Women in Business Families

From Past to Present

Jarna Heinonen, Kirsi Vainio-Korhonen, Jarna Heinonen, Kirsi Vainio-Korhonen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138635968
• eBook ISBN: 9781351796583
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business generale
• Index: Business

For centuries, almost all economic activity was family-based. The family business rested on the division of labor among family members. Therefore the family was both socially and economically the foundation of the family business. Families were not only production units, but also education and consumption units that conveyed norm structures, values and professional identity to next generation. Although female family members have always been active participants in family businesses over the centuries, their role has often been neglected in previous studies.

Women in Business Families: From Past to Present presents both conceptual and theoretically informed empirical papers addressing three related themes relevant for family business and gender in past and in present: heroic women entrepreneurs; invisibility / visibility of women in businesses; and business succession.

The book Women in Business Families: From Past to Present balances between both historical and contemporary analyses. The chapters integrate the notions of time and gender in focusing on family businesses or business families in past and in present. This volume will be of vital reading to researchers and academics in the fields of Gender Studies, Family Business, Organizational studies, Entrepreneurship and the various related disciplines.

Section II

Notions of the Visibility and Invisibility of Women

7 Moving Between Visibility and Invisibility

Understanding Social and Family Business Spheres

Henrietta Nilson and Ulla Hytti

Introduction

The family firm is an institution that has historically been forced to adapt to social and juridical environmental situations. Because the leadership and day-to-day running of the firm is embedded in the social entity of the family, a complex understanding of the family business calls for a more inclusive approach towards different family members. One such family member is the wife. Coming from history in which women were denied ownership of family firms (Karlsson-Stider 2000), the wife has been described as the one doing the paper work in the firm, being the caretaker that is not viewed by others (Hollander and Bukowitz 1990), and also the person who requires perfection and control (Vera and Dean 2005). These different roles can create ambiguity (Dumas 1989) in relation to the various social spheres: in the family firm (co-worker), in the family (mother, wife), or in the surrounding social setting (friend, activities). Wives have often taken multiple roles when it comes to earning the family income, such as working in the family firm as well as holding outside employment. Even if wives have been acknowledged by their contribution to the family’s well-being and the firm’s wealth, they have often been absent from public records regarding salary and titles (Martinez Jimenez 2009), and frequently went without any compensation at all (Rowe and Hong 2000). This absence has led to a discussion about wives and women from an invisibility aspect (Lyman, Saganicoff, and Hollander 1985).

“Invisibility” of women in family business research can have different meanings. It can be referred to as not being allowed to work in the business but doing so anyway (Karlsson-Stider 2000). That is, legal restrictions hindered women from publicly declaring a stake but their labour was indeed critical for the family firm (Bersbo 2012). This kind of invisibility is, in some regards, equal to being hidden, which also can be compared to the power of ruling norms in the society, as shown, for example, in the absence of titles and salary (Martinez Jimenez 2009). A second kind of invisibility is the lack of a description of activity. For instance, within entrepreneurship research the heroic male is the ruling norm undermining the role of women (Hamilton 2006), and interest in studying women who achieve leadership positions in family firms has been surprisingly low (Nelton 1998). A third form of invisibility and visibility is also mentioned as a kind of neglect. There are examples where women are discriminated due to their gender (Wang 2010) and their professionalism is overlooked which leads to feelings of invisibility (Cole 1997). Furthermore, the family business institution also nurtures neglect in the action of women’s socialisation processes. This is affected by society’s prejudices (Salganicoff 1990) as well as the lack of opportunity to take over the firm in a succession process (Haberman and Danes 2007), where sons have been the first choices as heirs (Sentuti 2009). The neglect of daughters in the succession process is also about not allowing them time to become prepared for the visibility leadership in a family firm demands (Kram and McCollom-Hampton 2003). Daughters in family firms sometimes also suffer from being compared to their parents, especially when mothers rule the family firm. To live in the mother’s shadow is to be constantly compared by non-family members to the mother who leads the family firm which makes the situation coloured by invisibility (Vera and Dean 2005). The description of (in)visibility is faceted and difficult to grasp, yet they are phenomena that contribute to womens’ and wives’ everyday life in family firms. This chapter follows Hamilton’s (2006) suggestion to take a closer look at the alternative gender discourse and practises that make family businesses a unique phenomenon. The aim of this chapter is to explore:

How moving in-between visibility and invisibility in different social and family business spheres is done to secure a self-rewarding and empowered role.

In order to address this aim, the chapter is organised as follows. First, we will introduce our idea of (in)visibility as a theoretical construct by relying on Asplund’s (1987) theory of social responsivity. Second, we inform of our methodological approach and ways of gathering and analysing the research materials before moving into presenting our findings in the form of Vera’s story. The chapter closes with our discussion of arenas for moving between visibility and invisibility to highlight the theoretical insights from the empirical materials and with the concluding remarks where we will summarise the main contribution of the chapter.

(In)visibility—A Theoretical Development

The faceted use and the multiple meanings of the term “(in)visibility” (that is, visibility and invisibility) in earlier research made it necessary to ground the term theoretically and find a standpoint for its interpretation (Nilson 2015). The present study uses the social theory of responsivity by Johan Asplund (1987) and further develops it from earlier research about (in)visibility (Brighenti 2007, 2010). The theory’s point of departure is in the social interaction between two or more individuals and the idea that our experiences are not born from within us but are the outcome of relating ourselves to the social and physical world (Israel 1988). This calls for a social responsivity “where one part’s action is a response to the other’s stimuli” (Asplund 1987, 10). The process of social responsivity is seen to be spontaneous but not pre-programmed, such as a reflex. A person can be “responsive spontaneously and at the same time critical or at least can reflect about her or his own behaviour and the actions to which he or she reacts as well as to others’ reactions to her or his own actions” (Israel 1988).

In this social process there are arenas or special units¹ for the involved to communicate and pay attention to each other that invite some people but exclude others (Asplund 1987). The invited are socially responsive towards each other but asocial towards the rest of the world to a different degree. The social responsivity between a mother and an infant is an example of such a special unit. Alternatively, a phone call between two close friends can form such an arena for those involved and invited that spontaneously excludes others (Asplund 1987). Visibility and invisibility are conditioned and constructed in these arenas of social responsivity (Nilson 2015). Visibility is invited by positive attitude with smiles, attention, glances, and gestures towards the person who is being welcomed into the arena. For example, the entry of an individual into a family business meeting could be recognised with affirmation and offering of a chair. The person in question is thus rendered visible enabling feelings of belonging to the arena (also Hytti et al. 2017). On the other hand, invisibility is reinforced in the form of neglect, such as turned backs or the avoidance of eye contact and exclusion of the individual (Nilson 2015), if for example trying to engage in a conversation about the family business. Thus, in the exclusion from the arena the invisibility is reinforced. For the rest of this chapter, the above-mentioned interpretation is the one used regarding the phenomena of (in)visibility.

Methodology: Consciousness About (In)visibility

It is necessary to give careful thought about the chosen method when conducting research on phenomena like (in)visibility, as neither the words nor the phenomena by themselves are frequently used or spoken about in everyday life (Nilson 2015). In the present study, dialogue is used from a Freirean (1970, 1974) perspective, which involves holding a dialogue as a way of knowing (1970) and making platforms where consciousness about phenomena is possible. In this specific case the life story (Johansson 2005) and interactive dialogue (Freire 1970, 1974) were used as a grounding for the participants to increase their consciousness.

The present study was initiated with an invitation to Vera, a mother of four children and a part of a family business. Vera was considered an interesting participant as she, now in her late 70s, had a lifelong experience of a family firm—from childhood to adulthood—working together with her family members, and hence we expected that she would have some knowledge about being (in)visible. However, since (in)visibility as phenomena are relatively unfamiliar for us—something that we do not regularly think, it was necessary to create platforms for consciousness. Therefore, the starting point for this was to ask her to tell her life story (Johansson 2005) in an interview. The initial question for Vera was: Can you please tell me about your life in the family firm, from the very beginning up till now? As the aim with the interview was to let her speak freely, there were no prepared questions or guidance for Vera during the interview, just subtle nods to reassure her that she can continue with her story.

In the first phase a content analysis (Czarniawska 2014) was conducted by relying on the theoretical framework in the study that focused on (in)visibility. Then the story was rewritten in a short version and the words visibility and invisibility were inserted in the text and this new story rewritten by the first author was sent to Vera. In a first Freirean (1970) dialogue, the content of the new story was discussed between Vera and the first author where the focus was on Vera´s experience of reading about herself in terms of (in)visibility. At this phase she was asked the following question: Can you describe your experience of reading about yourself in terms of (in)visibility?

In a second dialogue, that took place after three years, the discussion was focused on what (in)visibility did to her, that is, her experience of the dialogue and how the story about herself in terms of (in)visibility had affected her life. In this dialogue she was asked to respond to the question: Have (in)visibility done anything to you? Has something happened after you read your story about (in)visibility?

By letting the respondent become conscious about the phenomena, both the meaning of the words and the context in which they are occurring can be discussed and understood (Nilson 2015). This is an interactive method in which the researcher is involved, and also interferes with the process (Alvesson and Kärreman 2012). A mutual learning develops in the interaction between the researcher and attendant; moreover, the knowledge production is aimed both at the practitioner and at academia (Docherty, Ljung, and Stjernberg 2008).

Vera’s Story

Vera is a woman, mother (of four), wife and, during the present study, also worked in her and her husband’s family firm. The life story takes it departure from her early childhood to be continued over her lifespan.

Childhood and Upbringing

“A girl in the manufacturer’s shop was going to get married so the position was free. I begged my father on my knees to give me permission to apply for the job. I told him I would milk the cows before I leave in the morning and as soon as I get back in the evening. I knew he could not manage the milking part on his own. He turned me down—I thought it was a bit harsh; I have thought about it since.”

(Nilson 2015, 76)

This is how Vera talks about her life as a 15-year-old girl who lived on a farm together with her parents and siblings during the 1950s in Sweden. These were times when women were still suffering from the aftermath of juridical restrictions regarding ownership in family firms (Karlsson-Stider 2000) The quote informs how the employment options were strongly constrained for women and fathers in particular were in an important position to influence them (Lamb 2000).

Vera’s upbringing was coloured by manual labour. The whole family took part in the daily work on the farm and in the woods. Every family member, regardless of gender, had to make an effort. As the youngest of the siblings, Vera was expected to help her parents out. She was forbidden to accept paid work outside the farm and had to rely on her parents’ good will to buy her clothes and other things she needed, in other words, payment in favours instead of money. During her spare time Vera often visited her grandparents’ house to spend time with them, enjoying their company and baking cakes....

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on the Editors and Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Section I Challenging the Heroic Male Image of Entrepreneurs
• Section II Notions of the Visibility and Invisibility of Women
• Section III Women in Business Succession
• Index