اکتشافات فرایندهای قدرت پویا در زوج های کاری

Recent researchers have called for a more detailed and nuanced investigation of the behavioral dynamics of an important family firm and entrepreneurial unit of analysis, the married copreneurial couple. In this study, we provide a rare examination of the dynamic power processes within copreneurial couples as a bridge between entrepreneurship and family firm research. Multiple methods, including self-reports, observational coding of team interviews, and analytic induction with team and individual interviews, found support for the importance of copreneurial power structures and interactions for business productivity. Rich field data illustrate the foundational role of an inclusive power structure. Moreover, findings suggest that copreneurial businesses where spouses are seen as equal partners engaging in collaborative power interactions are likely to result in a more productive business decision team that has the resilience to creatively solve important business problems. Several theory-building propositions for copreneurial couple power processes are proposed. Implications for copreneurial couples, entrepreneurial teams, family business consultants, and future research in power structure and power interaction dynamics are discussed.

One important, yet often ignored, aspect of entrepreneurial dynamics is entrepreneurial teams, a group of individuals that actively support the business (Ruef, 2010); most often these entrepreneurial teams are based on family relationships (Chua et al., 2004, Hellerstedt and Aldrich, 2008 and Ruef et al., 2003). However, little research has explored the behavioral dynamics of family entrepreneurial teams (Schjoedt, Monsen, Pearson, Barnett, & Chrisman, in press). This research contributes to that literature gap by studying copreneurs, a common entrepreneurial team and the smallest family unit. Research on entrepreneurial teams indicates that these teams are more effective when they exhibit social cohesion (Ensley & Pearson, 2005), when they share leadership (Ensley et al., 2006 and Ensley et al., 2003), when they have a unified vision (Ensley et al., 2006 and West, 2007), and when they have collective perceptions of how and why they are working together (Shepherd & Krueger, 2002). With copreneurial teams, influence and power exertion are vital constructs to explore because couples constantly manage psychological and physical interdependence involved when working with one's spouse (Fletcher, 2010), not just firm decisions. Based on this premise, the study purpose is to explore dynamic power processes of copreneurial couples as they make a business change decision. Copreneurs provide a unique and valuable connection between research on family firms and entrepreneurship. Within the dialog about how each discipline can contribute to the other, a stream of thought has evolved recognizing the significance of the social context in which entrepreneurs make decisions. Applying the social psychology principle of “fundamental attribution error” to entrepreneurship, Dimov (2007) noted the tendency in entrepreneurial research to underestimate and even overlook the social context and instead make the cognitive error of attributing performance primarily to individual strengths and weaknesses. Other authors, as well (e.g. Gartner et al., 1994 and Ruef, 2010) have challenged the notion of the entrepreneur as a lone operator or rugged individualist; entrepreneurial activities rarely are solo acts but rather led by an interacting group of individuals. The family, in particular, has been identified as an important part of the entrepreneurial social context, both advancing and constraining entrepreneurial activities (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003 and Nordqvist and Melin, 2010). The family can offer economic and affective resources (Steier, 2007) and even has been characterized as the source of an entrepreneurial venture (Heck et al., 2006). This study adds to the conceptual specificity of the unique role that family plays in entrepreneurial decision power dynamics (Naldi et al., 2007 and Nordqvist and Melin, 2010). Further, little attention has been given to spouses who do not hold a formal decision authority positional label or to spousal participation in firm decision-making processes that differ from a formal firm role (Danes, 2006). Conceptually, Szinovacz (1987) differentiated power structures (concerning role position and decision authority) from power interactions (processes of influence when managing tension and conflict during problem-solving). This study is grounded in Family FIRO (Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation) theory that conceptually distinguishes between power structures and interactions. The theory originated in organizational development (Schutz, 1958), was adapted to families (Doherty & Colangelo, 1984), and later was empirically tested with family firms (Danes, Rueter, Kwon, & Doherty, 2002). The study contributes an in-depth examination of individual power relationships within copreneurial couples and suggests theory-building propositions to guide future research on copreneurial teams. Progressing from investigating power structures to power interactions, however, presents a challenge. Power interactions are family processes that Dyer and Dyer (2009) indicate are largely unseen patterns created, sustained, and modified by families. These underlying processes shape family life and have reciprocal relationships with firm processes and outcomes (Helmle, Seibold, & Afifi, 2011). Exploring power interactions allows for a more vivid and real view of decision processes, providing a fuller understanding of decision making influence that is aimed at the entrepreneurial process of creating business change. Considering these challenges, the study incorporates multiple methods addressing both perceived and observed power dynamics. It incorporates both husband and wife voices and includes videotaped couple interviews to analyze non-verbal couple interactions. Analytical induction procedures facilitate confirmation and/or refutation of spousal content. Using observed, lived power interactions as well as self-reports provide important theoretical contributions to the copreneurs’ power process construct.

In this study, a rare glimpse into business team decision making behaviors is provided through not only an explicit lens into processes copreneurs used, but also covert or underlying dynamics that clearly impact behavior and, ultimately, firm decisions (Edmundson et al., 2003). By investigating decision team behavior in the midst of firm change rather than solely investigating the entrepreneur's view, we contribute to Dimov's (2007) notion of the fundamental attribution error of entrepreneurship research. The study demonstrated the social embeddedness of copreneurs who simultaneously manage their family and business relationships (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003). In so doing, study findings contribute to understanding how entrepreneurial teams deal with complexities of change and ways in which power processes affect business productivity. Furthermore, by investigating copreneurial couples (smallest possible family unit), the study traversed the barrier between entrepreneurship and family firm research and reinforced the importance of supplementing entrepreneurial research and theory with examinations of entrepreneurial teams (Schjoedt et al., in press). We clarified the important role that copreneurial spouses play in the firm, supporting Kadis and McClendon's (1991) assertion that an interdependent couple relationship is a central determinant of firm success. When spouses have a relevant and fundamental voice in firm decisions, the firm is more productive with a greater potential for creative problem solving. This suggests that future research explore how copreneurs form a more equitable business power structure as well as collaborative power interactions. Findings indicate that it is not enough to have an equitable firm power structure, but that structure needs to correspond with collaborative power interactions (Edmundson et al., 2003). Copreneurs who listen to each other, who respectfully share ideas and opinions, and who create a positive dynamic do more than communicate well. They provide space for constructive discussion of important firm decisions, resulting in psychological safety, a situation that mitigates interpersonal risk (Edmondson, 1999). At the very least, repressing a spouse's contribution limits resources available to the firm. Creativity in problem solving thrives on the interplay of ideas and insights within an open and respectful team climate (Bradley et al., 2012 and Edmondson, 1999) where decisions can be discussed without fear of harming interpersonal relationships. Results reinforce the call for a more deliberate investigation into how top management teams operate as collaborative or behaviorally integrated teams (Hambrick, 1994). We found that copreneurs exhibiting openness to constructive dialog had a more productive business team; thus, firm success may rely more on team dynamics than on individual merits of team members. Entrepreneurs may need to see themselves as part of a behaviorally integrated leadership team with an open and integrated decision making style, and even explore how leadership can be shared (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Consultants who want to apply this principle within family firms might be wise to not ignore pivotal family members without a labeled structural firm role but who still may play a vital role in firm decisions. The complicated and sometimes vague power structures inherent in family firms do not tell the whole story about how family firm decisions are made. Finally, the developmental sequence across Family FIRO dimensions guides consultants in addressing Inclusion dimension issues first because they are the root causes of tensions creating conflicts around change. Scenario building, guided by the developmental sequence of Family FIRO, is a concrete strategy to establish new structures, adjust patterns of connectedness, and revise shared meanings. In leading the scenario building process, consultants can guide family firm members through the three categories of Inclusion while also identifying responses to the change. For example, if considering the introduction of a new product, a series of issues need to be thought through to accommodate the product change. Questions such as who will lead the effort, how do roles need to be adjusted, and what training is needed for which employees are issues that need addressing. By discussing various scenarios ahead of time, new structures are established, shared meaning is created, and commitment is obtained prior to the introduction of the new product. Having worked through various scenarios, tensions will still occur, but their extent will most likely be less, contributing to firm Integration through increased productivity. Furthermore, if collaborative power interactions already exist, consultants can reinforce those interactions within the scenario building exercises or they can encourage their development by strengthening Inclusion aspects that are precursors to collaborative power interactions. A study limitation is our examination of business-owning couples in only one industry. With a focus on behavior processes, however, our results are transferable to copreneur couples across industries. Replication of the study's purpose, theoretical grounding, and methodologies with other copreneurs would further validate findings, provide testing of our propositions for further theory development, and advance broader comparisons across varied social contexts. Investigating copreneurs could also be considered a limitation in family firm research. Yet, there are two sides to that argument. This study's approach sacrifices some complexities of family firm research, but what is lost in narrowing of focus also creates gains in a clearer, more detailed picture of the social embeddedness of the entrepreneurial process. Further research on dynamic power interactions is needed. For theory building, it is essential to better understand processes by which entrepreneurial teams operate effectively (Schjoedt et al., in press). We focused on one of the most important and integrated family firm relationships, copreneurial couples. Future research examining the copreneurial dyad as well as other important family dyads or teams (Blenkinsopp & Owens, 2010) will provide even more meaningful insights into the effect of family power interactions on firm as well as entrepreneurship success. In sum, our study and its resulting propositions invites further investigation of dynamic power team interactions, creating an informative link between family firm and entrepreneurship research.