The Personal Network of the Owner-Manager
of a Small Family Firm: The Crucial
Role of the Spouse
Tina Bratkovic
Boštjan Antoncic
Mitja Ruzzier
The paper investigates the personal network of an entrepreneur that
owns a small family venture. The aim of the present paper is to exam-
ine the role of the spouse in the family firm's networking. The research
results show that the entrepreneur's wife has a significant influence on
the family firm's network performing. She is present in all cliques that
are formed in the entrepreneur's network, which allows her to obtain
information from different sources, and to influence the decision mak-
ing process in the network. She is also well connected with other net-
work members, and is crucial in the resource-information acquisition
process for the entrepreneur's firm. Furthermore, her central position
in the network's structure gives her the power to reach other network
members more quickly. She can reach other persons at shorter path
distances than the entrepreneur or other members, and is therefore an
important information provider for the entrepreneur's network. The
key contribution of this paper is the finding that the spouse can be as
important as or even more important than the entrepreneur in the re-
source and information provision for the firm.
Key Words: entrepreneur, personal network, family firm,
resource acquisition, information acquisition
jEL Classification: L26
Introduction
The entrepreneur's personal success and the success of their firms are of-
ten attributed to personal relationships or social networks. Burt (1992;
1997) referred to social networks as a form of social capital comparable
Tina BratkoviC is an Assistant at the Faculty of Management Koper,
University of Primorska, Slovenia.
Dr Boštjan Antoncic is a Professor at the Faculty of Management
Koper, University of Primorska, Slovenia.
Dr Mitja Ruzzier is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of
Management Koper, University of Primorska, Slovenia.
Managing Global Transitions 7 (2): 171-190
to human capital. While human capital can be considered as the range
of valuable skills and knowledge a person has accumulated over time,
Meyerson (2000,289) defined social capital as 'the array of valuable rela-
tionships someone has accumulated over time' that gives a person access
to the valuable resources embedded in their personal relationships (Lin
1982). The role of networks in the activities of individuals and organiza-
tions has its foundation in the idea of embeddedness (Granovetter 1992).
Social networks have the ability to facilitate or constrain the activities of
persons who are embedded in the network. Network perspective can be
important for entrepreneurs (individual level) and their firms (organi-
zational level) (Antoncic 1999; Hoang and Antoncic 2003; Ruzzier and
Antoncic 2007). Personal networks consist of persons with whom an en-
trepreneur has direct relations (Dubini and Aldrich 1991), and are con-
sidered to be more than the sum of individual connections that form the
network (Aldrich and Zimmer 1986). Different sub-networks can repre-
sent the overall social network based on the content of ties (Brass 1992).
The paper investigates the issue of personal networking of an en-
trepreneur who owns a small family venture. The aim of the paper, and
its key research contribution, is to examine the role of the spouse in
the family firm's networking. Principal goals of the paper are to present
structural characteristics of the entrepreneur's personal network, sep-
arately analyze the characteristics of the entrepreneur's personal sub-
networks (resource acquisition network, information acquisition net-
work, network of friends), and examine the role of the spouse in the
family firm's networking.
In the following sections theoretical foundations are presented, re-
search methods are described, findings are discussed and conclusions are
drawn.
Theory
The entrepreneur, when seeking to achieve his personal and career goals,
is in constant interaction with the environment. Therefore, the en-
trepreneur can not be treated as a rational decision maker isolated from
others. Daily the entrepreneur has contacts with his or her family mem-
bers, friends, employees, business partners, advisers, etc. These persons
form the entrepreneur's personal network, which is considered to be
one of the most important sources for the entrepreneur's firm. Through
his or her personal network the entrepreneur has the access to many
valuable resources (material, financial, human), information, advice and
emotional support. Particularly the entrepreneur's relatives are consid-
ered to be the most trustworthy network members.
A research into the business elite in Antwerp during the first half of
the nineteenth century brings some evidences about the great influence
of family members in entrepreneurship. The relatives played a key role in
business life, and therefore were often present in the entrepreneur's per-
sonal network. The main reasons could be their skills, preparedness to
work, and willingness to invest their capital. By having family members
in the personal network the risk of doing business is reduced, and also the
transaction costs are reduced. Further, family members are trustworthy,
and they usually share the same culture and ethic at work (Rose 1995).
Prior (1986) emphasizes that by marrying local girls the migrants be-
came embedded in local business networks, which facilitated both their
assimilation and the development of their careers. Hall (1992) affirms
that through his wife the entrepreneur can expand his personal and busi-
ness contacts, and therefore has access to a greater amount of informa-
tion. Quite obviously, having family members in the personal network
brings some advantages to the entrepreneur and his or her firm. The
research question asking if there are some differences in performance
among firms that include a greater number of family members and those
that do not has attracted the attention of many researchers.
With regard to the above, in the past decade there have been conducted
many studies about family business, some of them on copreneurship
(Barnett and Barnett 1988; Smith 2000; Tompson and Tompson 2000;
De Bruin and Lewis 2004; Millman and Martin 2007) and on the perfor-
mance differences between family firms and non-family firms (Reid et
al. 1999; Reid and Adams 2001; Brunninge and Nordqvist 2004; Ibrahim
et al. 2004; Kotey 2005; Perez de Lema and Durendez 2007).
Several differences in performance characteristics between family
firms and non-family firms have been identified (Ibrahim et al. 2004;
Kotey 2005). For example, family firms have the benefits of higher gross
margins and benefits from the support of the informal system, which
is not a characteristic of larger firms or non-family firms (Kotey 2005).
Further, a considerable number of family firms is lifestyle-firms. The
main purpose of a lifestyle firm are to support the family (Reid et al.
1999). Other characteristics of family firms are family ownership, the in-
volvement of family members in the decision making process, informal
management style, and a considerable number of family members em-
ployed in the firm (Kotey 2005). An important quality of family firms
is thus the network of family contacts, which represents a useful source
of information (Hoy and Verser 1994 in Cromie and O'Sullivan 1999).
The family involvement in a firm has therefore a strong influence on the
firm's performance and organizational behavior (Cromie and O'Sullivan
1999). The latter is evident from the management style of family firm's
owners, which beside the firm's objectives takes into consideration also
the family needs and objectives. Management style is therefore more in-
formal (Daily and Dollinger 1993 in Kotey 2005). As a result, family firms
tend to have a dual identity, which is present in the strategic decision
making process. Firstly, there is a tendency to serve the family needs, and
secondly a tendency to serve the business goals (Ibrahim et al. 2004).
On the other hand, family firms frequently adopt more conservative
strategies, particularly in the early stage of their life cycle. Frequently,
family firms tend to maintain tight control of the strategic decision-
making process within the family unit. As a result, in order to maintain
the control within the family members, the owners often restrict the
firm's growth and employment. Another characteristic of family firm's
managers is smaller devotion to strategic planning and human resource
management. Selecting and compensating employees in family firms are
more complicated than in non-family firms, mainly due to the overlap
of business and family needs (Perez de Lema and Durendez 2007; Reid
and Adams 2001).
There is some evidence that family members of family firms are more
privileged at work in comparison to non family personnel. With regard
to their constant exposure to the family business they have a greater un-
derstanding of the business, and therefore have some advantages in de-
veloping their career (Cromie and O'Sullivan 1999). Furthermore, there
is a greater commitment to the family culture. There is also evidence
of less rigorous criteria to evaluate the performance of family members
as employees (Kets de Vries 1993 in Cromie and O'Sullivan 1999). On
the other hand, family members involved in the family business are sup-
posed to make some sacrifices. In particular, the involvement of both the
entrepreneur and his spouse takes a lot of their time, which could be oth-
erwise spent with their families. Therefore, there exists a conflict between
business interests and family interests (Liang and Dunn 2002). Further,
family members are exposed to some risks. For example, the uncertainty
of future income, the fear of losing capital, and as a result the higher
stress among the family members (Scarborough and Zimmerer 1999 in
Liang and Dunn 2002).
Another research area that has attracted the interest of many re-
searchers is the involvement of women in entrepreneurship. Their high
involvement in the sphere of business, particularly at the end of the
twentieth century, brought many studies (Brindley 2005; Moore, Grun-
berg, and Greenberg 2005; Loscocco and Smith-Hunter 2004; Winn
2004; Orhan and Scott 2001; Cromie and O'Sullivan 1999). Nowadays
women family members in family firms are taking more management
responsibilities than ever. According to their skills and experiences they
successfully complement the owner manager's skills. There is evidence
of benefits associated with working in a more female dominated envi-
ronment and also with having a female supervisor; there is a higher level
of social support at work, job autonomy, less depression and lower levels
of work - to - family conflict (Moore, Grunberg, and Greenberg 2005).
Further, women managers in family firms are more successful in coordi-
nating their family and business life, and have some privileges in devel-
oping their career inside a family firm than outside. The reason may be
the absence of gender discrimination in the family firm, which could be
otherwise present on the labor market. Therefore, women who are man-
agers in their own family firms have advantages compared to woman
managers in non-family firms (Cromie and O'Sullivan 1999). There is
also evidence that women engaged in home-based business ownership
experience less work - to - family conflict than women who are not en-
gaged in home-based business ownership (Loscocco and Smith-Hunter
2004).
With regard to the involvement of both husband and wife in en-
trepreneurship, different researchers have started to direct their atten-
tion to family business, in particular to copreneurs and copreneurship
(Barnett and Barnett 1988; Smith 2000; Tompson and Tompson 2000;
Fitzgerald and Muske 2002; De Bruin and Lewis 2004). In these research
studies family business is defined as business owned or managed by one
or more family members (De Bruin and Lewis 2004), while copreneur-
ship as a kind of entrepreneurship in which couples share the ownership
in a business, and try to manage both the business relationship and the
personal relationship. The latter requires a lot of devotion and sacrifices
from both of them. Without regard to this research, De Bruin and Lewis
(2004) stress the fact that familial entrepreneurship is under-researched
and therefore there does exist the need for future research.
With this study we wish to examine the role of the spouse in the en-
trepreneur's personal network. By analyzing the structural characteristics
of the entrepreneur's personal network we investigate, which is the role of
the entrepreneur's spouse in the family business. The key research ques-
tion of this paper is: What is the role of the entrepreneur's spouse in the
entrepreneur's personal network? We examine this question by exploring
a case of a family firm entrepreneur's network structure.
Methodology
RESEARCH SETTING
The entrepreneur's small family firm was established in the late 1980s,
and operates in the telecommunication industry. There were 165 enter-
prises operating in the Slovenian telecommunication industry in 2005.
The firm is a small firm with a little more than 10 persons employed
in the firm. The average rate of growth of employees was about 12% in
2005; meanwhile, the average rate of growth of total revenues was about
25%. The firm's profit was estimated at about eur 500,000 in 2005. The
entrepreneur was asked in a questionnaire to evaluate on a scale from 0
(not satisfied) to 7 (very satisfied) his satisfaction with the firm's amount
of sales, firm's profit and his satisfaction in general. Although the busi-
ness performance is not above the average results of the industry, the
entrepreneur affirms that he is satisfied with the performance and the
growth of the firm (the entrepreneur estimated his satisfaction with the
amount of sales as 7, the firm's profit as 5, and his satisfaction in gen-
eral as 6). The performance of the firm is consistent with the objectives
of the entrepreneur. Thus, the entrepreneur's firm can be classified as
a lifestyle firm. A lifestyle firm is usually privately held and has some
specific characteristics. One of the most important characteristics is its
modest growth, which is partly a consequence of the limited money in-
vested in research and development, and partly because of the objectives
of the entrepreneur. The main purpose of a lifestyle firm is to support the
owners. Therefore, the growth and the expansion of the firm are usually
not the main strategic orientations adopted by the entrepreneur (Hisrich
and Peters 1998). These characteristics can also be recognized as charac-
teristics of the firm from this research.
DATA COLLECTION
The research is based on the interview data collected about the en-
trepreneur's ego centered resource (material, financial, and/or human
resources) acquisition network, information acquisition network and
network of friends. The data collection technique used was a question-
naire. The entrepreneur was asked to list to ten persons for each network
with whom he had direct personal relationships and who have been
most important for the entrepreneur's firm. The entrepreneur and these
persons were used as rows and columns for the composition of a re-
lationship matrix for each of the sub-networks. The entrepreneur was
then asked to evaluate on a scale from 0 (not important) to 10 (very
important) each person's importance as a resource provider, an infor-
mation provider and as a friend, as well as the perceived importance
of each person for all other persons in the matrix. The entrepreneur
was also asked to provide some additional information about himself
(mostly demographic data), about the firm (age, size, industry, growth),
and about each person in the network (frequency of interaction, fri-
endship).
The entrepreneur named eleven persons as members of his per-
sonal network. In order to receive further information about the en-
trepreneur's personal network we elaborated the combinations of the
three entrepreneur's personal sub-networks. Therefore, we could oper-
ate with seven different entrepreneur's personal networks (resources ac-
quisition network, information acquisition network, network of friends,
resources-information acquisition network, resources acquisition net-
work and network of friends, information acquisition network and net-
work of friends, resources-information acquisition network and network
of friends).
METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS
All seven networks were separately analyzed with methods of social
network analysis. Firstly, we examined the entrepreneur's ego centered
networks, which include the entrepreneur as the most central person,
and secondly we analyzed the networks without the entrepreneur. Thus,
we could find out who is the most important person within the en-
trepreneur's personal network.
The collected data were analyzed with the program Ucinet 6 for Win-
dows (Borgatti et al. 2002). In order to present the research results in a
more understandable way, the estimations were made with the binary
type of data (and not with the data valued from 0 to 10). Ucinet 6 is
a software for social network analysis. The latter can be defined as a
set of methods for the examination of the structure of social relation-
ships within a group. The purpose is to uncover the informal connec-
tion among social entities. Social network analysis is an important tool
that helps one to understand connections between patterns of interac-
tion and business performance (Ehrlich and Carboni 2006). These are
not individual entities and their attributes under investigation but the
relationships among them.
The social network analysis requires a specific vocabulary, hence it is
important to know the meaning of its concepts. The network represents
a group of social entities and the linkages existing among them. Social
entities in the network could be individuals, families, nations, organi-
zations, departments of organizations, etc. From the point of view of
social network analysis, social environment can be understood as pat-
terns of relationships among interacting entities, while the structure of a
network can be understood as a presence of regular patterns in these rela-
tionships. Social entities are linked to each other by relational ties, which
can be affective, political, economic, religious, biological etc. The rela-
tion linkages among entities in a network have critical roles of channels,
through which the flow of information, resources, support and advice
can be transported (Wasserman and Faust 1994).
In this paper, only selected concepts of social network analysis were
analyzed. The first one is network density. The density can be defined
as the proportion of relations that are actually present in the network
relative to the total number of possible relations. Estimating the den-
sity of the network represents the first step towards analyzing the social
structure of the network under investigation. The density gives informa-
tion on how cohesive and homogeneous is the network as a whole. The
higher the density, the more connected are the actors of the network to
each other (Martino and Spoto 2006). In order to measure the density,
it is necessary to estimate the actual number of relations in the network
and the theoretical maximum number of relations that could be present
if each person were connected to all other persons in the network. Sup-
posing, that there are G persons in the network, each person can be con-
nected to (G - 1) other persons. Thus, there can be G(G - 1) possible
pairs of persons. Therefore, the maximum number of relations that can
be present in a network is equal to half of the total number of possible
pairs of persons in the network: G(G - 1)/2. Supposing that the number
of existing relations in the graph is L, then the formula to calculate the
density is next (Wasserman and Faust 1994):
L
D = — «
2
When there is no connection among the members of the network,
which means that L = 0, the density is 0. On the contrary, when there are
all possible relations present in the network (L = G(G-1)/2), the density
is equal to 1. Thus, the interval of possible values of density is from 0 to 1.
The next concept of social network analysis used in this research is
reachability. A person is reachable by another person when there is a set
of connections through which a person can come from the 'source' per-
son to the 'target' person (Hanneman 2006).
Another concept analyzed in the research is centrality. The centrality
of a person within the network gives us the information on its structural
importance. The purpose of analyzing the centrality is therefore to iden-
tify the most important person in the network. The assumption is that
the most central person is the most powerful, and has the most strategic
position inside the network. There are three different measures of point
centrality that differ by the criteria used to measure point centrality: de-
gree centrality, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality. The ap-
proach based on the point degree has the supposition that persons with
higher degree, which means that they have more direct ties, are more
powerful. The reason for their power is their autonomy inside the net-
work, because they have more opportunities to gain information, more
choices, and are not so dependant on other persons. The next approach,
based on closeness, affirms that persons that can reach other persons at
shorter path distances, and at the same time are also reachable by other
persons at shorter path distances have more power. The third approach
is based on betweenness. The latter concept means being between other
persons, which gives to the person in between the status of being a bro-
ker. This person has the power to accelerate, slow down or even prevent
the flow of information and resources. Although each of these three ap-
proaches has its own measure, they all have the same aim, which is to
disclose how close are network members to the center of the action in
the network (Izquierdo and Hanneman 2006).
Through the methods of social network analysis we also analyzed if
there were any cliques in the personal network of the entrepreneur. A
clique is defined as a sub-set of persons in which every possible pair of
persons is directly connected by a relation. Each person is in reciprocal
relation with all other persons in the clique (Scott 1991).
Findings
The research results will be discussed for each personal network of the
entrepreneur separately. In order to find out the most central person
within the members of the entrepreneur's network, we will discuss the
results also for networks in which the entrepreneur is not taken into con-
sideration (networks without the entrepreneur).
The entrepreneur listed four persons in his resource acquisition net-
work (see figure 1). These persons are resource providers for the en-
trepreneur's firm. As information and advice providers the entrepreneur
listed six persons. Thus, the information acquisition network includes
six different persons (see figure 2). The third personal network, which
is the network of friends, comprehends three persons (see figure 3).
There was an overlap in listing persons; Persons 1 and 2 were named
two times. Firstly, the entrepreneur named them as resource providers
for the firm, and secondly as information providers. Therefore, the en-
trepreneur listed altogether eleven different persons. Persons 1, 3 and 4
are entrepreneur's relatives. Person 1 is the entrepreneur's wife. The en-
trepreneur described Person 1 as formally connected to the firm, which
means she could be both an employee and firm's owner. Person 3 is the
entrepreneur's brother, while Person 4 is the entrepreneur's daughter.
Both are important as resource providers for the firm, and are not for-
mally connected to the firm. Persons 5, 6, 7 and 9 are employed in the
firm, but are not in relation with the entrepreneur, while Persons 2, 8, 10
and 11 are nor formally connected to the firm, neither in relation with the
entrepreneur. The research results indicate a strong connection between
the entrepreneur and Persons 1, 6 and 7. Their importance as resource
and information providers for the entrepreneur's firm is very high.
In the entrepreneur's resource acquisition network the entrepreneur
and Person 1 are the main resource receivers (degree centrality; tables
of results of these and other calculations are not shown due to the
limited length of the paper). The entrepreneur is a resource provider
for three persons, while Person 1 (entrepreneur's wife) is a resource
provider for two other network members. When investigating the net-
work without the entrepreneur, Person 1 is the main resource receiver
(highest degree centrality). With regard to closeness and betweenness
centrality the entrepreneur is the most central member of the net-
work. The latter is a consequence of the entrepreneur's ego centered
network methodology. There are three cliques formed in the network.
Each clique includes the entrepreneur and Person 1. In the resource
acquisition network in which the entrepreneur is not considered, no
cliques are found. The density of the network is higher in the network
which includes the entrepreneur than it is in the network without the
figure 1 Resource acquisition network
entrepreneur. This finding is the same for all examined sub-networks,
because of the methodology used in the study (entrepreneur's ego-
centered network methodology). The entrepreneur, Persons 1, 2 and
4 are the most reachable persons in the network, while Persons 1 and
2 are the most reachable persons in the network without the entre-
preneur.
The entrepreneur and Person 1 have the highest indegree centrality in
the entrepreneur's information acquisition network (see figure 2). The
latter indicates that the entrepreneur and Person 1 are the most impor-
tant information receivers for the firm. Person 1 is also the most impor-
tant information provider. In the information acquisition network, in
which the entrepreneur is not considered, Person 1 has the highest de-
gree centrality. Therefore, the most important information provider and
receiver for the entrepreneur's firm is the entrepreneur's wife. While the
entrepreneur has the highest closeness centrality, Person 9 is the second
most central person regarding closeness centrality. Person 1 has the high-
est betweenness centrality in the entrepreneur's network. Therefore, she
has the power to speed up or hinder the flow of information among the
network members. Three cliques are found in the information acquisi-
tion network, in which Person 1 is always included, even when the en-
figure 2 Information acquisition network
trepreneur is not. Thus, Person 1 has a strong influence on the decision
making process within the network. Person 9 is the most reachable per-
son in the information acquisition network without the entrepreneur.
The highest degree, closeness and betweenness centrality in the en-
trepreneur's network of friends is held by the entrepreneur (see figure
3). There are no relational ties among the members of the entrepreneur's
network of friends, hence there are no cliques found in the network. Fur-
ther, the density of the network in which the entrepreneur is excluded is
0. Therefore, no one from the network can be reached by any other per-
son, except by the entrepreneur.
In the entrepreneur's resource and information acquisition network
Person 1 has the highest degree centrality (see figure 4). This indicates
that Person 1 is the most important resource and information provider
and receiver for the entrepreneur's firm. Person 1 is even more impor-
tant than the entrepreneur. Person 9 has the highest closeness central-
ity, while the highest betweenness centrality is reached by Person 1. The
entrepreneur's wife is positioned between other network members, and
therefore has the power to influence the flow of information and re-
sources. She can accelerate, slow down or prevent the flow of informa-
tion. There are 6 cliques in the network. Each clique includes Person 1,
figure 3 Network of friends
which gives her the power to influence other network members. Person
9 is the most reachable person in the network in which the entrepreneur
is not included.
In the combination of the resource acquisition network and network
of friends the entrepreneur has the highest degree centrality. When an-
alyzing the network without the entrepreneur we found out that the
highest degree, closeness and betweenness centrality is reached by Per-
son 1. Three cliques are formed in the network with the entrepreneur.
All three cliques include the entrepreneur and Person 1. In the network,
in which the entrepreneur is not present, there are no cliques. Thus, the
entrepreneur is the only connection among the network members. Per-
sons 1 and 2 are the most reachable persons in the network in which the
entrepreneur is not taken into consideration.
In the combination of the information acquisition network and net-
work of friends the entrepreneur has the highest indegree centrality,
while the person with the highest outdegree centrality is Person 1. The
entrepreneur has also the highest betweenness and closeness centrality
in the network. In the network, in which the entrepreneur is not taken
into consideration, Person 1 has both the highest indegree and the high-
est outdegree centrality. Furthermore, Person 1 has the highest between-
figure 4 Resource and information acquisition network
ness and outcloseness centrality, while the highest incloseness central-
ity is reached by Person 9. There are three cliques present in the en-
trepreneur's network. Person 1 is included in every clique, even when
the entrepreneur is not included. The latter indicates that Person 1 has
direct or indirect contacts with many network members, independently
of the presence of the entrepreneur. Beside the entrepreneur, Person 9 is
the most reachable person in the entrepreneur's network.
The last analyzed entrepreneur's network is represented by the combi-
nation of all three entrepreneur's personal sub-networks, which are the
resource acquisition network, information acquisition network, and net-
work of friends (see figure 5). Regarding degree centrality, both the en-
trepreneur and Person 1 have the highest outdegree centrality in the net-
work. The entrepreneur reaches also the highest indegree, closeness and
betweenness centrality. When the estimations are made for the network,
in which the entrepreneur is not considered, Person 1 (the wife) has the
highest degree, betweenness and outcloseness centrality. While the high-
est incloseness centrality is reached by Person 9. There are six cliques
found in the network. Person 1 is present in every clique, even when the
entrepreneur is not included. The research results indicate that the en-
trepreneur is the most reachable person in the network, while Person 9
(PX^

figure 5 Resource-information acquisition network and network of friends
is the second most reachable person in the network. The findings are
summarized in table 1.
Conclusion
The personal network of the entrepreneur who owns and manages a
small family venture was examined in this paper, with a special em-
phasis on the role of the spouse in the family firm's networking. The
findings indicate that the entrepreneur's wife has a significant influence
on the family firm's network performance. She is present in all cliques
that are formed in the entrepreneur's network, which allows her to get
information from different sources and to influence the decision mak-
ing process in the network. She is also well connected with other mem-
bers of the network and is crucial in the resource and information ac-
quisition process for the entrepreneur's firm. Furthermore, her central
position in the structure of the network gives her the power to reach
other network members more quickly. She can reach other persons at
shorter path distances than the entrepreneur or any other network mem-
ber, and is an important information provider for other members in the
entrepreneur's personal network.
Overall, the findings point to the importance of the spouse in the fam-
table 1 Summary of the findings about the entrepreneur's personal network
Personal	Key findings
sub-network
Resource	The entrepreneur's wife is the most central person in the en-
acquisition	trepreneur's network. She has the highest degree, closeness and
network	betweenness centrality within the network members, and is also
one of the most reachable persons within the network. She is the
most powerful member of the network, and has the most strategic
position inside the network.
The entrepreneur's wife is the most important information receiver
and provider, and has the power to accelerate, slow down or pre-
vent the flow of information among the network members. She is
present in all cliques that are formed within the network, which
gives her the power to influence the decision making process.
The entrepreneur's personal network includes three different per-
sons. The members within the network are not connected to each
other. Their only point of connection is the entrepreneur; therefore
the members are disconnected without the entrepreneur. Thus,
there are no cliques inside the network.
The entrepreneur's wife is the most important resource and in-
formation provider and receiver in the network. Thus, she is even
more important in the process of information and resource ac-
quisition than the entrepreneur. She is positioned between other
network members, which gives her the power to influence the flow
of resources and information.
Continued on the next page
ily firm's networking. The key contribution of this paper is the finding
that the spouse can be as important as or even more important than
the entrepreneur in the resource and information provision for the firm.
However, such finding is usually not visible in formal enterprise struc-
tures. It can only be found through a thorough analysis of the structure
of the entrepreneur's personal network.
The research results suggest some implications for practice and fu-
ture research directions of entrepreneurial networks. The investigation
of the overall structure of the entrepreneur's personal network enables
the disclosure of the informal network's structure, which is considered
to be even more important for the entrepreneur's firm than the for-
mal structure. Therefore the latter could have important implications
for entrepreneurial practice. For example, if the entrepreneur identifies
the most important network members for his or her firm, he or she
Information
acquisition
network
Network of
friends
Resource and
information
acquisition
network
Continued from the previous page
Resource	In the network, in which the entrepreneur is not present, the en-
acquisition	trepreneur's wife has the highest degree, closeness and between-
network and ness centrality. Therefore, she is the most central person in the
network of	entrepreneur's network. She is present in all cliques that are formed
friends	in the network.
Information The entrepreneur is the main information and friendly support
acquisition	receiver in the network, while his wife is the main information and
network and friendly support provider. The entrepreneur's wife is crucial in the
network of	process of giving information and advice to network members. She
friends	is also present in all cliques that are formed in the entrepreneur's
personal network.
Resource-	The entrepreneur's wife has the highest number of direct contacts.
information She is positioned between other members, which gives her the
acquisition	power to influence the flow of information. Furthermore, she can
network and reach other persons at shorter path distances. Therefore she spends
network of	less time on communicating with others. She is also present in
friends	all cliques in the entrepreneur's network, which allows her to get
information from different sources and to have an influence on the
decision making process.
table 1
can devote more attention to maintaining and developing relations with
these persons. Furthermore, the information about the structure of the
entrepreneur's personal network is also helpful for persons outside the
firm, because it reveals who is the most influential person inside the
entrepreneur's network. Having the most strategic position within the
network brings some benefits: e. g., to reach other network members
at shorter path distances and to influence the decision making process
within the network. Therefore, by identifying the most influential per-
sons inside the network it is easier to arrange contracts or implement
changes in the firm, like firm reorganizations, consulting projects etc. In
sum, identifying the informal structure of the entrepreneur's personal
network through a thorough social network analysis could be of great
importance for the firm's performance.
Although the research results contribute to the theory of family firms'
networking, some limitations of the research can be recognized. First, the
investigation of the role of the spouse in the family firm's networking was
carried out only on one case of family firm's network structure. There-
fore, the methodology does not allow for further generalization. How-
ever, we are convinced that in many family firms, spouses have similarly
important network roles. Second, the entrepreneur's personal network in
the study is the result of the entrepreneur's perception about the struc-
ture of the relationships within his personal network. Therefore, in fu-
ture research the views of other members of the entrepreneur's personal
network should be considered, which would enable a more accurate in-
sight in to the entrepreneur's network. The future directions should be
also toward samples that would allow for generalization. Further, little
attention is paid to the empirical research of copreneurs (Fitzgerald and
Muske 2002), hence an in-depth research of copreneurs' networking in
family firms would significantly contribute to the theory and practice of
copreneurship.
References
Aldrich, H., and C. Zimmer. 1986. Entrepreneurship through social net-
works. In The art and science of entrepreneurship, ed. D. L. Sexton and
R. W. Smilor, 3-23. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Antoncic, B. 1999. Entrepreneurship networks: a review and future re-
search directions. Slovenian Economic Review 50 (3): 195-221.
Barnett, F., and S. Barnett. 1988. Working together: Entrepreneurial couples.
Berkely, ca: Ten Speed Press.
Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 2002. Ucinetfor Windows:
Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
Brass, D. J. 1992. Power in organizations: A social network perspective.
Research in Politics and Society 4:295-23.
Brindley, C. 2005. Barriers to women achieving their entrepreneurial po-
tential: Women and risk. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Be-
haviour & Research 11 (2): 144-61.
Brunninge, O., and M. Nordqvist. 2004. Ownership structure, board
composition and entrepreneurship: Evidence from family firms and
venture-capital-backed firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research 10 (1-2): 85-105.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure ofcompetition. Cam-
bridge, ma: Harvard University Press.
-. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science
Quarterly 42 (2): 339-65.
Cromie, S., and S. O'Sullivan. 1999. Women as managers in family firms.
Women in Management Review 14 (3): 76-88.
Daily, C. M., and M. J. Dollinger. 1993. Alternative methodologies for
identifying family vs. non-family businesses. Journal of Small Business
Management 31 (2): 70-90.
De Bruin, A., and K. Lewis 2004. Toward enriching united career theory:
familial entrepreneurship and copreneurship. Career Development In-
ternational 9 (7): 638-46.
Dubini, P., and H. Aldrich. 1991. Personal and extended networks are cen-
tral to the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing 6 (5):
305-13.
Erlich, K., and I. Carboni. 2006. Inside social network analysis. Collabo-
rative user experience technical report, ibm Corporation.
Fitzgerald, M. A., and G. Muske. 2002. Copreneurs: An exploration and
comparison to other family businesses. Family Business Review 15 (1):
1-15.
Granovetter, M. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In
Networks and organizations, ed. N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles, 25-56.
Boston, ma: Harvard Business School Press.
Hall, C. 1992. White, male and middle class. Cambridge and Oxford: Polity.
Hanneman, R. 2006. Introduction to social network methods. Riverside:
University of California.
Hisrich, R. D., and M. P. Peters. 1998. Entrepreneurship. 4th ed. Boston,
ma: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Hoang, H., and B. Antoncic 2003. Network-based research in entrepreneur-
ship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (2): 165-87.
Hoy, F., and T. G. Verser. 1994. Emerging business, emerging field: En-
trepreneurship and the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-
tice 19 (1): 9-24.
Ibrahim, A. B., J. McGuire, K. Soufani, and P. Poutziouris. 2004. Patterns
in strategy formation in a family firm. International Journal of En-
trepreneurial Behaviour & Research 10 (1-2): 127-40.
Izquierdo, L. R., and R. A. Hanneman. 2006. Introduction to the formal
analysis of social networks using Mathematica. Http://library
.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/6638/Izquierdo_Hanneman
_2006.pdf.
Kets de Vries, M. E. R. 1993. The dynamics of family controlled firms: The
good and bad news. Organizational Dynamic 21 (3): 59-71.
Kotey, B. 2005. Goals, management practices, and performance of family
smes. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 11
(1): 3-24.
Liang, C.-I., and P. Dunn. 2002. The impact of starting a new venture on
the entrepreneur and their family: Expectations, reality, and willing-
ness to start again. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship 14 (1): 1-16.
Lin, N. 1982. Social resources and instrumental action. In Social structure
and networks analysis, ed. P. V. Marsden and N. Lin, 131-45. Beverly
Hills, ca: Sage.
Loscocco, K., and A. Smith-Hunter. 2004. Woman home-based business
owners: insights from comparative analyses. Women in Management
Review 19 (3): 164-73.
Martino, F., and A. Spoto. 2006. Social network analysis: A brief theoret-
Volume 7 • Number 2 • Summer 2009
ical review and further perspectives in the study of information tech-
nology. PsychNology Journal 4 (1): 53-86.
Meyerson, E. 2000. Human capital, social capital and the compensation:
The contribution of social contacts to manager's incomes. In Knowl-
edge and social capital: Foundations and applications, ed. E. Lesser, 287-
311. Boston, ma: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Millman, C., and L. M. Martin. 2007. Exploring small copreneurial food
companies: Female leadership perspectives. Women in Management
Review 22 (3): 232-9.
Moore, S., L. Grunberg, and E. Greenberg. 2005. Are female supervisors
good for employee job experiences, health, and wellbeing? Women in
Management Review 20 (2): 86-95.
Orhan, M., and D. Scott. 2001. Why women enter into entrepreneurship:
An explanatory model. Women in Management Review 16 (5): 232-47.
Perez de Lema, D. G., and A. Durendez. 2007. Managerial behaviour of
small and medium-sized family businesses: An empirical study. Inter-
national Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 13 (3): 151-72.
Prior, M., ed. 1986. Women inEnglishsociety, 1500-1800. London: Methuen.
Reid, R. S., and J. S. Adams. 2001. Human resource management: A survey
of practices within family and non-family. Journal of European Indus-
trial Training 26 (6): 310-20.
Reid, R., B. Dunn, S. Cromie, and J. Adams. 1999. Family orientation in
family firms: A model and some empirical evidence. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development 6 (1): 55-67.
Rose, M. B., ed. 1995. Family business. Aldershot: Elgar.
Ruzzier, M., and B. Antoncic. 2007. Social capital and sme international-
ization: An empirical examination. Transformations in Business & Eco-
nomics 6 (1): 122-38.
Scarborough, N. M., and T. W. Zimmerer. 1999. Effective small business
management: An entrepreneurial approach. Upper Saddle River, nj:
Prentice Hall.
Scott, J. 1991. Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage.
Smith, C. S. 2000. Managing work and family in small 'copreneurial' busi-
ness: An Australian study. Women in Management Review 15 (5-6):
283-9.
Tompson, G. H., and H. B. Tompson. 2000. Determinants of successful co-
preneurship. Paper presented at the icsb World Conference, Brisbane.
Wasserman, S., and K. Faust 1994. Social network analysis, methods and
applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winn, J. 2004. Entrepreneurship: Not an easy path to top management for
women. Women in Management Review 19 (3): 143-53.