El mal ocasionado por la conducta delictiva

Based on the most exclusive and distinctive definition of a family business – a firm owned and managed by a nuclear family (Sharma 2002) – copreneurs clearly represent a subset of family business and a defined category based on simple components of involvement (i.e. ownership and management). The term copreneur was coined by Barnett and Barnett (1988) for their qualitative study of 25 couples “who were in twenty-four-hour-a-day business and personal partnerships, and whose business relationships were outwardly equal” (p. xxi).

Barnett and Barnett (1988) summarized that copreneuring is based on trust, equality, sharing, and intimacy between partners and reflects a life style that incorporates both work and personal worlds. Their study focused on the entrepreneurial relationship, not aspects of love and romance.

Through 20 years of subsequent studies of copreneurs, researchers have

“quoted” the essence of the Barnett and Barnett (1988) definition and the authors are solely credited in the majority of articles after 1988 (e.g. Laurence 1990 – Blenkinsopp & Owens 2010). This consensus among copreneurial researchers clarifies the definition issue for this particular group in theory. The most recent analysis of copreneurial definitions (Fitzgerald & Muske 2002) credited Barnett and Barnett (1988) as having coined the term. Fitzgerald and Muske’s (2002) comprehensive list of definitional criteria from 1971 to 1993 included shared entrepreneurial venture, ownership, commitment, responsibility, management, shared risk, egalitarian, intertwined worlds, and partnerships – all consistent with the original Barnett and Barnett (1988) definition. However, in practice, research criteria have varied on the requirements for number of hours per week worked in

the copreneurial business, the role of the spouse, and also the allowance for additional outside employment (See Table 7, Section 5.1.1).

Acknowledging Barnett and Barnett (1988) as coining the term “copreneur”, Fletcher (2010) differentiated ownership and management dimensions among a sample of 26 companies under study within the broader population of “couples in business,” revealing similar typology issues as found in the general family business literature (Sharma 2002). Fletcher (2010) identified nine possible types of firms (typologies) described as “co-preneurial situations”. The author’s matrix of constructs based on the axes of ownership control and management roles carried the broad label “Roles of Couples and Families in Business Venturing (adapted from Litz (1995)” with typology categories including

Type 2: Co-preneurial management: Spouses who do not have a formal role in the ownership of the business but act ‘at the periphery’ stepping in and out of the business.

Type 4: Co-preneurial ownership: A couple jointly owns the business but only one spouse is involved in the daily management of the business (the other has their own job/career).

Type 5: First-generation (classic) copreneurship: A couple jointly own the business and are jointly involved in managing the business.

Type 6: Intergenerational co-preneurship: A couple owns the business and wider family members manage the business.

In Fletcher’s study, only Type 5: First-generation (classic) co-preneurship pre-serves the essence of the Barnett and Barnett (1988) definition where the owner

and spouse share full-time management and ownership roles. The similarity with Sharma’s (2002) Stakeholder Mapping of 72 typologies is apparent in Fletcher’s research, highlighting the potential for heterogeneity within samples of couples in family business. Variation among samples exists in the copreneurial literature, and Fletcher’s (2010) typology serves to educate copreneurial researchers on the potential for diversity (heterogeneity) in the population depending on the definition used.

As previously noted, the definition of copreneur that Barnett and Barnett (1988) coined is universally cited in the academic copreneurial literature and constitutes one homogenous typology based on Sharma (2002). Several reasons may impact past researchers’ choice to use different parameters when choosing samples: (1) Barnett and Barnett (1988) did not publish their findings in the academic literature and the book describing their sample is no longer in print; (2) Researchers have followed the lead of previous academic authors in citing Barnett and Barnett (1988) for purposes of definition but not in determining samples; or (3) The definition debate recently raised by Fletcher (2010) has not yet impacted sample decisions among copreneurial researchers. The population is discussed further in Section 3.5 and the need for distinct and homogenous samples based on clear definitions is discussed in further detail in Chapter 7.

Carefully following Barnett and Barnett’s (1988) parameters to guide sample selection alleviates some of the previously noted questions raised by family business researchers concerning definition complexity and weak applicability across subgroups in heterogeneous samples. In addition to meeting the

definitional standard of one distinctive type of family business, these “classic”

copreneurs (Fletcher, 2010), meet the structural standard for a single group as described in Stakeholder Mapping (i.e. a firm owned and managed by a nuclear family; Sharma 2002) and would also qualify as a sub-category under F-PEC (Astrachan, Klein & Smyrnios 2006) by virtue of the entrepreneurial couple’s shared power, experience and culture.

In addition, this discussion meets the guidelines suggested by Dyer (2003) on how to manage the often pervasive and daunting task of definition:

• Clearly define family and family firm.

• Cite definitions used by other researchers.

• Be sensitive to contextual factors. They may create unique opportunities to ascertain the “familiness” of an organizational setting (p. 412).

Following Dyer’s (2003) guidelines, copreneurs are identifiable both by definition and “context” (i.e. a business owned and managed by two members of the same nuclear family who are also life-partners). In sum, they represent both definitional homogeneity and structural homogeneity based on the Barnett and Barnett (1988) definition. However, as evidenced by Fletcher (2010), the wider net of

“couples in business” exists in the literature and not all researchers may strictly follow the original definition. There is no evidence that measurement techniques such as F-PEC are applied in copreneurial research.

The inclusion of full-time and part-time copreneurs and other co-entrepreneurial constructs outside the Barnett and Barnett (1988) definition in samples was

considered carefully by the researcher as an area of potential heterogeneity in the thesis sample. To preserve homogeneity and enhance validity and reliability in the testing of the conceptual model, this thesis focuses on full-time “classic”

copreneurs only, and outcomes are primarily for the benefit of this one segment of family business. The aim of this thesis is to produce deep and meaningful research on one subset of family business where decision-making is primarily in the hands of two equal members of the same nuclear family. The full-time parameter for the sample also mitigated the possibility that interview responses to questions on factors such as commitment, trust, and shared risk may vary with the level of involvement (full-time vs. part-time). Choosing only full-time copreneurs as participants limited variation in responses based solely on hours worked. These decisions impacted the scope of the thesis and allowed for greater depth of inquiry and analysis for the sample of copreneurs.

The following definition developed for this thesis and used to determine

methodology and instrument incorporates the essence of the original definition by Barnett and Barnett (1988, p. xxi):

A copreneurial enterprise is a first-generation, full-time business owned and managed by two people who consider themselves life partners and co-founders of a business where relationships are outwardly equal.

Further, as defined by Barnett and Barnett (1988), the copreneurial enterprise is a venture “based upon the firm foundation of the family unit as an economic enterprise, in which the couple’s individual energy, experience, vision, and sense

of purpose are combined into a partnership based on trust, equality, sharing and intimacy” (p. 3).

Although Barnett and Barnett interviewed only male-female couples, same-sex life partners were not specifically excluded from consideration as copreneurs.

However, they were not included in this thesis because of the need for homogenous (i.e. dual-gender) sample characteristics among the couples studied.