. Marriages based on congruent and complementary contracts tend to bestronger and more satisfying than those based on conflicted contracts.

The wife’s relationship with her business and psychological contractsThe relationship between a woman and her company includes economic as well asemotional and psychological components. The concept of psychological contractsoffers a means to describe all aspects of this relationship, and was originally designedto address employer and employee expectations of the employment relationship, overand above the formal contract of employment (Argyris, 1960; Smithson and Lewis,2004, p. 70). The common elements in the various definitions of psychological contractsinclude beliefs, values, expectations, and aspirations of employer and employee,including beliefs about implicit promises and obligations (Rousseau, 1989; Smithsonand Lewis, 2004, p. 71).

It is argued here that the expectations of a woman entrepreneur with regard to herventure are closely related to her motivations for starting her business. Women launchbusinesses in order to achieve a variety of objectives, including greater work-familybalance, greater flexibility and autonomy, escaping career limits or “glass ceilings”and/or personal growth (Brush, 1992; Buttner, 1993; Jennings and McDougald, 2007).A woman’s psychological contract with the business is fulfilled to the extent that theseexpectations are met, and meeting these expectations forms key inducements for thefemale entrepreneur to launch and operate a business.

Whereas the obligations of an employed woman spring from her employer, theobligations of the woman entrepreneur are based on the requirements of her clients,employees, suppliers, bankers, and other key stakeholders in her venture. Althoughwomen entrepreneurs experience greater autonomy than employed women, thisautonomy is not absolute, but is constrained by stakeholder requirements. If anentrepreneur perceives that the obligations owed to the business are too great, or theinducements she believes are owed in return are insufficient, then a perceived breach ofthe psychological contract may have occurred. A perceived breach occurs whenthe business fails to meet an expectation or obligation in a manner commensurate withthe effort invested by the entrepreneur (Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Rousseau, 1989).

43

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

A psychological contract can be continually renegotiated, changing with anindividual’s expectations and shifting economic and social contexts (Smithson andLewis, 2004, p. 71), such as operating a business.

This study concentrates on the following three effects:

(1) changes in husband’s individual marriage contract;

(2) changes in the interactional marriage contract between husband and wife; and

(3) impact of changes in the interactional marriage contract on the psychologicalcontract between the wife and her business.

It is argued here that the husband impacts the psychological contract betweenthe wife and the business through his influence on the interactional marriage contract.

MethodsThe research design incorporated two qualitative methodologies – an inductiveapproach and comparative case analysis to facilitate theory building (Eisenhardt,1989). An inductive approach permitted the examination of patterns of relationshipsbetween social actors and how these actors construct reality from these relationships(Suddaby, 2006). Here, the social actors of interest are the husband and wife, and therelationships of interest are the interactional marriage contract between husband andwife, the individual marriage contract of the husband, and the psychological contractbetween the wife and her business.

In addition, the research design included comparative case analysis. The cases aretreated as multiple experiments, with each case either confirming or disconfirming thefindings drawn from the others (Yin, 1994). Subsequently, since the findings weregrounded in a variety of cases, the results can be more valid and generalizable thanthose of single-case studies, yet more focussed than overarching theories (Eisenhardtand Graebner, 2007).

Research sampleThe research was conducted in Scandinavia and covered four countries: Denmark,Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The sample was developed utilizing both clusterand convenience sample approaches. In the sampling criteria, women entrepreneurswere required to have been in a marriage for a minimum of four years, andto have been operating their businesses for a minimum of two years. These minimumtime requirements were necessary since the authors viewed relationshipdevelopment as a process evolving over time and in order to draw meaningfulinsights, both the length of wives’ entrepreneurship careers and the lengthof their marriage relationships needed to be taken into account. These criteriapermitted the examination of how the wife’s business impacted the husband and themarriage, both at the time the business was launched and for at least two yearsafterwards, and therefore, acted as a stressor on previously established roles andmarital relations.

As a result, a total of 12 couples, comprised of 12 female entrepreneurs and12 husbands, were identified who matched the sampling criteria. This sample size wasjudged to be adequate based on previous similar work. Six relationships wereinvestigated in a study of parental roles (Zuzic, 2003), 11 couples were included in anexamination of normative marital interactions (Zolot, 2000), 21 informants were used toresearch perceptions of gender roles (Agapiou, 2002) and ten entrepreneurs were

44

JSBED22,1

questioned for an investigation of the use of internet-based information by femaleentrepreneurs in identifying business opportunities (Martin and Wright, 2005).

Couples in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were clustered since the femaleentrepreneurs were found through those countries’ regional networks and associationsof female entrepreneurs. Two of the Finnish couples were selected from the personalnetwork of the first author, and the third couple was found through a magazinearticle. As the descriptive information in Table I shows, the research sample consistedof female entrepreneurs with a range of ages, industries, and personal and professionalexperiences.

Data collectionThe first author collected data from 14 May until 18 June 2008. Two techniques wereused – in-depth interviews and qualitative questionnaires. First, interview participantswere requested to fill a qualitative questionnaire. Second, all research participants wereinterviewed. Face-to-face interviews took place with six respondents and telephoneinterviews were conducted with 18 respondents. The average interview length wasapproximately 62 minutes, with the maximum reaching two hours. Six of theinterviews were conducted in Finnish, and 18 were conducted in English.

Qualitative data analysis techniquesThe analysis of the data were conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the first andsecond authors independently coded the responses of the first couple utilizing threebroad themes:

(1) husband-business, representing the husband’s individual contract;

(2) husband-wife, representing the interactional marriage contract; and

(3) wife-business, representing the psychological contract between the wife andher business.

Table I.Research

participants –descriptiveinformation

45

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

Each author placed portions of the text for this couple under these broad themes andallowed various codes to emerge. The goal of this first stage was to attain what Kvaletermed “dialogical intersubjectivity” (Kvale, 1995, p. 152). Each coded portion of textwas compared and, if differences existed, discussed until consensus was attained.Given the complexity of the research topic, it was assumed that a given excerptcould yield multiple interpretations. Thus, these discussions were enormously helpfulin clarifying the boundaries and properties of the theoretical constructs underinvestigation (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Once agreement was reached, in the next stage, each of these two authors readthrough the complete transcripts for all of the 12 couples. Similar to Kreiner et al. (2009),the goal of this second stage was to enable a greater understanding of the range ofexpectations and obligations expressed by husbands and wives, and the marital issuesfaced by the couples. After a careful reading of all of the transcripts by first and secondauthors independently, two critical dimensions were identified by both authors:

(1) similarity of gender role ideologies held by the two spouses; and

(2) the resiliency and strength of the marriage.

These two dimensions served as the basis for four possible configurations ofsimilarity of gender role ideology and marital strength as illustrated in Table II. Thesedimensions as permitted effective theoretical sampling (Eisenhardt and Graebner,2007) so that couples in which the marital dynamics and the changes in individual,interactional, and psychological contracts were highly visible could be selected fordetailed case studies – one for each of the four possible configurations – therebybringing into sharper focus the processes that can exist with other couples (Eisenhardt,1989; Pettigrew, 1990; Pratt et al., 2006).

The two authors agreed immediately on three of the four couples for inclusion ascase examples, and the fourth couple was agreed upon after careful discussion.The four case studies and accompanying source transcripts were given to the thirdauthor for independent assessment. Although familiar with the study, the third authorwas not involved in any of the coding or discussions leading to the development of thecase studies. After carefully reading the case studies and source transcripts, the thirdauthor agreed with the interpretation of the qualitative data, and also recommended theinclusion of some additional passages.

ResultsEach of the four cases presented below represent one of the four possibleconfigurations of similarity of gender role ideology and marital strength illustrated

Similar gender roleideologies

Case 1: Reduced conflictDenmark/turnover <50,000 Euros;marriage 21 years/business 1.5 years

Case 4: Increased congruenceSweden/turnover of 200,000500,000Euros; marriage 8 years/business3.5 years

Dissimilar gender roleideologies

Case 2: Exacerbated conflictFinland/turnover of 800,000-900,000Euros; marriage 7 years/business3 years

Case 3:Renegotiated positivecomplementarityNorway/turnover <100,000 Euros;Marriage 25 years/business 3 years

Conflicted marriage Contract Complementary/Congruent marriagecontract

Table II.Exemplar cases

46

JSBED22,1

in Table II. Although the other eight cases could be each classified in one of the fourconfigurations, the four cases introduced below were selected because they particularlyvivid, representative examples of each of the four configurations. Following therationale of Eisenhardt (1989) and Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), each of thesefour cases represent compelling examples and therefore most clearly illustrate theunderlying processes at work in their respective configurations.

Case 1: conflicted marriage/similar gender role ideologiesThis couple has been together for over 20 years and has two children. The wife hasbeen providing psychological support services for 1.5 years and her business generatesan annual turnover of under 50,000 Euros. The husband is an accounting entrepreneur.

Impact on the husband’s marriage contract. The husband has a traditional genderrole ideology, which leads him to expect for the wife to take care of the household.And although the wife continues to perform most of the household labor, he facesdifficulty in providing household and emotional support. By contrast, he is more effectivein serving as a business advisor, but his own company remains his priority in partbecause it is his, and in part because he is still the primary provider for the household:

“I help her with all she asks for. So far it has been finances and legal things, contacts and goodadvice.” “I have a lot of things concerning my own business on my mind and my business ismore important than hers, because it’s my child! Like her business is her child.”

Shifts in the interactional marriage contract. Strains existed in the marriage contractprior to the wife launching her business due to the wife’s dissatisfaction with thehusband’s ability to lead and to provide excitement and passion in the marriage, whichreflect a traditional gender role ideology on her part:

I sometimes wish he took the responsibility and I could just be safe in his arms. But it hasalways been my initiative, and I know myself that even if I want him to be more responsible,I don’t let go myself. But in the end, he is not man enough.

His inability to meet the expectations of the wife’s individual contract may havecontributed to an instance of infidelity by the wife. In spite of strains in the relationship,the marriage contract proved strong enough to withstand this crisis, and the coupleremained together. Tension remained in the relationship, since the wife felt a lack ofsupport from her husband with respect to her business:

Now too I want for him to take more active part in it,. I have supported him, when he wasstarting his business, I want for him to do the same for me!

The lack of intimacy in the marriage is evident in both the couple’s choices with regardto their free time and in their method of addressing problems. The wife notes:

Also for us as a couple it would be important to talk in order to nurture our relationship.We do not prioritize talking and discussing things with each other.

Surprisingly, the launch of the wife’s business helped improve this troubledrelationship. Her need for assistance with the household allowed the husband todemonstrate more initiative at home, and the wife’s greater sense of personalaccomplishment reduced her complaining. According to the husband:

After the entrepreneurship stepped into the picture, she is more involved with her work,I have to step up and be there for kids and she asks more of my help.

47

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

The wife also acknowledged that entrepreneurship has brought greater peace in themarriage.

The wife’s psychological contract with her business. The business clearly met thewife’s expectations for greater autonomy and flexibility. But she is also annoyed by thefact that others, especially her husband, do not appreciate that she is not able to alsocomplete household chores while working at home:

I even think that in this respect it would be easier, if I was employed and workedas most people outside home – in this way it would be legitimate for me to not be ableto handle it all.

The lack of emotional support from the husband and marital tension has contributed toa breach in the psychological contract between the wife and her business:

Since I work from home and my office is at home, I feel more like a stay-at-home mom than anentrepreneur.

She clearly expected to feel more professional as an entrepreneur, and seems to bedisappointed with the reality of running a relatively small home-based business.

Husband’s impact on psychological contract through the marriage contract.The marital adjustments initiated by the wife’s entrepreneurship appear to haveimproved the marriage. Although the wife’s business caused some irritationin the husband’s individual marriage contract due to increased demands for him toassist at home, the husband seemed to view the wife’s increased happinessas more than sufficient compensation for his contributions to the household and tothe business.

The negative impact of the husband on the psychological contract arises from thelack of emotional support to the wife and her entrepreneurship, causing her feel morelike a stay-at-home mom and results in a breach in the otherwise fulfilled relationalpsychological contract with her business.

Case 2: conflicted marriage/different gender role ideologiesThis couple, from Finland, has been together for seven years, and has a small sontogether. Both husband and wife are in their early 40s. The wife’s three-year-oldbusiness employs 21 people and has an annual turnover of over 800,000 Euros.The husband is employed in a technical/business position.

Impact on husband’s individual marriage contract. Once his wife became anentrepreneur, the husband felt forced to assume more household chores, particularlycleaning, and to spend more time caring for their son. When asked about the impact ofthe business, the husband referred to his increased domestic role that correlated withdiminishing free time for himself and his personal interests. The individual contractheld by the husband is a projection of his mother’s more traditional and family-orientedrole. Consequently, this expectation, which unmet prior to the wife launching herbusiness, is now being fulfilled even less:

The mother of my husband stayed at home to take care of the house and family. I am theopposite: my mother has been a career woman and I’ve always been like that, so in that sense Ihaven’t changed.

Shifts in the interactional marriage contract. The dissatisfaction of the husbandincreases the strain in the interactional marriage contract which results in fights about

48

JSBED22,1

a variety of topics, both small and large. The wife’s business prompted the husband toevaluate his own work, which also has a negative impact on the marriage:

Some husbands of female entrepreneurs are envious, some proud […] My wife’s businessis profitable and the envy comes from me seeing how freely my wife spends the money,and also since my own career development is not what I would have imagined it to beat this point.

The wife recognizes that it is a strain for the husband when she works at home in theevenings, and he agrees. In response, the wife has made efforts to repair therelationship, but feels that her attempts are unappreciated. The lack of emotionalsupport by the husband is a major source of disappointment for the wife:

The key support for me would be to talk with me about [the business]. […] simply talk calmlywithout getting irritated when I ask something twice. […] I have thought many times that I donot have his support with my business. […] I don’t really miss anything concrete, but ratheremotional.

The marital outcomes of a lack of intimacy between the spouses, lack of willingnessto accommodate each others’ different personalities and ways of doing business,and lack of mutual appreciation for each others different and possiblycomplementary strengths are signs of a conflicted marriage contract.As a result, the launch of the business has heightened pre-existing problemswithin the marriage.

The wife’s psychological contract with her business. The tensions in the marriagecontrast with the wife’s fulfilling relationship with her business. The business hasenabled her to realize her potential by allowing her to leave a mundane, unsatisfyingjob. In addition, the wife gained greater desired freedom and flexibility and more timeat home. But, the obligations of the business require both physical and psychologicalsacrifices. She explains:

I think about my business all the time […] The private “me” has gotten little smaller. I still feelthat I spend now less time on work issues as opposed to the time when I was employed. I try toprioritize things so that I get to spend most of the time with my son.

Husband’s impact on psychological contract through marriage contract. Here, the wife’spsychological contract with her business compensates for a conflicted marriagecontract. The increased tension in the interactional marriage contract has not decreasedthe wife’s satisfaction with her venture. On the contrary, she considers it a bright spotin her life.

Interestingly, the tensions and inflexibility in the marriage contract result in theinability of the spouses to appreciate each other’s differences, which could becomplimentary rather than disruptive. An example of this is the sphere of companyfinances. The spouses have opposite approaches to money management; however, theconflicted marriage contract prevents the wife from gaining access to his husband’sfinancial expertise. His attitude to the couple’s discussions about the business isan example:

My wife talks about her things all the time, but for me most of it goes to one ear and goes outof the other right away.

The case is a vivid example of the situation where the business enters the relationshipas a stressor, exacerabating the problematic marriage contract.

49

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

Case 3: complementary marriage/different gender role ideologiesThis couple is based in Norway, has been married for over 20 years and has twochildren. As a self-employed interior designer, the wife generates an annual turnover of<100,000 Euros. The husband is employed by an information technology company.

Impact on the husband’s marriage contract. The launch of the wife’s business had asignificant impact on the husband’s individual contract, which was based ona traditional gender ideology. Consequently, the business has modified the husband’sroles by increasing his involvement in household chores, by opening up a support rolefor him and by raising the importance of his provider role. The husband supports hiswife by providing customer contacts, by listening and acting as a coach: “Not trying tofind the solutions, but asking the right questions,” and by providing emotional support.

However, one of the biggest challenges to the husband’s expectations was thechange in his wife’s personality. She became less quiet and more assertive, reflectingher assumption of a less traditional gender role ideology. Although the launch of thewife’s business increased the husband’s role as a provider, it challenged the traditionalrole of the husband in some areas.

Shifts in the interactional marriage contract. The change in the wife’s personalityprompted the husband to consider whether or not to continue the marriage:

When my wife started her business […], it changed her behaviors and personality.For me it meant that I now had a new wife – I could accept it or not and this was my decisionto make.

However, the couple had a strong relationship, and the two were able to successfullyrenegotiate the interactional contract. The husband explains:

Now I am happy that we continued together, I see the advantages that her business brought[…] We discussed and dealt with it.

He also appreciates and is inspired by her achievements:

When I see other people work hard I am motivated by it: when I look at my wife, I tellmyself: “I can do it too”. I learn from her thinking and entrepreneurship has brought mostlygood challenges.

Because the wife has grown as a person by starting a business, the relationship is nowmutually perceived to be more interesting.

The wife’s psychological contract with her business. The business has met andperhaps exceeded the wife’s expectations as a vehicle for her own personal growth.It has enabled her to achieve more than she previously imagined, and to test herown limitations.

The obligations of the business do require her to manage her time more carefully:

I have to work on the weekends. I work on my own even when I am at home and thinka lot about the business – all the time. I have to say to my son: I am working, so cannotdo this or that.

On the downside, the business appears to not be meeting her expectations of financialsuccess, since the wife worries about the limited financial success of her venture.

Husband’s impact on psychological contract through marriage contract. Initially thebusiness challenged the individual contract. The process of marital adjustment,although prolonged and challenging, was ultimately successful, and had a positiveimpact on the wife’s psychological contract with her business. By taking on the support

50

JSBED22,1

of coach and business advisor in the complementary marriage contract, the husbandcontributed to the self-realization of the wife, which was an essential element of thewife’s psychological contract with her business. By supporting his wife and herbusiness, the husband strengthened the complementary nature of the marriagecontract and as a result, strengthened the psychological contract between the wife andher business. An example follows:

He was very encouraging, even when I wasn’t sure about things myself. He said: “We willmanage it. If you feel it’s important for you, do it.” If I was alone with kids, I couldn’t do it,couldn’t become an entrepreneur – I wouldn’t manage without him.

Case 4: congruent marriage/similar role ideologiesThis couple comes from Sweden, has been married for eight years and has a child. six.The wife’s three-year-old interior design business employs three people and generatesan annual turnover of 200,000-500,000 Euros. The husband works in a number of part-time jobs, including one in the wife’s business.

Impact on husband’s individual marriage contract. The husband adopted a verysupportive role. He takes an active part in the wife’s business and enjoys the challengesit brings. Most of the household work has fallen on the husband’s shoulders; however,he enjoys it. It is important for him to take care of his wife. In his words:

Now there is more household work for me. I like it. I love cooking. It is OK for me, I make mywife’s life easier.

Shifts in the interactional marriage contract. The spouses hold similar non-traditionalgender role ideologies, which are consistent with an entrepreneur wife and a moresupportive husband. Thus, the marriage adjusted easily when put to the test ofentrepreneurship. The couple presents an interesting case since they explicitlynegotiated the rearrangement of the interactional marriage contract. The wife says:

We sat down to talk it through: if I start my business, we have to do it together. I cannot doboth business and home. He said it was OK, of course. He doesn’t work 100% at regular work,so it is OK.

The husband confirms his agreement:

I am never too tired to help her. Maybe sometimes when I work, it is difficult to help. […]If I am not there, she is frustrated, doesn’t have anyone to help but me. It is hard for me,because I want to help. If I had to work full time again, it would be hard for her – no one to help.

The wife’s psychological contract with her business. The wife gets satisfaction from thebusiness. Although the business meets the wife’s expectation of freedom and flexibilityregarding when and where she should work, it also brings obligations that require asubstantial amount of time. One unfulfilled expectation of the wife is the level of respectfor her achievements and freedom from negative assumptions regarding her businesscapabilities. As an entrepreneur in a male-dominant world, the wife struggles withbeing a woman and having the chance to rely on her husband – and she notes:

When I negotiate with big companies or go to the bank, I have all the knowledge aboutit and I wear business clothes. If I have my husband with me, who wears carpenterclothes, they will still turn to him and address him, bypassing me: they ask him howthings work.

51

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

Husband’s impact on psychological contract through marriage contract. The wife’sfulfilling psychological contract with her business was enhanced by the strongpractical and emotional support of the husband. The positive influence of her marriageand supportive spouse facilitate her ability to meet the obligations of her venture.The business becomes an endeavor that they can work on and develop together:

It is his company too, he is part of it too. Before I didn’t want to engage him so much, becauseI didn’t want to pressure him. Now I realize it is not a pressure for him: he wants to know andparticipate.

The support of the husband was conveyed by a rapidly and explicitly negotiatedcongruent marriage contract that was used to secure a division of roles in the marriagewhich allowed her to focus on her business.

Findings from the case studiesThe findings from the case studies are summarized in Table III, which illustrates threekey dimensions of the role of the husband – emotional support, business support, andhousehold support and will be discussed below.

Impact on husband’s individual marriage contract. The gender role ideology of thehusband appeared to play a key role in determining how the wife’s business initiallyaffected the individual marriage contract of the husband. The husbands in Cases 1-3had traditional gender role ideologies and experienced negative impacts on theirindividual marriage contracts. For the husband in Case 4, who had a non-traditionalgender role ideology, supporting the wife’s business was an enhancement of hissupportive role.

Shifts in the interactional marriage contract. The impact of the husband’s individualcontract on the marriage was influenced by the nature and quality of the marriage.The husband’s expanded support role enhanced the strong congruent marriageof Case 4. In the strong complementary marriage (Case 3), the initial negative impact onthe husband’s individual contract was resolved through a renegotiation of themarriage contract and improved the relationship. By contrast, the negative impact onthe husband’s individual contract increased tensions in the conflicted marriageof Case 2.

In the conflicted marriage of Case 1, the negative impact on the husband’s individualcontract actually resulted in reduced tensions because it initiated a process ofreadjustment in which the husband moved from irritation to some support and beganfulfilling more of his wife’s expectations in the area of household leadership. Thus, thewife’s business can serve as a catalyst for reducing marital tension in a conflictedmarriage, if the husband responds in ways that increasingly met the needs of his wife.

Husband’s impact on psychological contract through marriage contract. The casespresented here illustrate a wide variety of effects on the wife’s psychological contractwith her business. In Case 1, the improved marriage contract had a mixed effect on thepsychological contract of the wife. The reluctant support of the husband contributed toa breach in the wife’s psychological contract, in which she perceived herself more as astay-at-home mother than a businesswoman. However, the reduced tension in themarriage reinforced her feeling happier and more at peace.

In Case 2, the increased conflict in the marriage, which was driven by the envy andambivalence of the husband, appeared to reinforce the fulfilling psychological contractbetween the wife and her business. The wife, who already seemed fairly financially and

52

JSBED22,1

Genderroleideology

Emotionalsup

port

Businesssupp

ort

Household

supp

ort

Husband

’sim

pact

onmarriage

contract

Husband

’sim

pact

onpsychologicalcontract

viamarriagecontract

Case

1/Husband

1Traditio

nal;still

expectswife

totake

care

ofhousehold

Initially

irritatio

n;im

proved

dueto

wife’sincreased

happ

iness

Mainlyadvice

Previously

negligible

butnow

increased;

requ

ired

toshow

moreleadership

Slightly

improved

Improvem

ents

inmarriagecontract

fulfill

someexpectations

ofpositiv

epsychological

contract;h

owever,a

breach

exists

dueto

mediocrehu

sband

supp

ort

Case

2/Husband

2Traditio

nal;based

onstay-at-h

ome

mother

Conflicted;

feelings

ofenvy

mixed

with

pride

Repairwork;

taking

care

oftechnical

equipm

ent

Sign

ificant

but

forced;resentm

ent

Exacerbated

existin

gstrain

Reinforcesvalueof

fulfu

lling

psychological

contract;w

ifeappearsto

compensatefor

conflictedmarriage

Case

3/Husband

3Initially

traditional,

butbecamemore

flexible

Initial

resistance

replaced

byactiv

epositiv

esupp

ort

Coaching

;providing

custom

ercontacts

Increasedchores

Caused

prolonged

butultim

ately

successful

readjustment

Initially

detractedfrom

butnow

enhances

the

psychologicalcontract

Case

4/Husband

4Non-traditional

Extensive

Offerscreativ

esolutio

nsto

clients;

does

whateverhe

can

Assum

esmostof

thehousew

orkand

cooking

Enh

anced

Positiv

elyreinforced

Table III.Impact of thehusband on

marriage andpsychological

contracts

53

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

emotionally independent, compensated for her marital problems through herinvolvement in her successful and growing business.

The enhanced marriage contract of Case 3 served to reinforce and to promotethe fulfillment of the wife’s psychological contract. After a prolonged period ofreadjustment in the marriage, the husband became an active supporter of thewife’s venture and the personal growth that he saw in her. Case 4 also illustrated theenhancing and reinforcing effect of a strong marital contract on the wife’spsychological contract. However, in this case, the renegotiation of the marriageoccurs swiftly through explicit discussion and without acrimony.

Discussion and conclusionsThis study yielded several important discoveries. First, contrary to previous researchshowing that only 35 percent of the spouses of female entrepreneurs take any part inthe business (Miettinen, 1986), the reality appears to be more complex with husbands’lives becoming impacted by their wives’ entrepreneurship, almost regardless ofwhether they like it or not. However, what correlates with previous literature is thatspouse contributions seem to at least partially mirror the traditional roles of womenand men (Alcorso, 1993) – with husbands contributing more in terms of businessplanning, budgeting, and technical support.

Second, this research demonstrated how the marriage operates under the impactof the changing individual marriage contract of the husband, which dependson the nature of the interactional marriage contract, i.e. congruent, complementary, orconflicted (Sager, 1976). One of the key determinants of whether or not the husband’sresponse has a positive impact on the marriage is his willingness to accommodate thechanges required by the wife’s business. If the husband is ready and willing toembrace at least some parts of his support role, then the marriage is likely to improve.The marriages in Cases 1, 3 and 4 were all improved to some degree by the wife’sentrepreneurship. Notably, these cases included both strong and weak marriages,couples with similar and dissimilar gender ideologies, and wives with large and smallbusinesses. However, the common thread in each of them was the willingnessof the husband to embrace the needs of his entrepreneur wife. These cases contrastwith the thinly veiled resentment of the husband in Case 2. Since he is somewhatcompetitive with rather than supportive of his wife, the problems in this alreadyconflicted marriage have been magnified. Unlike his counterpart in Case 1, who isalso in a conflicted marriage but perceives the benefits of his wife’s venture, thehusband of Case 2 refuses to fully acknowledge the positive outcomes of his wife’ssuccessful business.

Third, this study showed that indeed there is a psychological contract underlyingthe wife’s relationship to her business, and that her expectations and obligations(Rousseau, 1989; Smithson and Lewis, 2004) regarding launching and operatinga business form the foundation of this contract. Previous researchers (Brush, 1992;Buttner, 1993; Jennings and McDougald, 2007) have argued that the expectations of awoman entrepreneur with regard to her venture are closely related to her motivation forstarting her business. However, regardless of the variety of motivations possessedby the women in this sample, the husband’s role, his changing individualmarriage contract, and the influence of his individual marriage contract on theinteractional marriage contract appeared to have a strong impact on the wife-businesspsychological contract.

54

JSBED22,1

The strong and improved marriages of Cases 3 and 4 reinforced the fulfillingpsychological contracts between these wives and their businesses. Accordingly, bothwives viewed their spouses as critical to the survival and success of their ventures.The conflicted marriages of Cases 1 and 2 appeared to have different effects on thewives involved. In Case 2, the difficult marriage contrasted with the wife’s fulfillingpsychological contract with her business, and accordingly, may have prompted thewife to raise her involvement with her venture. However, in Case 1, the conflictedmarriage contributed to a breach in the psychological contract of the wife. Thenon-traditional gender ideology of the wife in Case 2 may have assisted her in achievinga level of independence and self-reliance that the more traditional wife of Case 1 had notattained. This result echoes the literature on gender ideologies, which indicates thatwomen holding egalitarian ideologies, react more negatively to perceived inequalities(Minnotte et al., 2010), which was manifested in this case by the wife seeking a higherlevel of independence and self-reliance.

Throughout the analysis, the essential support role of the husband wasevident. Accordingly, the following conceptual framework is proposed for furtherinvestigation (Figure 1).

In all of the sample cases, and as illustrated in the proposed framework above, thehusband has an impact on the wife’s business, despite his preferences. Regardless ofwhether the husband embraces his support role or not, the expectations and obligationsconnected with this support role will impact the individual marriage contract of thehusband. Accordingly, this new support role will influence how the two spousesperceive their joint interactional marriage contract. Interestingly, the impact of thehusband and his presumed support role is notable not only due to its impact on theinteractional marriage contract, but also due to its impact on the wife’s psychologicalcontract with her business. As the interactional marriage contract changes, it alsoinfluences the wife’s expectations and obligations regarding her business.

ImplicationsThere are components of a marriage that are tacit in their nature, such as obligationsthat are implicit, and expectations that are not openly negotiated. The present studyaims to bring forward and make explicit some of these tacit components of thehusband-wife relationship, thereby opening up a new dimension in research on femaleentrepreneurs by bridging the work-family literature, marriage contract theory, andpsychological contact theory. By addressing the role of the husband, this research hasexpanded the understanding of the work-family interface of female entrepreneurs.The findings show that an examination of a married female entrepreneur is incompletewithout the consideration of her husband. The contributions of this research are both oftheoretical and managerial nature. In terms of theory, the body of literature has beenextended in respect to gender role ideology and its application in the new context.Marriage and psychological contracts were introduced to enable explicit discussionof important but largely implicit phenomena. This combination of gender roleideology and marriage and psychological contracts has extended the work on female

Impact on husband’sindividual marriage

contract

The impact ofhusband through

changing marriagecontractHusband

Support Role

InteractionalMarriageContract

Wife’s PsychologicalContract with her

Business

Figure 1.Conceptual research

framework

55

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

entrepreneurship in an innovative way, answering the call existing for this in theliterature (de Bruin et al., 2007a, b). The proposed research framework is a usefultool in understanding the direct and indirect impact of the husband in the femaleentrepreneur’s life.

The insights presented here are valuable from a managerial perspective on sincethey shed additional light on how women run their businesses and how the changingroles of the spouse alter marriage dynamics and influence the wife-businessrelationship. The findings presented here can benefit female entrepreneurs consideringthe launch of a business, couples in which the wife currently owns a business, state andgovernmental policymakers, business consultants, and entrepreneurship instructors.

By explicitly stating the inevitability of the husband’s involvement with thebusiness at some level, the insights provided here can help couples better prepare forthe launch of the wife’s business, because they enable an increased awareness betweenthe spouses regarding the role and influence of the husband on the business and createa platform for an explicit discussion of what otherwise could remain at the level ofimplied expectations and obligations. Explicitly acknowledging the inevitability of thehusband’s involvement with the business at some level, may make it easier for womento release some traditional family responsibilities and for husbands to step up andbecome stronger leaders at home. This in turn will improve the chances that womenentrepreneurs will develop successful businesses, which will positively impact localand national economies, as well as help advance society at large.

Research limitationsThe small sample size places limits on the generalizability of the findings, andexpanding the sample and conducting quantitative studies could address this issue.In terms of a geographical limitation, the focus of the present research was onScandinavian countries, which are recognized for gender equality – and this offered aninteresting perspective in terms of impact on marriage contracts and further onpsychological contracts. Accordingly the results presented here may be influenced bycountry and regional cultural effects.

In addition, two theoretical angles were utilized here: marriage contracts andpsychological contracts. The use of other theoretical approaches may prove beneficial.Finally, the cross-sectional data utilized here limit the inferences on relationshipdynamics that can be drawn.

Future research directionsThese directions include extending the research to other cultural settings, since thedifferences arising from various cultural and social backgrounds are to be expected.Further investigation and application of marriage and psychological contracts infemale entrepreneurship context would contribute to understanding the phenomenonand to establishing a structure for tapping into also the non-explicit patterns ofthought, decision making and behavior.

The proposed research framework may be used as starting basis for suchinvestigation. The framework would allow for further qualitative exploration, leadingto further quantitative research – both of which the body of knowledge would benefit inaddressing the presented research directions. The created framework also allows forcontrol group comparisons, between among entrepreneurial couples, co-preneurialcouples, dual-earner couples, and others.

56

JSBED22,1

Further studies of the role and the impacts areas of the husband in the wife’sbusiness – also from the perspective of implicit contracts – are encouraged. Moreover,using gender roles as basis for discussion has proven to be a fruitful approach, whichhas much potential into creating greater understanding of a variety of aspects ofeveryday lives of female entrepreneurs, and their husbands.

References

Agapiou, A. (2002), “Perceptions of gender roles and attitudes toward work among male andfemale operatives in the Scottish construction industry”, Construction Management andEconomics, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 697-705.

Alcorso, C. (1993), “‘And I’d like to thank my wife […]’ gender dynamics and the ethnic ‘familybusiness’”, Australian Feminist Studies, Vol. 8, No. 17, pp. 93-108.

Amarapurkar, S.S. and Danes, S.M. (2005), “Farm businesses-owning couples: interrelationshipsamong business tensions, relationship conflict quality, and spousal satisfaction”, Journal ofFamily and Economic Issues, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 419-441.

Arenius, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2006), “Similarities and differences across the factors associatedwith women’s self-employment preference in the Nordic countries”, International SmallBusiness Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-59.

Argyris, C. (1960), Understanding Organizational Behavior, Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL.

Arnott, C.C. (1972), “Husbands’ attitude and wives’ commitment to employment”, Journal ofMarriage and the Family, Vol. 34, pp. 673-684.

Baines, S. and Wheelock, J. (1998), “Working for each other: gender, the household and micro-business survival and growth”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1,pp. 16-35.

Berkowitz, A.D. and Perkins, H.W. (1984), “Stress among farm women: work and family asinteracting systems”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 46, pp. 161-166.

Beutell, N.J. and Greenhaus, J.H. (1983), “Integration of home and non-home roles: women'sconflict and coping behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 43-48.

Blood, R. andWolfe, D. (1960),Husbands andWives: The Dynamics of Married Living, Free Press,Glencoe, IL.

Branner, J., Lewis, S., Nilsen, A. and Smithson, J. (Eds) (2002), Young Europeans, Work andFamily: Futures in Transition, Routledge, London.

Brindley, C. (2005), “Barriers to women achieving their entrepreneurial potential: women andrisk”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 144-161.

Brown, G.W. and Harris, T. (1978), Social Origins of Depression, Free Press, New York, NY.

Brush, C., de Bruin, A. and Welter, F. (2009), “A gender-aware framework for women’sentrepreneurship”, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1,pp. 8-24.

Brush, C.G. (1992), “Research on women business owners: past trends, a new perspective andfuture directions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 5-30.

Burke, R.J. and Weir, T. (1976), “Relationship of wives' employment status to husband, wife andpair satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, pp. 279-287.

Buttner, E.H. (1993), “Female entrepreneurs: how far have they come?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 36No. 2, pp. 59-65.

57

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

Cha, Y. (2010), “Reinforcing separate spheres: the effect of spousal overwork on men’s andwomen’s employment in dual-earner households”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 75No. 2, pp. 303-329.

Coyne, J.C. and DeLongis, A. (1986), “Going beyond social support: the role of social relationshipsin adaptation”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, p. 454.

Dakof, G. and Taylor, S. (1990), “Victims’ perception of social support: what is helpful for whom?”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 80-89.

Danes, S. and Olson, P.D. (2003), “Women’s role involvement in family businesses, businesstensions, and business success”, Family Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 53-66.

Danes, S., Rueter, M., Kwon, H. and Doherty, W. (2002), “Family FIRO model: an application tofamily business”, Family Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-43.

de Bruin, A., Brush, C. and Welter, F. (2007a), “Introduction to the special issue: towards buildingcumulative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship: Theory andPractice, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 585-593.

de Bruin, A., Brush, C. and Welter, F. (2007b), “Advancing a framework for coherent research onwomen’s entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3,pp. 323-339.

Dehle, C., Larsen, D. and Landers, J. (2001), “Social support in marriage”, The American Journal ofFamily Therapy, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 307-324.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities andchallenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.

Fielden, S., Davidson, M., Dawe, A. and Makin, P. (2003), “Factors inhibiting the economic growthof female owned small businesses in North West England”, Journal of Small Business andEnterprise Development, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 152-166.

Garcia, I., Molina, J.A. and Navarro, P.M. (2007), “How satisfied are spouses with their leisuretime? Evidence from Europe”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 28 No. 4,pp. 546-565.

Greenstein, T.N. (1995), “Gender ideology, marital disruption, and the employment of marriedwomen”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 31-42.

Greenstein, T.N. (1996a), “Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: interactive effects of wives’and husbands’ gender ideologies”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 58 No. 3,pp. 585-595.

Greenstein, T.N. (1996b), “Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division ofhousehold labor: effects on marital quality”, Social Forces, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 1029-1042.

Jennings, J.E. and McDougald, M.S. (2007), “Work-family interface experiences and copingstrategies: implications for entrepreneurship research and practice”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 747-760.

Jianakoplos, N.A. and Bernasek, A. (2008), “Family financial risk taking when the wife earnsmore”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 289-306.

Karney, B. and Bradbury, T. (1995), “The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability:a review of theory, method and research”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 3-34.

Kim, J. and Ling, C. (2001), “Work-family conflict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore”,Womenin Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 204-221.

Kirkwood, J. (2009), “Spousal roles on motivations for entrepreneurship: a qualitative study inNew Zealand”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 372-385.

58

JSBED22,1

Kirkwood, J. and Tootell, B. (2008), “Is entrepreneurship the answer to achieving work-familybalance?”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 285-302.

Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E. and Sheep, M. (2009), “Balancing borders and bridges: negotiating thework-home interface via boundary work tactics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52No. 4, pp. 704-730.

Kvale, S. (1995), “The social construction of validity”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-40.

Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007), “The entrepreneurial propensity of women”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 341-365.

Lee, J. (1997), “The motivation of women entrepreneurs in Singapore”, International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 93-110.

Lieberman, M.A. (1982), “The effects of social supports on response to stress”, in Goldberger, L.and Breznitz, S. (Eds), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects, AcademicPress, New York, NY, pp. 764-784.

Loscocco, K.A. (1997), “Work-family linkages among self-employed women and men”, Journal ofVocational Behavior. Special Issue on Work and Family Balance, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 204-226.

McKay, R. (2001), “Women entrepreneurs: moving beyond family and flexibility”, InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 148-165.

Marcinjus, W., Whelan-Berry, K. and Gordon, J. (2007), “The relationship of social support to thework-family balance and work outcomes of midlife women”, Women in ManagementReview, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 86-111.

Martin, L.M. and Wright, L.T. (2005), “No gender in cyberspace? Empowering entrepreneurshipand innovation in female-run ICT small firms”, International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviour & Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 162-178.

Mickelson, K.D., Claffey, S.T. and Williams, S.L. (2006), “The moderating role of gender andgender role attitudes on the link between spousal support and marital quality”, Sex Roles,Vol. 55 Nos 1/2, pp. 73-82.

Miettinen, A. (1986), “Contributing spouses and the dynamics of entrepreneurial families”,in Donckels, R. and Meijer, J. (Eds), Women in Small Business: Focus on Europe, VanGorcum and Comp., Assen, pp. 78-86.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Minnotte, K.L., Minnotte, M.C., Pedersen, D.E., Mannon, S.E. and Kiger, G. (2010), “His and herperspectives: gender ideology, work-to-family conflict, and marital satisfaction”, Sex Roles,Vol. 63 Nos 5/6, pp. 425-438.

Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When employees feel betrayed: A model of howpsychological contract violation develops”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1,pp. 226-256.

Pasch, L. and Bradbury, T. (1998), “Social support, conflict and the development of maritaldysfunction”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2,pp. 219-230.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1990), “Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice”,Organizational Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 267-292.

Philbrick, C. and Fitzgerald, M. (2007), “Women in business-owning families: a comparison ofroles, responsibilities and predictors of family functionality”, Journal of Family andEconomic Issues, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 618-634.

Poza, E. and Messer, T. (2001), “Spousal leadership and continuity in the family firm”, FamilyBusiness Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 25-36.

59

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

Pratt, M.G., Rockmann, K.W. and Kaufmann, J.B. (2006), “Constructing professional identity:the role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity amongmedical residents”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 235-262.

Rehman, S. and Roomi, M. (2012), “Gender and work-life balance: a phenomenological study ofwomen entrepreneurs in Pakistan”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 209-228.

Roomi, M., Harrison, P. and Beaumont-Kerridge, J. (2009), “Women-owned small and mediumenterprises in England: analysis of factors influencing the growth process”, Journal ofSmall Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-139.

Rosenbaum, M. and Cohen, E. (1999), “Equalitarian marriages, spousal support, resourcefulness,and psychological distress among Israeli working women”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 102-113.

Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 289-298.

Rousseau, D.M. (1990), “New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations:a study of psychological contracts”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 5,pp. 389-400.

Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J., Panzer, K. and King, S. (2002), “Benefits of multiple roles formanagerial women”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 369-386.

Sager, C. (1977), “A typology of intimate relationships”, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, Vol. 3No. 2, pp. 83-112.

Sager, C.J. (1976), Marriage Contracts and Couple Therapy, Brunner/Mazel Publishers,New York, NY.

Sager, C.J., Kaplan, H.S., Gundlach, R.H., Kremer, M., Lenz, R. and Royce, J.R. (1971), “Themarriage contract”, Family Process, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 311-326.

Santos, G.G. and Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2008), “Work-family culture in academia: gendered view ofwork-family conflict and coping strategies”, Gender in Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 442-457.

Sayer, L.C. and Bianchi, S.M. (2000), “Women’s economic independence and the probability ofdivorce: a review and reexamination”, Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 906-943.

Shelton, L.M. (2006), “Female entrepreneurs, work-family conflict, and venture performance: newinsights into the work-family interface”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44No. 2, pp. 285-297.

Sigle-Rushton, W. (2010), “Men’s unpaid work and divorce: reassessing specialization and tradein Britain”, Feminist Economics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 1-26.

Smithson, J. and Lewis, S. (2004), “The psychological contract and work-family”, OrganizationalManagement Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 70-80.

Stewart, C.C. and Danes, S.M. (2001), “Inclusion and control in resort family businesses:a developmental approach to conflict”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 22 No. 3,pp. 293-319.

Suddaby, R. (2006), “From the editors: what grounded theory is not”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 633-642.

Välimäki, S., Lämsä, A. and Hiillos, M. (2009), “The spouse of the female manager: role andinfluence on the woman’s career”, Gender in Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 596-614.

Verhofstadt, L., Buysse, A. and Ickes, W. (2007), “Social support in couples: an examination ofgender differences using self-support and observational methods”, Sex Roles, Vol. 57Nos 3/4, pp. 267-282.

60

JSBED22,1

Welter, F. (2004), “The environment for female entrepreneurship in Germany”, Journal of SmallBusiness and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 212-221.

Winkler, A.E. and Ireland, T.R. (2009), “Time spent in household management: evidence andimplications”, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 293-304.

Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Zolot, A.L. (2000), “The interpersonal processes of care and social support in heterosexual mid-lifecouples: an investigation of symbolic meanings, and interpretations of normative maritalinteractions”, Dissertation: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 60 No. 9-A.

Zuzic, L.C. (2003), “Couples’ meaning-making and management of parental opposition to theirmarriages: a qualitative study”, Dissertation: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 64No. 4-B, available at: http://books.google.ru/books/about/Couples_Meaning_Making_and_Management_of.html?id=TW8COAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

Further reading

Amato, P.R. and Booth, A. (1995), “Changes in gender role attitudes and perceived maritalquality”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 60, pp. 58-66.

Brush, C. (2006), “Women entrepreneurs: a research overview”, in Casson, M., Yeung, B., Basu, A.and Wadeson, N. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, pp. 611-628.

Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W. and Wilson, F. (2007), “Gender, entrepreneurship and bank lending:the criteria and processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 427-444.

Conway, N. and Briner, R.B. (2002), “Full-time versus part-time employees: understanding thelinks between work status, the psychological contract, and attitudes”, Journal of VocationalBehaviour, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 279-301.

Coyne, J.C. and Downey, G. (1991), “Social factors and psychopathology: stress, social support,and coping processes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 401-425.

Gilligan, C. (1982), In a Different Voice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Green, E. and Cohen, L. (1995), “Women’s businesses: are women entrepreneurs breaking newground or simply balancing the demands of ‘women’s work’ in a new way?”, Journal ofGender Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 297-314.

Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G.N. (2006), “When work and family are allies: a theory ofwork-family enrichment”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 72-92.

Harwood, R. (2003), “The psychological contract and remote working”. An interview withDenise M. Rousseau. Ahoy Magazine, January, available at: www.ozone.biz (accessed 20November 2007).

Hochschild, A. (1989), The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home, VikingPress, New York, NY.

Hughes, K. (2006), “Exploring motivation and success amongst Canadian women entrepreneurs”,Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 107-120.

Keeley, R.H. and Knapp, R.W. (1993), “New company evolution: a comparison of large and smallstart-ups”, in Churchill, N., Birley, S., Bygrove, W., Doutriox, D., Gatewood, E., Hoy, E. andWetzel, W. (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurial Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA,pp. 183-197.

Lavee, Y. and Katz, R. (2002), “Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: the effectof gender ideology”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 27-39.

61

Success ofwomen

entrepreneurs

Lirio, P., Lituchy, T.R., Monserrat, S.I., Olivas-Lujan, M.R., Duffy, J.A., Fox, S., Gregory, A.,Punnett, B.J. and Santos, N. (2007), “Exploring career-life success and family social supportof successful women in Canada, Argentina and Mexico”, Career Development International,Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-50.

Mainiero, L. and Sullivan, S. (2006), The Opt-Out Revolt: Why People are Leaving Companies toCreate Kaleidoscope Careers, Davies-Black, Mountain View, CA.

Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F. (2007), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, 3rd Europeaned., Pearson Education Limited, Essex.

Manolova, T.S., Brush, C.G. and Edelman, L.F. (2008), “What do women entrepreneurs want?”,Strategic Change, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 69-82.

Muske, G. and Fitzgerald, M. (2006), “A panel study of copreneurs in business: who enters,continues, and exits?”, Family Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 193-205.

Orser, B. and Hogarth-Scott, S. (2002), “Opting for growth: gender dimensions of choosingenterprise development”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 3,pp. 284-300.

Sharma, P. (2004), “An overview of the field of family business studies: current status anddirections for the future”, Family Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-36.

Subramaniam, M. and VanderWerf, P. (1993), “Determinants of success in the pre-insulationconcrete block industry”, in Churchill, N.C., Birley, S., Bygrave, W.D., Dovlriaux, J.,Gatewood, E.J., Hoy, E.S. andWetzel, W.E. Jr (Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 132-146.

Tulgan, B. (2000), Managing Generation X: How to Bring out the Best in Young Talent,WW Norton and Company, New York, NY.

Van Auken, H.E. and Werbel, J. (2006), “Family dynamics and family business financialperformance: spousal commitment”, Family Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 49-63.

Yin, R. (1989), Case Study Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

About the authorsDr Anna Nikina is an Affiliated Professor at the Grenoble Ecole de Management, France. Herresearch and publication efforts are focussed on the impacts of spousal role and support in femaleentrepreneurship. Dr Nikina has an over ten-year career in international business anddevelopment of business partnerships with multinationals, high-tech companies, investors. Shehas taught at Hааgа-Heliа University in Finland and Grenoble Ecole de Management in Franceon the topics of innovation management and international business, and currently supervisesMaster-level theses. Dr Nikina is Head of International Projects in Skolkovo Innovation Center,the largest science, entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystem in Russia.

Dr Lois M. Shelton is an Associate Professor in the David Nazarian College of Business andEconomics at the California State University, Northridge. She teaches courses in internationalmanagement, management and organizational behavior and global strategy. Her currentresearch interests are in entrepreneurship, work-life balance, and role theory. Dr Lois M. Sheltonis the corresponding author and can be contacted at: lois.shelton@csun.edu

Dr Séverine LeLoarne is an Associate Professor at the Grenoble Ecole de Management, whereshe is also the co-head of the Department of Technology Management & Strategy and theOrganizer of the GEM Innovation Awards. Her research interests focus on the social constraintsthat shape individual creativity. She is currently working on the impact of the spousal support onfemale entrepreneurship and the philosophical meaning of individual creativity.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

62

JSBED22,1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withoutpermission.