the role of wives in family bussiness:the paid and unpaid work of women

8/13/2019 The Role of Wives in Family Bussiness:The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women

1/14

http://fbr.sagepub.com/FamilyBusiness Review

http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2000.00001.x

2000 13: 1Family Business ReviewBarbara R. Rowe and Gong-Soog Hong

The Role of Wives in Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Family Firm Institute

can be found at:Family Business ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 2000Version of Record>>

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014fbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014fbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1http://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.refs.htmlhttp://www.ffi.org/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.refs.htmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.full.pdfhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.refs.htmlhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.ffi.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1http://fbr.sagepub.com/


2/14

1

A R T I C L E S

IntroductionIt is frequently estimated that over 90% of U.S.businesses (including professional practices) arefamily businesses in the sense that they are ownedor controlled and operated by members of a singlefamily (Ibrahim & Ellis, 1994; Kaslow & Kaslow,1993). Depending on the defintion used to de-

scribe a family business, it is further estimatedthat they produce between 20% to 40% of thegross domestic product and employ between 20million and 77 million people (Salganicoff,1990b; Shanker & Astrachan, 1996). They rangein size from street-corner laundromats and eth-nic restaurants to major corporations such asSmuckers Jams and Ford Motors.

In virtually all businesses owned or con-trolled by a single family, more than one familymember is involved in the business at least some,if not all, of the time. Even when it appears that

only a single family member is physically in-volved, that person depends on the supportiveenvironments that other family members create(Kirchoff & Kirchoff, 1987; Rosenblatt, deMik,Anderson, & Johnson, 1985). Other family mem-bers subsidize the business through sacrifice,physical efforts, or money (Novak, 1983). All

the family assets may be invested in the business,income generated has to be returned to the busi-ness, and a 60-hour work week is often standardfor the business owner-manager.

Often, the supporting family members arewomenthe mothers, wives, grandmothers,daughters, or sisters of the business owner-man-

ager (Gillis-Donovan & Moynihan-Brandt,1990). In many family businesses, the womenbecome almost invisible, and others within oroutside the business do not view them in the sameway as male family members (Gillis-Donovan &Moynihan-Brandt, 1990; Hollander & Bukowitz,1990; Nelton, 1986; Salganicoff, 1990b). Thissituation is frequently the case with female part-ners in husband-wife businesses. The male part-ner is seen as the entrepreneurit is his busi-nesswhile the female partner does the book-keeping in the back room (Dumas, 1998).

The literature regarding women in familybusiness is extremely sparse, and very little of itis empirical (Bowman-Upton & Heck, 1996). Itis the intent of this study to extend previous re-search into the role of women in family businessesby using data from a large, nationally represen-tative sample.

The Role of Wives in FamilyBusinesses: The Paid and Unpaid

Work of WomenBarbara R. Rowe, Gong-Soog Hong

This study used data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finance to examine wives economiccontributions to family businesses. Wives contributions to family businesses take several forms:managing the household, working in the business, being employed by others, working in thebusiness and holding outside employment at the same time, and simultaneously holding two jobs.Wives employment in the business was significantly related to the size of the family business,their market employment, the husbands self-reported health status, and the origin and type of

business enterprise.

FAMILYBUSINESSREVIEW, vol. XIII, no. 1, March 2000 Family Firm Institute, Inc.

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014fbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/http://fbr.sagepub.com/


3/14

2

In particular, the study has three specificobjectives: (a) to identify business and house-hold characteristics by wives employment sta-tus, (b) to compare the wives contribution tofamily economic well-being by the wives em-

ployment pattern, and (c) to examine the factorscontributing to wives participation in a family-owned business. Although the breadth of theinformation is limited, this research representsone of the first attempts to investigate in a sys-tematic way the paid and unpaid contributionsmade by wives who are part of business-owningfamilies.

Related LiteratureThere is no official count of the total number offamily-owned businesses in the United States.

The U.S. Small Business Administration statis-tical data series (1993) does not distinguish be-tween family and nonfamily businesses. The fewdata sources that exist provide little detail aboutthe business and almost nothing about the fam-ily behind the business. Using data from the In-ternal Revenue Service and a broad definition ofa family business, Shanker and Astrachan (1996)estimated a total of 20.3 million family busnessesin the United States. A stricter defintion of fam-ily business resulted in a total of 4.1 million fam-ily businesses. A study that used a random sample

of household telephone numbers reported that12.4% of the nations population, or 12,547,000households, were business-owning families (Heck& Scannell, 1999).

Demographic information, statistical data, orsystematic research about womens participationin family businesses is insufficient (Nelton, 1998;Salganicoff, 1990a). In their review of familybusiness succession literature, Bowman-Uptonand Sexton (1987) found women in stereotypicalpositions in family firms. They also found thatwomen were only considered as successors when

no male was available. A survey of 372 family-owned businesses by Dumas echoed these results(1998).

These findings are puzzling because greatnumbers of women have entered the world ofpaid employment. Working for pay, or market

work, is now an integral part of many womenslives just as full-time homemaking was for womenin previous generations. In 1950, only 30% ofAmer ican women were in the labor force(Hochschild, 1989). In 1996, the Department of

Labor reported that approximately 58.8% ofwomen in the United States were employed,three-quarters of whom were mothers (Hayghe,1997).

These changes in work patterns represent amajor shift in the daily lives of women. As morewomen entered the world of work, the numberof women working with family members in-creased (Cole, 1993). According to some familybusiness consultants, there are many advantagesfor women in family firms (Frishkoff & Brown,1993), including flexible work hours, access to

positions in traditionally male-dominated indus-tries, job security, professional challenges, andopportunities for personal growth (Barnett &Barnett, 1988; Nelton, 1986; Lyman, Salganicoff,& Hollander, 1985). However, family firms alsocan mirror the gender stereotyping and discrimi-nation found in society at large (Jaffee, 1990;Salganicoff, 1990a). Women often have beendirectly, even critically, involved in the businesswithout recognition of their contribution or interms of job titles or salaries (Gillis-Donovan &Moynihan-Brandt, 1990). The strength of tra-

ditional family roles has kept the work thatwomen do for family firms from being acknowl-edged (Lyman, Salganicoff, & Hollander, 1985).

The cultural tradition that places women andmen in different social positions, with gender-based definitions of work and home responsibili-ties, plays a large part in keeping women invis-ible in a family business. Historically, womenswork responsibilities outside the home were sec-ondary to their obligation to manage and orga-nize the domestic, emotional, and social life ofthe family (Gillis-Donovan & Moynihan-Brandt,

1990; Moen, 1992). Men, on the other hand,have organized their lives around the demandsof their work (Hood, 1986). Even today, womenmay downplay their contributions and accepteven encourageminimum recognition.

Both men and women are reluctant to upset

Rowe, Hong



4/14

3

the balance of work and family roles that is con-nected emotionally to their traditionally maleand female identities (Berk & Shih, 1980;Freudenberger, Freedheim, & Kurtz, 1989;Janeway, 1981). In a recent study comparing dual-

career couples with husband-wife business own-ers, Marshack (1994) found evidence of husbandsand wives commitment to traditional identities.She reported that husband-wife business partnerswere much more traditional in their sex-role ori-entations than dual-career couples, who tendedto be androgynous. Eighty percent of the maleco-owners advocated a stereotypical masculinesex-role orientation, and 76% of the female busi-ness co-owners supported a stereotypical femi-nine sex-role orientation. These differences weredemonstrated in the types of work wife and hus-

band business owners performed: wives handledsecretarial and bookkeeping functions, whereashusbands dealt with equipment maintenance andcontract negotiation. When role boundarieswere crossed, wives assumed their husbands ob-ligations, such as sales, business planning, andprofessional services. However, husbands did notassume the clerical responsibilities of their wives.

Alcorn (1982) suggests that the family struc-ture consisting of a dominant father figure and asubordinate mother figure is prevalent through-out family businesses. Lyman, Salganicoff, and

Hollander (1985) state that cultural traditionsthat place women and men in different socialpositions and that define work and family respon-sibilities based on gender play a large part in es-tablishing the work environment. These strate-gies apply to wives, mothers, and daughters(Ponthieu & Caudill, 1993).

Mens contribution to their familys eco-nomic well-being has been mainly in the realmof paid employment. Their participation in un-paid family work generally has consisted of help-ing their wives with household chores, playing

with their children, and performing traditionallymale tasks, such as lawn care, car repair, and homemaintenance (Voydanoff, 1990; Berk, 1988).Womens contributions have been more broadlybased, including a mix of paid employment andunpaid family work. Several types of unpaid fam-

ily work contribute directly or indirectly to fam-ily economic well-being. Unpaid family workincludes housework (food preparation, house-cleaning, and laundry), caring for dependent chil-dren and ill or elderly family members, assisting

in a spouses work, and managing family finances(Voydanoff, 1990).

Because family work in the household is notincluded in traditional measures of economicproduction, calculating the economic value offamily work in the household is difficult. Onemethod is to estimate the value of the time spentin household work if the family hired someoneoutside the family to do it (replacement cost).Another method assesses the amount of incomethe individual would earn if the individual didnot stay home to do family work (opportunity

cost) (Bryant & Zick, 1996). One study esti-mates that the replacement costs of houseworktotal more than $750 billion per year and thatthe opportunity costs are over one-half trilliondollars per year (Peskin, 1982).

Wives who are involved in the family busi-ness contribute both paid and unpaid work to thefamilys well-being. Often, there is no reductionin child care and housework when a woman as-sumes some of the responsibilities for the busi-ness. Some wives simultaneously (a) hold outsideemployment, (b) manage a household, and (c) work

in the family business. These women must jugglethree layers of obligations on a daily basis.

The analyses and discussion that follow arebased on data that were collected as part of a com-prehensive survey of family financial practices.Included in the information collected about as-sets was a subset of questions about family busi-nesses. Although the breadth of the informationis limited due to questionnaire design, this is anexploratory examination of all the roles womenwho live in business-owning families fill.

MethodsData and Sample.The data for the study aredrawn from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Fi-nance (SCF), sponsored by the Federal ReserveBoard and other federal agencies. The SCF is a

The Role of Wives In Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women



5/14


6/14

5

tax files (Kennickel & Shack-Marquez, 1992).This study includes these households. Thesample was weighted to be representative of theU.S. population as a whole.

Answering yes to the following two ques-

tions identified a household as being involved ina family business: (a) Do you (and your familyliving here) own or share ownership in any pri-vately held businesses, farms, professional prac-tices, or partnerships? and (b) Do you (or any-one in your family living here) have an activemanagement role in any of these businesses? Inthe total sample, 592 households (21%) wereidentified as being involved in a family business.The subsample analyzed here consists of 498households (or 84% of the business-owning fami-lies) where the respondent was identified as a

married male head of household. In the remain-ing 94 cases, the business owner was female oranother family member living in the householdwhere marital status could not be determined.

Var iables.Due tothe scarcity of empiricalliterature about womens participation in familybusinesses, there was not much guidance inchoosing the variables of interest. Further, theselection of variables was limited to those in-cluded by the Federal Reserve Board in conduct-ing the survey. Therefore, the variables listed inTable 1 are mainly socio-demographic. They

include the wifes age, education, and self-re-ported health status and whether she was em-ployed anywhere for a salary or wages. Husbandscharacteristics include his self-reported healthstatus and whether he was employed in a busi-ness other than the family business. Householdcharacteristics include the number of persons inthe household and total household income in1988. Business characteristics include duration,origin (started, inherited, given, and other), num-ber of employees (size), gross sales in 1988, andtype of business (service, professional, sales, or

other). Firms designated as service includepersonal services (such as a beauty or barbershop), repair services, entertainment, communi-cation, and other business services. Included inthe professional business category were real es-tate firms; legal and medical practices; business

management, bank, and brokerage firms; andmortgage and finance companies. The othercategory includes farming and nursery businesses;manufacturing, contracting, construction, andpainting firms; and plumbing operations.

Analysis. Univariate and frequency analy-ses were performed to generate descriptive sta-tistics for the total sample. To set up a compari-son among wives, the sample was divided intothree groups by wifes employment status: wivesemployed in the family business (n = 106), wivesemployed outside the family business (n = 247),and nonemployed wives (n = 133). The com-parisons did not include 12 wives working in boththe family business and for outside employersbecause of the difficulty of classifying them ei-ther as employed in family business or market

employed. Forty wives held two jobs outside thefamily business. The General Linear Modelsmultigroup comparison techniques were used toexamine the differences in household and busi-ness characteristics among the three groups ofwives (SAS Institute, 1989).

Employed wives contributions to householdincome was computed by using the ratio of eachwifes earnings to total family income and by wifesemployment type. The likelihood of wives par-ticipation in the family business was estimatedby logit analysis (which was appropriate because

the dependent variable was binary [0, no; 1, yes]).Logistic regression analysis predicts the naturallogarithm of the odds ratio of the probability ofan event occuring given the level at which theexplanatory variables are set. It yields more effi-cient estimates than an ordinary least squaresprocedure (Maddala, 1992).

ResultsBusi ness and H ousehold Ch ar acter i sti cs by

W ives Employment Status.Wives participa-

tion in the family business was more varied thananticipated. Some wives (n = 106) worked forthe family business only, and another 247 wivesworked for other employers (market employed).Twelve wives worked both for the family firm andoutside the family business. One hundred thirty-




7/14

6

three wives were not employed, with no hourslogged working in the family business or for anoutside employer. Table 2 compares all familybusinesses in the subsample (n = 498) with thosebusinesses in which the wife was employed

either full or part time (n = 106).Family firms where wives were employed had

more household income, larger gross sales, andwere slightly smaller than firms in which wiveswere not employed. Wives who were employedin the family business were slightly older than

wives in all family businesses. About half thewives were employed by service and sales busi-nesses, and about one-third of the wives workedin the combined category (other), which includedmanufacturing, contracting, construction, paint-

ing, and plumbing firms. This finding is under-standable because professional businesses in-cluded legal and medical practices in which onlyone spouse may be eligible or have a license topractice.

Compar i son of Busin ess and H ousehold

Rowe, Hong

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics (Weighted)

Variables

AgeEducationHousehold sizeHousehold incomeSize of businessGross sales in 1988 $Duration of business

Self-rated health (wife) Poor/fair Good

Excellent

Marked employedSelf-rated health (husband) Poor/fair Good ExcellentEmployed in other business(husband)Race (Whites)Establishment of business Bought/invest Started

Inherited/givenType of business Service Professional Sales Other

Wife Employed in FamilyBusiness (n = 106)

44.52 (10.29)13.52 (2.23)3.43 (1.16)117,432.9 (290,643)11.57 (37.22)1,087,806 (4,666,394)13.85 (10.46)

14 (12.8)41 (38.4)

52 (48.8)

0

3 (2.7)43 (40.4)60 (56.9)

11 (10.8)98 (92.8)

25 (23.3)72 (67.9)

8 (7.7)

25 (23.1)20 (18.8)24 (22.8)37 (34.9)

Continuous variables with means and standard deviations:

Categorical variables with frequencies and percentages:

All Family Business(n = 498)

43.00 (11.63)13.60 (2.48)3.43 (1.28)108,433.5 (300,753)14.71 (70.92)1,211,371 (7,338,013)13.04 (11.03)

59 (11.9)185 (37.0)

255 (51.1)

261 (52.3)

32 (6.4)180 (36.1)287 (57.6)

58 (11.7)463 (93)

108 (21.7)339 (68)

42 (8.5)

81 (16.3)144 (29.0)79 (15.9)187 (37.5)



8/14

7

Char acteri sti cs by Wi fes Employment Status.Ofparticular interest were wives who worked for thefamily business but received no wages or shareof the profits. Researchers at the Bureau of La-bor Statistics report that the incidence of unpaid

work in family business has diminished since theearly 1950s. This outcome is in part due to adecline in family size, in agricultural employmentoverall, and in the employment of rural womenin wage and salary jobs (Bregger, 1996).

Data on the number of hours worked perweek and weeks worked per year were availablefor all wives in the sample and were cross-checked

to determine (a) whether the wives who were full-time homemakers spent any time working for thefamily firm without being paid, (b) the numberof hours wives spent in market employment, and(c) the number of hours wives spent working in

the family business. It was believed that the pro-cess of selecting the subsample for this study (i.e.,first identifying the business through the house-hold and then asking household memberswhether they performed any work for it) wouldhelp identify more unpaid family workers. Table3 compares a variety of socio-demographic mea-sures and business characteristics wives employed

Table 3. Comparison of the Wives: Employed in Family Business,Market Employed, and Nonemployed (Weighted)

Variables

Agea c

Educationc

Household sizeHousehold incomeSize of businessbc

Gross sales ($)c

Duration of businessa b c

Race (White)c

Self-rated healthc

Poor/fair Good ExcellentType of business Serviceb

Professionalab

Salesb

OtherEstablishment of business

Bought/invested Startedc

Inherited/givenbc

Employed in FamilyBusiness (n = 106)

44.52 (10.29)13.52 (2.23)3.43 (1.16)117,432.9 (290,643)11.57 (37.22)1,087,806(4,666,394)13.85 (10.46)

98 (92.8)

14 (12.8)41 (38.4)52 (48.8)

25 (23.1)20 (18.8)24 (22.8)37 (34.9)

25 (23.3)72 (67.9)8 (7.7)

Nonemployed(n = 133)

46.11 (10.51)13.18 (2.07)3.44 (1.02)146,886.2 (341,825)34.85 (99.33)2,830,132(10,340,321)17.76 (9.83)

128 (96.3)

28 (21.1)47 (35.2)58 (43.7)

13 (9.8)45 (33.3)14 (10.3)58 (43.6)

24 (18.4)80 (60.5)24 (18.4)

Continuous variables with means and standard deviations:

Categorical variables with frequencies and percentages:

Note. aEmployed in family business is significantly different from the market employed at .05 or better.b Employed in family business is significantly different from the nonemployed.cThe market employed is significantly different from the nonemployed.

Market Employed(n = 247)

40.58 (13.39)13.82 (3.16)3.47 (1.68)86,121.6 (254,946)6.71 (35.77)437,268.8(2,710,748)9.79 (11.45)

223 (90.9)

17 (6.9)95 (38.4)135 (54.7)

40 (16.2)77 (31.0)37 (15.2)91 (36.7)

54 (21.8)179 (72.4)10 (4.0)




9/14

8

in the family business, wives who were employedoutside the family business, and nonemployedwives.

Nonemployed wives were slightly older, hadless education, and had larger household incomes

than wives working in the family business or wivesemployed by others. Compared to wives em-ployed in family businesses and those employedby others, a lower percentage of nonemployedwives reported their health status as excellent orgood. Of particular interest were the businessscharacteristics in this comparison. Family busi-nesses where the wife was not employed were

least likely to be working in the family firm. Ifthe business were service or sales related, wiveswere more likely to work in it than if the busi-ness were manufacturing, contracting, construc-tion, plumbing, or agricultural in nature.

More wives were working in the businesswhen it had been purchased or started by thehusband. Fewer wives were working in the busi-ness when the business had been inherited orgiven. It is reasonable that wives would be morelikely to be working in the family business whenit was just getting underway and revenues of thebusiness were relatively low than when the busi-

Rowe, Hong

Table 4. Contribution to Family Economic Well-Being by WifesEmployment Type (Weighted)

Variables

Wifes annualearnings ($)

Annual householdincome ($)

Percentage of wifes

earning/householdincome

Family Business(n = 105)

10,661a

22,761b

(5,000)c

117,433290,643(190,050)

17.42

25.51(2.98)

Market Employed(n = 247)

13,64228,636(10,000)

86,122254,946(85,000)

25.14

43.11(4.59)

Family Business andMarket Employed(n = 12)

13,27315,772(12,000)

71,40585,556(100,000)

29.82

20.72(35.29)

Note. ameansb standard deviationscmedians

both older (17.8 years) and larger (35 employeeson average) than family firms where the wifeworked in the business (13.8 years, 12 employ-ees) or was employed by others (9.8 years, 7 em-ployees). Family businesses in which wives wereemployed had the largest gross sales ($2,830,132

in 1988). In addition, the type and method ofestablishing the business were different when thewife was not employed. Compared to other fam-ily businesses, more family businesses with a non-employed wife were either inherited or given.Wives of professional business owners were the

ness was mature or had been inherited. The datado not reveal whether wives who are currentlycategorized as nonemployed have ever workedin the business or for outside employers, only thatthey are currently nonemployed.

W ives Contr ibuti on to Fami ly Economic

Well-Being.All wives, whether working directlyin the business or not, were making major con-tributions in important ways. Wives are underheavy pressure to control the household budgetand be willing to accept a comparatively low stan-dard of living when the business is new



10/14

9

(Rosenblatt, et al., 1985). Any amount of moneysaved by delaying desired purchases, repairing oldclothing, buying food on sale, and preparing foodat home is an indirect contribution to the busi-ness (Bryant & Zick, 1996). Wives who are di-

rectly involved in the business and wives em-ployed by others make financial contributions inaddition to their work at home. Table 4 com-pares wives earnings, annual household income,and the percentage of household income repre-sented by their earnings for three groups of

women: wives employed in the business, mar-ket-employed wives, and wives who worked inboth.

On average, wives annual earnings werelargest for women employed outside the familybusiness ($13,642), but total household incomewas largest when wives were working in the fam-ily business ($117,433). However, median val-ues indicate that the typical family, with wivesworking in the family business, had annual in-comes of $190,050. That average income is

Table 5. Factors Associated with the Likelihood of Wifes Participation inFamily Business (n = 498)

Variables

Characteristics of Wife:AgeEducationSelf-rated health Poor/fair Good (Excellent)Market employed***

Characteristics of Husband:Self-rated health Poor/fair*** Good*

(Excellent)Employed in other business

Business Characteristics:Duration of businessEstablishment of business Bought/invested* Started* (Inherited/given)Size of business*Gross salesType of business Service*** Professional

Sales*** (Other)ConstantLog likelihood

Estimated Coefficients

-0.012-0.045

0.1760.262

1.797

1.4570.293

0.249

0.0004

-0.5330.555

0.0031.87E-10

-0.6850.235

0.780

3.382-190.211

Note. * significant at .1 ** significant at .05 *** significant at .01

Standard Errors

0.0070.039

0.2560.183

0.178

0.4630.172

0.254

0.0005

0.3010.277

0.0021.47E-8

0.2190.208

0.224

0.978




11/14

10

Rowe, Hong

higher than those families with wives that are ei-ther market employed or employed both by thefamily business and by someone else.

Wives who were both working in the familybusiness and employed by others also made the

largest direct contribution to family income,earning almost 30% of the households funds.Although a wifes employment increases herfamilys income, her earned income is not equalto the amount of money received without herworking. Her work-related expenses, such astaxes, transportation, childcare, professionalclothing, and the cost of market goods that needto be purchased to replace her home-producedoutputs, reduce her income (Vickery, 1979).Findings also showed that wives who were em-ployed by family firms received less than market

wages for the number of hours they worked.Factor s Associated wi th the Li keli hood of

the W i fes Par ti cipati on i n Fami ly Busin ess.

An attempt was made to predict which wiveswould be the most likely to work in the familybusiness. In this analysis, illustrated in Table 5,socio-demographic characteristics of the wife,husband, and business were entered into a logitmodel.

Wives who are employed in the labor mar-ket are more likely to be involved in the familybusiness than wives who are not employed.

Wives also are more likely to be involved in thefamily business when husbands reported a healthstatus lower than excellent. The type of busi-ness was related significantly to wives participa-tion, with wives less likely to be involved in ser-vice and sales businesses than businesses in theother category, which consisted of manufac-turing, contracting, construction, plumbingfirms, and agriculture. The size of the business,as measured by the number of employees, wasassociated positively with wives direct partici-pation: the likelihood of wives participation in

the family business increased as the number ofemployees increased.

It might be hypothesized that the more em-ployees the business had, the less likely the wifewas to work in the business, but that was not thecase. The way in which the family business was

established also is associated with wives partici-pation. Wives were more likely to be involvedwhen the business was either bought or investedor started by the couple than when the businesswas inherited or given, leading to questions about

the role inherited wealth plays in family businessdynamics.

ConclusionsFamily businesses are a very important source ofrevenue and jobs in the United States. This pa-per explores the contributions wives make to theeconomic well-being in business-owning fami-lies. Too often, women are unacknowledged orundervalued resources in family businesses. Theinformation this study presents, which supple-

ments a small but growing body of qualitativeliterature, indicates that womens contributionsin business-owning families are both critical andsubstantial.

The majority of wives made their major con-tribution to family economic well-being througheither market employment or working in the fam-ily business. Wives who combined working inthe family business with working for others hadthe greatest impact on their familys economicwe ll -bei ng , earni ng al mo st 30 % of theirhouseholds annual income. However, that they

earned 30% of their households income is a func-tion of their lower total household income andnot solely attributable to the wifes wages. Wivesworking in the family business earned the lowestsalaries, possibly indicating the undervaluing ofwork that women perform and the overvaluingof mens work by family business owners.

The most interesting finding in this study isthe variety of ways in which wives contribute tofamily businesses. The lives of the women in thisstudy are complex and not a simple dichotomyof working in the family business or not working

in the business. Some wives were employed bythe family business and by others. A minoritywere working two jobs in addition to their homeresponsibilities in an effort to support the familyand the business.

Limi tat ion.An important limitation of the



12/14

11

study is the exclusion of hours spent in house-work. By failing to include these hours, it wasnot possible to calcuate a reservation wage fornonemployed wives. Estimates of houseworktime are believed to be from 6 to 14 hours per

week for men and 20 to 30 hours for women,depending on the sample and the methods usedto obtain the information (Hersch & Stratton,1994). Further refinement of housework timewould have improved the direct comparison of(a) wives who were nonemployed and (b) wiveswho were working in the family business, work-ing for others, or both. In any case, wives notdirectly employed by the business still contrib-uted to the business by working at home and bylimiting household expenditures.

Implications for Practice andResearchThis study has implications for both practice andresearch. The study is believed to be a first at-tempt to quantify wives contributions in dollars.The limitations inherent in using data intendedfor other purposes only serves to point up theneed for a high-quality comprehensive datasource for family-owned businesses.

Most studies of family-owned businesses fo-cus on the founder, the businesss managerial

practices, or succession issues or use smallnonprobability samples and case studies that limitthe generalizability of the findings. In contrastto most extant family business data sources, fu-ture research should provide a wealth of infor-mation about the families behind the businesses.

A significant first step in the type of dataneeded to explore comprehensively a number offamily business issues is the National FamilyBusiness Survey, which a consortium of univer-sity researchers undertook in 1997. This surveyis described in Winter, Fitzgerald, Heck, Haynes,

and Daynes (1998). However, even this studylacks the qualitative depth or time study recordsnecessary to answer a number of questions aboutwives contributions.

One of the implications for practice is theneed for family business professionals to encour-

age their clients to compensate wives adequatelyand recognize their contributions to family busi-nesses. The lack of compensation, or pay at be-low-market wages, limits wives in business-own-ing families in the amount they can contribute

to Social Security and to privately owned retire-ment funds. In the short run, this practice di-minishes and undervalues the work women do.Over the long term, this practice can jeopardizethe financial security of these womenespeciallywhen a married couple, who runs the family busi-ness, divorces or the spouse most active in man-aging the business becomes incapacitated. Fam-ily business professionals can be most helpful inthese transitions by understanding and minimiz-ing the damage to the business and the individu-als involved.

Although women are a prominent force infamily firms, they are not always included in thebusinesss decision-making process. Profession-als working with business-owning families needto encourage women to participate as equal part-ners and support those who do. Too often, suc-cession issues are framed in transferring the busi-ness from founder to offspring. Anecdotal evi-dence indicates that founder-to-spouse transfersare also prevalent. These issues are significantin businesses owned by couples where the wifemay suddenly need to take over day-to-day op-

erations and can help a business take best ad-vantage of the managerial styles of all familymembers.

One might wonder how young wives think-ing of joining their husbands in a venture mayinterpret the findings from this research. In lightof womens rising education levels, do womenwho earn MBAs really want to join their hus-bands to become the company bookkeeper? Al-though the answers can come only from thewomen themselves, the findings of this study in-dicate that these wives would be the most likely

to combine working in the family business withworking for others (i.e., market employment).These wives are likely to experience a dilemmain dealing with the work demand from both theirown employment and the needs of their familysbusiness. Regardless of their choice, these




13/14

12

women will be in need of moral support, encour-agement, and understanding from their spouses,families, and family business consultants.

ReferencesAlcorn, P. B. (1982). Success and survival of the family-owned business. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Barnett, F., & Barnett, S. (1988). Working together:Entrepreneurial couples. Berkeley, CA: Ten SpeedPress.

Berk, S. F. (1988). Womens unpaid labor: Home andcommunity. In A. H. Stromberg & S. Harkess(Eds.), Women working: Theories and facts in perspec-tive (2nd ed., pp. 287-302). Mountain View, CA:Mayfield.

Berk, S. F., & Shih, A. (1980). Contributions to house-hold labor: Comparing wives and husbands reports.In S. F. Berk (Ed.), Women and household labor(pp.

191-228). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Bowman-Upton, N., & Heck, R. K. Z. (1996). Thefamily dimension of entrepreneurship. In D. L.Sexton (Ed.), The state of the art of entrepreneurship.Chicago: Upstart.

Bregger, J. E. (1996). Measuring self-employment inthe United States. Monthly Labor Review, 119(1/2),3-9.

Bryant, W. K., & Zick, C. D. (1996). The economicsof housespousery: An essay on household work.Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 15, 137-168.

Cole, P. M. (1993). Women in family business: A sys-temic approach to inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale.

Dumas, C. (1998). Womens pathways to participa-tion and leadership in the family-owned firm. FamilyBusiness Review, 11(3), 219-227.

Freudenberger, H. J., Freedheim, D. K., & Kurtz, T.S. (1989). Treatment of individuals in family busi-ness. Psychotherapy, 26, 47-53.

Frishkoff, P. A., & Brown, B. M. (1993, March-April).Women on the move in family business. BusinessHorizons, 36,66-70.

Gillis-Donovan, J., & Moynihan-Bradt, C. (1990).The power of invisible women in the family busi-ness. Family Business Review, 3(2), 153-167.

Hayghe, H. (1997). Developments in womens laborforce participation. Monthly Labor Review, 120(9),41-46.

Heck, R. K. Z., & Scannell, E. (1999). The preva-lence of family business from a household sample.Family Business Review, 12(3), 209219.

Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (1994). Housework, wagesand the division of housework time for employedspouses.American Economic Review, 84, 120-125.

Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York:Viking.

Hollander, B., & Bukowitz, W. (1990). Women, fam-ily culture, and family business. Family Business Re-view, 3(2), 139-151.

Hood, J.C. (1986). The provider role: Its meaningand measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-ily, 48, 349-359.

Ibrahim, A. B., & Ellis,W. H. (1994). Family businessmanagement: Concepts and practice. Dubuque, IA:Kendall/Hunt.

Jaffee, D. (1990). Working with the ones you love: Con-flict resolution and problem solving strategies for success-ful family business. Berkeley, CA: Conari Press.

Janeway, E. (1981). Powers of the weak. New York:Morrow Quill.

Kaslow, F. W., & Kaslow, S. (1993). The family thatworks together: Special problems of family busi-nesses. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families, and orga-nizations(pp. 312-351). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kennickel, A., & Shack-Marquez, J. (1992). Changesin family finances from 1983 to 1989: Evidence fromthe Survey of Consumer Finances.Federal ReserveBulletin, 78, 1-18.

Kirchoff, B. A., & Kirchoff, J. J. (1987). Family con-tributions to productivity and profitability in smallbusiness. Journal of Small Business Management, XX,24-31.

Lyman, A., Salganicoff, M., & Hollander, B. (1985).Women in family business: An untapped resource.In C. E. Aronoff & J. L. Ward (Eds.), Family busi-ness sourcebook(pp. 460-463).Detroit: Omnigraphics.

Maddala, G. (1992). Introduction to econometrics(2nded.). New York: Macmillan.

Marshack, K. J. (1994). Copreneurs and dual-careercouples: Are they different? Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 19(1), 49-69.

Moen, P. (1992). Womens two roles. Westport, CT:Auburn House.

Nelton, S. (1986). In love and in business: How entrepre-neurial couples are changing the rules of business andmarriage. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Nelton, S. (1998). The rise of women in family firms:A call for research now.Family Business Review, 11(3),215-218.

Novak, M. (1983). Business, faith, and the family.Loyola Business Forum, 4(1), 6-8.

Peskin, J. (1982). Measuring household productionfor the GNP. Family Economics Review, 3, 16-25.

Ponthieu, L. D., & Caudill, H. L. (1993). Whos theboss? Responsibility and decision making in

copreneurial ventures. Family Business Review, 6(1),13-17.Rosenblatt, P. C., deMik, L., Anderson, R. M., &

Johnson, P. A. (1985). The family in business. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Salganicoff, M. (1990a). Clarifying the present andcreating options for the future. Family Business Re-view, 3(2), 121-124.

Rowe, Hong



14/14

13

Salganicoff, M. (1990b). Women in family business:Challenges and opportunities. Family Business Re-view, 3(2), 125-137.

SAS Institute, Inc. (1989). SAS/STAT users guide(4thed., vol. 2). Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

Shanker, M. C., & Astrachan, J. H. (1996). Myths and

realities: Family business contribution to the U.S.economy A framework for assessing family busi-ness statistics.Family Business Review, 11(2), 107-119.

Upton, N. B., & Heck, R. K. Z. (1997). The familybusiness dimension of entrepreneurship. In D. L.Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.),Entrepreneurship 2000(pp. 243-266). Chicago, IL: Upstart Publishing.

Barbara R. Rowe is a professor and extension specialist in the Family Life Programs, Utah State UniversityExtension. Gong-Soog Hong is an associate professor and graduate director in the Department of ConsumerSciences and Retailing at Purdue University.

The authors wish to express their appreciation to Soo Yeon Kim for her invaluable assistance inprogramming the analyses presented here and to Nancy O. Peck for her keen editorial eye.

U.S. Small Business Administration (1993). The stateof small business: A report to the President. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vickery, C. (1979). Womens economic contributionto the family. In R.E. Smith (Ed.),The subtle revolu-tion(pp. 159-200). Washington, D.C.: Urban In-

stitute.Voydanoff, P. (1990). Economic distress and familyrelations: A review of the eighties.Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 52, 1099-1115.

Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M. A., Heck, R. K. Z., Haynes,G. W., & Danes, S. M. (1998). Revisiting the studyof family businesses. Family Business Review 11(3),239-251.


at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19 2014fbr sagepub comDownloaded from

the role of wives in family bussiness:the paid and unpaid work of women

Documents