Family http://fbr.sagepub.

com/ Business Review

The Role of Wives in Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women
Barbara R. Rowe and Gong-Soog Hong Family Business Review 2000 13: 1 DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2000.00001.x The online version of this article can be found at: http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Family Firm Institute

Additional services and information for Family Business Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://fbr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/1.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 2000 What is This?

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

ARTICLES

The Role of Wives in Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women
Barbara R. Rowe, Gong-Soog Hong
This study used data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finance to examine wives economic contributions to family businesses. Wives contributions to family businesses take several forms: managing the household, working in the business, being employed by others, working in the business 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.

Introduction
It is frequently estimated that over 90% of U.S. businesses (including professional practices) are family businesses in the sense that they are owned or controlled and operated by members of a single family (Ibrahim & Ellis, 1994; Kaslow & Kaslow, 1993). Depending on the defintion used to describe a family business, it is further estimated that they produce between 20% to 40% of the gross domestic product and employ between 20 million and 77 million people (Salganicoff, 1990b; Shanker & Astrachan, 1996). They range in size from street-corner laundromats and ethnic restaurants to major corporations such as Smuckers Jams and Ford Motors. In virtually all businesses owned or controlled by a single family, more than one family member 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 involved, that person depends on the supportive environments that other family members create (Kirchoff & Kirchoff, 1987; Rosenblatt, deMik, Anderson, & Johnson, 1985). Other family members subsidize the business through sacrifice, physical efforts, or money (Novak, 1983). All
FAMILY BUSINESS REVIEW, vol. XIII, no. 1, March 2000 Family Firm Institute, Inc.

the family assets may be invested in the business, income generated has to be returned to the business, and a 60-hour work week is often standard for the business owner-manager. Often, the supporting family members are womenthe mothers, wives, grandmothers, daughters, or sisters of the business owner-manager (Gillis-Donovan & Moynihan-Brandt, 1990). In many family businesses, the women become almost invisible, and others within or outside the business do not view them in the same way as male family members (Gillis-Donovan & Moynihan-Brandt, 1990; Hollander & Bukowitz, 1990; Nelton, 1986; Salganicoff, 1990b). This situation is frequently the case with female partners in husband-wife businesses. The male partner is seen as the entrepreneurit is his businesswhile the female partner does the bookkeeping in the back room (Dumas, 1998). The literature regarding women in family business is extremely sparse, and very little of it is empirical (Bowman-Upton & Heck, 1996). It is the intent of this study to extend previous research into the role of women in family businesses by using data from a large, nationally representative sample. 1

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

Rowe, Hong In particular, the study has three specific objectives: (a) to identify business and household characteristics by wives employment status, (b) to compare the wives contribution to family economic well-being by the wives employment pattern, and (c) to examine the factors contributing to wives participation in a familyowned business. Although the breadth of the information is limited, this research represents one of the first attempts to investigate in a systematic way the paid and unpaid contributions made by wives who are part of business-owning families. work, is now an integral part of many womens lives just as full-time homemaking was for women in previous generations. In 1950, only 30% of American women were in the labor force (Hochschild, 1989). In 1996, the Department of Labor reported that approximately 58.8% of women in the United States were employed, three-quarters of whom were mothers (Hayghe, 1997). These changes in work patterns represent a major shift in the daily lives of women. As more women entered the world of work, the number of women working with family members increased (Cole, 1993). According to some family business consultants, there are many advantages for women in family firms (Frishkoff & Brown, 1993), including flexible work hours, access to positions in traditionally male-dominated industries, job security, professional challenges, and opportunities for personal growth (Barnett & Barnett, 1988; Nelton, 1986; Lyman, Salganicoff, & Hollander, 1985). However, family firms also can mirror the gender stereotyping and discrimination found in society at large (Jaffee, 1990; Salganicoff, 1990a). Women often have been directly, even critically, involved in the business without recognition of their contribution or in terms of job titles or salaries (Gillis-Donovan & Moynihan-Brandt, 1990). The strength of traditional family roles has kept the work that women do for family firms from being acknowledged (Lyman, Salganicoff, & Hollander, 1985). The cultural tradition that places women and men in different social positions, with genderbased definitions of work and home responsibilities, plays a large part in keeping women invisible in a family business. Historically, womens work responsibilities outside the home were secondary to their obligation to manage and organize the domestic, emotional, and social life of the family (Gillis-Donovan & Moynihan-Brandt, 1990; Moen, 1992). Men, on the other hand, have organized their lives around the demands of their work (Hood, 1986). Even today, women may downplay their contributions and accept even encourageminimum recognition. Both men and women are reluctant to upset

Related Literature
There is no official count of the total number of family-owned businesses in the United States. The U.S. Small Business Administration statistical data series (1993) does not distinguish between family and nonfamily businesses. The few data sources that exist provide little detail about the business and almost nothing about the family behind the business. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service and a broad definition of a family business, Shanker and Astrachan (1996) estimated a total of 20.3 million family busnesses in the United States. A stricter defintion of family business resulted in a total of 4.1 million family businesses. A study that used a random sample of household telephone numbers reported that 12.4% of the nations population, or 12,547,000 households, were business-owning families (Heck & Scannell, 1999). Demographic information, statistical data, or systematic research about womens participation in family businesses is insufficient (Nelton, 1998; Salganicoff, 1990a). In their review of family business succession literature, Bowman-Upton and Sexton (1987) found women in stereotypical positions in family firms. They also found that women were only considered as successors when no male was available. A survey of 372 familyowned businesses by Dumas echoed these results (1998). These findings are puzzling because great numbers of women have entered the world of paid employment. Working for pay, or market 2

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

The Role of Wives In Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women the balance of work and family roles that is connected emotionally to their traditionally male and female identities (Berk & Shih, 1980; Freudenberger, Freedheim, & Kurtz, 1989; Janeway, 1981). In a recent study comparing dualcareer couples with husband-wife business owners, Marshack (1994) found evidence of husbands and wives commitment to traditional identities. She reported that husband-wife business partners were much more traditional in their sex-role orientations than dual-career couples, who tended to be androgynous. Eighty percent of the male co-owners advocated a stereotypical masculine sex-role orientation, and 76% of the female business co-owners supported a stereotypical feminine sex-role orientation. These differences were demonstrated in the types of work wife and husband business owners performed: wives handled secretarial and bookkeeping functions, whereas husbands dealt with equipment maintenance and contract negotiation. When role boundaries were crossed, wives assumed their husbands obligations, such as sales, business planning, and professional services. However, husbands did not assume the clerical responsibilities of their wives. Alcorn (1982) suggests that the family structure consisting of a dominant father figure and a subordinate mother figure is prevalent throughout family businesses. Lyman, Salganicoff, and Hollander (1985) state that cultural traditions that place women and men in different social positions and that define work and family responsibilities based on gender play a large part in establishing the work environment. These strategies apply to wives, mothers, and daughters (Ponthieu & Caudill, 1993). Mens contribution to their familys economic well-being has been mainly in the realm of paid employment. Their participation in unpaid family work generally has consisted of helping their wives with household chores, playing with their children, and performing traditionally male tasks, such as lawn care, car repair, and home maintenance (Voydanoff, 1990; Berk, 1988). Womens contributions have been more broadly based, including a mix of paid employment and unpaid family work. Several types of unpaid family work contribute directly or indirectly to family economic well-being. Unpaid family work includes housework (food preparation, housecleaning, and laundry), caring for dependent children and ill or elderly family members, assisting in a spouses work, and managing family finances (Voydanoff, 1990). Because family work in the household is not included in traditional measures of economic production, calculating the economic value of family work in the household is difficult. One method is to estimate the value of the time spent in household work if the family hired someone outside the family to do it (replacement cost). Another method assesses the amount of income the individual would earn if the individual did not stay home to do family work (opportunity cost) (Bryant & Zick, 1996). One study estimates that the replacement costs of housework total more than $750 billion per year and that the opportunity costs are over one-half trillion dollars per year (Peskin, 1982). Wives who are involved in the family business contribute both paid and unpaid work to the familys well-being. Often, there is no reduction in child care and housework when a woman assumes some of the responsibilities for the business. Some wives simultaneously (a) hold outside employment, (b) manage a household, and (c) work in the family business. These women must juggle three layers of obligations on a daily basis. The analyses and discussion that follow are based on data that were collected as part of a comprehensive survey of family financial practices. Included in the information collected about assets was a subset of questions about family businesses. Although the breadth of the information is limited due to questionnaire design, this is an exploratory examination of all the roles women who live in business-owning families fill.

Methods
Data and Sample. The data for the study are drawn from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF), sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board and other federal agencies. The SCF is a 3

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

Rowe, Hong national survey conducted by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan. The data were collected from personal interviews with a large number of randomly selected households in the United States. The purpose of the SCF is to obtain information about the financial situation and socio-demographic information of the households. The 1989 SCF contains 2,277 households selected by a standard multistage area probability sampling technique. In addition, the survey has a supplemental sample of 866 highincome households drawn from federal income

Table 1. Measurement of Variables

Variables Characteristics of Wife: Age Education Self-rated health Poor/fair Good Excellent Market employed Characteristics of Husband: Self-rated health Poor/fair Good Excellent Employed in other business Household Characteristics: Household size Household income in 1988 ($) Family Business Characteristics: Duration of business Establishment of business Bought/invested Started Inherited/given Size of business Gross sales in 1988 Type of business Service Professional Sales Other Measurement

Age of the respondent in years Number of years of formal education 1 if poor or fair, 0 otherwise 1 if good, 0 otherwise 1 if excellent, 0 otherwise 1 if employed for market wages and salaries, 0 if not

1 if poor or fair, 0 otherwise 1 if good, 0 otherwise 1 if excellent, 0 otherwise 1 if employed, 0 otherwise

Number of persons in the household Total household income earned in 1988

Number of years in business 1 if bought or invested, 0 otherwise 1 if started, 0 otherwise 1 if inherited or given, 0 otherwise Number of employees in business Gross sales of business in 1988 $ 1 if service, 0 otherwise 1 if professional, 0 otherwise 1 if sales, 0 otherwise 1 if other, 0 otherwise

Note. Service includes personal services (e.g., beauty/barber shop, dry cleaners), repair services, entertainment services, communication, and other business services. Professional includes real estate, professional practice including law and medicine, business management, bank and brokerage firms, and mortgage and finance companies. Sales includes restaurant, food/liquor, and other retail business. Other includes farm and nursery, manufacturing, contracting, construction, painting, and plumbing services.

4
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

The Role of Wives In Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women tax files (Kennickel & Shack-Marquez, 1992). This study includes these households. The sample was weighted to be representative of the U.S. population as a whole. Answering yes to the following two questions identified a household as being involved in a family business: (a) Do you (and your family living here) own or share ownership in any privately held businesses, farms, professional practices, or partnerships? and (b) Do you (or anyone in your family living here) have an active management role in any of these businesses? In the total sample, 592 households (21%) were identified as being involved in a family business. The subsample analyzed here consists of 498 households (or 84% of the business-owning families) where the respondent was identified as a married male head of household. In the remaining 94 cases, the business owner was female or another family member living in the household where marital status could not be determined. Variables. Due to the scarcity of empirical literature about womens participation in family businesses, there was not much guidance in choosing the variables of interest. Further, the selection of variables was limited to those included by the Federal Reserve Board in conducting the survey. Therefore, the variables listed in Table 1 are mainly socio-demographic. They include the wifes age, education, and self-reported health status and whether she was employed anywhere for a salary or wages. Husbands characteristics include his self-reported health status and whether he was employed in a business other than the family business. Household characteristics include the number of persons in the household and total household income in 1988. Business characteristics include duration, origin (started, inherited, given, and other), number of employees (size), gross sales in 1988, and type of business (service, professional, sales, or other). Firms designated as service include personal services (such as a beauty or barber shop), repair services, entertainment, communication, and other business services. Included in the professional business category were real estate firms; legal and medical practices; business management, bank, and brokerage firms; and mortgage and finance companies. The other category includes farming and nursery businesses; manufacturing, contracting, construction, and painting firms; and plumbing operations. Analysis. Univariate and frequency analyses were performed to generate descriptive statistics for the total sample. To set up a comparison among wives, the sample was divided into three groups by wifes employment status: wives employed in the family business (n = 106), wives employed outside the family business (n = 247), and nonemployed wives (n = 133). The comparisons did not include 12 wives working in both the family business and for outside employers because of the difficulty of classifying them either as employed in family business or market employed. Forty wives held two jobs outside the family business. The General Linear Models multigroup comparison techniques were used to examine the differences in household and business characteristics among the three groups of wives (SAS Institute, 1989). Employed wives contributions to household income was computed by using the ratio of each wifes earnings to total family income and by wifes employment type. The likelihood of wives participation in the family business was estimated by logit analysis (which was appropriate because the dependent variable was binary [0, no; 1, yes]). Logistic regression analysis predicts the natural logarithm of the odds ratio of the probability of an event occuring given the level at which the explanatory variables are set. It yields more efficient estimates than an ordinary least squares procedure (Maddala, 1992).

Results
Business and Household Characteristics by Wives Employment Status. Wives participation in the family business was more varied than anticipated. Some wives (n = 106) worked for the family business only, and another 247 wives worked for other employers (market employed). Twelve wives worked both for the family firm and outside the family business. One hundred thirty5

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

Rowe, Hong three wives were not employed, with no hours logged working in the family business or for an outside employer. Table 2 compares all family businesses in the subsample (n = 498) with those businesses 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, and were slightly smaller than firms in which wives were not employed. Wives who were employed in the family business were slightly older than wives in all family businesses. About half the wives were employed by service and sales businesses, and about one-third of the wives worked in the combined category (other), which included manufacturing, contracting, construction, painting, and plumbing firms. This finding is understandable because professional businesses included legal and medical practices in which only one spouse may be eligible or have a license to practice. Comparison of Business and Household

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics (Weighted)

Variables Wife Employed in Family Business (n = 106) All Family Business (n = 498)

Continuous variables with means and standard deviations: Age Education Household size Household income Size of business Gross sales in 1988 $ Duration of business 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) 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)

Categorical variables with frequencies and percentages: Self-rated health (wife) Poor/fair Good Excellent Marked employed Self-rated health (husband) Poor/fair Good Excellent Employed in other business (husband) Race (Whites) Establishment of business Bought/invest Started Inherited/given Type of business Service Professional Sales Other 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) 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)

6
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

The Role of Wives In Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women Characteristics by Wifes Employment Status. Of particular interest were wives who worked for the family business but received no wages or share of the profits. Researchers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics report that the incidence of unpaid work in family business has diminished since the early 1950s. This outcome is in part due to a decline in family size, in agricultural employment overall, and in the employment of rural women in wage and salary jobs (Bregger, 1996). Data on the number of hours worked per week and weeks worked per year were available for all wives in the sample and were cross-checked to determine (a) whether the wives who were fulltime homemakers spent any time working for the family firm without being paid, (b) the number of hours wives spent in market employment, and (c) the number of hours wives spent working in the family business. It was believed that the process of selecting the subsample for this study (i.e., first identifying the business through the household and then asking household members whether they performed any work for it) would help identify more unpaid family workers. Table 3 compares a variety of socio-demographic measures and business characteristics wives employed

Table 3. Comparison of the Wives: Employed in Family Business, Market Employed, and Nonemployed (Weighted)
Variables Employed in Family Business (n = 106) Market Employed (n = 247) Nonemployed (n = 133)

Continuous variables with means and standard deviations: Agea c Educationc Household size Household income Size of business bc Gross sales ($)c Duration of businessa b c 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) 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) 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)

Categorical variables with frequencies and percentages: Race (White)c Self-rated healthc Poor/fair Good Excellent Type of business Serviceb Professionalab Salesb Other Establishment of business Bought/invested Startedc Inherited/givenbc 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) 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) 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)

Note. a Employed 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. c The market employed is significantly different from the nonemployed.

7
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

Rowe, Hong in the family business, wives who were employed outside the family business, and nonemployed wives. Nonemployed wives were slightly older, had less education, and had larger household incomes than wives working in the family business or wives employed by others. Compared to wives employed in family businesses and those employed by others, a lower percentage of nonemployed wives reported their health status as excellent or good. Of particular interest were the businesss characteristics in this comparison. Family businesses where the wife was not employed were least likely to be working in the family firm. If the business were service or sales related, wives were more likely to work in it than if the business were manufacturing, contracting, construction, plumbing, or agricultural in nature. More wives were working in the business when it had been purchased or started by the husband. Fewer wives were working in the business when the business had been inherited or given. It is reasonable that wives would be more likely to be working in the family business when it was just getting underway and revenues of the business were relatively low than when the busi-

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

Variables Family Business (n = 105) Market Employed (n = 247) Family Business and Market Employed (n = 12) 13,273 15,772 (12,000) 71,405 85,556 (100,000) 29.82 20.72 (35.29)

Wifes annual earnings ($)

10,661a 22,761b (5,000)c 117,433 290,643 (190,050) 17.42 25.51 (2.98)

13,642 28,636 (10,000) 86,122 254,946 (85,000) 25.14 43.11 (4.59)

Annual household income ($)

Percentage of wifes earning/household income Note. ameans b standard deviations c medians

both older (17.8 years) and larger (35 employees on average) than family firms where the wife worked in the business (13.8 years, 12 employees) or was employed by others (9.8 years, 7 employees). Family businesses in which wives were employed had the largest gross sales ($2,830,132 in 1988). In addition, the type and method of establishing the business were different when the wife was not employed. Compared to other family businesses, more family businesses with a nonemployed wife were either inherited or given. Wives of professional business owners were the 8

ness was mature or had been inherited. The data do not reveal whether wives who are currently categorized as nonemployed have ever worked in the business or for outside employers, only that they are currently nonemployed. Wives Contribution to Family Economic Well-Being. All wives, whether working directly in the business or not, were making major contributions in important ways. Wives are under heavy pressure to control the household budget and be willing to accept a comparatively low standard of living when the business is new

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

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

Table 5. Factors Associated with the Likelihood of Wifes Participation in Family Business (n = 498)
Variables Characteristics of Wife: Age Education Self-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 business Establishment of business Bought/invested* Started* (Inherited/given) Size of business* Gross sales Type of business Service*** Professional Sales*** (Other) Constant Log likelihood Estimated Coefficients Standard Errors

-0.012 -0.045 0.176 0.262 1.797

0.007 0.039 0.256 0.183 0.178

1.457 0.293 0.249

0.463 0.172 0.254

0.0004 -0.533 0.555 0.003 1.87E-10 -0.685 0.235 0.780 3.382 -190.211

0.0005 0.301 0.277 0.002 1.47E-8 0.219 0.208 0.224 0.978

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

(Rosenblatt, et al., 1985). Any amount of money saved by delaying desired purchases, repairing old clothing, buying food on sale, and preparing food at home is an indirect contribution to the business (Bryant & Zick, 1996). Wives who are directly involved in the business and wives employed by others make financial contributions in addition to their work at home. Table 4 compares wives earnings, annual household income, and the percentage of household income represented by their earnings for three groups of

women: wives employed in the business, market-employed wives, and wives who worked in both. On average, wives annual earnings were largest for women employed outside the family business ($13,642), but total household income was largest when wives were working in the family business ($117,433). However, median values indicate that the typical family, with wives working in the family business, had annual incomes of $190,050. That average income is 9

Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

Rowe, Hong higher than those families with wives that are either market employed or employed both by the family business and by someone else. Wives who were both working in the family business 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 her familys income, her earned income is not equal to the amount of money received without her working. Her work-related expenses, such as taxes, transportation, childcare, professional clothing, and the cost of market goods that need to be purchased to replace her home-produced outputs, reduce her income (Vickery, 1979). Findings also showed that wives who were employed by family firms received less than market wages for the number of hours they worked. Factors Associated with the Likelihood of the Wifes Participation in Family Business. An attempt was made to predict which wives would be the most likely to work in the family business. In this analysis, illustrated in Table 5, socio-demographic characteristics of the wife, husband, and business were entered into a logit model. Wives who are employed in the labor market are more likely to be involved in the family business than wives who are not employed. Wives also are more likely to be involved in the family business when husbands reported a health status lower than excellent. The type of business was related significantly to wives participation, with wives less likely to be involved in service and sales businesses than businesses in the other category, which consisted of manufacturing, contracting, construction, plumbing firms, and agriculture. The size of the business, as measured by the number of employees, was associated positively with wives direct participation: the likelihood of wives participation in the family business increased as the number of employees increased. It might be hypothesized that the more employees the business had, the less likely the wife was to work in the business, but that was not the case. The way in which the family business was 10
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

established also is associated with wives participation. Wives were more likely to be involved when the business was either bought or invested or started by the couple than when the business was inherited or given, leading to questions about the role inherited wealth plays in family business dynamics.

Conclusions
Family businesses are a very important source of revenue and jobs in the United States. This paper explores the contributions wives make to the economic well-being in business-owning families. Too often, women are unacknowledged or undervalued resources in family businesses. The information this study presents, which supplements a small but growing body of qualitative literature, indicates that womens contributions in business-owning families are both critical and substantial. The majority of wives made their major contribution to family economic well-being through either market employment or working in the family business. Wives who combined working in the family business with working for others had the greatest impact on their familys economic well-being, earning almost 30% of their households annual income. However, that they earned 30% of their households income is a function of their lower total household income and not solely attributable to the wifes wages. Wives working in the family business earned the lowest salaries, possibly indicating the undervaluing of work that women perform and the overvaluing of mens work by family business owners. The most interesting finding in this study is the variety of ways in which wives contribute to family businesses. The lives of the women in this study are complex and not a simple dichotomy of working in the family business or not working in the business. Some wives were employed by the family business and by others. A minority were working two jobs in addition to their home responsibilities in an effort to support the family and the business. Limitation. An important limitation of the

The Role of Wives In Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women study is the exclusion of hours spent in housework. By failing to include these hours, it was not possible to calcuate a reservation wage for nonemployed wives. Estimates of housework time 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 used to obtain the information (Hersch & Stratton, 1994). Further refinement of housework time would have improved the direct comparison of (a) wives who were nonemployed and (b) wives who were working in the family business, working for others, or both. In any case, wives not directly employed by the business still contributed to the business by working at home and by limiting household expenditures. age their clients to compensate wives adequately and recognize their contributions to family businesses. The lack of compensation, or pay at below-market wages, limits wives in business-owning families in the amount they can contribute to Social Security and to privately owned retirement funds. In the short run, this practice diminishes and undervalues the work women do. Over the long term, this practice can jeopardize the financial security of these womenespecially when a married couple, who runs the family business, divorces or the spouse most active in managing the business becomes incapacitated. Family business professionals can be most helpful in these transitions by understanding and minimizing the damage to the business and the individuals involved. Although women are a prominent force in family firms, they are not always included in the businesss decision-making process. Professionals working with business-owning families need to encourage women to participate as equal partners and support those who do. Too often, succession issues are framed in transferring the business from founder to offspring. Anecdotal evidence indicates that founder-to-spouse transfers are also prevalent. These issues are significant in businesses owned by couples where the wife may suddenly need to take over day-to-day operations and can help a business take best advantage of the managerial styles of all family members. One might wonder how young wives thinking of joining their husbands in a venture may interpret the findings from this research. In light of womens rising education levels, do women who earn MBAs really want to join their husbands to become the company bookkeeper? Although the answers can come only from the women themselves, the findings of this study indicate that these wives would be the most likely to combine working in the family business with working for others (i.e., market employment). These wives are likely to experience a dilemma in dealing with the work demand from both their own employment and the needs of their familys business. Regardless of their choice, these 11
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

Implications for Practice and Research

This study has implications for both practice and research. The study is believed to be a first attempt to quantify wives contributions in dollars. The limitations inherent in using data intended for other purposes only serves to point up the need for a high-quality comprehensive data source for family-owned businesses. Most studies of family-owned businesses focus on the founder, the businesss managerial practices, or succession issues or use small nonprobability samples and case studies that limit the generalizability of the findings. In contrast to most extant family business data sources, future research should provide a wealth of information about the families behind the businesses. A significant first step in the type of data needed to explore comprehensively a number of family business issues is the National Family Business Survey, which a consortium of university researchers undertook in 1997. This survey is described in Winter, Fitzgerald, Heck, Haynes, and Daynes (1998). However, even this study lacks the qualitative depth or time study records necessary to answer a number of questions about wives contributions. One of the implications for practice is the need for family business professionals to encour-

Rowe, Hong women will be in need of moral support, encouragement, and understanding from their spouses, families, and family business consultants.
Hollander, B., & Bukowitz, W. (1990). Women, family culture, and family business. Family Business Review, 3(2), 139-151. Hood, J.C. (1986). The provider role: Its meaning and measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 349-359. Ibrahim, A. B., & Ellis,W. H. (1994). Family business management: Concepts and practice. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Jaffee, D. (1990). Working with the ones you love: Conflict resolution and problem solving strategies for successful 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 that works together: Special problems of family businesses. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, families, and organizations (pp. 312-351). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kennickel, A., & Shack-Marquez, J. (1992). Changes in family finances from 1983 to 1989: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 78, 1-18. Kirchoff, B. A., & Kirchoff, J. J. (1987). Family contributions to productivity and profitability in small business. 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 business sourcebook (pp. 460-463). Detroit: Omnigraphics. Maddala, G. (1992). Introduction to econometrics (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Marshack, K. J. (1994). Copreneurs and dual-career couples: Are they different? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(1), 49-69. Moen, P. (1992). Womens two roles. Westport, CT: Auburn House. Nelton, S. (1986). In love and in business: How entrepreneurial couples are changing the rules of business and marriage. 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 production for the GNP. Family Economics Review, 3, 16-25. Ponthieu, L. D., & Caudill, H. L. (1993). Whos the boss? 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. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salganicoff, M. (1990a). Clarifying the present and creating options for the future. Family Business Review, 3(2), 121-124.

References
Alcorn, P. B. (1982). Success and survival of the familyowned business. New York: Harper & Brothers. Barnett, F., & Barnett, S. (1988). Working together: Entrepreneurial couples. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. Berk, S. F. (1988). Womens unpaid labor: Home and community. In A. H. Stromberg & S. Harkess (Eds.), Women working: Theories and facts in perspective (2nd ed., pp. 287-302). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Berk, S. F., & Shih, A. (1980). Contributions to household 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). The family dimension of entrepreneurship. In D. L. Sexton (Ed.), The state of the art of entrepreneurship. Chicago: Upstart. Bregger, J. E. (1996). Measuring self-employment in the United States. Monthly Labor Review, 119(1/2), 3-9. Bryant, W. K., & Zick, C. D. (1996). The economics of housespousery: An essay on household work. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 15, 137-168. Cole, P. M. (1993). Women in family business: A systemic approach to inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale. Dumas, C. (1998). Womens pathways to participation and leadership in the family-owned firm. Family Business Review, 11(3), 219-227. Freudenberger, H. J., Freedheim, D. K., & Kurtz, T. S. (1989). Treatment of individuals in family business. Psychotherapy, 26, 47-53. Frishkoff, P. A., & Brown, B. M. (1993, March-April). Women on the move in family business. Business Horizons, 36, 66-70. Gillis-Donovan, J., & Moynihan-Bradt, C. (1990). The power of invisible women in the family business. Family Business Review, 3(2), 153-167. Hayghe, H. (1997). Developments in womens labor force participation. Monthly Labor Review, 120(9), 41-46. Heck, R. K. Z., & Scannell, E. (1999). The prevalence of family business from a household sample. Family Business Review, 12(3), 209219. Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (1994). Housework, wages and the division of housework time for employed spouses. American Economic Review, 84, 120-125. Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Viking.

12
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014

The Role of Wives In Family Businesses: The Paid and Unpaid Work of Women
Salganicoff, M. (1990b). Women in family business: Challenges and opportunities. Family Business Review, 3(2), 125-137. SAS Institute, Inc. (1989). SAS/STAT users guide (4th ed., 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 business statistics. Family Business Review, 11(2), 107-119. Upton, N. B., & Heck, R. K. Z. (1997). The family business dimension of entrepreneurship. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 243-266). Chicago, IL: Upstart Publishing. U.S. Small Business Administration (1993). The state of small business: A report to the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vickery, C. (1979). Womens economic contribution to the family. In R.E. Smith (Ed.), The subtle revolution (pp. 159-200). Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. Voydanoff, P. (1990). Economic distress and family relations: A review of the eighties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1099-1115. Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M. A., Heck, R. K. Z., Haynes, G. W., & Danes, S. M. (1998). Revisiting the study of family businesses. Family Business Review 11(3), 239-251.

Barbara R. Rowe is a professor and extension specialist in the Family Life Programs, Utah State University Extension. Gong-Soog Hong is an associate professor and graduate director in the Department of Consumer Sciences and Retailing at Purdue University. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Soo Yeon Kim for her invaluable assistance in programming the analyses presented here and to Nancy O. Peck for her keen editorial eye. 13
Downloaded from fbr.sagepub.com at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on February 19, 2014