Family Support and Performance of Women-owned Enterprises: The Mediating Effect of Family-to-Work Enrichment

Abstract

The objective of this article was to examine the mediating role of family-to-work enrichment (FWE) on the relationship between family support and the performance of women-owned businesses. Empirical data from 251 women entrepreneurs in South Africa were used to assess the postulated relationship. The findings showed that all three examined types of family support (i.e., emotional, instrumental and financial family support) were positively associated with firm performance. Additionally, affective FWE mediated the relationship between emotional support and performance, while instrumental FWE mediated the association between instrumental family support and performance. The study culminates with a discussion of the implications of the study, by emphasising the need for the current system to take into account the distinctive needs and challenges of women entrepreneurs and provide the necessary support and environment to foster their growth and prosperity.

Keywords

Family support family-to-work enrichment firm performance women-owned businesses

Over the past few decades, the substantial increase in women entrepreneurship around the world has resulted in a positive shift and changes in the traditional roles of women (De Sousa, 2013; Khan, 2014). With the increased participation of women in entrepreneurship, juggling both work and family responsibilities has become a major challenge facing women entrepreneurs (Boz, Martínez-Corts, & Munduate, 2016; De Sousa, 2013; Mari, Poggesi, & De Vita, 2016). Women entrepreneurs, as working women and mothers, assume multiple roles in their typical family and domestic (household chores and childcare responsibilities) settings and in their business (Rehman & Roomi, 2012; Shelton, 2006; Wambua, 2014). As such, many women entrepreneurs, though not bound to traditional gender-specific roles and venturing into the business world, are, however, still responsible for a larger portion of family responsibilities (Agarwal, Mishra, & Dixit, 2015; Rehman & Roomi, 2012). Consequently, a deeper understanding of the bidirectional effect of family and work on women’s entrepreneurship and its uniqueness (Mari et al., 2016; Minniti, 2009; Poggesi, Mari, & De Vita, 2015) is vital.

Family support has been identified to play a pivotal role in the survival and growth of women-owned businesses (Teoh & Chong, 2008). Powell and Eddleston (2013) define family-to-business support ‘as social support received from family members for one’s entrepreneurial activities’. Family has also been identified to play a central role in the entrepreneurial start-up process, especially in nurturing the entrepreneurial business, as they help in mobilising physical, financial and labour resources (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Welsh, Kim, Memili, & Kaciak, 2014; Welsh, Memili, & Kaciak, 2016). Consequently, entrepreneurs with high levels of family support turn to be more successful (Berrone, Gertel, Giuliodori, Bernard, & Meiners, 2014). Imbaya (2012) pointed out that the success of women in business is highly depended on the type of support accorded to them by their family members. Also, individuals who receive family support are more likely to manage work pressures and redirect their attention towards their work responsibilities, which in turn increases the performance of their businesses (Karatepe & Bekteshi, 2008). Family support enhances the likelihood of survival and growth chances of a business through information sharing, trust building and joint problem-solving among family ties, which also helps to augment the performance of a business (Mari et al., 2016; Roger, 2005; Uzzi, 1999; Welsh et al., 2016). Family members represent important resources that female entrepreneurs can depend on, especially when external support systems are limited (Greve & Salaf, 2003; Welsh et al., 2014). This suggests that the family domain may provide most of the necessary types of support that assist women entrepreneurs in achieving entrepreneurial success. Imbaya (2012) stressed that a key problem for all entrepreneurs, especially women entrepreneurs, is the perception of them by their family and community. Positive perceptions foster entrepreneurial activities, while negative perceptions have the adverse effect. As such, the success of women-owned enterprises very much depends on the kind of support they receive from their family members. However, there is still a limited understanding of the underlying mechanisms through which different types of family support influence firm performance, as evidence of the direct association of family support and firm performance has been inconsistent (Mari et al., 2016; Welsh et al., 2014). This necessitates the introduction of other family context variables in the path between family support and firm performance in order to unearth the nature of this association. As such, this study chose to introduce family-to-work enrichment (FWE) as a possible mediator of this relationship based on the increasing intertwine between the family and work domains for entrepreneurs (Powell & Eddleston, 2013) and especially because family support has been increasingly shown to be a significant antecedent of FWE in the organisational context (Baral & Bhargava, 2011; Nicklin & McNall, 2011; Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2006).

FWE has been found to have a mutually beneficial influence on the family and work roles (Kim & Las Heras, 2012; Powell & Eddleston, 2011, 2013). Kim and Las Heras (2012) define FWE as ‘how work roles benefit from family roles through developmental resources, positive affect, and gains in efficiency derived from involvement in family’. According to Greenhaus and Powell (2006), FWE occurs when resources obtained from the family domain are transferable in the business domain in a manner that benefits the business venture. FWE has been found to augment work attitude and venture-level outcomes such as business survival, performance, job satisfaction and subjective perceptions of business success (McNall, Nicklin, & Masuda, 2010; Powell & Eddleston, 2013). Tu and Hwang (2014) established that positive FWE enhanced the innovative behaviour and performance of micro-entrepreneurs. The family has been identified as an essential training ground for entrepreneurs (Gundry & Welsch, 1994). This is because the family can teach entrepreneurs how to successfully adopt behaviours in their family roles such as multitasking and interpersonal communications to better their businesses. For example, multitasking skills learned from family roles can be used to prioritise competing business demands, while interpersonal communication can be used for successful management of business relationships with employees, suppliers and customers (Grzywacz, Carlson, Kacmar, & Wayne, 2007; Powell & Eddleston, 2013; Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002). Also, by tapping into the behaviours from the family role, entrepreneurs are able to build a business culture that capitalises on treating employees and customers with utmost care and respect, which in turn can be translated into improved business success (Powell & Eddleston, 2013). Consequently, given that family-domain factors have been found to impact positively on the family and work roles, Jennings and McDougald (2007) posited that models of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes would to a larger extent be incomplete if emphasis is not laid on family-work considerations.

Aldrich and Cliff (2003) observed that family and business domains are highly intertwined for the majority of small businesses owners. Consequently, in an attempt to strike a balance, entrepreneurs often structure their businesses based on their personal preferences (Bird & Brush, 2002). Similarly, Powell and Eddleston (2013) add that since an entrepreneurs’ work and family domains are more integrated into a small business than in the organisational employment, entrepreneurs can more easily transfer or share resources between both domains. Likewise, researchers (Shelton, 2006; Tu & Hwang, 2014) pointed out that because family and work boundaries tend to be more intertwined for women, women entrepreneurs adopt role-sharing strategies that can assist the enhancement of both family and work roles while reducing inter-role conflict. Thus, by capitalising on a combination of FWE and family support resources, women entrepreneurs are better able to nurture their entrepreneurial success.

However, while there is growing evidence on the importance of family support on augmenting the performance of women entrepreneurs (Mari et al., 2016; McNall et al., 2010; Powell & Eddleston, 2013; Roger, 2005), enough is not known about the impact that FWE has on the performance of women-owned business in developing countries, as it has been widely neglected in prior studies (De Klerk, Nel, Hill, & Koekemoer, 2013; De Klerk, Nel, & Koekemoer, 2015; Jaga, Bagraim, & Williams, 2013; Marais, De Klerk, Nel, & De Beer, 2014; Langeveldt, 2016; Solomon, 2015; Wallace, 2015). This is because these researchers have primarily focused on how enrichment from the family domain affects employees as opposed to entrepreneurs.

Consequently, in an attempt to fill this gap in the literature, this study sets out to investigate the impact that family support has on the performance of women-owned businesses, and how FWE can mediate the family support–performance relationship. Thus, this paper advances a perspective on entrepreneurs’ family and business roles that stresses their desire for synergy between work and family as allies by proposing that family support and FWE may serve as valuable resources for women entrepreneurs which in turn can be used to augment business performance (McNall et al., 2010; Powell & Eddleston, 2013; Welsh et al., 2016). This study makes a contribution to understanding how resources acquired in the family domain can be used in the work domain to enhance the performance of women entrepreneurs, particularly in developing countries.

The Role of Family Support in Women Businesses

Family support is a vital institution in the life of every individual as it provides them with an indispensable support system not just during childhood but also throughout life (Imbaya, 2012). Extant literature (Mari et al., 2016; Roger, 2005; Welsh et al., 2016) identifies three types of family support (financial support, emotional support and instrumental support) that can assist entrepreneurs in their business context. Financial capital is a critical resource necessary for the purchasing of fixed assets and financing initial operations, as well as the living expenses for the entrepreneur in the earlier stages of the venture. It is, therefore, not surprising that the amount of initial capital invested into the business has been shown to be positively related to firms’ survival and growth (Su, Atmadja, & Sharma, 2015). Su et al. (2015) established that women, in general, are disadvantaged when compared to their male counterparts because they experience more difficulties in financing their businesses. As such when starting their businesses, the majority of women entrepreneurs raise their initial capital from their personal savings and family members (Imbaya, 2012; Neneh, 2016a; Su et al., 2015). In the quest to encourage women entrepreneurs, family members contribute financially to the establishment and subsequent running of the business (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Cornwall, Vang, & Hartman, 2016; Imbaya, 2012; Sarfaraz, 2017). Powell and Eddleston (2013) established that family provides a ‘security blanket’ for entrepreneurs, who can depend upon the family for the survival of the business, especially in the midst of financial problems. Welsh et al. (2014) added that family members not only provided seed capital to entrepreneurs but also assisted them to secure external sources of finance. Likewise, researchers (Danes, Lee, Stafford, & Heck, 2008; Matzek, Gudmunson, & Danes, 2010) have pointed out that family members make significant financial contributions to the business by providing both paid and unpaid labours to the business. Entrepreneurs can, therefore, always depend on this labour at all stages of venture start-up and success. Also, in the case of married women, their husbands are often the main financial supporters who highly influence the start-up decision. Matzek et al. (2010) pointed out that spouses make direct and indirect financial capital contributions to their partner’s business. Direct financial capital is when the spouse decides to lend a part of their financial resources to their entrepreneurial spouse for business expansion, while indirect financial capital is when a spouses’ job provides a stable income and other benefits (e.g., health, education) until the business becomes profitable.

Furthermore, emotional support occurs when family members give attention in the form of encouragement that motivates and inspires the entrepreneur to pursue his/her goals during the entrepreneurial process and to also remain tenacious and optimistic when faced with business problems (King, Mattimore, King, & Adams, 1995; Mari et al., 2016; Van Aukem & Werberl, 2006;). Vadnjal and Vadnjal (2007) established that emotional support is more important than relief from household responsibilities, which also confirms the findings by Vadnjal and Vadnjal (2013). Researchers (Ramadani, Gërguri-Rashiti, & ‎Fayolle, 2015; Vadnjal & Vadnjal, 2013) argued that emotional support is one of the most valued factors that women entrepreneurs take into consideration on their decision of whether or not to consider entrepreneurship as a career path. Kim and Ling (2001) added that in Singapore, spouses highly value and support their partners’ motivation to engage in entrepreneurial activities because it makes a valuable contribution to the family’s budget and also reduces the burden of being the sole family provider.

Additionally, family members can provide instrumental support in the form of giving feedback and business-oriented advice, tangible resources and services that can impact on the business decision-making process (Chrisman, Chuaand, & Sharma, 2005; Kim, Kim, & Nochajski, 2014). Matzek et al. (2010) pointed out instrumental support in the form of physical assistance and knowledge which helps the business survive. Welsh et al. (2016) and Ritchie (1991) expound that due to the open communication and free flow of information nurtured within the family, family members can act as devil’s advocates and easily identify and draw attention to weaknesses in terms of managerial skills and poor business strategies. Thus, they might easily provide constructive feedback and actions on how their concerns can be addressed. On the other hand, evidence from Welsh et al. (2016) suggests that family support could in some cases have disadvantages for women entrepreneurs especially with regard to creating more family problems for them as shown among Turkish women entrepreneurs. This could be attributed to the over interference, legitimacy and family members’ authority with the business while providing support. Likewise, researchers (Jennings & McDougald, 2007; Rogers, 2005) posited that unsupportive family members refrain from offering any form of support that would have helped in enhancing the success of the business. Instead, they would rather give the entrepreneurial career a low priority within the family. Mari et al. (2016) also established that the presence of strategic support from family members increased the business likelihood of having higher revenues. Prior literature (Imbaya, 2012; Powell & Eddleston, 2013; Ramadani et al., 2015; Vadnjal & Vadnjal, 2013; Welsh et al., 2014, 2016) has also established a strong association between family support and the performance of women-owned enterprises. Following the above discussion, this study hypothesis that family support (financial, emotional and instrumental support) is positively associated with the performance of women-owned enterprises.

The Meditating Effect of FWE

The concept of FWE has been put forth as a mediator, due to the prevalence of potential conflict which is based on the assumption that inter-role conflict between family and work is unavoidable. As such researchers have increasingly used theories such as positive spillover, facilitation, enrichment, enhancement and role accumulation theory (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2007; Hanson, Hammer, & Colton, 2006; Marais et al., 2014; McNall et al., 2010; Powell & Eddleston, 2013; Shah, 2014) in explaining the positive interdependencies between family and work roles. This study adopts the enrichment construct because it ‘offers the broadest conceptualisation of the positive side of the work–family interface at the individual level of analysis’ (McNall et al., 2010, p. 382; Powell & Eddleston, 2013, p. 264). According to Greenhaus and Powell (2006), there are two paths to enrichment for entrepreneurs, namely, affective FWE and instrumental FWE.

Instrumental FWE occurs when the behaviour (e.g., being supportive) and skills (e.g., ability to multitask) developed or nurtured in the family domain enhances a person’s effectiveness and capability to respond to demands in the business/work domain (Hanson et al., 2006; Powell & Eddleston, 2011, 2013). Similarly, affective FWE ensues when there is transferability of positive affect and emotion (e.g., positive mood, happiness, excitement and enthusiasm) from an individual’s family domain to his/her business/work domain (Hanson et al., 2006; Powell & Eddleston, 2011, 2013).

Family members help in mobilising physical and financial resources, serve as a source of unpaid labour, provide feedback about ideas regarding the business, motivates and inspires the entrepreneur to pursue his/her goals during the entrepreneurial process which in turn is beneficial to the success of business (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Mari et al., 2016; Welsh et al., 2014, 2016). Prior literature has widely emphasised the importance of family support on business performance; however, this direct effect has not been consistent across different studies (Mari et al., 2016; Welsh et al., 2014). This could possibly be explained by the fact that family support results in the provision of resources including human, social and financial capital that can facilitate business success (Danes, Stafford, Haynes, & Amarapurkar, 2009); however, the entrepreneur requires other competencies and strategic orientations to translate these resources into actual business performance. As such, the mechanisms through which family support influences firm performance might not be direct as postulated in prior studies (Danes et al., 2009). This mechanism can nonetheless be understood through the lens of FWE as family support is an important antecedent of FWE (Baral & Bhargava, 2011; Nicklin & McNall, 2011; Wayne et al., 2006) while FWE is instrumental in transferring the knowledge and skills gained from the family domain for use in the business or work domain (Powell & Eddleston, 2013). Hence, it is plausible to suggest that a combination of the support women entrepreneurs receive from family members, along with their positive involvement in the family domain, can lead to a greater experience of FWE which in turn can help improve their work domain. Thus, this study hypothesises that FWE mediates the relationship between family support and the performance of women-owned businesses.

Method

Sample and Data Collection

This study made use of a questionnaire survey approach to collect data among women Small, Medium and Micro-sized Enterprises (SMME) owners in the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (Bloemfontein, Botabelo and Thaba’Nchu) in the Free State province of South Africa. Due to the lack of a comprehensive list of registered women entrepreneurs in the Free State province of South Africa, two approaches were used to get access to women entrepreneurs. Firstly, using both convenience sampling techniques, the researcher approached some stokvels in the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and five stokvels (Burial society, Triple M, Umgalelo, saving and investment) agreed to allow their members to take part in the study. Since the skovels had a mixed pool of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, the researcher ensured that questionnaires were administered only to the women who were entrepreneurs. The underlying condition for participation was to own more than a 50 per cent stake in a registered business. A convenience sampling technique was used because it allowed the researcher to obtain data from women entrepreneurs that were part of the stokvels. Also, as a second approach, the researcher contacted well-known women-owned businesses in Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality to generate an initial list of women-owned businesses and questionnaires were administered to them. Subsequently, snowball sampling method was applied to the referrals obtained from the stokvels as well as the initial list generated from women-owned businesses, as they referred the researcher to other women entrepreneurs operating in the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality. A total of 450 questionnaires were administered to the women entrepreneurs, of which 251 usable questionnaires were returned and resulting in a valid response rate of 76.1 per cent.

Measures

Family Support

Emotional support was measured using a three-item measure (I rely on the advice of my spouse to help me run my business; members of my family are interested in my business; when I am frustrated by my business, someone in my family tries to understand), adapted from prior studies (Eddleston & Powell, 2012; Powell & Eddleston, 2013; Wallace, 2015). The items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The internal consistency for the factor was satisfactory with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.83. Instrumental support was measured as a dummy variable coded as a ‘1’ if the female business owner regularly obtains support in the strategic decision-making process from family members and ‘0’ otherwise. Similarly, financial support was measured as a dummy variable coded as a ‘1’, if the female business owner obtained money from the family to start the business or to support the business activities, and ‘0’ otherwise. These measures for financial and strategic support were adopted from prior studies that focused on women entrepreneurs (Imbaya, 2012; Mari et al., 2016).

FWE

This study used both the affective and instrumental dimensions of FWE. Affective FWE was measured with a three-item scale (when things are going well in my family life, my outlook regarding my job is improved; having a good day with my family improves my frame of mind at work; feeling good about my family life puts me in a good mood at work) adopted from prior studies (Hanson et al., 2006; Solomon, 2015). Similarly, instrumental FWE was measured using a three-item measure (I am better able to perform at my job as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities; successfully performing tasks in my family life helps me to more effectively accomplish tasks at work; values that I learn through my family experiences assist me in fulfilling my work responsibilities) adopted from prior studies (Hanson et al., 2006; Kacmar, Crawford, Carlson, Ferguson, & Whitten, 2014; Solomon, 2015). Both measures of FWE showed acceptable levels of internal consistency with Cronbach alpha values of 0.86 for affective FWE and 0.79 for instrumental FWE.

Firm Performance

Subjective measures of self-reported performance were used in line with prior studies (Boso, Story, & Cadogan, 2013; Danso, Adomako, Damoah, & Uddin, 2016; Neneh, 2016b). Five items (sales growth, customer satisfaction, growth in market share, net profit and return on investment) were used to capture the performance of women-owned businesses. The comparative approach to measuring firm performance was used, whereby the women entrepreneurs were asked to rate the performance of their businesses relative to their peers in the same industry. Each of the items was captured in a five-point scale ranging from 1 (much worse) to 5 (much better). The performance measure showed a satisfactory level of reliability with a Cronbach alpha value of 0.81.

Control Variables

This study made use of six control variables, namely, the age of the entrepreneur, firm age, firm size, marital status, education and number of children below 18 years. Marital status was measured as a dummy variable coded as ‘0’ for unmarried and ‘1’ for married as used in prior studies (Powell & Eddleston, 2013; Mari et al., 2016; Eddleston & Powell, 2012).

Results

The characteristics of the women entrepreneurs who responded to the survey are presented in Table 1. The table also includes the characteristics of their firms.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Respondents and Their Firms

Characteristics of Firms		Characteristics of the Business Owners
	Percentage		Percentage
Age of firms		Marital status
1-2 years	20.3	Married	50.2
3-5 years	28.7	Unmarried	49.8
6-10 years	21.1	Education
>10 years	29.9	No formal qualification/dropped out before highschool	17.5
Number of full-time employees		High school diploma(matric)	21.1
<5	51	Diploma/degree	39.8
5-10	32.3	Honours/masters/PhD	21.5
>10	16.7	Age
Industry		<20 years	10.8
Agriculture/manufacturing/real estate/technology	14	21-30 years	20.7
Business services/ catering/hospitality/health-fitness	33.6	31-50 years	50.6
Retail & consumer services/crafts/others	52.4	>50 years	17.9

Source: Author’s own.

Table 2 provides a regression analysis of the association of family support (Model 1) and family work enrichment (Model 2) with firm performance. Six control factors were used in each of the models, namely, the age of the entrepreneur, firm age, firm size, marital status, number of children below 18 years and the entrepreneur’s level of education. Except for the age of the entrepreneur and marital status, all the other control variables showed consistent associations with firm performance across the two models. The firm size and education were positively associated with performance, while firm age and children below 18 years had a negative association. The positive impact of education on firm performance is consistent with findings of Mari et al. (2016), which established that education plays a vital role in increasing the performance of businesses. The negative relationship between firm age and performance was also congruent with findings from prior studies (Coad, Segarra, & Teruel, 2013; Loderer & Waelchli, 2010). This is often because older firms have lower expected growth rates of sales, profits and productivity, which leads to poor performance.

In Model 1, it was observed that all the three types of family support (emotional, financial and instrumental) had a positive relationship with firm performance. Mari et al. (2016) also found support for the positive association between instrumental support and firm performance; however, in this study, we failed to find any significant relationship for emotional and financial support with firm performance. In model 2, it was observed that both the dimensions of FWE had significant positive associations with firm performance. These findings confirm the important role of FWE in fostering the performance of businesses (McNall et al., 2010; Powell & Eddleston, 2013; Tu & Hwang, 2014).

Table 3 presents the correlation matrix depicting associations between family support and FWE dimensions.

The results indicate that emotional support was positively associated with both affective and instrumental FWE. Also observed was that financial support and instrumental support were only significantly linked to instrumental and not affective FWE. These associations provide the fundamental basis for examining the mediating effect of FWE on the association between family support and firm performance among women-owned businesses. Combining the results in Tables 2 and 3 in line with the Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step criteria for examining mediation, four possible mediating relationships can be deduced. These include the following,

Table 2.

Association between Family Support, FWE and Firm Performance

Variables	Model 1		Model 2
Variables	Beta	T-Value	Beta	T-Value
Constant		12.621**		10.302**
Control variables
Age of entrepreneur	0.043	0.685	0.158	2.577*
Firm age	-0.214	-2.004*	-0.195	-3.049**
Firm size	0.460	7.369**	0.398	5.815**
Marital status	-0.128	-2.167*	-0.036	-0.671
Children below 18 years	-0.167	-2.768*	-0.156	-2.444*
Education	0.129	2.019*	0.138	2.080*
Family support variables
Emotional support	0.242	3.945**
Financial support	0.124	2.047*
Instrumental support	0.235	3.836**
FWE variables
Affective FWE			0.269	4.185**
Instrumental FWE			0.123	2.004*
Model parameters
R²	0.456		0.423
Adjusted R²	0.436		0.404
F-value (sig.)	22.471(0.000)**		22.174(0.000)**
Max VIF	2.094		1.964

Source: Author’s own.

Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Table 3.

Correlation Matrix

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
1. Emotional support	1
2. Financial support	-0.205**	1
3. Instrumental support	-0.112	0.201**	1
4. Affective FWE	0.475**	-0.048	0.013	1
5. Instrumental FWE	0.218**	0.144*	0.158*	0.369**	1

Source: Author’s own.

Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Affective FWE mediates the relationship between emotional support and firm performance (R-1).

Instrumental FWE mediates the relationship between emotional support and firm performance (R-2).

Instrumental FWE mediates the relationship between financial support and firm performance (R-3).

Instrumental FWE mediates the relationship between instrumental support and firm performance (R-4).

These possible mediating relationships were then evaluated using a rigorous combined approach that incorporated the Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step criteria with bootstrapping and the Sobel’s test. The results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Mediating Effect Parameters

	R-1	R-2	R-3	R-4
Bootstrapping parameters
Bootstrapping standard error	0.0401	0.0132	0.0195	0.0215
95% LCI	0.0177	-0.0021	-0.0033	0.0097
95% UCI	0.1753	0.0516	0.0766	0.0958
Sobel’s test
Sobel’s standard error	0.0314	0.0121	0.0176	0.0217
Z-statistic	3.0476	0.13624	1.1167	1.9745
P-value	0.0023**	0.1731	0.2641	0.0483*
Common parameters
Indirect effect	0.1232	0.0165	0.0196	0.0429
Portion of mediated relationship	50.70%	-	-	13.28%
Decision	Full Mediation	No Mediation	No Mediation	Partial Mediation

Source: Author’s own.

Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

The results showed two significant mediating effects. Emotional FWE fully mediated the relationship between emotional support and firm performance, while instrumental FWE partially mediated the relationship between instrumental support and firm performance. These findings are confirmed by both the bootstrapping confidence intervals (0.0177–0.1753 and 0.0097–0.0958, respectively) and the Sobel’s test (Z = 3.0476, p < 0.05 and Z = 1.9745, p < 0.05, respectively). These two mediating effects are graphically represented in Figures 1 and 2.

The standardised indirect effect caused by Affective FWE in the association between emotional support and firm performance was 0.1234. The proportion of the mediated relationship was 50.7 per cent, and it was fully mediated as the beta value for the association between emotional support and firm performance became insignificant with the introduction of affective FWE.

The standardised indirect effect of instrumental FWE on the association between instrumental support and firm performance was 0.0429 with instrumental FWE accounting for 13.28 per cent of the relationship.

Discussion and Implications

Prior literature on family support for women entrepreneurs has increasingly shown that family support plays a vital role in fostering the performance of women-owned businesses (Chang et al., 2009). The findings from this study fit with the consolidated literature (Powell & Eddleston, 2013), depicting that women entrepreneurs benefit significantly from family support. This is not surprising given that family support is considered a valuable resource for women entrepreneurs, especially as external support is often limited for them (Welsh et al., 2014). However, evidence of the influence of family support on the performance of women-owned business has not been wholly consistent, with some studies finding no support for several types of family support on firm performance (Mari et al., 2016; Welsh et al., 2014). This is further supported by the findings of this study which found partly contrasting evidence to studies from the developed world (Mari et al., 2016; Welsh et al., 2014). As such, implications for family support for women entrepreneurs might tend to be context specific. Additionally, prior studies have mostly focused on the direct effect of family support on the performance of women-owned businesses, thus providing little understanding of the mechanism through which family support enhances the performance of women-owned businesses. This is particularly important as there is increasing evidence that various family dynamics appear to play vital roles in the success of women-owned businesses (Welsh et al., 2014). One such family dynamic is FWE which was introduced in this study to examine the mechanism through which family support influences the performance of women-owned businesses. The findings suggested that affective FWE mediated the relationship between emotional support and firm performance, while instrumental FWE mediated that between instrumental support and firm performance. These findings provide several theoretical and practical and policy implications.

The theoretical implications from this study are twofold. First, the study further extends the literature on importance of family support for women entrepreneurs using evidence from a developing world context. As indicated earlier, the findings suggest that the role of family support in firm performance might be contextual as all three dimensions of family support are positively associated with firm performance in a developing world context, which is not true for studies from the developed world (Mari et al., 2016; Welsh et al., 2014). This could possibly result from the existence of other external networks and resources available to female entrepreneurs in the developed world. As such, future studies could control for the presence of external support networks when examining the role of family support on the performance of women-owned businesses. Second, the study also advances the current family embeddedness literature on women entrepreneurs by indicating how a vital family dynamic such as FWE plays a significant mediating role between some dimensions of family support and firm performance. This advances the current theoretical understanding of the mechanism through which family support dimensions influence firm performance. The impact of emotional support and instrumental support on the performance of women-owned businesses is mediated by affective and instrumental FWE, respectively.

The study also brings forth two important practical implications. First, it emphasises the need for women entrepreneurs in developing countries to tap into the resources from their family networks as a means to foster the performance of their businesses. All of the emotional, financial and instrumental family support is likely to be beneficial to women-owned businesses. As such, where possible, women entrepreneurs should thrive to have all three kinds of family support, especially if other external sources of support are limited. Second, both affective and instrumental FWE also positively influence the performance of women-owned businesses. This supports the view that the family is an important training ground for entrepreneurs and as such can significantly enhance the innovative behaviours and performance of women-owned businesses (Tu & Hwang, 2014). It is, therefore, advisable for women entrepreneurs in developing countries to increasingly look to benefit from family resources and capabilities that can enhance their general work posture so that they can give more positive energy into their businesses.

Lastly, the study also presents strong implications for policymaking. Policymakers around the world and especially in developing countries increasingly hold economic growth objectives as a core priority. As such, policy support initiatives for women entrepreneurs are gaining momentum as women entrepreneurs have been consistently shown to add exponential growth to the economic welfare of any nation (Welsh, Memili, & Kaciak, 2016). The positive influence of financial and instrumental family support on the performance of women-owned business suggests that financial and business knowledge resources are needed for advancing the success of female entrepreneurs. This suggests that current policy support mechanisms in developing countries that focus on finance and training might be in the right direction. However, existing evidence from developing countries proves the contrary as financial support and training have not shown mixed results, with many showing little or no impact on performance (Banerjee, Duflo, Glennerster, & Kinnan, 2015; Bjorvatn & Tungodde, 2012; Fafchamps & Woodruf, 2013; Gine & Mansuri, 2011; Karlan & Valdivia, 2011). However, the problem with these existing approaches has been the categorisation of both men and women into the same entrepreneurial venture group without taking into account the idiosyncratic needs and challenges of women entrepreneurs. As shown in this study, personal and family dynamics such as marital status, number of children below 18 years and FWE also influence the performance of women entrepreneurs. Consequently, having a deeper understanding of the family embeddedness of female entrepreneurs can help in the articulation of better support programs to foster the performance of women entrepreneurs. Additionally, new policies are needed to take into consideration the emotional needs of women entrepreneurs as emotional support plays a vital role in fostering the performance of women-owned businesses. This is particularly important as women entrepreneurs are not only motivated by financial gains as is the case with men (Manolova, Brush, Edelman, & Shaver, 2012) but also motivated by personal factors. As such, support programs that take into account the distinctive characteristics and challenges of female-owned businesses would contribute more to the economic welfare of local and national economies.

Conclusion

Women entrepreneurs have been identified in contemporary literature as the engines for economic growth in developing countries because of their potential for bringing economic prosperity and general welfare to developing nations. However, increasing research from developing countries shows that the potential and capabilities of women entrepreneurs are not being effectively harnessed for fostering economic growth (Welsh et al., 2016). Some researchers (De Vita, Mari, & Poggesi, 2014; Vossenberg, 2013) have argued that women remain an untapped source of economic growth and development for developing countries. This is mostly due to the limited understanding of the distinctive features of women entrepreneurs. It is, therefore, not surprising to see that there are numerous calls for women entrepreneurs to be isolated and studied (Mari et al., 2016). This article contributes to the current knowledge on women entrepreneurs particularly by examining the role of family support and FWE on the performance of their businesses.

This study’s main objective was to examine the role of family support in the performance of women-owned businesses as well as the mechanisms through which this occurs. Consequently, FWE was chosen as a possible mediating factor following the view that a complex web of personal and family dynamics plays a key role in women’s entrepreneurial pursuit. The findings show that all three examined types of family support (i.e., emotional, instrumental and financial family support) were positively associated with firm performance. Additionally, affective FWE mediates the relationship between emotional support and performance, while instrumental FWE mediates the association between instrumental family support and performance. The findings indicate the need for the current system to take into account the distinctive needs and challenges of women entrepreneurs and provide the necessary support and environment to foster their growth and prosperity. If such distinctive features are not taken into consideration, the potential of women entrepreneurs would remain untapped.

References

Agarwal

Mishra

A.K.

& Dixit

(2015). Gender and work–life balance. Retrieved 26 January 2017 , from http://data.conferenceworld.in/ICSTM2/P57–65.pdf

Aldrich

H.E.

& Cliff

J.E.

(2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573–596.

Banerjee

Duflo

Glennerster

& Kinnan

(2015). The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 22–53.

Baral

& Bhargava

(2011). Examining the moderating influence of gender on the relationships between work–family antecedents and work–family enrichment. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 26(2), 122–147.

Baron

R.M.

& Kenny

D.A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Berrone

Gertel

Giuliodori

Bernard

& Meiners

(2014). Determinants of performance in microenterprises: Preliminary evidence from Argentina. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(3), 477–500.

Bjorvatn

& Tungodde

(2012). Teaching business in Tanzania: Evaluating participation and performance. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(2–3), 561–570.

Boso

Story

V.M.

& Cadogan

J.W.

(2013). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: Study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 708–727.

Boz

Martínez–Corts

& Munduate

(2016). Types of combined family–to–work conflict and enrichment and subjective health in Spain: A gender perspective. Sex Roles, 74(3), 136–153.

10.

Chang

E.P.

Memili

Chrisman

J.J.

Kellermanns

F.W.

& Chua

J.H.

(2009). Family social capital, venture preparedness, and start–up decisions. Family Business Review, 22(3), 279–292.

11.

Chrisman

J.J.

Chua

J.H.

& Sharma

(2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555–576.

12.

Coad

A.L.

Segarra

& Teruel

(2013). Like milk or wine: Does firm performance improve with age? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 24(1), 173–189.

13.

Cornwall

J.R.

Vang

D.O.

& Hartman

J.M.

(2016). Entrepreneurial financial management: An applied approach. New York, NY: Routledge

14.

Danes

S.M.

Lee

Stafford

& Heck

R.K.

(2008). The effects of ethnicity, families and culture on entrepreneurial experience and extension of sustainable family business theory. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 229–268.

15.

Danes

S.M.

Stafford

Haynes

& Amarapurkar

S.S.

(2009). Family capital of family firms: bridging human, social, and financial capital. Family Business Review, 22(3), 199–216.

16.

Danso

Adomako

Damoah

J.O.

& Uddin

(2016). Risk–taking propensity, managerial network ties and firm performance in an emerging economy. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 155–183.

17.

De Klerk

Nel

J.A.

& Koekemoer

(2015). Work–to–family enrichment: Influences of work resources, work engagement and satisfaction among employees within the South African context. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 25(6), 537–546.

18.

De Klerk

Nel

J.A.

Hill

& Koekemoer

(2013). The development of the MACE work–family enrichment instrument. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1147–1162.

19.

De Sousa

V.A.G.

(2013). Family–work conflict, job satisfaction and burnout of working women with children (Doctoral thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa). Retrieved 18 January 2017 , from http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/24304/07back.pdf?sequence=2

20.

De Vita

Mari

& Poggesi

(2014). Women entrepreneurs in and from developing countries: Evidence from the literature. European Management Journal, 32(3), 451–460.

21.

Eddleston

A.K.

& Powell

N.G.

(2012). Nurturing entrepreneurs’ work–family balance: A gendered perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 513–541.

22.

Fafchamps

& Woodruf

(2013). Identifying gazelles among micro and small enterprises in Ghana. Retrieved 7 February 2017 , from https://www.poverty–action.org/printpdf/7116

23.

Gine

& Mansuri

(2011). Money or ideas? A field experiment on constraints to entrepreneurship in rural Pakistan. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

24.

Greenhaus

J.H.

& Powell

G.N.

(2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92.

25.

Greve

& Salaf

(2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1–22.

26.

Grzywacz

J.G.

Carlson

D.S.

Kacmar

& Wayne

(2007). A multi–level perspective on the synergies between work and family. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 559–574.

27.

Gundry

L.K.

& Welsch

H.P.

(1994). Differences in familial influence among women–owned businesses. Family Business Review, 7(3), 273–286.

28.

Hanson

G.C.

Hammer

L.B.

& Colton

C.L.

(2006). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of perceived work–family positive spillover. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 249–265.

29.

Imbaya

B.H.

(2012). The role of family support in performance of women–operated micro and small enterprises in Eldoret, Kenya. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(5), 502–508.

30.

Jaga

Bagraim

& Williams

(2013). Work–family enrichment and psychological health. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1–10.

31.

Jennings

J.E.

& McDougald

M.S.

(2007). Work–family interface experiences and coping strategies: Implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 747–760.

32.

Kacmar

K.M.

Crawford

W.S.

Carlson

D.S.

Ferguson

& Whitten

(2014). A short and valid measure of work–family enrichment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(1), 32–45.

33.

Karatepe

O.M.

& Bekteshi

(2008). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family facilitation and family–work facilitation among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(4), 517–528.

34.

Karlan

& Valdivia

(2011). Teaching entrepreneurship: Impact of business training on microfinance clients and institutions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 510–552.

35.

Khan

(2014). Family to work conflict among working mothers in UAE. European Scientific Journal, 10(20), 205–216.

36.

Kim

& Nochajski

T.H.

(2014). Emotional support, instrumental support, and gambling participation among Filipino Americans. Community Mental Health Journal, 50(6), 681–687.

37.

Kim

J.S.

& Ling

C.S.

(2001). Work–family conflict of women entrepreneurs in Singapore. Women in Management Review, 16(5–6), 204–221.

38.

Kim

& las Hera

(2012). A quantitative analysis of facilitating conditions for work family enrichment. (IESE Working Paper No. 957). Retrieved 25 January 2017 , from http://www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/DI–0957–E.pdf

39.

King

L.A.

Mattimore

L.K.

King

D.W.

& Adams

G.A.

(1995). Family support inventory for workers: A new measure of perceived social support from family members. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 235–258.

40.

Langeveldt

(2016). The impact of work–family enrichment on psychological health and subjective wellbeing (Master’s thesis, University of Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa). Retrieved 7 January 2017 , from http://etd.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/handle/11394/5266

41.

Loderer

& Waelchli

(2010). Protecting minority shareholders: Listed versus unlisted firms. Financial Management, 39(1), 33–57.

42.

Manolova

T.S.

Brush

Edelman

L.F.

& Shaver

(2012). Entrepreneurial expectancies and growth intentions of US women and men nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(2), 7–27.

43.

Marais

De Klerk

Nel

J.A.

& De Beer

(2014). The antecedents and outcomes of work–family enrichment amongst female workers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–14.

44.

Mari

Poggesi

& De Vita

(2016). Family embeddedness and business performance: Evidences from women–owned firms. Management Decision, 54(2), 476–500.

45.

Matzek

A.E.

Gudmunson

G.C.

& Danes

M.S.

(2010). Spousal capital as a resource for couples starting a business. Family Relations, 59(1), 60–73.

46.

McNall

L.A.

Nicklin

J.M.

& Masuda

A.D.

(2010). A meta–analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 381–396.

47.

Minniti

(2009). Gender issues in entrepreneurship: Foundations and trends in entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: Now Publishers Inc.

48.

Neneh

B.N.

(2016a). Performance implications of financial capital availability on the financial literacy–performance nexus in South Africa. Investment Management and Financial Innovations Journal, 13(2), 39–47.

49.

Neneh

B.N.

(2016b). Examining the moderating effect of environmental hostility on the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 8(6), 6–18.

50.

Nicklin

J.M.

& McNall

L.A.

(2011). Work–family enrichment, support, and satisfaction: A test of mediation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 67–77.

51.

Poggesi

Mari

& De Vita

(2015). What’s new in female entrepreneurship research? Answers from the literature. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 735–764.

52.

Powell

N.G.

& Eddleston

A.K.

(2011). Work–family enrichment and entrepreneurial success: do female entrepreneurs benefit most? Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1(1), 1–6.

53.

Powell

N.G.

& Eddleston

A.K.

(2013). Linking family–to–business enrichment and support to entrepreneurial success: Do female and male entrepreneurs experience different outcomes? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 261–280.

54.

Ramadani

Gërguri–Rashiti

& Fayolle

(2015). Female entrepreneurship in transition economies: Trends and challenges. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

55.

Rehman

& Roomi

M.A.

(2012). Gender and work life balance: A phenomenological study of women entrepreneurs in Pakistan. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(2), 209–228.

56.

Ritchie

L.D.

(1991). Family communication patterns. Communication Research, 18(4), 548–565.

57.

Rogers

(2005). The impact of family support on the success of women business owners. In Fielden

S.L.

& Davidson

M.J.

(Eds), International handbook of women and small business entrepreneurship (pp. 91–102). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

58.

Ruderman

M.N.

Ohlott

P.J.

Panzer

& King

S.N.

(2002). Benefits of multiple roles for professional women. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 369–386.

59.

Sarfaraz

(2017). Women’s entrepreneurship in Iran: Role models of growth–oriented Iranian women entrepreneurs. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

60.

Shah

S.S.

(2014). The role of work–family enrichment in work life balance & career success: A comparison of German & Indian managers (Doctoral thesis). Germany: Ludwig–Maximilians–University Munich. Retrieved 8 January 2017 , from https://edoc.ub.uni–muenchen.de/16634/1/Shah_Shalaka.pdf

61.

Shelton

L.M.

(2006). Female entrepreneurs, work–family conflict, and venture performance: New insights into the work–family interface. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 285–297.

62.

Solomon

L.B.

(2015). Work–family enrichment amongst manufacturing workers in South Africa (Master’s thesis). South Africa: University of Cape Town. Retrieved 27 January 2017 , from https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/item/19499/thesis_com_2015_solomon_bianca_lisa.pdf?sequence=1

63.

Atmadja

& Sharma

(2015). Financial, human, and social capital: What matters more for women’s microenterprises? A case study of Indonesia. Retrieved 12 January 2017 , from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2667312

64.

Teoh

W.M.

& Chong

S.C.

(2008). Improving women entrepreneurs in small and medium enterprises in Malaysia: Policy recommendations. Communications of the IBIMA, 2(1), 31–38.

65.

& Hwang

(2014). Innovation and success in micro–enterprises: The role of family and environments. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research (IPEDR), 70(17), 86–89.

66.

Uzzi

(1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relation and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64(4), 481–505.

67.

Vadnjal

& Vadnjal

(2013). The role of husbands: Support or barrier to women’s entrepreneurial start–ups? African Journal of Business Management, 7(36), 3730–3738.

68.

Vadnjal

& Vadnjal

(2007). The role of family support in women’s start–ups? African Journal of Business Management, 7(36), 3730–3738.

69.

Van Aukem

& Werbel

(2006). Family dynamic and family business financial performance: Spousal commitment. Family Business Review, 19(1), 49–63.

70.

Vossenberg

(2013). Women entrepreneurship promotion in developing countries: What explains the gender gap in entrepreneurship and how to close it? (Maastricht School of Management Working Paper No. 2013/08). Retrieved 2 February 2017 , from http://web2.msm.nl/RePEc/msm/wpaper/MSM–WP2013–08.pdf

71.

Wallace

C.L.

(2015). The support–based factors that facilitate work–family enrichment for working fathers in South Africa (Master’s thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa). Retrieved 27 January 2017 , from https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11427/13792/thesis_com_2015_wallace_cl.pdf?sequence=1

72.

Wambua

K.A.

(2014). Factors affecting the performance of women small and medium enterprises in Mombasa central business district, Kenya (Master’s thesis). Kenya: University of Nairobi. Retrieved 20 January 2017 , from http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/handle/11295/74264

73.

Wayne

J.H.

Randel

A.E.

& Stevens

(2006). The role of identity and work–family support in work–family enrichment and its work–relate consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 445–461.

74.

Welsh

D.H.B.

Kim

Memili

& Kaciak

(2014). The influence of family moral support and personal problems on firm performance: The case of Korean female entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 19(3), 1–17.

75.

Welsh

D.H.B.

Memili

& Kaciak

(2016). An empirical analysis of the impact of family moral support on Turkish women entrepreneurs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(1), 3–12.