1. A Longitudinal Study of
Copreneurial Couples:
Factors Contributing to
Continuance Over a
Decade
Margaret Fitzgerald, Ph.D.
Department of Human Development and
Family Science
Glenn Muske, Ph.D.
Center for Community Vitality
NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY

2. NE 167/NC 1030 Family
Business Research Group
 Multi-state, multi-disciplinary research team
 Ag Experiment Stations on respective campuses
 5 year projects
 At-Home Income Generation: Impact on Management, Productivity
and Stability in Rural/Urban Families (9 state study)
 Family Business Interaction in Work and Family Spheres
 Family Business Viability in Economically Vulnerable Communities
 Family Firms and Policy
 Family Firms and Policy in Times of Disruption (2011- present)

3. Copreneurs
 Couples who own and operate businesses
together
 Represent about 30% of family businesses in
the United States
 Limited empirical research
 Qualitative, small sample & cross-sectional
 Defined inconsistently?
 Difficult to gather information, diverse structures?
 Outliers vs. too common?
 Invisibility of women in FOBs?
 Popular press

4. Advantages
 Share values and vision w/
partner
 Trust
 Ability to blend work and
family
 Strengthen family and
business relationship
 Pursuit of goals, dreams
and ideals, > commitment
to long-term goals
 Common language, history
 Communicate w/ ease &
effectiveness

5. Disadvantages
 Boundaries—collision of
personal and professional
problems, intrusion of work into
the home
 Complexity of maintaining a
romantic relationship
 Conflict, carry-over
 Neglect of personal needs,
increased demands on time &
energy
 Inequitable division of labor
 Time and financial pressures
 Lack of ―sounding board‖ or
―venting‖
 Competition between spouses

6. Sustainable Family Business Theory

7. Data
 National Family Business Survey
1997, 2000, and 2007 panels
 1997 nationally representative sample of U.S.
households, telephone interviews
 Attempted to followed same businesses in 2000 & 2007
 HH and BM interviews or combined
 Screened over 14,000 U.S. households, 1,116 eligible
households
 1997 NFBS, 794 families w/ a FOB (71% response rate)
 Both HH and BM interview, n=673 (60.3% response rate)
 Citations for methodological articles, end of handout

8. Definition of Copreneurs
(Fitzgerald & Muske, 2002)
 BM reported that he or she was married or
involved in a marriage-like relationship
 HHM reported that he or she was the
partner or spouse of the BM
 HHM had to be working in the business &
 BM had to acknowledge that HHM was
working in the business
 Partner had to be a major decision-maker
in the business

9. 1997
 Copreneurs (n=211 of the 673) were
significantly more likely than noncopreneurial
businesses to:
 Have spouse working more weeks per year in
the business
 Earn less (GBI, profit & income to the HH, HH
income)
 Be home-based
 Employ fewer people
 Lower perceptions of business success
 More likely to see business as a way of life

10. 673 family businesses
interviewed 211 copreneurs
identified
88 couples
remain
copreneurs
(“on-going”)
in 2000
By 2000:
43 - could not be
located
44 - do not meet
copreneur criteria
(“discontinued”)
28 - not in
business
8 - not involved,
business still
open444
businesses
reinterviewed
42 couples
defined as
copreneurs
(“started”)
1997
2000
Copreneurial couples in 2000, n = 130
Figure 1: Defining copreneurs
2000 “Dynamic Nature of Copreneurs”

11. 2000
―Dynamic nature of copreneurial businesses‖
(Muske & Fitzgerald, 2006)
 Of the 211 in 1997,
 88 continued as copreneurs
 43 could not be located
 44 were no longer copreneurs, but still in business (and
still married)
 28 were no longer in business
 8 were no longer involved, but the business was still
open
 There were also 42 ―new‖ copreneurial couples in 2000

12. 2007
Continued with exploration of the dynamic nature of
copreneurs!
 27 couples, copreneurs in all three waves
 10 new copreneurs
 10 were ―interrupted‖ (1997 & 2007 but not 2000)
 6 were copreneurs in 2000 & 2007 (not 1997)
 25 were no longer copreneurs but business is still
open (3 of which are separated or divorced)
 4 could not be located, 14 businesses closed, 4
business open but respondents no longer
involved

13. 1997 673 Family
Businesses
interviewed; 211
copreneurs
identified
By 2000, of the 211
copreneurs in 1997
88 Couples
continued as
copreneurs
"ongoing"
2007 290 Family
Businesses
Reinterviewed
27 couples were
copreneurs in all 3
waves of data
(1997, 2000, 2007)
"ongoing"
10 couples were
copreneurs in 1997
& 2007, but not 2000
"interupted"
10 additional
couples became
copreneurs; hadn't
been copreneurs in
1997 or 2000
"started"
6 couples were
copreneurs in 2000
and 2007 but not
1997
25 no longer
copreneurs but
business is still open in
2007 "discontinued"
3 are divorced or
separated
54 could not be
located
14 businesses closed
4 businesses
open, no longer
involved
(n=72)
44 no longer
copreneurs but
business is still open
"discontinued"
29 are divorced or
seperated/ 15 could
not be located
43 could not be
located 28 no longer in
business 8 no longer
involved in the
business: but business
still open
(n=79)
2000 444 Family
Businesses
reinterviewed
42 additional
couples became
copreneurs
between 1997 &
2000 "started"
n=130
n=211
Thus in 2077 – 53 copreneurial couples
n=130

14. Results
 Copreneurs who continued in business for
over a decade resembled other forms of
family business that sustained over time
 Similar profiles
 Business manager most often male
 Average age about 49
 Some college

15. Continuance in Copreneurs
 Copreneurs who stayed in business over
time were more likely than other family
businesses to
 Be located in rural areas
 Be in non-service businesses, agriculture in
particular
 More likely to employ higher numbers of
family members
 No differences: revenue, profit, numbers of
employees in general

16. Discussion
 Dynamic Nature
 As predicted, copreneurial choice as a way of life
 More in agriculturally related business—farming &
ranching
 More likely rural—is choice/mobility an issue?
 Male business managers more likely to continue
 Risk management—inclusion of family members
helps hold costs down?
 Sustainability – steady income
 Influence of Affordable Care Act—more likely to
stay in copreneurial relationship?

17. Citations: NFBS Methods
 Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M.A., Heck, R.Z.K., Haynes, G., & Danes, S. (1998).
Revisiting the study of family Businesses: Methodolocial
challenges, dilemmas, and alternative approaches. Family Business Review
11(3), 239-252.
 Winter, M., Danes, S.M., Koh, S., Fredricks, K., & Paul, J.J. (2004). Tracing family
businesses and their owners over time: Panel attrition, manager
departure, and business demise. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 535-559.
 Stafford, K., Bhargava, V., Danes, S.M., Haynes, G., & Brewton, K.E. (2010).
Factors associated with long-term survival of family businesses: Duration
analysis. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31: 442-457.
 Stafford, K., Danes, S.M., & Haynes, G.W. (2013). Long-term family firm survival
and growth considering family adaptive capacity and federal disaster
assistance receipt. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4, 188-200.

18. Copreneurs
 Fitzgerald, M.A., & Muske, G. (2002). Copenerus:
An exploration and comparison to other family
businesses. Family Business Review, XV(1), 1-16.
 Muske, G., & Fitzgerald, M.A. (2006). A panel study
of copreneurs in business: Who enters, continues,
and exits? Family Business Review, XIX(3), 193-205.

19. For presentation copies, contact: Margaret.Fitzgerald@ndsu.edu or
Glenn.Muske@ndsu.edu
Questions