USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
O R I G I N A L P A P E R
Gender Differences in Perceived Business Success and Profit
Growth Among Family Business Managers
Yoon G. Lee • Cynthia R. Jasper •
Margaret A. Fitzgerald
Published online: 25 September 2010
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Using data from the 1997–2000 National
Family Business Surveys (NFBS), this study investigated
the effect of gender on business success and profit
growth
among family businesses. The Ordinary Least Squares
(OLS) results indicate that all else being equal, female
managers perceived their businesses as more successful
than male managers, and they reported more profit growth
between 1996 and 1999 than male managers. The results of
the dummy variable interaction approach also show that a
differential response existed in profit growth over time
between female and male managers in relation to health
status, business liabilities, business size, and whether the
business was home-based. This study concludes that there
are many distinct differences between male and female
managers in business performance.
Keywords Business success � Family businesses � Female
manager � Gender differences � Profit growth
Introduction
According to the Small Business Administration (2002),
between 1997 and 2002, the number of women-owned
businesses grew at a faster rate than the number of U. S.
businesses overall. In 2002, women owned 6.5 million
nonfarm businesses in the United States and generated
$939.5 billion in business revenues (U.S. Census Bureau
2002). Nearly 85% of all businesses owned by women are
sole proprietorships (SCORE 2009). Consequently, more
and more women have become managers of their family
businesses and women managers play an important role in
the economy and industry of the United States. Therefore,
to better understand this recent change in management, the
purpose of this study is to provide a comparison of the
characteristics of the family businesses run by female
managers to those owned by male managers, to examine
the effect of gender on business success and profit growth,
and to investigate what factors are associated with business
performance in terms of perceptions of business success
and business profits.
The analyses of this study are based on panel data from
the National Family Business Survey in the United States
collected in 1997 and its consequent survey data set
obtained in 2000. By using panel data, this study allows
This paper reports results from the Cooperative Regional Research
Project, NE-167 ‘‘Family Business Viability in Economically
Vulnerable Communities’’, partially supported by the Cooperative
States Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES); U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Baruch College, the experiment stations
at the University of Arkansas, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
University of Illinois, Purdue University (Indiana), Iowa State
University, University of Minnesota, Cornell University (New York),
North Dakota State University, The Ohio State University, Oklahoma
State University, Utah State University, and University of Wisconsin-
Madison.
Y. G. Lee (&)
Department of Family, Consumer, and Human Development,
Utah State University, 218 Family Life,
2905 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-2905, USA
e-mail: yoon.lee@usu.edu
C. R. Jasper
Department of Consumer Science, School of Human Ecology,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1305 Linden Drive,
Madison, WI 53706, USA
e-mail: crjasper@wisc.edu
M. A. Fitzgerald
Department of Human Development and Family Science,
North Dakota State University, P. O. Box 6060, Dept. 2615,
Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA
e-mail: Margaret.Fitzgerald@ndsu.edu
123
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
DOI 10.1007/s10834-010-9226-z
one to measure the percentage change in business profit
growth over time in family businesses. The study is
informed by Sustainable Family Business Theory (Danes
et al. 2008a; Stafford et al. 1999) with emphasis on human,
social, and financial capital to explain similarities and
differences in performance outcomes between male and
female run businesses. This descriptive study focuses on
the variables such as human capital, financial and social
capital of managers, business activities of managers, and
business demographics that could influence performance
outcomes of family businesses. The unique contribution of
this study will be to fill the gap in the literature about
gender differences in profit growth over time in family
businesses.
Literature Review
Comparison of Female and Male Business Managers
Many studies focus on the comparison between female and
male owned businesses. The findings of these studies offer
conflicting information about the degree and extent of
differences between female and male run businesses. In a
recent 2007 study, Coleman examines human capital as
well as financial capital variables to explain differences in
business profitability between male- and female-owned
business. Coleman’s (2007) findings indicate that human
capital variables such as education and experience are more
likely to contribute to the profitability of female-owned
businesses and that financial capital has a greater impact on
the success and profitability of male-owned businesses.
These findings reinforce the work of Lansberg (1983),
Marion (1988), and Davis (1983).
By looking at the family and the business as two over-
lapping systems, Lansberg (1983) points out that when the
founder of the business makes decisions, the main problem
is how to balance the benefits of the family and the busi-
ness. The founders ‘‘frequently experience a great deal of
stress from ‘internalizing’ the contradictions that are built
into their jobs as heads of the family firm’’ (Lansberg 1983
p. 41). Marion (1988) acknowledges that sometimes the
goals of the family and the business are not complementary
and thus contributed to conflict within the family business.
Davis (1983) presents a theoretical model and contends
that a family business is a joint system in which behavior
depends both on the family part and the business part. The
vitality of a family business needs the commitment of the
family as well as non-family employees in meeting their
family business goals. Thus, both men and women are
impacted by the intertwining of the family and the business
in terms of human and financial capital. Lee et al. (2006)
note when married women in business-owning families
experience tensions over resource constraints between
family and business systems, they report lower levels of
well-being. Fitzgerald and Winter (2001) also find the roles
of managing a family and managing a business are in
conflict, but find that the adjustment strategies in coping
with these demands do not vary by gender and instead
depend on the number of roles one takes on. Kirkwood
(2009), in studying spousal roles among entrepreneurs in
New Zealand, finds that women are more likely to seek
unambiguous support of their business endeavors, while
men are likely to assume spousal support exists without
seeking explicit statement of it.
Haynes et al. (2000) show that the financial statement of
the household is a good indicator of the performance of the
family business only if the manager is male, but it does not
indicate success if the business is managed by a woman.
They also find that women-owned businesses are more
likely to be in the retail and transportation service indus-
tries and have fewer employees than those managed by
men. It is noted that, ‘‘on average, women-owned busi-
nesses have lower levels of total business assets, liabilities,
equity, and income than men-owned businesses’’ (p. 221).
Haynes et al. (2007) report, on the contrary, that the suc-
cess of small businesses is not necessarily tied to family
prosperity; however, women-owned businesses are more
likely to realize ‘‘an increase in the transfer of money from
the business to the household’’ (p.403, 407) compared to
businesses owned by men. Loscocco et al. (1991) report
that most (64.9%) of the female-owned businesses are in
the business service industry, while fewer of the male
owned businesses are in the business service industry
(35.4%) and manufacturing industry (36.3%).
Likewise, other studies point out that women-owned
businesses are more likely to be smaller in terms of size
and income. Loscocco et al. (1991) claim the average
levels of income and sales of female-managed businesses
are substantially lower than those of male-managed busi-
nesses. They find that the average income and sales of
female-managed businesses are $51,340 and $1,346,900,
respectively; and those of male-managed businesses are
$95,240 and $3,414,300, respectively. In another study,
Cliff (1998) finds that female-managed businesses have
significantly smaller annual sales, employment growth, and
return on assets. Cuba et al. (1983) contend that there are
two reasons why the survival rate of female-managed
businesses is low: First, the majority of women are not
adequately prepared before they become an owner; second,
women managers are reluctant to delegate detailed work to
other people so that they do not distribute their time
efficiently.
On the other hand, in a more recent study, Collins-Dodd
et al. (2004) point out that gender is not a significant var-
iable to explain the difference in financial performance
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474 459
123
between male- and female-managed businesses if the
effects of some other factors (for example, number of
employees, home-based or not, control of work situation)
and personal characteristics (for example, age, education,
number of children) are considered in the model. The
results of a study by Kalleberg and Leicht (1991) also
indicate that women-owned businesses are less likely to
fail than men-owned businesses; they report that success
levels are similar across genders. Other researchers point
out that women might measure business success differently
than men, in part because they tend to focus on balancing
work and family (Anna et al. 1999) preferring to adapt their
businesses to manage personal, family, and professional
demands (Fitzgerald and Folker 2005). Masuo et al. (2001)
also conclude that perceived business success varies by
gender, with females perceiving higher levels of success.
Kepler and Shane (2007) examine the characteristics of
male and female entrepreneurs when they establish a new
business. Kepler and Shane indicate that females are more
likely to purchase their firms instead of establishing them;
firms managed by females are more likely to earn positive
revenue; males are more likely to take risky strategies for
their new venture; and males spend more time searching
new business opportunities. Furthermore, businesses star-
ted by female managers are less likely to have technolog-
ically intensive features, and more likely to be founded on
a local customer base than those founded by males.
Demographic and Managerial Differences Between
Female- and Male-Owned Businesses
Other researchers look at demographic differences between
male and female business owners. Boden and Nucci (2000)
show that compared to their male counterparts, female
business managers are more likely to have higher levels of
education and less prior employment experience. Human
capital of managers such as higher levels of education and
employment experience can improve the survival rate of
the businesses in their first few years. Loscocco et al.
(1991) show that male managers stay in the industry for a
longer time than female managers; consequently, they have
more managerial experience than their female counterparts.
Carter and Marlow (2003) point out the differences in
the prior occupational and professional experience of male
and female managers in waged jobs which impacts busi-
nesses ownership. They claim that this explains why
female-managed firms are smaller and have lower perfor-
mance. However, Fischer et al’s (1993) findings do not
support this point; their results suggest that the reason for
the size and performance difference is that women man-
agers have ‘‘less experience in managing employees, in
working in similar firms, or in helping to start-up new
businesses’’ (p. 151).
In a study of female and male managers, Loscocco and
Leicht (1993) focus on the link between the family and the
business. They compare the work-family connections
among small businesses managers. They find that female
managers are more likely to be single and spend more time
on their work; they operate younger and smaller businesses
than male managers do. A recent study by Philbrick and
Fitzgerald (2007) further supports these results. In a
demographic summary of women-owned family busi-
nesses, Lowrey (2006) shows that 28.2% of the nonfarm
firms in the U.S. are owned by women who hire 6.5% of
the employees; on the other hand, men owned 57.4% of the
nonfarm firms and hire 38.4% of the employees.
Many female managers establish home-based firms so
they can simultaneously care for their children; they are
willing to sacrifice their income at times to accomplish this
goal. In comparing this with males, Hundley (2001) simi-
larly finds that self-employed males ‘‘work the most hours
per week in the market and the female self-employed work
the fewest’’ (p.128), indicating that females may sacrifice
business priorities for family priorities. Regarding the
division of labor by gender, Hundley also states that
‘‘women do more housework, and the amounts by which
female hours on chores and childcare exceed male hours are
much greater among the self-employed’’ (p.131). Other
scholars also point out that women put more effort into their
family goals such as spending time with family members,
and put less effort into accomplishing business goals (His-
rich and Brush 1987; Kaplan 1988; Kepler and Shane 2007);
however, Fischer et al. (1993) report an opposite result.
Similarly, Tuttle and Garr (2009) report limited support for
the hypothesis that self-employed women have better work-
family fit, concluding that the higher job satisfaction and
autonomy available to the self-employed may have an
indirect influence. In 2010, Schieman and Young
acknowledge greater levels of family-work conflict in
association with economic hardship, especially among men.
A study of Canadian households with home-based
businesses reports that self-employed workers use con-
ceptual and physical barriers to create boundaries between
their homes and business spaces, allowing them to manage
both work and family (Myrie and Daly 2009). However,
Zody et al. (2006) find that, contrary to the pervasive belief
that a lack of boundaries causes problems in family firms,
success acts as a mediating factor; in essence, the interplay
of family and business may change based on perceptions of
success and the boundaries between the two ‘‘are dynamic
and complex’’ (p.204). Masuo et al. (2001) find that while
family success positively impacts business success, the
reverse is not true.
Kalleberg and Leicht (1991) point out that female man-
agers place a greater emphasis on the quality of the business
in competition; they contend that there is no significant
460 J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
123
innovation gap between male and female-managed busi-
nesses. Cliff (1998) finds that there is no significant differ-
ence between the desires of female and male managers to
expand their businesses. However, Cliff describes female
managers as being more careful and conservative, when
they expand their firms, while male managers are more
likely to undertake risky strategies. Cliff also notes that male
managers are both more aggressive and more at ease in
competitive business situations.
In another study, Orser and Hogarth-Scott (2002) show
that the plurality of the female managers (40%) engage in
business strategies to improve the quality and offer better
price, but limit the quantity and the variety of the products;
and 20% of the female managers take ‘‘analyzer and
prospector’’ strategies. That means that female managers
do not act as a leader of their industries; instead, they
analyze their competitors’ behavior carefully and learn
from their mistakes. Orser and Hogarth-Scott also report
that there is no significant difference in the processes and
weights that the two different genders put into the devel-
opment of the firm, but female managers are more likely to
be influenced by their spouse’s opinions and perspectives
when they make business decisions.
Danes et al. (2007) find differences in the gross revenue
between female- and male-owned family firms after con-
trolling for family business management and innovation
practices. The introduction of new production methods has
positive effects on the gross revenue for both female- and
male-owned businesses, but personnel management has a
larger effect on gross revenue for females. They also note
that gender has a moderating effect on business manage-
ment practices, but gender does not moderate the effects of
innovations on gross revenue.
In terms of the motivation of establishing a firm, Fielden
et al. (2003) point out four possible reasons why a woman
starts a business as the following: (1) she is not satisfied
with her previous job; (2) she has redundancy in energy,
time or money; (3) she is unable to find suitable employ-
ment; and (4) she wants to be her own boss. Moreover, as
previously mentioned, many female managers start their
firms because they want to have flexible schedules to
enable child and family care (Loscocco 1997).
Studies within the International Perspective on Male
and Female Managers
In a study specific to family businesses conducted in the
United Kingdom, researchers explain the difference
between male-managed and female-managed businesses by
the barriers posed by a lack of financial support for women
(Schmidt and Parker 2003). The contention is that women
have significantly less wealth and business experience; as a
result, it is difficult for women business managers to get
loans to begin a business. Thus, it is more difficult for
women to establish or expand the business. Fielden et al.
(2003) use this fact to explain the reduction of female-
owned business in North West England in the early 2000 s.
In regard to business strategies and financial decisions,
Watson (2002) focuses on the small- and medium-sized
businesses in Australia and points out that male business
managers invest more heavily than female managers do,
and female managers incorporate fewer resources for their
new ventures. Watson provides two reasonable explana-
tions to this phenomenon: One is that female managers
have fewer resources in their businesses on average which
limit their strategies; the other was that female managers
are more risk averse.
In a study of gender issues, Sonfield and Lussier (2009)
investigate family businesses in six countries. Their find-
ings indicate that when the gender of the business manager
is female, it is not an indicator of a success of the family
business. Other factors do influence business success (e.g.,
leadership style and family conflicts have a direct influence
on the success of the family business). Sonfield and Lussier
also find that business strategies and management planning,
using outside advisors, long-term planning, financial
management tools, founder influence, going public, and
formal management style are more important factors
regarding the success of the family business than whether
the manager was male or female.
In a study of small-to-medium size family businesses in
Australia, Romano et al. (2000) investigate the factors that
could influence the finances of businesses. Their significant
results include that the larger the family business, the more
debt the business has, and the lower the family loan, the
higher the equity. Romano et al. (2000) also find that the
age of the family business and the age of the business
owners positively affect the equity of the business.
Conceptual Framework and
Hypotheses
Sustainable Family Business Theory
To guide this study, Sustainable Family Business Theory
(SFBT) is used to inform the selection of variables and
interpretation of results (Danes et al. 2008a; Stafford et al.
1999). In SFBT, the family is viewed as a rational social
system and the sustainability of a family business is a
function of both the success of the business and family
functionality (Stafford et al. 1999). An individual in either
system may affect parts of both systems (Heck and Trent
1999). SFBT gives equal recognition to the family system
and the business system in family-owned businesses and
how the interplay between the two systems influences the
achievement of sustainability for both. In the framework of
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474 461
123
SFBT, this study investigates resources and business suc-
cess at the firm level. Figure 1 depicts the framework of
SFBT (Werbel and Danes
2010).
Resources: Human, Social and Financial Capital
Using the SFBT, this study estimates the influence of
human, social, and financial capital on family business
outcomes. Considered as resources in SFBT, human capital
and financial capital have been identified as necessary
components for small business success and survival
(Coleman 2007). Human capital is viewed as the stock of
resources existing in people. These resources include their
acquired skills, experience, and knowledge gained through
formal schooling, market work, and on-the-job training
(Becker 1993). Bryant (1992) also notes human capital as
the skills, abilities, attitudes, and work ethic of individuals.
Previous studies indicate that among the self-employed,
the most important factor influencing a business’s success
is education (Carter et al. 2003; Kangasharju and Pekkala
2002). Coleman (2007) operationalizes human capital as
education, prior business experience, age and maturity, the
presence of partners who can provide additional expertise,
and a family history of firm ownership, employment,
industry or other kinds of experience in her comparison of
male- and female-owned businesses.
Danes et al. (2010) believe that gender of the business
owner implies a set of human capital characteristics that
differ by gender such as management ability and resource
use. They find that gender of the business manager and
family resource exchanges with the business affect family
firm performance (Danes et al. 2007). Age of the business
owner can be a proxy of experience. The most widely used
measure of human capital is formal education. Increased
schooling increases an individual’s productivity (Bryant
1992). Health of the owner is another form of human capital
because having good health allows individuals to be more
productive (Cutler and Richardson 1999) and thus good
health can help individuals be more productive at work
activities in operating their businesses. Additionally,
investments in health have long been viewed as a way to
improve human capital (Hammermesh and Rees 1993;
Masuo et al. 2001). In this study, human capital is measured
by education, age, and health of the business manager.
Social capital, another form of resource, is ‘‘goodwill that
is engendered by the fabric of social relations that can be
mobilized to facilitate action’’ (Adler and Kwon 2002,
p. 17). As explained by Danes et al. (2008)a, ‘‘it is embodied
in relationships among people and formal social institu-
tions’’ (p. 239) and can be used to benefit the business. Our
regression model looked at managers’ satisfaction with
community support as one of the constructs related to social
Fig. 1 Sustainable family business theory. Source Werbel and Danes (2010)
462 J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
123
capital to measure a sense of community as perceived by the
business managers (Brown et al. 2003; McMillan and
Chavis 1986).
Financial capital pertains to available funds which may
come from the family in business, extended networks and
formal financial institutions (Danes et al. 2007) or debt
and/or equity infusions from external sources (Coleman
2007). Business income, business liabilities, and cash-flow
problems are used to measure financial capital of the
business. While human capital and financial capital have
been shown to explain success in the short term, social
capital contributes more to long-term success (Danes et al.
2010).
Processes: Business Activities
SFBT illustrates that families and businesses have the
ability to transform available resources and constraints
via interpersonal and resource transactions into achieve-
ments. Resources and interpersonal transactions from
either the business or the family system can facilitate or
hinder the sustainability of either system at various
points in time. Achievements can be objective or sub-
jective (Olson et al. 2003) and the two systems (family
and firm) are affected by environmental and structural
change (Danes 2006), described in the theory as nor-
mative and non-normative disruption. Similar to Danes
et al. (2008b), in this study, business management and
innovation practices represent managerial processes and
are illustrated as interpersonal and resource transactions
in the SFB model (Fig. 1).
Business Demographics
In addition to measures of human, social and financial
capital, and business management activities, the empirical
models include characteristics of the business as control-
ling variables. They are business size, business age, and
whether or not it is home-based. Walch and Merante (2007)
indicate that a minimum number of employees are needed
to provide resiliency in times of business turmoil. Busi-
nesses with more employees are larger businesses, and they
have many more resources available than smaller busi-
nesses. Kale and Arditi (1998) explain that the age of the
business is related to the failure of business, and they
conclude that the risk of business failure is the highest in
the first few years of business age, and then the risk of
failure decreases as the business gets older. Soldressen
et al. (1998) also note that home-based family businesses
are smaller than other businesses in terms of employees
and many home-based family businesses are less profitable
than non-home based
family businesses.
Hypotheses
The review of literature indicates that female managers
may have lower levels of human capital in the form of
employment and managerial experience than their male
counterparts (Boden and Nucci 2000; Carter and Marlow
2003; Loscocco et al. 1991). Female managers may also
have lower levels of financial capital in the forms of
business assets and equity (Haynes et al. 2000), income,
and sales than male managers (Cliff 1998; Loscocco et al.
1991). Women’s priorities for business goals and operation
may differ from men’s due to family considerations (Los-
cocco and Leicht 1993). There is also evidence that their
approaches to business management and innovation differ
as do the impact these strategies have on performance as
compared to men (Cliff 1998; Danes et al. 2007; Orser and
Hograth-Scott 2002). Clearly, there is a need to discern the
effects of gender on business success and profit growth.
Additionally, the influence of gender on business man-
agement strategies and innovation is estimated.
Although SFBT does not specify differences between
male and female managers, the literature presented above
indicates that male and female managers may have different
levels of resources such as human, social, and financial cap-
ital, and they are different in the use of managerial processes
such as business management and innovation; therefore,
differences in firm performance outcomes between male and
female business managers are expected (Anna et al. 1999;
Cliff 1998; Cuba et al. 1983; Haynes et al. 2000; Kalleberg
and Leicht 1991; Watson 2002). Thus, based on the findings
in the literature, this study hypothesizes that female managers
will experience more perceived business success than male
managers (H1-a); but female managers will experience less
profit growth than male managers (H1-b).
As shown in the review of literature, numerous factors
impact the success of male and female operated firms
including financial support, industry, business size, and
work-family connections. Therefore, while the overall
hypothesis tested in this study is that male and female busi-
ness managers will differ in their perceptions in business
success and profit grow over time, this study also considers
the influence of factors within the SFBT such as human,
social, and financial capital to predict perceptions of business
success and revenue change over time for family firms.
Accordingly, based on the SFBT and literature on human,
social and financial capital, business activities, and business
demographics, this study tests five other hypotheses.
Human capital of business managers will influence
business success and profit growth. This study measures
human capital by education, age, and health of business
managers. Based on the findings of previous studies
(Bryant 1992; Carter et al. 2003; Coleman 2007; Cutler
and Richardson 1999; Hammermesh and Rees 1993;
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474 463
123
Kangasharju and Pekkala 2002), it is hypothesized that
older managers, managers with higher levels of education,
and managers who are in good health will experience more
business success and profit growth than managers who are
younger, have lower levels of education, and those who are
in poor health (H2-a, H2-b, and H2-c, respectively).
Social capital will influence
business success and profit
growth (Adler and Kwon 2002; Brown et al. 2003; Danes
et al. 2008a; McMillian and Chavis 1986); thus, this study
hypothesizes that managers who express more satisfaction
with community support will experience more business
success and profit growth than those with less satisfaction
with community support (H3). Moreover, according to the
findings of previous studies (Coleman 2007; Danes et al.
2008a; Haynes et al. 2000), the financial experiences of
business managers will influence business success and
profit growth. Specifically, managers with greater amounts
of business income (H4-a) will experience greater business
success and profit growth than those with lower amounts of
business income, while those business managers with
greater amounts of business liabilities (H4-b) and those
with business cash-flow problems (H4-c) will experience
less business success and profit growth than those with
lower levels of business liabilities and without cash-flow
problems.
Managerial processes including management activities
and innovation practices will affect business success and
profit growth (Danes 2006; Danes et al. 2008b; Olson et al.
2003). Thus, this study hypothesizes that managers who
report a greater use of business managerial activities (H5-a)
and innovative practices (H5-b) will experience more
business success and profit growth than those using fewer
managerial activities and innovation strategies (Danes et al.
2007, 2008b; Sonfield and Lussier 2009).
Demographic characteristics of the business will influ-
ence business success and profit growth (Kale and Arditi
1998; Soldressen et al. 1998; Walch and Merante 2007).
Therefore, this study hypothesizes that managers with more
total employees (H6-a) and those managing older busi-
nesses (H6-b) will experience more business success and
profit growth than those with fewer employees and younger
businesses (Romano et al. 2000), while managers in home-
based businesses (H6-c) will experience less business
success and profit growth than managers in businesses
based from another location (Davis 1983; Lansberg 1983).
Methods
Data and Sample
Data for this study are from the 1997 and 2000 panels of the
National Family Business Survey (NFBS). Details of the
sampling frame and methods of data collection for the 1997
wave of the NFBS can be found in Winter et al. (1998), but a
brief description is provided here. The 1997 data are from a
nationally representative sample of family businesses.
Telephone interviews were used to screen over 14,000
households in the U.S. to identify family-owned businesses.
Subsequent interviews were conducted with both the busi-
ness manager, or the person most involved in the day-to-day
management of the business, the household manager defined
as the person responsible for most of the meal preparation,
laundry, and cleaning, as well as the scheduling of family
activities and the overseeing of child care, or a combined
interview schedule if one person was primarily responsible
for the business and the household. Of the 1,116 eligible
households, interviews were completed with 794 family
businesses for a response rate of 71%.
In 2000, researchers attempted to contact the 1997
respondents to conduct additional interviews (Winter et al.
2004). Because the interest was on tracking family busi-
nesses over time, 86 households in which the business
manager had not been interviewed in 1997 were omitted
from the 2000 sample, reducing the sample size from
794–708. Additionally, 63 households could not be reached
in 2000, and 92 refused to participate in the follow-up
interviews. Thus, data were gathered from the remaining
553 households, again by interviewing business or house-
hold managers or by completing a combined interview
schedule if one person served in both roles.
Among the 553 family-owned firms, 132 managers/
owners were not involved, but 421 business managers/
owners were still involved in their family businesses. The
subsample selected for analysis consisted of 421 business
managers who participated in both 1997 and 2000 surveys.
For the data analyses, observations with missing values were
dropped and this procedure resulted in a study sample of 365
business managers. The sub-samples of this study consisted
of male (n = 275) and female managers (n = 90).
Statistical Analyses
Frequencies and means were performed to obtain the
descriptive information on all variables in the multivariate
analyses. Cross-tabulations and t-tests were conducted to
determine differences between male and female-managed
family businesses. To examine the effect of gender on
business success and profit growth over time, this study
employed Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression anal-
yses. If the dummy variable for gender (Dfem) was statis-
tically significant in the regression models for the business
success and profit growth, then the dummy variable inter-
action technique was applicable.
In methodology, the OLS regression with dummy vari-
able interaction approach is examined to demonstrate
464 J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
123
whether the regressions for female managers and male
managers are totally different, and identify which
variables
differently affect the business success and profit growth of
female managers as compared to male managers. The
dummy variable interaction approach allows a single
regression equation to be estimated. As outlined in Gujarati
(1988, p. 446), a dummy variable (e.g., FEM, female
manager = 1; 0 if not) is interacted with the entire vector
of independent variables. The dummy variable interaction
approach explicitly identifies which coefficients, intercepts,
or slopes are different or whether both are the same
between subgroups of the sample (Gujarati 1988).
The dummy variable interaction approach estimates the
following regression:
y ¼ a þ b0Dfemi þ b1x1i þ b2x2i þ : :þ bkxki þ Dfem
� b1femix1i þ b2femix2i þ : :þ bkfemixkið Þþ ui
In this equation, y is the dependent variable, a is the
regression intercept, and x1i… xki are the independent
variables. The i represents the individual family business
identifier and k is the number of independent variables (xk).
b0 is the differential intercept and b1i, b2i… ? bki are the
regression coefficients indicating the direction and strength
of the relationship between the independent variables and
each dependent variable. Dfem is the dummy variable for
family business which takes on the value of 1 (if a female-
managed business) or 0 (if not) and b1femi, b2femi… bkfemi
represent the differential coefficients. The differential
coefficients indicate how much the coefficients of female-
managed businesses differ from the coefficients of male-
managed businesses. The significant bkfem identify the
variables for which the responses of female and male-
managed businesses differ.
The dummy variable interaction technique does more
than identify whether there exist differences in business
success and business performance between the two groups.
This method also pinpoints which explanatory variables
account for the differences in business success and profit
growth between female and male-managed businesses.
Moreover, it provides insights as to whether differences in
business success are due to different effects of the set of
independent variables across the two family business types
(Jang 1995).
Variables
Dependent Variables
It is important to use both objective and subjective mea-
sures in examining business success (Jones 2003; Walker
and Brown 2004). In this study, business success is mea-
sured subjectively by the business managers’ rating of how
successful they perceive their business to be in 1999.
Business manager’s responses to overall business success
to date range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very successful). To
measure business success objectively, the profit growth
between 1996 and 1999 is utilized, while measuring the
percentage change in business profit over the two periods.
Thus, perceived business success and profit growth are
included as dependent variables in the OLS regression
models.
Independent Variables
The independent variables are categorized by human cap-
ital or personal demographics of the manager, social, and
financial capital of the business, managerial activities, and
demographic characteristics of the business. All indepen-
dent variables are from the second wave data set. As noted
previously, this study analyzes the data to understand
resources at the firm level in the forms of human, social
and financial capital and their influence on the levels of
business success. Human capital of the business manager
includes age, education, and health status. Both age and
education are included as continuous variables, whereas the
heath status represents categorical variables [poor (refer-
ence group), good, and excellent].
Manager’s satisfaction with community support is
included as a proxy of social capital. In the survey, business
managers are asked: ‘‘How satisfied are you with the amount
of support you get from your community.’’ Community
support reflects the quality of community infrastructure such
as the quality of the local schools, transportation, health
care, telecommunications, recreation facilities, or public
safety services. Responses range from 1 to 5, where ‘‘1’’
represents ‘‘very dissatisfied’’ and ‘‘5’’ represents very sat-
isfied. For financial capital, business income, business total
liabilities, and presence of business cash-flow problems are
included in the regression analyses. While both business
income and business liabilities are included as continuous
variables, the business cash-flow problem represents cate-
gorical variables [having problem, no cash-flow problem
(reference group)].
In terms of processes, managerial activity is a scale that
measures the extent the business managers practice a set of
ten business management activities (see Table 3 for a list
of items). Each management activity is rated from 1 to 5,
where ‘‘1’’ represents that the activity is not being done at
all, and ‘‘5’’ represents that the activity is being done to the
great extent. Additionally, the manager’s innovative prac-
tice is included to measure process in SFBT. In the survey,
business managers are asked about whether they have done
any of the five items (see Table 3 for a list of items). Each
innovative practice is rated from 0 to 1, where ‘‘0’’ rep-
resents ‘‘no’’ if managers have not engaged in the business
practice and ‘‘1’’ represents that they have.
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474 465
123
Business size, age of the business, and type of business
are included as business characteristics in the empirical
models. Both business size and age of the business are
continuous variables, whereas the type of business is coded
as a categorical variable [home-based, non-home based
(reference group)]. The measurements of variables inclu-
ded in the regression analyses are presented in Table 1.
Findings
A Profile of Family Businesses by
Gender
Table 2 provides descriptive information on business and
manager characteristics by gender. The t-tests indicate sig-
nificant mean differences in the levels of perceived business
success, 1996 business profit, and the percentage change in
business profit between 1996 and 1999 between male and
female managers. The average levels of perceived business
success and the percentage change in business profit are
higher for female managers than for male managers. How-
ever, the levels of business profit in both 1996 and 1999 are
much higher for male managers than for fe
male managers.
The table shows that female managers are younger,
more highly educated, and healthier than male managers.
However, the levels of involvement in managerial and
innovative practices are lower for female managers than
male managers. While male managers report higher levels
of satisfaction with community support, they have more
cash-flow problems and larger amounts of debt than female
managers. The average number of total employees is lower
for female managers than male managers. It is obvious that
female managers operate smaller-sized companies than
male managers. A relatively higher portion of the female
Table 1 Measurement of
dependent and independent
variables
Note Reference categories are in
parentheses
Variables Measurement
Gender
FEM 1 if female manager, 0 otherwise
(Male) 1 if male manager, 0 otherwise
Resources
Human capital
Age of manager Continuous, age of business manager (# of years)
Education of manager Continuous, educational attainment (# of years)
Perceived health condition
(Poor) 1 if perceived health is poor, 0 otherwise
Good 1 if perceived health is good, 0 otherwise
Excellent 1 if perceived health is excellent, 0 otherwise
Social and financial capital
Community support Satisfied with community support(response range 1–5:
1 very dissatisfied, 5 very satisfied)
Business income Continuous, Imputed gross business income
Business liabilities Continuous, Imputed total liabilities
Cash-flow problems 1 if having business cash-flow problem, 0 otherwise
Processes
Management practices Continuous, Sum of 10 items of managerial activities (response range 1–5: 1
not done at all, 5 very great extent)
Innovative practices Continuous, Sum of 5 items including new product development, product &
service development, marketing development, market establishment,
customer service improvement(response range 0–1: 0 not done, 5: have
done)
Business demographics
Business size Continuous, # of non-family employees
Age of business Continuous, 1999-established year
Home-based business
Yes 1 if operate business at home, 0 otherwise
(No) 1 if operate business outside of home, 0 otherwise
Dependent variables
Business success Perceived overall business success to date (1 not at all, 5 very successful)
Profit growth Continuous, [(1999 profit–1996 profit)/1996 profit] 9 100
466 J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
123
managers report their businesses as home-based than do
male managers.
Business Management and Innovative Practices
of Male and Female Managers
Table 3 shows the extent to which male and female man-
agers are involved in managerial and innovative activities.
The ten items of management practices assessed are pre-
sented, indicating that the higher the score, the greater the
management activity level performed by the managers.
Female managers are more likely to be involved in analyzing
customer satisfaction, evaluating product quality, and plan-
ning advertisement than male managers. Five items of
innovative practices are also presented in Table 3. Except for
the category of improving customer service, female man-
agers are more likely to practice all the other four categories,
such as developing new products/services, improving
methods, developing new marketing strategies, and estab-
lishing markets. It is evident in Table 3 that there are gender
difference in how managers engage in business management
through managerial activities and innovative practices.
OLS Results
Table 4 presents significant factors that determine the levels
of business success and profit growth over time. The main
purpose of this study is to explore the influence of gender on
business success and profit growth. The coefficients associ-
ated with gender have a statistically significant effect on both
business success and the profit growth models. The results
show that all else being equal, female managers have higher
levels of business success than male managers, and they
experience 381% more profit growth between 1996 and 1999
than male managers; thus, H1-a is supported. However, H1-b
is supported but in a different direction.
Table 2 A Profile of male and
female managers among family
owned businesses
� p \ 0.10, * p \ 0.05,
** p \ 0.01, *** p \ 0.001
Male manager
(n = 275)
Female manager
(n = 90)
Test statistics
t test
v2-test
Business success and profit growth
Perceived business success 3.9 4.1 t = -2.41*
1996 business profit $122,010 $20,112 t = 3.70***
1999 business profit $179,160 $61,853 t = 1.40
% D in business profit 118% 459% t = -1.75�
Resources
Human capital
Age 49.8 48.4 t = 1.10
Education 14.3 14.9 t = -1.77�
Health status
Poor 10.1% 15.6% v2 = 6.15*
Good 49.2% 34.4%
Excellent 40.7% 50.0%
Social and financial capital
Community support 3.7 3.6 t = 1.36
Business income $714,516 $509,111 t = 0.80
Business liabilities $192,816 $131,247 t = 0.78
Business cash-flow problem
No problem 39.3% 52.2% v2 = 4.65*
Have problem 60.7% 47.8%
Processes
Management practices 31.8 29.2 t = 2.65**
Innovative practices 2.9 2.7 t = 1.30
Business demographics
Business size 6.6 5.3 t = 0.49
Age of business 26 17 t = 3.67***
Home-based type
Home-based 52.7% 62.2% v2 = 2.47
Non-home based 47.3% 37.8%
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474 467
123
Perceived Business Success
As the predictors of business success, gender (H1-a), age
(H2-a), health (H2-c), satisfaction with community support
(H3), business cash-flow problems (H4-c), and the business
being home-based (H6-c) are statistically significant. Not
surprisingly, the age variable shows a significant and neg-
ative effect on the levels of perceived business success,
indicating that the levels of business success decrease as the
age of the manager increases. The findings also suggest that
managers with excellent health report greater levels of
business success than those with poor health status sup-
porting H2-c. The results for social capital show a signifi-
cant and positive effect, indicating that as a manager’s
satisfaction with community support increases, the levels of
business success increase as well. Thus, H3 is supported.
The coefficient associated with cash-flow problems
shows a significant and negative effect on the perceived
levels of business success, indicating that as managers have
business cash-flow problems, the perceived levels of
business success decrease, thus supporting H4-c. The
results also show that the business being home-based or not
have a significant effect on the perceived level of business
success, indicating that as managers run their business at
home, the perceived levels of business success decrease
over those that operate their businesses outside of home,
confirming H6-c.
Profit Growth
As the predictors of profit growth, gender, health, satis-
faction with community support, business size, and home-
based business are statistically significant. The results show
that managers with good health experience 333% more
profit growth between 1996 and 1999 than do those with
poor health, supporting H2-c. A manager’s satisfaction
with community support has a significant and positive
effect on the percentage change in business growth over
time (H3). That is, as the level of satisfaction with com-
munity support increases, the level of percentage change in
business profit increases by about 123%. As the number of
employees increases, the level of percentage change in
Table 3 A comparison of
management practice and
innovative practices between
male and female manager
* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01,
*** p \ 0.001
Variables Male manager
(n = 275)
Female manager
(n = 90)
Test statistic
t test
v2-test
Management Practice
Analyze customer satisfaction 3.7 3.9 t = -0.96
Evaluate quality of services/product 4.1 4.2 t = -0.22
Plan advertising/promotions 2.6 2.7 t = -0.37
Estimate costs and expense figures 3.8 3.4 t = 2.61**
Prepare financial records 3.3 3.0 t = 2.26*
Deal with personnel issues 3.0 2.2 t = 4.51***
Evaluate employee performance 2.9 2.3 t = 3.19***
Motivate workers to be better employee 3.0 2.3 t = 3.48***
Determine numerical objectives 3.2 2.9 t = 1.51
Develop a written strategic plan 2.2 2.2 t = 0.06
Innovative Practice
Have developed new products/services
Yes 58.1% 60.0% v2 = 0.11
No 41.9% 40.0%
Have improved method of products/services
Yes 21.4% 36.7% v2 = 8.14***
No 78.6% 63.3%
Have developed new marketing strategies
Yes 57.7% 58.9% v2 = 0.04
No 42.3% 41.1%
Have established markets
Yes 43.9% 50.0% v2 = 0.97
No 56.1% 50.0%
Have improved customer services
Yes 30.7% 28.9% v2 = 0.10
No 69.3% 71.1%
468 J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
123
business profit also increases (H6-b). Managers who run
business at home experience 236% less profit growth
between 1996 and 1999 than those who run businesses
outside the home.
OLS Results of Dummy Variable Interaction Approach
The OLS regression with dummy variable interaction
approach identifies which variables differentially affect the
business success and profit growth of these two types of
business managers. The first section of Table 5 reports the
OLS coefficients on variables for male managers. Using a
dummy variable interaction approach, thirteen variables
are interacted with the dummy variable for female manager
(Dfemi). If any of these thirteen interaction terms display
statistical significance, it means that the female manager’s
responses to a change in those interaction variables are
statistically different from the male manager’s responses to
a change in the same variables.
Perceived Business Success
In the first part of the business success model, it is evident
that excellent health (H2-c), satisfaction with community
support (H3), having cash-flow problems (H4-b), and being
a home-based business (H6-c) are all statistically signifi-
cant. The findings of this study suggest that male managers
with excellent health status and higher levels of satisfaction
with community support indicate higher levels of perceived
business success. However, male managers with business
cash-flow problems (H4-c) and those who operate business
at home (H6-c) report lower levels of perceived business
success than other managers. When all independent vari-
ables (x1i x2i,….xki) are interacted with the dummy variable
for gender (Dfemi), none of the coefficients is statistically
significant in accounting for differences in perceived
business success between female and male managers. This
means that the difference in perceived business success
between male and female managers is not due to different
response to change in any characteristics of managers and
family businesses.
Profit Growth
The first section of Table 5 shows that none of the vari-
ables for male managers is statistically significant. How-
ever, when the Dfemi variable is interacted with thirteen
variables, four out of the thirteen coefficients are statisti-
cally significant. The findings suggest that FEM 9 good
health, FEM 9 liabilities, FEM 9 business size, and
FEM 9 home-based play a significant role in explaining
factors that create differences in profit growth between
female and male managers. Based upon the results of the
significant parameters, it can be said that differences in
profit growth over time between the two groups are partly
due to different responses to changes in the health status of
the manager, business total debt, business size, and home-
based business type. Therefore, H2-c, H4-b, H6-a, and
H6-c are supported. It is worth noting that female managers
with good health have greater increases in percentage
change in business profit than male owners with good
health. It is also important to note that female managers
that run businesses at home have a greater decrease in
percentage change in business profit than male managers
who operate businesses at home.
Table 4 OLS results: determinants of business success and profit
growth
Business success Profit growth
coefficients (SE) coefficients (SE)
Intercept 3.842 (0.436) -467(618)
Gender
(Male)
FEM 0.209(0.095)* 381(137)**
Resources
Human capital
Age of manager -0.009(0.004)* -3.09(5.79)
Education of manager -6.1E-5(0.019) 10.56(27.37)
Health status
(Poor)
Good 0.159(0.137) 333(196)
�
Excellent 0.270(0.141)* 114(202)
Social and financial capital
Community support 0.156(0.051)*** 123(71.99)
�
Business income 1.59E-8(2.62E-8) 2.92E-5(3.5E-5)
Business liabilities 6.32E-8(8.18E-8) -1.35E-4(1.1E-4)
Business cash-flow problem
(No)
Have cash-flow problem -0.238(0.083)*** 35.07(116)
Processes
Management practices 0.005(0.005) -0.31(7.23)
Innovation practices -0.015(0.031) -2.36(45.35)
Business demographics
Business size -8.61E-4(0.003) 7.63(3.70)*
Age of business -0.003(0.002) 0.28(2.61)
Home-based type
(Non-home based)
Home-based -0.274(0.089)*** -236(125)*
F-value 4.01*** 2.26**
Adj R
2
0.11 0.06
� p \ 0.10, * p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01, *** p \ 0.001
Note Reference categories are in parentheses
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474 469
123
Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions
In previous studies, gender is not a significant variable to
explain the difference in financial performance between
male and female managers (Collins-Dodd et al. 2004) and
the levels of business success are similar across genders
(Kalleberg and Leicht 1991). Using data from the 1997 and
2000 panels of the NFBS, this descriptive study attempts to
present information on the differences found in male- and
female-managed family businesses. The findings of this
study suggest that female managers perceive their busi-
nesses as more successful than male managers. The find-
ings related to perceived business success are consistent
with the findings of Danes et al. (2010). Female managers
also experience 381% more profit growth between 1996
and 1999 than do male managers. It might be possible that
female managers have such a high growth rate because
they start from a very low base; thus, female-managed
firms, despite their small size, do show great potential for
growth. Such growth has implications for the larger society
Table 5 OLS results of
interaction approach for
business success and profit
growth
�
p \ 0.10, * p \ 0.05,
** p \ 0.01, *** p \ 0.001
Note Reference categories are in
parentheses
Business success Profit growth
coefficients (SE) coefficients (SE)
Male manager vector of coefficients
Intercept 3.428(0.453)*** -186(624)
Age of manager -0.007(0.005) 0.79(6.38)
Education of manager -0.002(0.022) -10.41(28.71)
Health condition
(Poor)
Good 0.224(0.165) 227(228)
Excellent 0.398(0.172)* 148(236)
Community support 0.207(0.058)***
Business income 1.60E-8(2.78E-8) 99.3(79.84)
Business liabilities 8.77E-8(8.9E-8) 4.9E-5(3.5E-5)
Cash-flow problem -4.2E-5(1.2E-4)
(No problem)
Have problem -0.301(0.097)*** 10.05(127)
Management practice 0.007(0.006) -6.10(7.69)
Innovation practice 0.005(0.038) 32.85(50.68)
Business size -0.002(0.003) -1.39(4.19)
Age of business -0.003(0.002)
�
0.43(2.64)
Business type
(Non-home based)
Home-based -0.255(0.102)** -118(136)
Female manager vector of interaction coefficients
FEM 1.270(0.337)*** -106.30(432)
FEM 9 Age of manager -0.009(0.009) -16.51(13.33)
FEM 9 Education 0.015(0.349) 26.87(53.15)
FEM 9 Good health -0.145(0.305) 732(440)*
FEM 9 Excellent health -0.337(0.312) 37.78(456)
FEM 9 Satisfaction with com. support -0.146(0.109) 186(149)
FEM 9 Business income 3.7E-8(8.7E-8) -6.0E-5(1.1E-4)
FEM 9 Business liabilities -2.3E-7(2.4E-7) -5.4E-4(3.1E-4)
�
FEM 9 Cash-flow problems 0.158(0.191) 57.38(272)
FEM 9 Management practice -0.004(0.011) 14.23(16.87)
FEM 9 Innovation practice -0.053(0.072) -90.59(109)
FEM 9 Business size 2.3E-4(6.5E-3) 34.07(8.24)***
FEM 9 Age of business 0.003(0.006) -1.14(9.41)
FEM 9 Home-based -0.006(0.203) -575(277)*
F-value 2.78*** 2.75***
Adj R
2
0.13 0.14
470 J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
123
in their ability to generate tax revenue through property,
income, and sales tax, and to potentially hire additional
employees if the owner decides to expand the operation.
Yet, small female operated firms also represent a mecha-
nism for successfully balancing work and family, while
achieving a desired level of business success.
Using the dummy variable interaction approach, vari-
ables such as good health status, business liabilities, busi-
ness size, and the business being home-based are all found
to have coefficients that are statistically significant, sug-
gesting that these four factors differently affect these two
types of business managers for their profit growth over
time. Based on this result, this study concludes that a dif-
ferential response exists in profit growth over time between
female and male managers in relation to health status,
business liabilities, business size, and whether the business
is home-based. Understanding how the health of the man-
ager, business debt, business size, and home-based factors
differently affect firm performance for male and female-
managed businesses can be useful for policy makers,
business consultants, and even for business managers or
owners to survive during economic downturns.
While the SFBT provides a useful framework that
identifies resource inputs, managerial processes, and the
relationship between the business and the larger commu-
nity through community support, additional research to
understand resources and processes at the family level and
their influence on firm outcomes is warranted. The findings
of this study are consistent with the review of literature that
female business managers may have lower levels of human
and financial capital than male managers (Boden and Nucci
2000; Carter and Marlow 2003; Haynes et al. 2000; Los-
cocco et al. 1991; Schmidt and Parker 2003).
The study concludes that the human capital of the man-
ager is an important determinant of business success. Health
is significantly associated with the level of business success;
age is also a significant predictor. It is evident that as the level
of health increases, business managers report higher levels of
business success as well as profit growth which is especially
true for female managers. To enhance the human capital of
managers in the form of health, it is important for community
decision makers to be aware of the role of health on business
success and to launch a diverse set of health-enhancing
efforts such as physical activity programs or the provision of
recreational facilities within a community. Educational
efforts related to nutrition, hygiene, immunization, and dis-
ease prevention may also facilitate wellness. Business
managers should make a concerted effort to monitor, and
possibly improve their health through diet, exercise, and
maintaining a healthy life style.
There is also great potential in understanding social
capital, particularly as it pertains to the long-term sustain-
ability of the business (Danes et al. 2010). As social capital,
manager’s satisfaction with community support is signifi-
cant in both business success and profit growth regression
models, implying that providing small business managers or
owners with a variety of support programs is critical for firm
outcomes. Decision makers might need to consider policies
that could support family firms, while developing regula-
tions or laws to reduce barriers to business success within
the community. However, in terms of limitations, this study
utilizes a single-item indicator to measure community sup-
port, a form of social capital; thus, improved measures could
add insight into the relationship between social capital and
firm performance. As suggested by Danes et al. (2010),
human and social capital may sustain small firms during
financially difficult times when other forms of capital, such
as financial capital, are less available.
Regarding financial capital, the presence of cash-flow
problems negatively affects the levels of business success.
Therefore, a consultant working with small business man-
agers might need to focus on equipping those managers
with financial knowledge and providing information on a
various funding opportunities. On the other hand, small
business managers might need to become more financially
literate in handling their debts through education and
business supporting programs.
Using SFBT, management activity represents a process
through which business managers transform resources. The
findings of this study describe that differences exist in
management activities between male and female managers.
Professionals who work with female business managers
need to recognize gender differences in management
practices. For example, female managers are less likely to
be involved in dealing with employees and business
finance than male managers. Thus, it might be necessary
for educators to assist female managers by providing
business finance seminars or relationship skill training
programs to help them deal with their employees, and
educators can further assist female managers by providing
enhancement programs to strengthen business skills
(Weigel and Ballard-Reisch 1997). Assisting female-
owned business in estimating costs and expenses, preparing
or managing business finance, and dealing with personnel
or employee issues would be important to help this grow-
ing segment of family business owners.
In SFBT, business innovative practice also represents a
process through which business managers transform
resources to meet demands. In the literature, it is noted that
there is no significant innovation gap between male- and
female-managed businesses (Kalleberg and Leicht 1991);
however, this study finds gender differences in use of
innovative practices. It is important for female business
managers to strengthen their skills in innovative practices,
while seeking help to improve the areas of innovative
practices that they lack.
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474 471
123
This study finds that businesses operated at home report
lower levels of business success and profit growth. Previ-
ous studies indicate that female managers operate their
businesses at home so that they can take care of their
children, while generating income; however, it might be
difficult for female managers to operate businesses at home
while putting lots of effort toward the business goals
(Hirsch and Brush 1987; Kaplan 1988; Kepler and Shane
2007). Involvement in home-based work can lead to
additional demands on both the family and the business
system (Fitzgerald and Winter 2001). Using the dummy
variable interaction approach, the results also show that the
home-based factor differently affects female and male
business managers for their profit growth over time. The
results imply that female managers who operate their
businesses at home could encounter more difficulties than
their male counterparts. This is consistent with Fitzgerald
and Winter (2001) who find that men and women
encounter different kinds of intrusions in their home-based
businesses based on occupation. Consultants may need to
work with male and female managers to develop unique
strategies that help them overcome the challenges of
operating a home-based business.
This study makes several contributions to the literature
on the performance of male- and female-managed family
businesses. First, both financial and non-financial measures
of firm success are included in the analyses. Firm success is
a multidimensional concept (Danes et al. 2008b) and while
financial performance is commonly used to measure firm
success, subjective measures have been shown to provide
insight into other dimensions of success such as commit-
ment and passion for the firm (Stanforth and Muske 2001).
Second, Danes et al. (2007) suggest that it is no longer
sufficient to investigate gender differences in management
practices with a dummy variable. The main and moderating
effects of gender need to be assessed through the use of
interaction terms as they were in this study. The results of
this study indicate that health has a differential effect on
perceived business success for male and female managers.
Health, liabilities, business size, and whether the business
is based in the home also have a differential impact on
profit growth for male and female managers. Third, the
study adds to the understanding of the performance of
family-owned businesses within the community context by
including a measure of social capital, although additional
work in this area is certainly warranted. Lastly, the findings
clarify the complex interplay between resources, manage-
ment practices, and other characteristics in understanding
perceptions of business success and profit increase over
time.
A better understanding of the factors that influence firm
performance in general, and the differential effects for men
and women can help business managers, consultants, and
policy makers tailor efforts to strengthen family firms to
become more profitable and successful for the owners and
employees. Gender-based public policy programs have
been created to increase the number of women entrepre-
neurs in the marketplace (Walker and Joyner 1999). In
addition, many colleges and universities in the United
States have added courses focusing on entrepreneurship
and business management, with significant support from
the entrepreneurship community. For example, the Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation’s Kauffman Campuses Pro-
gram began distributing $5 million grants in 2006 to help
universities to create entrepreneurial training programs
(Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation 2010). Fostering the
success of family firms, whether they are male or female
owned, is important to family, business, and community
viability. Financially successful small firms not only pro-
vide adequate income to their owners, they also will likely
make larger contributions to their communities (Fitzgerald
et al. 2005).
References
Adler, P., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new
concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Anna, A. L., Chandler, G. N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N. P. (1999).
Women business owners in traditional and non-traditional
industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 279–303.
Becker, G. S. (1993). The economic approach to human behavior.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Boden, R. J., Jr., & Nucci, A. (2000). On the survival prospects of
men’s and women’s new business ventures. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15(4), 347–362.
Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment
in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of
analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 259–271.
Bryant, W. K. (1992). Human capital, time use, and other family
behavior. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 13(4),
395–406.
Carter, N., Brush, C., Greene, P., Gatewood, E., & Hart, M. (2003).
Women entrepreneurs who break through to equity financing:
The influence of human, social, and financial capital. Venture
Capital, 5(1), 1–28.
Carter, S., & Marlow, S. (2003, June). Professional attainment as a
challenge to gender disadvantage in entrepreneurship. Paper
presented at the 48th International Small Business Conference,
Belfast, Germany.
U.S. Census Bureau (2002). Survey of business owners – Women –
owned firms – 2002. Retrieved on October 7, 2009 from
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/reserach/ rs280tot .
Cliff, J. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship
between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size.
Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 523–542.
Coleman, S. (2007). The role of human and financial capital in the
profitability and growth of women-owned small firms. Journal of
Small Business Management, 45(3), 303–319.
Collins-Dodd, C., Gordon, I. M., & Smart, C. (2004). Further
evidence on the role of gender in financial performance. Journal
of Small Business Management, 42(4), 395–417.
472 J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
123
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/reserach/
Cuba, R., DeCenzo, D., & Anish, A. (1983). Management practices of
successful female business owners. American Journal of Small
Business, 8, 40–45.
Cutler, D., & Richardson, E. (1999). Your money and your life: The
value of health and what affects it. Frontiers in Health Policy
Research, 3(1), 99–132.
Danes, S. M. (2006). Tensions within family business-owning couples
over time. Stress. Trauma and Crisis, 9(3–4), 227–246.
Danes, S. M., Lee, J., Stafford, K., & Heck, R. (2008a). The effects of
ethnicity, families and culture, on entrepreneurial experience: An
extension of sustainable family business theory. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 229–268.
Danes, S. M., Loy, J. T., & Stafford, K. (2008b). Management
practices of small private firms within a quality framework.
Journal of Small Business Management, 46, 395–421.
Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Haynes, G., & Amarapurkar, S. S. (2010).
Family capital of family firms: Bridging human, social, and
financial capital. Family Business Review, 22(3), 199–215.
Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., & Loy, J. T. C. (2007). Family business
performance: The effects of gender and management. Journal of
Business Research, 60(10), 1058–1069.
Davis, P. (1983). Realizing the potential of family businesses.
Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 47–56.
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (2010). Kauffman campuses
initiative: Entrepreneurship across college campuses. Retrieved
June 27, 2010, from http://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneur
ship/kauffman-campuses.aspx.
Fielden, S., Davidson, M., Dawe, A., & Makin, P. (2003). Factors
inhibiting the economic growth of female owned small busi-
nesses in North West England. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 10(2), 152–166.
Fischer, E., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical
overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 151–168.
Fitzgerald, M. A., & Folker, C. A. (2005). Exploring new frontiers in
women’s family business leadership: The impact of women’s
motivations on family and business measures of success.
International Journal of Family Business, 2, 1–11.
Fitzgerald, M. A., Haynes, G. W., Schrank, H., & Danes, S. M. (2005,
September). For-profit family firms as socially responsible
organizations: Evidence from the U.S. National Business Survey.
Paper presented at the F.B.N.-IFERA World Academic Research
Forum, Brussels.
Fitzgerald, M. A., & Winter, M. (2001). The intrusiveness of home
based work on family life. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 22(1), 75–92.
Gujarati, D. N. (1988). Basic Econometrics (Second Edition ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing company.
Hammermesh, D. S., & Rees, A. (1993). The economics of work and
pay. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Haynes, G. W., Onochie, J. I., & Muske, G. (2007). Is what’s good for
the business, good for the family: A financial assessment.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28(3), 395–409.
Haynes, G. W., Rowe, B. R., Walker, R., & Hong, G. (2000). The
differences in financial structure between women-and men-
owned family businesses. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 21(3), 209–226.
Heck, R. K. Z., & Trent, E. S. (1999). The prevalence of family
business from a household sample. Family Business Review, 12,
209–224.
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. G. (1987). Women entrepreneurs: A
longitudinal study. In frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp.
187–189). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Hundley, G. (2001). Domestic division of labor and self/organiza-
tionally employed differences in job attitudes and earnings.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(2), 121–139.
Jang, Y. L. (1995). Human Capital-Enhancing Expenditures: A
Comparison of Female-headed and Married Couple Households.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia).
Jones, C. T. (2003). Predicting the financial success and occupational
wellbeing of micro-business owners: An integrated model of
personality and the work-family interface. Australian Journal of
Psychology, Supplement, 131.
Kale, S., & Arditi, D. (1998). Business failures: Liabilities of
newness, adolescence and smallness. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 124(6), 458–464.
Kalleberg, A., & Leicht, K. T. (1991). Gender and organizational
performance. Determinants of small business survival and
success. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 136–161.
Kangasharju, A., & Pekkala, S. (2002). The role of education and
self-employment success in Finland. Growth and Change, 33,
216–237.
Kaplan, E. (1988). Women entrepreneurs: Constructing a framework
to examine venture success and business failures. In Frontiers of
entrepreneurship research pp. 625–637. Wellesley, MA: Babson
College.
Kepler, E., & Shane, S. (2007). Are male and female entrepreneurs
really that different? Contract report for the office of advocacy,
U.S. small business administration. Retrieved on April 20, 2008
from
http://www.sba.gov/advo.
Kirkwood, J. (2009). Spousal roles on motivations for entrepreneur-
ship: A qualitative study in New Zealand. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 30(4), 372–385.
Lansberg, I. (1983). Managing human resources in family firms: The
problem of institutional overlap. Organizational Dynamics,
12(1), 39–46.
Lee, Y., Danes, S., & Shelley, M. (2006). Work roles, management and
perceived well-being for married women within family busi-
nesses. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(3), 523–541.
Loscocco, K. A. (1997). Work-family linkages among self-employed
women and men. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 204–226.
Loscocco, K. A., & Leicht, K. T. (1993). Gender, work-family
linkages, and economic success among small business owners.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(4), 875–877.
Loscocco, K. A., Robinson, J., Hall, R. H., & Allen, J. K. (1991).
Gender and small business: An inquiry into women’s relative
disadvantage. Social Forces, 70, 65–85.
Lowrey, Y. (2006). Women in business: A demographic review of
women’s business ownership. Office of advocacy, U. S. small
business administration. Retrieved on April 20, 2008 from
http://www.sba.gov/advo.
Marion, R. M. (1988). Integration in the family firm: When the family
system replaces controls and culture? Family Business Review,
1(4), 399–417.
Masuo, D., Fong, G., Yanagida, J., & Cabal, C. (2001). Factors
associated with business and family success: A comparison of
single manager and dual manager family business households.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(1), 55–73.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A
definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1),
6–23.
Myrie, J., & Daly, K. (2009). The use of boundaries by self-
employed, home-based workers to manage work and family: A
qualitative study in Canada. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 30(4), 386–398.
Olson, P. D., Zuiker, V. S., Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Heck, R. K. Z.,
& Duncan, K. A. (2003). The impact of family and business on
family business sustainability. Journal of Business Venturing,
18, 639–666.
Orser, B., & Hogarth-Scott, S. (2002). Opting for growth: Gender
dimensions of choosing enterprise development. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19(3), 284–301.
J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474 473
123
http://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/kauffman-campuses.aspx
http://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/kauffman-campuses.aspx
http://www.sba.gov/advo
http://www.sba.gov/advo
Philbrick, C., & Fitzgerald, M. (2007). Women in business-owning
families: A comparison of roles, responsibilities, and predictors
of family functionality. Journal of Family and Economic Issues,
28(4), 618–634.
Romano, C. A., Tanewski, G. A., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2000). Capital
structure decision making: A model for family business. Journal
of Business Venturing, 16, 285–310.
Schieman, S., & Young, M. (2010). Economic hardship and family-
to-work conflict: The importance of gender and work conditions.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Online first, doi:
10.1007/s10834-010-9206-3.
Schmidt, R. A., & Parker, C. (2003). Diversity in independent
retailing: Barriers and benefits—the impact of gender. Interna-
tional Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(8/9),
428–439.
SCORE Women Entrepreneurs Web Site Retrieved on October 8,
2009 from http://www.score.org/women/site.html.
Small Business Administration. (2002). Programs and services to
help you start, grow and succeed. Retrieved on April 24, 2008
from http://www.sba.gov.
Soldressen, L. S., Fiorito, S. S., & He, Y. (1998). An exploration into
home-based businesses: Data from textile artists. Journal of
Small Business Management, 36, 33–44.
Sonfield, M. C., & Lussier, R. N. (2009). Gender in family business
ownership and management: A six-country analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1, 96–117.
Stafford, K., Duncan, K., Danes, S., & Winter, M. (1999). A research
model for sustainable family businesses. Family Business
Review, 12, 197–208.
Stanforth, N., & Muske, G. (2001). An exploration of entrepreneur-
ship. Stillwater: Department of Design, Housing & Merchandis-
ing, Oklahoma State University.
Tuttle, R., & Garr, M. (2009). Self-employment, work-family fit, and
mental health among female workers. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues, 30(3), 282–292.
Walch, D., & Merante, J. (2007). What is the appropriate business
continuity management staff size? Journal of Business Continu-
ity and Emergency Planning, 2(3), 240–250.
Walker, E., & Brown, A. (2004). What success factors are important
to small business owners? International Small Business Journal,
22(6), 577–594.
Walker, D., & Joyner, B. E. (1999). Female entrepreneurship and the
market process: Gender-based public policy considerations.
Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 95–116.
Watson, J. (2002). Comparing the performance of male and female
controlled businesses: Relating outputs to inputs. Entrepreneur-
ship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 91–100.
Werbel, J. D., & Danes, S. M. (2010). Work family conflict in new
business ventures: The moderating effects of spousal commit-
ment to the new business venture. Journal of Small Business
Management, 48(3), 421–440.
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1997). Merging family and
firm: An integrated systems approach to process and change.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 18(1), 7–32.
Winter, M., Danes, S. M., Koh, S., Fredericks, K., & Paul, J. J.
(2004). Tracking family businesses and their owners over time:
panel attrition, manager departure and business demise. Journal
of Business Venturing, 19, 535–559.
Winter, M., Fitzgerald, M. A., Heck, R. K. Z., Haynes, G. W., &
Danes, S. M. (1998). Revisiting the study of family businesses:
Methodological challenges, dilemmas, and altermative
approaches. Family Business Review, 11(3), 239–252.
Zody, Z., Sprenkle, D., MacDermid, S., & Schrank, H. (2006).
Boundaries and the functioning of family and business systems.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(2), 185–206.
Author Biographies
Yoon G. Lee, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Family, Consumer, and Human Development at Utah State Univer-
sity. She received her PhD from University of Missouri-Columbia.
Dr. Lee’s research interests include household financial behavior,
with an emphasis on women, elderly, and baby boomers. Her current
topics deal with consumer and mortgage debts among near-retirees,
retirement savings of older minorities, and business success &
management
issues in family businesses.
Cynthia R. Jasper, PhD is a Professor in the Department of
Consumer Science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her
doctoral degree is from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She
also serves as the Chair of the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies
in Human Ecology. Dr. Jasper has been named the Vaughn Bascom
Professor of Women and Philanthropy. Dr. Jasper’s research interests
include consumer behavior and management within the retailing
settings, women and philanthropy, and succession and management
issues in family businesses.
Margaret A. Fitzgerald, PhD is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Human Development and Family Science at North
Dakota State University in Fargo. Her PhD is from Iowa State
University. Dr. Fitzgerald’s research interests include copreneurial
couples, gender and management issues, and business social respon-
sibility in family businesses.
474 J Fam Econ Iss (2010) 31:458–474
123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10834-010-9206-3
http://www.score.org/women/site.html
http://www.sba.gov
Copyright of Journal of Family & Economic Issues is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
