Factors that influence perceptionsof work-life balance in owners

of copreneurial firmsJill R. Helmle

Citrix, San Diego, California, USA

Isabel C. BoteroFediuk Botero LLC, Lexington, Kentucky, USA and

Gatton College of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky,Lexington, Kentucky, USA, and

David R. SeiboldCollege of Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara,

California, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors that influence perceptions of work-lifebalance among owners of copreneurial firms. Research on work-life balance in the context of family firmshas focussed on the effects that perceptions of balance can have on the emotional well-being of businessowners and performance of the firm. Less attention has been given to understanding the factors affectingan owner’s perceptions of work-life balance. This paper not only explores the antecedents of perceptionsof work-life balance but does so with copreneurs, or couples who own and manage a firm.Design/methodology/approach – Data for this study were collected using surveys. In all, 210copreneurs with businesses in nearly 20 industries answered questions about their perceptions ofwork-life balance, work-life conflict (WLC), life-work conflict, communication practices, characteristicsof their jobs, and spousal support.Findings – WLC was negatively related to perceptions of work-life balance. Job involvement,flexibility at work, and permeability of communication were significantly related to perceptions ofWLC. Interestingly spousal support did not affect individual perceptions of life-work balance, but hada direct influence on perceptions of work-life balance.Research limitations/implications – The sample was not randomly selected, and participantswere surveyed at only one point in time. Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings haveimplications for advancing research and theory in the areas of family business, work-life issues, andcommunication. While the paper focus on copreneurial firms, the findings may have implications forfamily firms and co-founded ventures.Practical implications – The potential benefits of copreneurs’ increased awareness of these findings(from readings or through coaching) are important given prior research demonstrating that family towork conflict and work to family conflict affect the emotional well-being of family business owners,their satisfaction with work, and firm performance.Originality/value – This project offers two important contributions to research in family firms.First, it focusses on copreneurial firms as a unique type of family firm which has the potential to shedlight on the differences between family firms. Second, results from this study provide a picture of thepredictors of work-life balance for couples who are firm owners.

Keywords Communication, Conflict, Work-life balance, Copreneurs

Paper type Research paper

Shifts in the demographic composition of the labor market, increases in work hours,and changes in the pace and intensity of work have led scholars and practitioners to

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/2043-6238.htm

Received 8 June 2014Revised 8 June 2014Accepted 15 July 2014

Journal of Family BusinessManagementVol. 4 No. 2, 2014pp. 110-132r Emerald Group Publishing Limited2043-6238DOI 10.1108/JFBM-06-2014-0013

110

JFBM4,2

focus on the interface between work and life (Kossek and Distelberg, 2009). The thrustof this work has been understanding the challenges, benefits, and strategies thatemployees and organizations use to manage, balance, and integrate work and lifespheres[1] (Rothausen, 2009). Research has underscored the importance of employeewell-being (both physical and mental) and its impact on organizational success.For example, empirical findings indicate that employees who feel good and experiencelimited stress at work and at home are more likely to feel satisfied with their work(Wright and Cropanzano, 2000), to be committed to the organization (Mathieu andZajac, 1990), and to engage in supportive behaviors toward the organization (Rosenet al., 2010). All of these behaviors have been linked to organizational success (Birdiet al., 2008). However, when employees feel stressed, this can have a significant impacton their well-being and, indirectly, on the organization. In particular, employeeswho feel stressed are likely to exhibit depression, anger, and physical symptomsof cardiovascular disease (Ganster et al., 1986; Landsbergis et al., 2011), which canaffect organization-related outcomes such as job satisfaction, motivation,organizational commitment, and employee performance (Crawford et al., 2010;De Jonge et al., 1999).

Family businesses represent a unique context to study the different ways in whichaspects of work affect the quality of home life and vice versa (Frone et al., 1992).In these organizations, individuals enact multiple roles that are interdependent (Beehret al., 1997), and these interdependencies can create opportunities for conflict in thework and home spheres. Karofsky et al. (2001) argue that, although there is a generalbelief that owning and/or running a business enables individuals greater control overtheir work life and the amount of intrusion that it can have into home life sphere, thereis no empirical support for this notion. On the contrary, most of the empirical worksupports the view that in family firms there is a greater intrusion of work into personallife (Karofsky et al., 2001; Smyrnios et al., 2003). Empirical research reveals that workto family conflict and family to work conflict affect the emotional well-being of familybusiness owners, the degree of satisfaction they feel toward work, the developmentof social networks, and the performance of family firms (Barnett et al., 2009; Karofskyet al., 2001; Kwan et al., 2012; Smyrnios et al., 2003).

Although interest in, and research on, the intersection of work and home lifehave increased in the family business area, there are two important gaps in ourunderstanding. First, most of the research exploring the work-life interface in familyfirms has examined these types of organizations in general and has not considered thedifferences between family firms. Research suggests that family firms can differ fromeach other (Chrisman et al., 2005; Sudaramurthy and Kreiner, 2008; Zellweger et al.,2010). We believe these differences may affect how family business owners managetheir work and life spheres. For example, when couples in a marriage or marriage-likerelationship share ownership and management of a firm they are likely to have to dealwith the issues felt by couples at the same time that they are dealing with issues abouttheir entrepreneurial venture, and this can create stress both in their work and lifespheres. Thus, these family business owners might deal with different challenges thanthose in which only one member of the couple is active in the family business. A secondgap in our understanding of work and life issues in family firms is the limitedknowledge that we have about the factors that can help family business ownersmanage work and life spheres. Most of the empirical research on work-life issues infamily firms has focussed on the consequences that these behaviors/feelings have onthe individual and the organization. To continue our understanding of work-life issues,

111

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

we also need to explore the factors that can affect the extent to which family businessowners feel conflict in their work and life spheres.

To address these two gaps, we conducted a survey-based study to explore howcommunication processes, spousal support, work involvement, and flexibility atwork help ease work-life and life-work conflicts (LWCs) that influence perceptions ofwork-life balance in copreneurial firms. In the remainder of this paper, relevantliterature on work-life issues and on family business is reviewed to present therationale for this study. Then the methodology is explained, followed by the results anddiscussion of implications.

Literature reviewCopreneurial firmsBarnett and Barnett (1988) introduced the term “copreneur” to describe couples thathave joint ownership, commitment, and responsibility in a business. Copreneurialfirms represent a type of family business in which a married couple, or couple in amarriage-like relationship, shares a personal relationship, and a work relationship ina business that they own and operate together (Fitzgerald and Muske, 2002; Hollanderand Elman, 1988). Implicit in this definition is an equality (or at least equity) betweenthe two parties of the relationship when sharing the responsibility for the entrepreneurialventure. Although it is difficult to find statistics that accurately depict the prevalenceof these types of firms, the US 2007 census survey of business owners indicates that3.7 million American firms are jointly owned and run by copreneurs (Gannon, 2012).Thus, they represent an important source of economic development for different regionsin the USA and around the world.

There is not much published research on copreneurial firms or copreneurial couples.There are several reasons for this lack of research. First, it is difficult to identify thesetypes of organizations, which makes contacting study participants a difficult task.Second, researchers often include these types of organizations as small firms or as asole- or dual-proprietor firms, paying less attention to the nuances of couple-owned and-managed firms. Third, research on entrepreneurship tends to focus on other formsof entrepreneurship and venture creation. In the family business literature, research oncopreneurship has focussed on the development of copreneurial identity (Danes andJang, 2013), power dynamics and decision making of copreneurial couples (Hedbergand Danes, 2012; Ponthieu and Caudill, 1993), who becomes a copreneur (Muske andFitzgerald, 2006), role transitions in copreneurial couples (Cole and Johnson, 2007;Marshack, 1993), and how copreneurial firms differ from other types of familybusinesses (Fitzgerald and Muske, 2002).

Empirical findings indicate that, in comparison to other types of family firms,copreneurs are more likely to live in rural areas, have spouses that work more weeks inthe year, be home-based businesses, have lower business success, and view thebusiness as a way of life rather than a way to earn income (Fitzgerald and Muske,2002). Additionally, couples who begin a copreneurial business are more likely to beolder, more educated, and running more successful businesses compared with thosewho stop their copreneurial ventures (Muske and Fitzgerald, 2006). Research also hasfound that although copreneurial firms are more likely to be managed by men thanwomen, the woman/partner shares equally in the decision making about a firm(Ponthieu and Caudill, 1993). Findings suggest that copreneurial businesses in whichthe spouses are viewed as equal partners are more likely to have more effective decisionteams when solving business problems (Hedberg and Danes, 2012). Furthermore,

112

JFBM4,2

communication efforts between spouses are likely to affect the development andidentification of their copreneurial identity (i.e. the re-negotiation and construction of atype of relationship that is both personal and professional; Danes and Jang, 2013).

In this project, we are interested in the work-life issues of copreneurial couples.Copreneurial firms represent a unique context in which to study the juxtaposition ofwork and life spheres of business owners in general and family business specificallydue to the blurring of boundaries between work and life (Fitzgerald and Muske, 2002).In this context, couples need to constantly negotiate work responsibilities, duties, androles, as well as manage their home and family lives (which may include children), andthese negotiations create opportunities for tensions to occur. There are numerousadvantages and disadvantages associated with the development of a businessventure with one’s partner (Barnett and Barnett, 1988; Jennings and McDougald, 2007;Marshack, 1993; Nelton, 1986). On the positive side, a couple’s proximity and access toone another can facilitate communication behaviors that help enhance the relationship(Marshack, 1993), can facilitate an individual’s ability to learn how to manage conflictsand reduce tension more effectively (Barnett and Barnett, 1988; Nelton, 1986), canenhance positive feelings (i.e. personal satisfaction, joy, and autonomy) that result frombeing in control and doing enjoyable work with one’s partner (Barnett and Barnett,1988), and can lead to better understanding between spouses and greater commitmentto the business (Nelton, 1986). On the negative side, when couples work and livetogether they may face problems due to having different management styles and workhabits, having disagreement over the availability or use of money in the business,not being able to separate business life from personal life, disagreeing on businessdecisions or goals, not having enough time to be a couple or family, being together toomuch, and not listening to each other (Nelton, 1986). These problems can create stressand escalate into negative conflict situations that can harm the couple’s relationshipand firm performance.

To date, there has been little empirical research exploring work-life issues in thecontext of copreneurial firms (Helmle et al., 2011) or in family firms (Rothausen, 2009).This is interesting given that, as mentioned earlier, copreneurial firms provide a richcontext to study how individuals manage work and life issues. In the following sectionwe summarize research on work-life balance and explain the factors that can affectperceptions of conflict between life and work domains.

Research on work and life domainsResearch in the work-life area has been characterized by four themes: organizationalresponses to work-life conflict (WLC), the gendered nature of work-life issues, WLC,and work-life balance (Allen, 2013; Rothausen, 2009). Initially, work-life researchfocussed on the impact of organizational services and policies designed to helpemployees with work and life conflicts. This literature tried to understand the rolethat organizations had in helping alleviate the conflict that employees felt from thedemands of the work and home roles. Findings from this work indicate that whenemployees have access to services like childcare, parental leave, flexible schedules, andhave supervisor support, they are more likely to feel lower WLC, have higher jobsatisfaction, have lower stress, and are less likely to have intentions to quit (Grover,1991; Kossek and Nichol, 1992; Rothausen et al., 1998; Thomas and Ganster, 1995).Research on work-life issues has also explored the topic of gender, and how genderroles and expectations affect the perceptions of work and family roles. In this area,findings indicate that gender expectations in a situation affect the extent to which

113

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

individuals experience incompatibility between work and life roles, which can raisethe perceived stress level and the perceptions of conflict between work and life roles(Duxbury and Higgins, 1991; Simon, 1995; Williams, 2000).

The third area of research in work and life domains, and most prevalent, hasfocussed on the struggle and conflict that individuals feel while managing work andlife roles (Allen, 2013). Although studies in this domain initially were motivatedby concerns of the negative impact that deviating from traditional sex roles wouldcreate when women began to work outside the home (MacDermid, 2005), currentresearch explores the conflicts that individuals have when work roles interfere with liferoles and when life roles interfere with work roles (Allen, 2013). There are a widevariety of outcomes associated with WLC (see Allen et al., 2000; Amstad et al., 2011;Greenhaus et al., 2006; Kossek and Ozeki, 1998 for reviews of the literature);and empirical findings indicate that WLC affects feelings of job satisfaction, lifesatisfaction, marital satisfaction, burnout, and both physical and psychological strains(Allen, 2013).

In recent years, work-life balance has emerged as a fourth, distinct topic in the work-life literature (Greenhaus and Allen, 2010). Work-life balance has been defined multipleways. For example, Clark (2000) describes work-life balance as the level of satisfactionthat individuals feel when they can function at work and at home with a minimumof role conflict. Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) define work-life balance as theaccomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared betweenan individual and their role-related partners in the work and family domains.Greenhaus and Allen (2010) define work-life balance as “the extent to which anindividual’s effectiveness and satisfaction in work and family roles are compatible withthe individual’s life role priorities at a given point in time.” Although these definitionsvary, they all reflect the individual’s overall interrole assessment of the compatibilitybetween work and life roles (Allen, 2013). Empirical findings suggest that an individual’sperceptions of work-life balance are associated with job satisfaction, family satisfaction,life satisfaction, family functioning, and organizational commitment (Allen et al., 2010;Carlson et al., 2009).

This paper focusses on two areas of the work and life domains: WLC and work-lifebalance. We are interested in exploring two issues about them in the context ofcopreneurial firms. First, we seek to understand the effects that WLC has on theperceptions of work-life balance of individuals involved in copreneurial firms. Second,we are interested in the roles that communication processes, spousal support, workinvolvement, and flexibility at work play in the perceptions of conflict between thework and life/home domains. In the following sections we outline the rationale forthe relationships proposed in this project.

WLC and work-life balance in copreneurial firmsWork-life balance describes an individual’s assessment of their satisfaction with theirwork and life roles given their priorities at one point in time (Greenhaus and Allen,2010). Researchers have found that the level of perceived WLC is a predictor of work-life balance perceptions (Allen et al., 2010; Carlson et al., 2009; Greenhaus and Allen,2010). The general belief is that individuals who juggle multiple work and life roles aremore likely to feel conflict between their work and life domains. This is based on thescarcity hypothesis (Goode, 1960), which suggests that individuals have a finiteamount of energy, time, and attention; thus, the number of roles an individual enactswill affect the amount of resources available to the person. The more roles a person has

114

JFBM4,2

to manage, the more resources they consume, and the more likely they are toexperience conflict.

Current research in the WLC domain recognizes the bidirectional nature of thesetypes of conflict (Allen, 2013; Shockley and Singla, 2011). Work roles can interfere withthe life domain (i.e. WLC) and life roles can interfere with the work domain (i.e. LWC).Thus, it is important to differentiate the types of conflicts that individuals can havewhen evaluating work and life domains. In this project, we are interested in how thesetwo types of conflict affect perceptions of work-life balance. Based on the work of Kahnet al. (1964), we define WLC as a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressuresfrom the work domain are incompatible in some respect with the pressures from the life(home or family) domain. On the other hand, LWC represents an interrole conflictin which the pressures from the family roles are incompatible in some respect with thework domain.

There are two important assumptions that are relevant for how individuals defineand evaluate work-life balance. First, implied in the idea of “balance” is the beliefthat individuals should try to manage the two domains equally (Botero, 2012).This assumption is incorrect because individuals differ in the extent to which theyprioritize work and family roles (Bielby and Bielby, 1989; Yogev and Brett, 1985). Theremight be some stages or circumstances that will lead an individual to prioritizeddifferently their work and life roles. The second assumption that is important tonote is the belief that work and family lives are and should be separate andindependent of one another (Helmle, 2010). Scholarly work suggests that this completeseparation between work and life roles is a myth because the nature of these roles isinherently integrated (Kanter, 1977; Jennings and McDougald, 2007; Marshack, 1993).Given the arguments advanced above, we explore how WLC and LWC independentlyaffect perceptions of work-life balance in married or partnered owners of copreneurialfirms.

Family businesses provide a unique context for the exploration of work and lifedomains because of the high level of integration between work and family roles(Karofsky et al., 2001; Smyrnios et al., 2003). As a subset of family businesses,copreneurial firms provide a greater integration between work and life domains(Marshack, 1993). In these types of organizations, individuals have interactionsand interdependencies in their personal relationships and business partnerships andthey have to manage multiple transitions between their roles throughout the day,which can affect the perceptions of conflict and balance in their work and life domain.Similar to other authors (Allen, 2013; Goode, 1960; Greenhaus and Allen, 2010), webelieve that in copreneurial firms individuals have limited time, energy and resourcesthat can affect their perceptions of conflict between their work and life domains.In turn, this is likely to affect the assessment of an individual’s satisfaction withtheir work and life roles and their perceptions of balance. In particular, the moreconflict in the work and life domains the lower the perceptions of balancebetween these two spheres. Building off this rationale, the following hypotheses areadvanced:

H1. Perceptions of WLC will be negatively related to individual evaluations ofwork-life balance.

H2. Perceptions of LWC will be negatively related to individual evaluations ofwork-life balance.

115

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

Factors that influence perceptions of conflict between work and life domainsIn the last decade, researchers have focussed on understanding the multiple predictorsof work-life and LWCs (Byron, 2005; Ford et al., 2007; Michel et al., 2011). The purposeof this work has been to identify the predictors so that employers can createmechanism to help employees deal with work-life issues (i.e. policy changes, orbusiness initiatives; Michel et al., 2011). Antecedents to life-work and WLC havebeen grouped into two domains: work and family. Meta-analysis work suggests thatwork-related antecedents tend to have a stronger influence on WLC, while familyantecedents tend to have a stronger influence on LWC (Byron, 2005). There are twoantecedents that are relevant to the current project (i.e. job involvement and flexibilityof schedule at work). Although job involvement has been defined multiple ways (Blau,1985), in this project job involvement describes the degree to which a work situation iscentral an individual and their level of psychological identity (Lodahl and Kejner,1965). Previous research has found that the importance that a person gives to their jobis likely to intensify the WLC (Frone et al., 1992). Individuals who are highly involvedin their jobs are more likely to increase the amount of time that they dedicate to thejob, making it more difficult to comply with the expectations and activities expectedfrom other jobs (Michel et al., 2011). Additionally, individuals with high levels of jobinvolvement are more likely to be preoccupied with their jobs and tend to devote moreeffort and energy to their work, at the expense of their family (Greenhaus et al., 1989).Because of this, they are more likely to perceive higher levels of WLC. Following thisrationale, the following hypothesis is advanced:

H3a. Job involvement will be positively related to perceptions of WLC.

Principles from role boundary theory suggest that individuals try to simplify and ordertheir environment by creating and maintaining boundaries around their work and lifedomains (Ashforth et al., 2000). Thus, individuals differ in the extent to which theyintegrate or segment their work and life domains (Olson-Buchanan and Boswell, 2006).Individuals who segment their work and life roles are less likely to think about workwhile they are at home and vice versa (Ilies et al., 2009). Flexibility at work is aconstruct that is often used to assess the level of malleability that a role has regardingspatial and temporal boundaries (Ashforth et al., 2000). In the copreneurial context webelieve that individuals who perceive lower levels of flexibility are more likely toexperience WLC. Given the high juxtaposition between work and life roles thatcopreneurial couples face in their day-to-day experiences, those who perceive lowerlevels of flexibility are more likely to feel a need to clearly segment work and lifedomains. This can affect the level of WLC they perceive. Thus, those who perceive littleflexibility at work will be more likely to experience higher levels of conflict, while thosewho perceive that their job offers greater flexibility will be less likely to experience/feel conflict while working for their copreneurial business. Based on this logic, thefollowing hypotheses is advanced:

H3b. Flexibility at work will be negatively related to perceptions of WLC.

Spousal support is a family factor that can play an important role in the degreeof LWC that an individual experiences. Spousal support refers to the amount ofinstrumental aid, emotional concern, and informational and/or appraisal functionsfrom a spouse (Michel et al., 2011). Previous research has found that degree of spousal

116

JFBM4,2

support is negatively related to the amount of LWC that an individual experiences(Michel et al., 2011). Role theory and the scarcity hypothesis suggest that individualshave multiple roles that they need to manage, and they also have a finite amount oftime energy and attention to deal with the roles that they have. Thus, when a personreceives the support from a spouse, they will have more time, energy and attention todedicate to their work roles and will be less likely to feel that their life roles areinterfering with their work roles. Building on this rationale, the following hypothesisis advanced:

H4. Spousal support will be negatively related to perceptions of LWC.

In recent years, communication scholars have begun to explore the role communicationprocesses can play in the way that individuals manage work-life balance. In her work onwork-family border theory, Clark (2000) asserts that communication is a tool that can beused to attain better work-family balance by lowering the level of work-life and LWC thatindividuals experience. In this paper, we explore two characteristics of communicationprocesses that can play a role in how communication can influence the degree of conflictthat individuals feel between their work and life domains: the flexibility of the content ofcommunication at work and at home, and the permeability of communication at work andat home. As mentioned earlier, flexibility refers to the spatial and temporal malleabilitybetween roles (Ashforth et al., 2000). In the context of communication, flexibility can beused to describe the capability individuals have to share and discuss in their work and lifedomains. For example, when individuals are able to discuss home matters during theirwork hours, this would show high flexibility of communication about home at work.On the other hand, when individuals are able to share and discuss work information athome this shows high flexibility of communication about work at home. We believe thatthe degree to which individuals are able to share information about work and life in thetwo domains can be related to the amount of conflict in the work and life domainsthat people feel. In particular, when individuals feel greater flexibility in the type ofinformation that they can share at home and at work, they are less likely to feelconstrained in their role and less likely to feel conflict between their work and lifedomains. Building on this rationale, the following hypotheses are advanced:

H5a. Greater flexibility of communication about home at work will be negativelyrelated to perceptions of WLC.

H5b. Greater flexibility of communication about work at home will be negativelyrelated to perceptions of LWC.

Permeability is a concept used in role boundary theory to describe the extent to whichan individual can be physically located in one role domain and psychologically orbehaviorally involved in another role (Ashforth et al., 2000). In the communicationcontext, permeability has been used to describe the extent to which an individual isable to receive information at work about home issues and vice versa (Helmle, 2010).We argue that when individuals feel that they have higher permeability in theircommunication practices between roles, they will be less likely to experience conflictbetween the work and life domains. The reason for this is that when individualsperceive that they can receive messages about work at home and about home at work,they are less likely to perceive high segmentation between their work and home roles.

117

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

In turn, when individuals feel less segmentation between work and home/life roles,they are less likely to feel conflict between their work and life domains. Given thislogic, the following hypotheses are advanced:

H5c. Greater permeability of communication about home at work will be negativelyrelated to perceptions of WLC.

H5d. Greater permeability of communication about work at home will be negativelyrelated to perceptions of LWC.

MethodParticipantsParticipants for this study included 210 copreneurs. Initial contact of participantswas done based on their membership in the Santa Barbara County (CA) or the VenturaCounty (CA) Chambers of Commerce, through family business centers, internetsearches, word of mouth opportunities, and snowball sampling. In all, 80 percent ofthe participants were from California (58 percent from Ventura and Santa Barbara)and 20 percent from 15 states throughout the USA ranging from Maine to Arizona andfrom South Dakota to Virginia. The copreneurs’ businesses were associated withnearly 20 different industries ranging from advertising and agriculture to trade andtransportation. More than 60 percent of the copreneurs had businesses with an averageof 2.29 departments (range 0-21 units), and an average of 12 employees (range 0-242personnel). Demographic information about the participants and descriptiveinformation about their firms is presented in Table I.

ProcedureParticipants were invited to complete a survey either by e-mail or on paper.An invitation letter was initially sent to 428 copreneurial couples that were identifiedas potential participants. This letter outlined the general purpose and the importanceof this project. Data for this paper were collected as part of a larger project thatexplored communication in copreneurial firms, and included both survey and interviewdata. For the purpose of this paper, we only focus on data collected in the survey.The survey included 154 questions and took approximately 40 minutes to complete.

MeasuresUnless otherwise indicated, the variables in this study were assessed using a seven-point response scale (1¼ strongly disagree to 7¼ strongly agree). Perceptions ofwork-life balance (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.79) were measured with six items created for thisstudy. Work-home conflict (five items, Cronbach’s a¼ 0.92) and home-work conflict(five items, Cronbach’s a¼ 0.92) were measured with the Netemeyer et al. (1996)work-family and family-work conflict scales. Spouse support (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.82) wasmeasured using the eight items from Parasuraman et al. (1992). Job involvementwas measured with four items from the Lodahl and Kejner (1965) job involvementscale. Flexibility around work (Cronbach’s a¼ 0.81) was measured with four itemsfrom Clark (2002). For this paper we measured four communication processes:communication about work with family (four items, Cronbach’s a¼ 0.90), communicationabout family with work (four items, Cronbach’s a¼ 0.84), permeability of communicationat work (six items, Cronbach’s a¼ 0.86), and permeability of communication at home (sixitems, Cronbach’s a¼ 0.89) with items from Clark (2002). All items are listed in Appendix.

118

JFBM4,2

Data analysisWe assessed discriminant validity with factor analysis. Results (eigenvalues41.0,varimax rotation) produced nine clean factors (primary loadings¼ 0.50-0.86; highestcross-loading¼ 0.32; variance explained¼ 60.5 percent). Hypotheses were tested with aset of hierarchical regressions using the principles for mediation from Baron and Kenny(1986) and James and Brett (1984). Those authors suggest that to test for mediation usingregression analysis four steps need to be followed. First, independent variables (i.e.communication processes, spousal support, job involvement, and flexibility at work)should be related significantly to the dependent variable (i.e. work-life balance). Second,independent variables should be significantly related to mediators (i.e. work-homeconflict and home-work conflict). Third, mediators should be significantly related to thedependent variable. Fourth, a hierarchical regression should be conducted to evaluatethe effects of mediators (Step 2) and independent variables (Step 3) on the dependentvariable. If the effect of both mediator and independent variables is still significant inStep 3 there is evidence for partial mediation. If the effect of mediators is significant butnot the effects of independent variables there is evidence of full mediation.

ResultsTable II presents the mean, standard deviation, and correlations for the variables inthis study. We conducted a series of hierarchical regressions to test our hypotheses

Percentage Mean SD

Age26-30 4.331-35 10.036-40 12.941-45 6.746-50 13.851-55 19.556-60 21.461-65 7.666 and above 3.8

EducationDid not finish high school 0.5High school 7.7Associate/technical degree 5.7Some college 27.8Bachelor’s 38.8Masters 10.5PhD, JD, or MD 9.1

Have kidsYes 85.7No 14.3

Number of kids 2.21 1.20Years married 21.10 12.24Number of hours worked 45.29 18.68Business age 14.54 9.89Number of employees 12.51 26.95Became a couple

Before the business started 84.2After the business started 15.8

Table I.Sample description

119

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

Var

iab

leM

SD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

15

1.W

ork

-lif

eb

alan

ce5.

530.

882.

Hom

e-w

ork

con

flic

t2.

541.

39�

0.40

**3.

Wor

k-h

ome

con

flic

t3.

611.

64�

0.46

**0.

65**

4.S

pou

sesu

pp

ort

5.65

0.97

0.50

**�

0.27

**�

0.25

**5.

Job

inv

olv

emen

t3.

861.

34�

0.22

**0.

23**

0.48

**�

0.07

6.F

lex

ibil

ity

atw

ork

5.09

1.47

0.40

**�

0.26

**�

0.40

**0.

30**�

0.29

**7.

Per

mea

bil

ity

wor

k5.

381.

160.

31**�

0.03

�0.

100.

36**�

0.03

0.47

**8.

Per

mea

bil

ity

hom

e4.

981.

300.

070.

040.

080.

130.

14*

0.31

**0.

40**

9.C

omab

out

wor

k5.

501.

100.

27**�

0.23

**�

0.11

0.37

**0.

010.

31**

0.40

**0.

41**

10.

Com

abou

tfa

mil

y4.

231.

520.

15*

0.01

�0.

010.

14*�

0.04

0.17

*0.

31**

0.20

**0.

46**

11.

Rel

atio

nsh

ipsa

t6.

370.

920.

40**�

0.26

**�

0.15

*0.

44**�

0.08

0.20

**0.

32**

0.14

*0.

14*

0.11

12.

Tim

em

arri

ed21

.13

12.2

40.

13�

0.29

**�

0.26

**0.

01�

0.08

0.09

�0.

07�

0.20

**�

0.11

�0.

140.

0513

.H

avin

gk

ids

0.85

0.35

0.16

*0.

07�

0.05

0.07

�0.

140.

090.

17*

0.05

0.01

�0.

01�

0.02

0.18

*14

.A

ge

5.21

2.10

0.10

�0.

24**�

0.24

**0.

01�

0.04

0.09

�0.

08�

0.15

*�

0.12

�0.

18**

0.01

0.82

**0.

1315

.S

ex0.

490.

50�

0.13

0.11

0.05

�0.

21**�

0.12

0.05

�0.

09�

0.05

�0.

020.

06�

0.11

0.01

0.02�

0.09

16.

Ed

uca

tion

4.65

1.28�

0.04

0.18

*0.

130.

070.

020.

040.

010.

070.

11�

0.03

�0.

18**�

0.12

0.01�

0.04

0.02

Note

s:

*po

0.05

;**

po0.

01

Table II.Descriptive statistics andbivariate correlations

120

JFBM4,2

and, although it was not hypothesized, we tested whether work-life and LWCmediated the relationship between the predictors of WLC/LWC and work-lifebalance. As can be seen in Table III-Model 3, in this study WLC was negativelyrelated to perceptions of work-life balance (b¼�0.41, po0.01), while LWC wasnot related to work-life balance (b¼�0.10, p40.05) providing support for H1.Results from our study also indicate that job involvement was positively relatedto WLC (b¼ 0.32, po0.01) and flexibility at work was negatively related to WLC(b¼�0.35, po0.01). These results support H3a and H3b (see Table III-Model 2).In this study, spousal support was not related to LWC (b¼�0.41, po0.01). Thus,H4 was not supported. When examining the effects of communication processeson WLC and LWC, results did not support H5a, H5c, or H5d, but do support H5b.As can be seen in Table III-Model 2, communication about home at work wasnot related to WLC (b¼ 0.03, p40.05). Although, we expected permeability ofcommunication to be negatively related to WLC and LWC, results show significancein the opposite direction of what we predicted. That is, permeability ofcommunication at home was positively related to WLC (b¼ 0.14, po0.05), andpermeability of communication at work was positively related to LWC (b¼ 0.18,po0.05). Flexibility of communication about work at home was negatively relatedto LWC (b¼�0.29, po0.01).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4Work-lifebalance

W-Lconflict

L-Wconflict

Work-lifebalance

Work-lifebalance

ControlsAge �0.01 �0.08 �0.03 �0.01 �0.01Sex �0.11 0.12*** 0.07 �0.11 �0.11Education �0.03 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.03Years married 0.07 �0.11 �0.24* 0.06 0.07Relationship satisfaction 0.37** �0.15* �0.24** 0.37** 0.37**Having kids 0.18** 0.01 0.10 0.18** 0.18**Hours worked 0.03 0.35** 0.01 0.05 0.03F 6.65** 6.75** 5.81** 6.63* 6.65*MediatorsWork-life conflict �0.41** �0.41**Life-work conflict �0.10 �0.11DF 29.34** 30.15**Independent variablesSpouse support 0.33** �0.11 �0.10 0.29**Job involvement �0.13* 0.32** 0.15* �0.02Flexibility at work 0.20** �0.35** �0.20* 0.08Com about home at work 0.01 0.03 0.13*** 0.03Com about work at home 0.13*** �0.11 �0.29** 0.07Permeability of com at home �0.11 0.14* 0.06 �0.06Permeability of com at work 0.01 0.05 0.18* 0.02DF 9.37** 13.81** 5.96** 4.19**R2 0.41 0.48 0.33 0.39 0.48Adjusted R2 0.37 0.44 0.28 0.36 0.43

Notes: * po0.05; ** po0.01; *** po0.10

Table III.Hierarchical regression

for work-life balance

121

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

DiscussionThis paper focusses on the copreneurial firm, a special type of family firm in which amarried couple, or individuals in a marriage-like relationship, share a personal and a workrelationship in a business that they own and operate. Because of this, these firms representa context in which work and life domains greatly overlap, creating situations in whichindividuals need to manage their work and life domains to avoid individual, work, andfamily conflicts. In this survey-based project we explore the factors that affect perceptionsof work-life balance for individuals who own copreneurial businesses. Our results indicatethat individuals who perceive that work roles interfere with family roles are less likely tofeel that they have work-life balance. However, the extent to which they perceive that liferoles interfere with work is not relevant in their perceptions of work-life balance. Similar toprevious studies, we found that job involvement and flexibility of work were significantlyrelated to WLC. Interestingly, and despite previous work supporting this relationship, wefound that spousal support among copreneurial couples was not related to perceptionsof LWC. Finally, one of the most interesting contributions of this paper stems fromthe relationships we found between the characteristics of communication processes andthe role they play in the perceptions of conflict between the work and life domains.Specifically, we found that the permeability of the communication between home andwork was positively related to perceptions of WLC. Results also indicate that anindividual’s flexibility to communicate about work at home and the permeability ofcommunication at work significantly influenced perceptions of WLC.

Implications for theory and researchThese results have important implication for research and theory in the areas of familybusiness, work and life issues, and communication. Our work also contributes to thefamily business literature in at least two ways. First, it answers the call from Stafford andTews (2009) for further research and understanding of work-family balance in familyfirms. This project represents an initial view of factors that can influence family businessowner’s perceptions of their work-life balance. In this sense, our work complementsprevious studies that have found that work-life balance can affect the performance offamily firms (Shelton, 2006), the satisfaction of family business owners (Kwan, Lau, andAu, 2012), and the perceptions of emotional well-being (Karofsky et al., 2001). Inconjunction with these studies, our work helps create an initial nomological network tounderstand work-life issues in the context of family firms. A second contribution in thefamily business arena is the focus on copreneurial firms as unique types of familybusinesses. Our work complements previous research by Hedberg and Danes (2012) andDanes and Jang (2013) in identifying and explaining the unique characteristics andprocesses that copreneurial firms, which are different than other types of family firms.

For researchers in the area of work-life issues, our results have four importantimplications. First, some of the results from this paper replicate previous findings from inthe work-life balance, WLC, and LWC. For example, our results are consistent with thework of Greenhaus and Allen (2010) who suggest that WLC is negatively relatedto work-life balance. Results of this investigation also are consistent with previousmeta-analytic work that found that job involvement and flexibility at work were positivelyand negatively related to WLC (Byron, 2005; Ford et al., 2007; Michel et al., 2011). Thispoints to the generalizability of some of the predictors across different organizationalcontexts and highlights the generalizability of these results. A second implication of ourresults comes from not finding a significant relationship between perceptions of LWCand work-life balance. Although there have been multiple authors who have argued that

122

JFBM4,2

work-life (i.e. family interference with work) and LWC (i.e. life interference with work) areindependent constructs and have independent effects on work-life balance, our resultsindicate that, at least in our sample of 210 copreneurs, LWC does not interfere with theperceptions of work-life balance. It may be that copreneurs do not perceive that familyissues can interfere with work issues because the two domains are highly related in thesetypes of firms (see Allen, 2013 for a detailed review). It also may be that our sampleperceived that the family role was more permeable than their work role, thus replicatingthe findings from Bellavia and Frone (2005). Future research should try to explore whenLWC is likely to influence a copreneur’s perception of work-life balance.

A third implication of our results for work-life issues scholars derives from thenon-significant results from the effects of spousal support on LWC. Even thoughthe meta-analysis of Michel et al. (2011) found that spousal support was negativelyrelated to LWC, the results from our paper suggest that spousal support does not play arole in copreneurs’ perception of LWC. Our results seem to indicate that spousalsupport has a direct relationship to perception of work-life balance that is not mediatedthrough perceptions of conflict. This is interesting because it may indicate that indifferent organizational contexts or different organizational positions, spousal supportmay have different relations with constructs like work-life balance, WLC, or lifework conflict. Future research should continue to explore under which conditionsspousal support affect work-life balance directly and under which conditions it affectsperceptions of conflict between life and work domains. The fourth and final implicationof our results for work-life scholars is the influence that job involvement and flexibilityat work have on perceptions of LWC. Research to date suggests that only predictors inthe family domain are likely to affect perceptions of LWC (see Byron, 2005; Ford et al.,2007; Michel et al., 2011 for meta-analytic reviews). In this study we found that workfactors can also play a role in the extent to which individuals perceive that family rolesinterfere with work roles. We suggest that future research should continue to explorewhether and which work factors can also influence LWC.

Results from this study empirically show that communication processes havepositive and negative effects on work-life balance. On the positive side, the extent towhich copreneurs were able to communicate about work at home diminished the levelof LWC experienced. As Clark (2002) suggests, communication can serve as a vehiclethat diminishes the tension that individuals experience in their work and life domains.Having the flexibility to talk about work issues in the home or life context appears tolead individuals to perceive that, although there is limited time, resources and energy,they can make time if needed to address work issues while performing a different role.On the negative side, it appears that the permeability of communication at work andat home works contrary to what we expected. In our study, having the opportunityto receive information about work at home and about home at work increased the levelof conflict that individuals experienced. It may be that among the copreneurs wesurveyed, being able to receive information about other roles acted as a stressor forindividuals who suddenly have to deal with a lot of other issues that they did notanticipate in the life or work domain. This would be consistent with researchconcerning the ways in which communication can contribute to the level of stressexperienced by any organizational member when the frequency, duration, or content ofmessages received leads to overload, role conflict, or role ambiguity (Miller et al., 1990),findings that also relate to stress, communication, and work-life balance (Kirby andBuzzanell, 2014). Future studies should continue to explore how communication factorsinfluence the conflict between work and life domains.

123

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

Implications for practiceThe results of this investigation proffer implications for copreneurs and practitioners(including human resources personnel and consultants). In the first area, and to theextent that they are not already aware, copreneurs need to be mindful of not onlythe potential for work roles to interfere with their family roles but the commensuratelikelihood that they will not have feelings of work-life balance. Copreneurs also mustbe fully cognizant of the potential for their communication with each other to havedirect (and potentially salutary) effects on their perceptions of work-life balance.In copreneurial firms with human resources experts (who are valued and relied uponfor their expertise by the coprenuers), or with the resources to secure the services ofexternal consultants, the married or partnered copreneurs can be helped understandthe value of permeability of their communication about home at work (i.e. for itspotential to moderate perceptions of WLC), enhancing each individual’s flexibility tocommunicate about work at home (i.e. for its potential to mitigate perceptions of WLC),and the significant relationship between WLC and both job involvement (including thedegree to which work is central to copreneuers and their psychological identityaccording) and flexibility of work (i.e. the level of malleability that they feel in theirrole as owners and managers). The beneficial implications of copreneurs’ increasedawareness of these relationships (from readings provided, through coaching, from peergroups of copreneurs) are powerful given prior research demonstrating that family towork conflict and work to family conflict have effects on the emotional well-being offamily business owners, their level of satisfaction with work, and the performanceof the family firm (Barnett et al., 2009; Karofsky et al., 2001; Kwan et al., 2012; Smyrnioset al., 2003). While our focus has been on copreneurial firms, the findings may havesimilar implications for family firms and for co-founded ventures (Hill et al., 2013).

Strengths and limitationsThe sample of this study represents both a strength and a limitation of this work.Few researchers have been able to collect data from copreneurs. Thus, having a sampleof 210 copreneurs (and who co-manage such a wide range of businesses) isquite consequential for the ability to derive insights into the understudied area ofcopreneurship. At the same time, participants were not randomly sampled to take part inthis study. While drawn from a total of 16 USA states, our convenience sample may notbe representative of all types of copreneurs and the generalizability of our results mightbe limited. Given this, future research should try to collect data from copreneurs throughcensus information, or other forms of sampling to obtain a more representative sample,and to test the generalizability of these results.

A second limitation is that our data are cross-sectional. Instead of followingcopreneurs overtime we collected data at one point in time only. It may be that bynot using a longitudinal design, we are only at how copreneurs deal with work-lifeissues at one point in time (although the survey items prompted recall of multipleexperiences). Future research should consider the possibility of longitudinal workto explore how the relationship between work and life issues evolves and changesover time.

A third limitation of this work comes from the measure of work-life balance. In thisstudy we developed a measure of work-life balance that had not been previously testedwith other samples. It is always possible that our measure could have affectedthe results that we obtained. Given this, future research should be conducted usingdifferent measures of work-life balance to see whether our results are similar to other

124

JFBM4,2

findings using other scales, and our measure should be used in other studies withother samples of copreneurs.

ConclusionsIn this project we explored factors that influence perceptions of work-life balanceamong copreneurs. Our results indicate that WLC and spousal support are directlyrelated to perceptions of work-life balance in these copreneurial firms. At the sametime, job involvement, flexibility at work, and permeability of communication at homewere significantly related to WLC. Although communication about work at home andpermeability of communication were significantly related to LWC, this type of conflictdid not influence perceptions of work-life balance. We believe that this exploratorystudy provides an initial nomological network for understanding the predictors ofwork-life balance, and that the findings shed light on how work, family, andcommunication factors play a role in perceptions of work and life domains in thecontext of copreneurial firms and possibly family firms in general. Future researchshould continue to build to explore how these three groups of factors can influenceaspects of work and life domains, especially among copreneurs.

Note

1. Some literature uses the terms work-family, work-life, and/or work-nonwork ok asinterchangeable (Allen, 2013). In this paper we use the term work-life as the umbrella term toinclude issues involving the overlap of work and life or home roles.

References

Allen, T.D. (2013), “The work-family role interface: a synthesis of research from industrial andorganizational psychology”, in Weiner, I.B. (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed., JohnWiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 698-718.

Allen, T.D., Shockley, K.M. and Biga, A. (2010), “Work and family in a global context”, inLundby, K. (Ed.), Going Global: Practical Applications and Recommendations forHR and OD Professionals in the Global Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,pp. 377-401.

Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S. and Sutton, M. (2000), “Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 278-308.

Amstad, F.T., Meier, L.L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A. and Semmer, N.K. (2011), “A meta-analysis ofwork-family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain vsmatching-domain relations”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 151-169.

Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E. and Fugate, M. (2000), “All in a day’s work: boundaries and microrole transitions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 472-491.

Barnett, F. and Barnett, S. (1988), Working Together: Entrepreneurial Couples, Ten Speed Press,Berkeley, CA.

Barnett, T., Eddleston, K. and Kellermanns, F.W. (2009), “The effects of family versus career rolesalience on the performance of family and non family firms”, Family Business Review,Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-52.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychologicalresearch: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

125

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

Beehr, T.A., Drexler, J.A. and Faulkner, S. (1997), “Working in small family businesses: empiricalcomparisons to non-family businesses”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3,pp. 297-312.

Bellavia, G. and Frone, M.R. (2005), “Work-family conflict”, in Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. andFrone, M.R. (Eds), Handbook of Work Stress, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 113-147.

Bielby, W.T. and Bielby, D.D. (1989), “Family ties: balancing commitments to work and family indual earner households”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 776-789.

Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C., Wall, T. and Wood, S.J. (2008), “Theimpact of human resources and operational management practices on companyproductivity: a longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 467-501.

Blau, B.J. (1985), “A multiple study investigation of the dimensionality of job involvement”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 19-36.

Botero, I.C. (2012), “Enhancing our understanding of work-life balance from a communicationperspective: important considerations for future research”, in Salmon, C. (Ed.), CommunicationYearbook, Vol. 36, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 231-235.

Byron, K. (2005), “A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents”, Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 169-198.

Carlson, D.S., Grzywacz, J. and Zivnuska, S. (2009), “Work-family balance: is balance more thanconflict and enrichment?”, Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 1-28.

Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H. and Steier, L. (2005), “Sources and consequences of distinctive familiness:an introduction”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 237-247.

Clark, S.C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance”, HumanRelations, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 747-770.

Clark, S.C. (2002), “Communicating across the work/home border”, Community, Work, andFamily, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-48.

Cole, P. and Johnson, K. (2007), “An exploration of successful copreneurial relationships postdivorce”, Family Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 185-198.

Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A. and Rich, B.L. (2010), “Linking job demands and resources toemployee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 834-848.

Danes, S.M. and Jang, J. (2013), “Copreneurial identity development during new venturecreation”, Journal of Family Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 45-61.

De Jonge, J., van Breukelen, G.J.P., Laneweerd, J.A. and Nihius, F.J.N. (1999), “Comparing groupand individual level assessments of job characteristics in testing the job-demand-controlmodel: a multilevel approach”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 95-122.

Duxbury, L.E. and Higgins, C.A. (1991), “Gender differences in work-family conflict”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 60-74.

Fitzgerald, M.A. and Muske, G. (2002), “Copreneurs: an exploration and comparison to otherfamily business”, Family Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Ford, M.T., Heinen, B.A. and Langkamer, C.L. (2007), “Work and family satisfaction and conflict:a meta-analysis of cross-domain relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,pp. 57-80.

Frone, M.R., Russell, M. and Cooper, M.L. (1992), “Antecedents and outcomes of work-familyconflict: testing a model of the work-family interface”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 65-78.

Gannon, D. (2012), “Copreneurs: when work and love mix”, The Fiscal Times, 10 February,available at: www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/02/10/Copreneurs-When-Work-and-Love-Mix.aspx (accessed 5 October 2014).

126

JFBM4,2

Ganster, D.C., Fusilier, M.R. and Mayes, B.T. (1986), “Role of social support in the experience ofstress at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 102-110.

Goode, W.J. (1960), “A theory of role strain”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 483-496.

Greenhaus, G.H. and Allen, T.D. (2010), “Work-family balance: a review and extension of theliterature”, in Tetrick, L. and Quick, J.C. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational HealthPsychology, 2nd ed., American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 165-183.

Greenhaus, J.H., Allen, T.D. and Spector, P.E. (2006), “Health consequences of work-familyconflict: the dark side of the work-family interface”, in Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C.(Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 5, JAI Press/Elsevier, Oxford,pp. 61-99.

Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., Granrose, C.S., Rabinowitz, S. and Beutell, N.J. (1989), “Sourcesof work/family conflict among two-career couples”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 34No. 2, pp. 133-153.

Grover, S.L. (1991), “Predicting the perceived fairness of parental leave policies”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 247-255.

Grzywacz, J.G. and Carlson, D.S. (2007), “Conceptualizing work-family balance: implications forpractice and research”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 455-471.

Hedberg, P.R. and Danes, S.M. (2012), “Exploration of dynamic power processes withincopreneurial couples”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 228-238.

Helmle, J.R. (2010), “Copreneurs and communication: work-family balance in married couples’family businesses”, dissertation project, Department of Communication, University ofSanta Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.

Helmle, J.R., Seibold, D.R. and Afifi, T.D. (2011), “Work and family in copreneurial familybusinesses”, in Salmon, C.T. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 35, Routledge, New York,NY, pp. 51-91.

Hill, A.D., Wallace, J.C., Ridge, J.W., Johnson, P.D., Paul, J.B. and Suter, T.A. (2013), “Innovationand effectiveness of co-founded ventures: a process model”, Journal of Business andPsychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 145-159.

Hollander, B.S. and Elman, N.S. (1988), “Family-owned businesses: an emerging field of inquiry”,Family Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 145-164.

Ilies, R., Wilson, K.S. and Wagner, D.T. (2009), “The spillover of daily job satisfaction ontoemployees’ family lives: the facilitating role of work-family integration”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 87-102.

James, L.R. and Brett, J.N. (1984), “Mediators, moderators, and test of mediation”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 307-321.

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

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress,Wiley, New York, NY.

Kanter, R.M. (1977), Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda forResearch and Policy, Sage, New York, NY.

Karofsky, P., Millen, R., Yilmaz, M., Smyrnios, K.X., Tanewski, G.A. and Romano, C.A. (2001),“Work-family conflict and emotional well-being in American family businesses”, FamilyBusiness Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 313-324.

Kirby, E.L. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2014), “Communicating work-life issues”, in Putnam, L.L. andMumby, D.K. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances inTheory, Research, and Methods, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 351-373.

127

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

Kossek, E.E. and Distelberg, B. (2009), “Work and family employment policy for a transformedwork force: trends and themes”, in Crouter, N. and Booth, A. (Eds), Work-Life Policies,Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3-51.

Kossek, E.E. and Nichol, V. (1992), “The effects of on-site child care on employee attitudes andperformance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 485-509.

Kossek, E.E. and Ozeki, C. (1998), “Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfactionrelationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior human resourcesresearch”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 139-149.

Kwan, H.K., Lau, V.P. and Au, K. (2012), “Effects of family-to-work conflict on business owners:the role of family business”, Family Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 178-190.

Landsbergis, P.A., Schnall, P.L., Belkic, K.L., Baker, D., Schwartz, J.E. and Pickering, T.G. (2011),“Workplace and cardiovascular disease: relevance and potential role for occupationalhealth psychology”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds), Handbook of Occupational HealthPsychology, 2nd ed., American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 243-264.

Lodahl, T.M. and Kejner, M. (1965), “The definition and measurement of job involvement”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 24-33.

MacDermid, S.M. (2005), “(Re)considering conflict between work and family”, in Kossek, E.E. andLambert, S.J. (Eds), Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural, and IndividualPerspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 19-40.

Marshack, K. (1993), “Copreneurial couples: a literature review of boundaries and transitionsamong copreneurs”, Family Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 355-369.

Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2,pp. 171-194.

Michel, J.S., Kotrba, L.M., Mitchelson, J.K., Clark, M.A. and Baltes, B.B. (2011), “Antecedents ofwork-family conflict: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32No. 5, pp. 689-725.

Miller, K.I., Ellis, B.H., Zook, E.G. and Lyles, J.S. (1990), “An integrated model of communication,stress, and burnout in the workplace”, Communication Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 300-326.

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

Nelton, S. (1986), In Love and in Business: How Entrepreneurial Couples are Changing the Rules ofBusiness and Marriage, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. and McMurrian, R. (1996), “Development and validation ofwork-family conflict and family-work conflict scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 400-410.

Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and Boswell, W.R. (2006), “Blurring boundaries: correlates of integrationand segmentation between work and non- work”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68No. 2, pp. 432-445.

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J.H. and Gransrose, C.S. (1992), “Role stressors, social support, andwell-being among two-career couples”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 339-356.

Ponthieu, L. and Caudill, H. (1993), “Who’s the boss? Responsibility and decision making incopreneurial ventures”, Family Business Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-17.

Rosen, C., Chang, C.H., Djurdjevic, E. and Eatough, E.M. (2010), “Occupational stressors andperformance: an updated review and recommendations”, in Perrewe, P.L. and Ganster, D.C.(Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being: New Development in Theoretical andConceptual Approaches to Job Stress, Vol. 8, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 1-60.

128

JFBM4,2

Rothausen, T.J. (2009), “Management work-family research and work-family fit: implicationsfor building family capital in family business”, Family Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 3,pp. 220-234.

Rothausen, T.J., Gonzalez, J.A., Clarke, N.E. and O’Dell, L.L. (1998), “Family-friendly backlash –fact or fiction? The case of organizations’ on-site child care centers”, Personnel Psychology,Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 685-706.

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.

Shockley, K.M. and Singla, N. (2011), “Reconsidering work-family interaction and satisfaction: ameta-analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 861-886.

Simon, R.W. (1995), “Gender, multiple roles, role meaning, and mental health”, Journal of Healthand Social Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 182-194.

Smyrnios, K.X., Romano, C.A., Tanewski, G.A., Karofsky, P.I., Millen, R. and Yilmaz, M.R. (2003),“Work-family conflict: a study of American and Australian family businesses”, FamilyBusiness Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 35-52.

Stafford, K. and Tews, M.J. (2009), “Enhancing work-family balance research in family firms”,Family Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 235-238.

Sudaramurthy, C. and Kreiner, G. (2008), “Governing by managing identity boundaries: the caseof family businesses”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 415-436.

Thomas, L.T. and Ganster, D.C. (1995), “Impact of family-supportive work variables onwork-family conflict and strain: a control perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 6-15.

Williams, J. (2000), Unbending Gender: Why Work and Family Conflict and What To Do About It,Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wright, T.A. and Cropanzano, R. (2000), “Psychological well-being and job satisfaction aspredictors of job performance”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 84-94.

Yogev, S. and Brett, J. (1985), “Patterns of work and family involvement among single- and dual-career couples”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 754-768.

Zellweger, T.M., Eddleston, K.A. and Kellermanns, F.W. (2010), “Exploring the concept offamiliness: introducing family firm identity”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 54-63.

Appendix. Measures and items

Work-life balance – created for this study

. I am ok with how much my work life carries over into my home/family life.

. I am ok with how much my home/family life carries over into my work life.

. My family [or spouse] is supportive of my choice of work.

. My family [or spouse] has an understanding of what it takes to run my own business.

. My business has had a positive impact on my home/family life.

. My family [or spouse] has had a positive impact on the success of my business.

Work-home conflict – Netemeyer et al. (1996)

. The demands of my work interfere with my home/family life.

. The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill home/family responsibilities.

129

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

. Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me.

. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill home/family duties.

. Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for home/familyactivities.

Home-work conflict – Netemeyer et al. (1996)

. The demands of my family [or spouse] interfere with work-related activities.

. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home.

. Things I want to do at work don’t get done because of the demands of my family[or spouse].

. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time,accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime.

. Home/family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform job-related duties.

Spouse support – Parasuraman et al. (1992)

. To what extent is your spouse willing to listen to your problems?

. To what extent is your spouse concerned about your welfare?

. To what extent does your spouse participate in the housework and/or childrearingactivities?

. To what extent does your spouse encourage the use of outside help (e.g. childcare, cleaningservice)?

. To what extent does your spouse give you advice or suggestions when you have aproblem?

. To what extent does your spouse support your need to do things you want to do?

. To what extent does your spouse provide you with honest feedback about yourself?

. To what extent does your spouse praise you for your accomplishments?

Job involvement – Lodahl and Kejner (1965)

. Sometimes I lie awake at night thinking ahead to the next day’s work.

. The most important things that happen to me involve my work.

. I live, eat, and breathe my business.

. I feel depressed when I fail at something connected with my business.

Flexibility around work – Clark (2002)

. I am able to arrive and depart from work when I want.

. I am free to work the hours that are best for my schedule.

. I could easily take a day off of work, if I wanted to.

. The nature of our business allows me to carry out non-work projects during spare timeat work.

130

JFBM4,2

Communication about work with family – Clark (2002)

. I tell my family about my current work projects.

. I share pleasant things that happened at work with family.

. I share unpleasant things that happened at work with family.

. I talk with my family about what kind of day I had at work.

Communication about family with work – Clark (2002)

. I talk about my current family activities at work.

. I share pleasant things that happened at home with others at work.

. I share unpleasant things that happened at home with others at work.

. I talk with others at work about what kind of day I had at home.

Permeability of communication at work – Clark (2002)

. My family contacts me while I am at work.

. I have family-related items at my work place.

. I think about my family members when I am at work.

. I hear from my family while I am at work.

. I stop in the middle of my work to address a family concern.

. I take care of family business while I am at work.

Permeability of communication at home – Clark (2002)

. I receive work-related calls while I am at home.

. I have work-related items at my home.

. I think about work-related concerns while I am at home.

. I hear from people related to my work while I am at home.

. I stop in the middle of my home activities to address a work concern.

. I take care of work-related business while I am at home.

About the authors

Dr Jill R. Helmle (PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara) is a Researcher at the CitrixSystems Inc. Her research interests include work and family issues, family businesses, and therole of technology in work-life balance.

Dr Isabel C. Botero is a Researcher, Consultant, and Educator in the areas of communicationand family business. She is a Principal at Fediuk Botero LLC and is an Adjunt Instructor in theDepartment of Management at the Gatton College of Business in the University of Kentucky.Her area of specialty is strategic communication, and her research focusses on topics related tobehavioral, social, and scientific understanding of communication processes in differentorganizational contexts. Her areas of interest include communication in and around family firms,

131

Perceptions ofwork-life balance

influence processes in the organization, team decision making, information sharing, and crisiscommunication. Dr Isabel C. Botero is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:isabel.botero@uky.edu

Dr David R. Seibold is a Professor of Technology Management (and Vice Chair) at theUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, and an Affiliated Faculty member in the Department ofCommunication. His research interests include innovation and organizational change,collaborative technologies, family business, group interaction and decision making, andworkplace temporality. He has published two books and nearly 150 articles and chapters.A former Editor of the Journal of Applied Communication Research, he has been a member ofthe Editorial Boards of numerous journals. He has been elected a Distinguished Scholar in theNational Communication Association and a Fellow of the International CommunicationAssociation.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

132

JFBM4,2