Umanga Whanaungatanga: Family Business

Authors: Amber Nicholson, Christine Woods and Manuka Henare

Organisation: University of Auckland Business School

Summary: This is an exploratory paper in which we examine the Māori notion of

whanaungatanga and the relevance it may have to the family business

concept of familiness in Aotearoa New Zealand. We propose that

whanaungatanga - broadly described as kinship relationships that

develop a sense of belonging - as one of the cultural tenants of a Māori

worldview - could be a critical source of leverage for Māori businesses.

We also suggest that familiness is an inherent structure within Māori

organisations, family business or otherwise. Familiness denotes the

distinct set of resources and capabilities held within the family firm that

has the potential to create competitive advantage. This paper puts

forward the notion that familiness may have some correlation to

spiritual and physical cultural notion of whanaungatanga, yet the latter

has the potential to extend much further.

Keywords: whanaungatanga, familiness, social capital

Contact Details: Amber Nicholson

Mira Szászy Research Centre

University of Auckland Business School

Private Bag 92019

Auckland

09 923 4585

a.nicholson@auckland.ac.nz

2

INTRODUCTION

This is an exploratory paper in which we examine the Māori notion of whanaungatanga and

the relevance it may have to the family business concept of familiness in Aotearoa New

Zealand. Māori are the indigenous people of New Zealand (NZ), and Aotearoa the traditional

Māori name for this country. We propose that whanaungatanga - broadly described as

kinship relationships that develop a sense of belonging (Henare, 1988) - as one of the cultural

tenants of a Māori worldview - could be a critical source of leverage for Māori businesses.

We also suggest that familiness is an inherent structure within Māori organisations, family

business or otherwise. Familiness denotes the distinct set of resources and capabilities held

within the family firm that has the potential to create competitive advantage (Habbershon &

Williams, 1999). This paper puts forward the notion that familiness may have some

correlation to spiritual and physical cultural notion of whanaungatanga, yet the latter has the

potential to extend much further.

Family systems and networks are based on obligation, and membership often compulsory and

fixed provides a well-developed personal and communal identity (Rahman, 2011). This

paper explores these intrinsic principles in a bid to understand what whanaungatanga can

contribute to family business and its literature, and how the inherent desire to tend to

spiritual, environmental social and cultural, and human capital can provide economic

advantage.

We have used the term umanga whanaungatanga to denote family business within a Māori

context. Umanga is used widely to denote business but can also mean ‘pursuit’ (Williams,

1992 [1844]). The NZ Law Commission (2006) whose purpose as an independent Crown

entity is to review the laws of Aotearoa New Zealand deems umanga as a community

undertaking not limited to purely commercial endeavours. Thus we suggest that umanga

whanaungatanga is the pursuit of communal and collective business ventures. In a

collectivist society, such as that of Māori, communities believe life to be a holistic system.

The environment, culture and society, spirituality and economy are all interconnecting

processes that cannot be seen in isolation (Cajete, 2000; Marsden, 2003; Spiller, Pio,

Erakovic, Henare, 2011; Suzuki et al., 1997). In contrast to the dominant Anglo-NZ view

that family and business overlap, umanga whanaungatanga is the concept of umanga residing

3

within the realm of whanaungatanga. As echoed in other Indigenous societies, human life

and activity dwells within the community context (Cajete, 2000).

Figure 1: Anglo-NZ Family Business Model Figure 2: Maori Business Model

In this paper we first describe the background to the paper, a brief understanding of the

theoretical lens used to frame this paper. The next section explores the notion of

whanaungatanga and its many facets of whānau, whanaunga, and whakawhanaungatanga, as

well as the ethics that underpin this principle. We then examine the notion of familiness and

its relation to social capital; followed by our interpretation of what a Māori view of

familiness looks like. The principle of kotahitanga is then considered and we highlight the

advantages of enacting whanaungatanga. We briefly summarise some of the issues

concerned with these reciprocal relationships before finishing by outlining the limitations of

this paper.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The Māori economy as an Indigenous economy of Aotearoa New Zealand has a long and

flourishing history with beginnings in the Austronesian cultures and languages of South East

Asia dating back 5000-7000years ago and thus they carry a history and wealth of knowledge

that can inform modern business practices (Henare, 2000). The social organisation of

Indigenous society underpinned commercial success whereby whānau and hapū

(social/family units) were akin to corporate organisations (Marsden, 2003; Petrie, 2006).

Indeed family or kinship systems are the oldest, most prevalent and established organisational

entities of human history (Rahman, 2011). However, since colonial times, significant

political and social impacts experienced by Māori led to a decline in Māori development

FAMILY BUSINESS

UMANGA

WHANAUNGATANGA

4

(Best & Love, 2011; Spiller et al., 2011). Recently there has been resurgence in the Māori

economy (Durie, 2003; Henare, 2011; TPK, 2007) and research has shown that Māori are

highly entrepreneurial when compared to other developed countries (Frederick & Chittock,

2006; Frederick & Henry, 2004). Yet there is little exploration into how Māori can cultivate

entrepreneurship by using their own distinctive cultural values (Durie, 2003; Haar &

Delaney, 2009). As an integral part of the Aotearoa New Zealand economies, and with the

potentiality of significant growth, there is a need for further study into motivations of Māori

in entrepreneurial activity (BERL, 2010; Haar & Delaney, 2009; NZIER, 2003).

This paper is an exploratory study that aims to bring Māori cultural notions to the forefront

allowing Māori the space to determine their own business principles, and define practices of a

culturally appropriate nature within an Anglo-NZ dominant framework. There exists an

assumption that conventional business ideology can be applied to a Māori framework without

modification; it is Māori who are expected to adapt (Durie, 2003). Durie (2003) expresses

caution with this inference, as it cannot be supposed that Māori businesses are driven by the

same philosophy as that which underpins conventional business wisdom, that is, the single

profit-driven bottom line.

WHANAUNGATANGA

Whanaungatanga is a complex word that is made up of many parts. Whānau is the root word,

that is prefixed, suffixed, or both to convey meaning (Tinirau, 2010). The concept of whānau

has been evaluated and defined in many ways. Not only is there no single definition of

whānau, but each whānau group demands different obligations and responsibilities (Durie,

1997; Tinirau, 2010). Literally translated, whānau denotes extended family, or to give birth

(Williams, 1992 [1844]) and refers to those with a shared whakapapa (descent from a

common ancestor) (Durie, 1997). As the primary social unit of Māori society, it often

consisted of three to four generations at any one time (Henare, 1998; Metge, 1995; Walker,

1990). This differs from the conventional description of a nuclear family and Williams (1992

[1844]) questions whether Maori had any real comprehension of the family as a single unit.

Formerly, whānau were responsible for both the social and economic management of

domestic life. However, due to socio-economic changes in Aotearoa New Zealand in recent

decades, the contemporary sense of whānau has transformed dramatically from these classical

notions (Durie, 1997; Metge, 1995). Whilst some argue that these changes have rendered

5

whānau as insignificant, others claim that whānau have simply adapted to stay relevant

(Durie, 1997). Metge (1995) contends that traditional principles - referred to here are kawa1 -

should not be confused with classical processes of the 18th

and 19th

century. Kawa is

rendered as knowledge handed down from the spiritual world, that which remain steadfast

and relevant through time, such as the principles of kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and

whanaungatanga. Tikanga is the man-made directives of how these kawa are understood and

enacted and can vary between whānau (Henare, 2005). It is the whānau processes and

activities that have adapted through the ages to suit each environment. Thus Metge (1995)

argues that rather than being perpetual and static, the whānau is constantly developing

according to context.

In today’s contemporary society, whānau has extended beyond the classical description of

whakapapa and now incorporates a wider sense of community (Haar & Delaney, 2009;

Metge, 1995). It is often applied metaphorically to denote a group of like minded people who

share a common kaupapa or purpose. This group use the whānau as the primary reference

model, adhering to traditional whānau values. The central unifying principle then becomes

the kaupapa as opposed to ancestry (Metge, 1995). Bishop (2008) describes whānau as “a

location for communication, sharing outcomes and constructing shared common

understandings and meanings” (p. 158).

Māori also refer to whanaunga, rendered as ‘relative’ in the widest sense. Whanaunga are

connected in various ways, and can belong to multiple whānau (Metge, 1995). As Bishop

(2011) explains, when Māori introduce each other as whanaunga, “we are introducing part of

one to another part of the same oneness. Knowing who we are is a somatic acknowledgment

of our connectedness with and commitment to our surroundings, human and nonhuman” (p.

13).

The principle of whanaungatanga recognises the significance of networks and relationships

(Māori Economic Development Panel, 2012). Bishop (2011) describes it as both a value and

a social process of connectedness and engagement. Expressed as the “cement that holds

things Māori together” (Ritchie, 1992, p. 67), it binds people through responsibility and

obligation (Durie, 1997; Ritchie, 1992). With reciprocity at the heart of this notion,

1 It is noted that there are some dialectical differences in the use of kawa and tikanga

6

whanaungatanga develops a deep-seated sense of belonging (Henare, 1998). Durie (1997)

sees it as an active process: the way in which the bonds of whānau are strengthened. Whānau

have a significant role in Māori development and to achieve this, there is no room for

passivity.

The family is one of the few institutions in an increasingly competitive society

which is able to balance individualism with collective responsibility: whānau are

more likely to operate as a collective (Patterson 1992); indeed, individual

pursuits or achievements are often given little importance unless they are seen as

part of the wider group’s aspirations (Durie, 1985). At the same time, whānau

have the capacity to empower individual members to realise competitive goals

and to enhance individual standing. (Durie, 1997, p. 12)

We can deepen this term by adding the causative prefix of whaka to whanaungatanga which

brings belonging into effect: whakawhanaungatanga is the seen as the development and

enhancement of relationships and linking people through whakapapa (genealogy) (Tinirau,

2010). As whakawhanaungatanga refers to the development and advancement of

relationships it has been applied in many different contexts (Tinirau, 2010) including research

(Bishop, 2008), education (Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh & Teddy, 2007), and business (Haar

& Delaney, 2009).

As is the interwoven nature of Māori society, whanaungatanga is not a stand-alone concept.

It is underpinned by the relational values such as mana, tapu, wairua and hau. Henare (2001,

2003) developed He Korunga o Ngā Tikanga: a matrix of ethics and morality that constitutes

a Māori worldview of the interconnectedness of Māori principles in a relationship of

reciprocity and respect. All ethics are interdependent illustrating that “in order to understand

the whole one must understand the parts or put another way, in order to understand the parts

one must understand the whole” (Henare, 2003, p. 88).

7

He Korunga o Ngā TikangaSpiral/Matrix of Ethics – The Good Life

tapumauri

haumana Whānaungatanga

belonging

Kotahitanga solidarity

wairuaTiakitangaguardianship

M. Henare, 2001, 2003

te ao mārama

enlightenment, cosmos

te ao hurihuri

change & tradition

Manaakitanga/Atawhai

generosity

Tangatahumanity

Hohou rongoPeace

Figure 3: He Korunga o Ngā Tikanga

Tikanga te ao mārama (ethic of wholeness, evolving, cosmos)

Tikanga mana (ethic of power, authority, and common good, actualisation of tapu)

Tikanga hau (ethic of spiritual power of obligatory reciprocity in relationships with

nature, life force, breath of life)

Tikanga mauri (ethic of life essences, vitalism, reverence for life)

Tikanga tapu (ethic of existence, being with potentiality, power, the sacred)

Tikanga wairua - wairuatanga (ethic of the spirit and spirituality)

Tikanga manaakitanga (ethic of love and honour, solidarity, reciprocity)

Tikanga hohou rongo (ethic of peace and reconciliation, restoration)

Tikanga tiaki – tiakitanga (ethic of guardianship of creation, land, seas, forests,

environment)

Tikanga kotahitanga (ethic of solidarity with people and the natural world and

common good)

Tikanga whānau – whanaungatanga (ethic of belonging, reverence for the human

person)

Tikanga tika – tikanga (ethic of the distinctive nature of things, of the right way, of

the quest for justice )

8

Tikanga te ao hurihuri (ethic of change and tradition) (Henare, 2003)

As a business notion, whanaungatanga can be seen as a resource whereby the entrepreneur(s)

can utilise the resources of the collective (Haar & Delaney, 2009). A Māori worldview sees

resources as being held within the people, a sharing of power that is defined by the whānau

(Berryman, Bateman & Cavanagh, 2010). As an ongoing process, whanaungatanga can be

used in its traditional form as a means to establish and bolster alliances in an appropriate

modern context (Tinirau, 2010). Reciprocal relationships are premised upon the notion that

enhancing the mana of others, will in turn enhance one’s own mana (Spiller et al., 2010).

Through establishing and nurturing whanaungatanga, both within Māori businesses and with

their counterparts, there is potential to gain competitive advantage through these strong,

unique bonds (Haar & Delaney, 2009). It can provide “guidance, cooperation and support in

times of peace or trouble, and relationships such as these can be considered durable, strong

and highly valuable” (Tinirau, 2010, p. 301). This deeply ingrained value promotes strong

loyalty and trust, and it is this “magic ingredient” (Ritchie, 1992, p. 69) that underpins the

success of Indigenous business (Ritchie, 1992).

FAMILINESS

Families within family business are not mere individuals working together, but a unique

system of family capabilities and interactions that define and differentiate the firm. These

firms have their own distinct cognitive mechanisms and philosophy (Rahman, 2011). Family

business literature has developed the term familiness to denote the set of resources and

capabilities that are distinctive to a family firm due to the interactions between the family

unit, its individuals, and the business, and as a means to differentiate between family and

non-family business (Habbershon & Williams, 1999; Pearson, Carr & Shaw, 2008).

Familiness has the potential to generate competitive advantages or disadvantages, termed

distinctive and constrictive respectively (Chrisman, Chua & Steier, 2005). Distinctive

familiness denotes the positive effect of family involvement in the organisation. It is the

ability to generate competitive advantage, economic wealth, and enhanced organisational

performance (Chrisman et al., 2005; Pearson et al., 2008). Distinctive familiness is a

representation of the aspirations and skill set of the family and is thus heavily influenced by

noneconomic motives. It is the social mission of the organisational purpose that gives the

firm its distinctive culture (Chrisman et al., 2005). Furthermore, family firms tend to

9

intentionally pursue a common vision that will continue to create wealth for future

generations (Chrisman, Chua & Steier, 2005; Pearson et al., 2008).

Social capital theory is used by Pearson, Carr and Shaw (2008) as a framework to identify the

specific resources and capabilities of familiness and how these are created. In broad terms,

social capital refers to the set of resources (physical and intangible) that can be accessed by

an individual or collective through social networks (Robinson & Williams, 2001). Thus it is

a tacit resource influenced by family history that renders it non-transferable. Pearson et al.

(2008) choose to conceptualise social capital along Nahapiet and Ghosal’s (1998) three

dimensions of structural, cognitive and relational. They put these elements forward as the

specific resources and capabilities of familiness. The structural dimension refers to the

general properties of social interactions, the strength of network ties and the ability to utilise

social networks. Family businesses may possess advantage over non-family firms to employ

existing network ties (Pearson et al., 2008). The cognitive aspect of social capital

incorporates the collective vision and purpose of the firm, as well as shared meanings,

experiences and culture. This cognitive element is a unique function of family history.

Finally, the relational element is comprised of the resources that are developed through

personal associations. This can involve resilient trust (as opposed to the fragile trust most

non-family businesses rely on), norms of collaboration, obligations via reciprocity, and

collective identity. These resource dimensions lead to enhanced capabilities that are

beneficial to the firm including the efficient flow of information and cooperation. In order

for the effective development of social capital, Pearson et al. (2008) defined four conditions

that must be present: time/stability, the capacity to develop, grow and sustain social

relationships; closure, the ability to inhibit outside influences, protecting norms and identity;

interdependence, as a function of shared interests (goals); and strong interaction. These

conditions are pertinent to family businesses and thus give family firms the potentiality to

create more effective forms of social capital than non-family firms. Simply, these

aforementioned conditions are what produce distinctive familiness.

FAMILINESS IN A MĀORI CONTEXT

Distinctive familiness as the product of effective social capital can be seen within Māori

business. Most Māori will inherently relate to the influence of familiness, yet we propose

that a Māori worldview deepens these notions through the intrinsic value of whanaungatanga.

10

A Māori view of social capital sees whānau at the heart of all other relationships; whānau in

its broad application becomes the community (Robinson & Williams, 2001). Māori intensify

the notion of social capital by encompassing cultural capital:

Social capital is created through networks and relationships that are within all of these

expressions of “family” (or community). Thus, in the Māori context, the distinction

between cultural and social capital disappears. Cultural capital is an important aspect

of social capital and social capital is an expression of cultural capital in practice.

Social capital is based on and grows from the norms, values, networks and ways of

operating that are the core of cultural capital. (Robinson & Williams, 2001, p. 55)

This merging of capitals is echoed in Henare’s (2011) definition of the four Māori well-

beings of which are spiritual, environmental, economic and that of socio-cultural or kinship.

Thus the development of whanaungatanga, of kinship relationships can be seen as investment

in social and cultural capital. However it must be noted that although there is a theoretical

separation of capitals, a Māori worldview sees them as part of a whole.

It is these four well-beings of spiritual, environmental, socio-cultural (kinship) and economic

that are the essence of a philosophy of Māoritanga (shared cultural identity) (Henare, 2011).

It is argued that the objective of Māori business and its unique strength is to generate

collective wealth in these broader spiritual, environmental, socio-cultural and economic

realms. Whilst these businesses aim to work within the market system to establish profitable,

economically sound and sustainable enterprises, economic prosperity is depicted as a means

to holistic wealth creation (Māori Economic Development Panel, 2012; NZIER, 2003; Spiller

et al., 2010; Spiller et al., 2011; TPK, 2007). As Indigenous enterprises tend to involve

numerous stakeholders, the autonomy of the individual is overshadowed (Lindsay, 2005).

Thus it is the perceived collective benefits such as boosting the mana of the collective, the

protection of taonga (treasured things) or providing whānau employment opportunities that

provide stronger motivation for Māori entrepreneurial activities than that of economic wealth

creation (Haar & Delany, 2009).

Spiller, Erakovic, Henare and Pio (2010) talk of ‘relational wealth’ within business, the

acknowledgement that “the value generated through effective, stable and trusting

relationships brings benefits beyond what can be measured in ‘profit’ terms alone” (p. 157).

These authors have used a Māori framework to develop the relational wealth concept laid out

by Leana and Rousseau (2000) who sees it as the economic advantage that stems from the

11

relations businesses experience with their workforce, as well as their external alliances in

suppliers and communities. Relational wealth is seen as an under-recognised, under-utilised

and under-valued resource in the business realm; an intangible asset that can be utilised to

create leverage (Leana & Rosseau, 2000). Extending further than pure economic advantage,

relational wealth in a Māori context can be developed though “valuing the intrinsic worth of

others; demonstrating care, empathy, and respect; and seeking to base relationships on shared

values” (p. 154). It is premised on the notion of enhancing the mana of others. Spiller et al.

(2010) found that Māori businesses practice relational wealth through their creation of multi-

dimensional well-being. The concept of relational wealth can be seen as the essence of

whanaungatanga.

In relating a Māori worldview to distinctive familiness we argue that Māori possess the

distinctive resources to give them competitive advantage. Forming the basis of Māori society

are the interlocking networks between all living things. Types of community, governance

structures and service delivery are based on institutions of whanaungatanga (Robinson &

Williams, 2001). This structural dimension theoretically gives Māori an advantage over

Anglo-NZ firms to employ existing network ties. Shared meanings of both the cognitive and

added spiritual dimension do not need to be limited to those within the whānau or business

but can be extended to outside networks and all stakeholders. Māori firms share the notion of

holistic wealth creation with the community and other organisations, creating strong networks

and thus competitive advantage. Relational elements of personal associations are a product

of cognitive and structural dimensions. The four antecedents of social capital again can be

seen in a traditional Māori worldview. Māori tend to look strategically ahead with care and

forethought for future generations. This allows the space for the eternal perpetuation of the

whānau, the factor of time and stability. A solid base of Māori identity can create closure, a

reaffirmation of Māori wisdom and the premise of the interdependence and interaction of the

entire system of life. Thus, these conditions that influence distinctive familiness, can be seen

as aspects that lie within a Māori business. Yet, familiness lacks the notion of mana and thus

is too narrow for a Māori framework.

When Māori capabilities of an entrepreneurial kind are unlocked, acknowledged and enacted,

these cultural principles can create sustainable, wealth enhancing and competitive businesses.

12

In fact, Ta Tipene O’Regan2 (2008) has asserted that Māori organisations have struggled in

the current market system due to their propensity to adopt the operating norms of a market

driven society, those that are contrary to the traditional collective values of which they aspire

to.

KOTAHITANGA– ENACTING WHANAUNGATANGA

In applying whanaungatanga, Māori businesses create belonging through constructing

community with stakeholders, enhancing the mana of all involved (Spiller et al., 2010). An

intentional effect of whānau relations are the informal yet implicit affiliations based on

obligation and reciprocity. It is the integrity of the relationship that is of fundamental

importance and these supersede formal associations and functional contracts (Robinson &

Williams, 2001; Spiller et al., 2010). As opposed to the dominant Anglo-NZ business

objective of ‘profit-maximising’, Māori businesses can be seen to be ‘value-creating’.

Whanaungatanga is a strategy that can generate added value or meaningful benefits to the

business across multi-dimensional well-beings (Spiller et al., 2010). Maori businesses are

able to add value to stakeholder relationships by “deepening connections through shared

values, aligning goals, and adopting a long-term outlook” (Spiller et al., 2010, p. 164) as well

as through a profound spirituality, or wairuatanga.

Māori are forward looking, with whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and mātauranga (knowledge),

created and passed down with forethought to the future of coming generations. Thus

strategic planning is an inbuilt and under-recognised element of whanaungatanga. As stated

earlier, whanaungatanga can be used as the notion of leveraging off the collective; developing

strategic alliances that create competitive advantage. Durie (2003) outlines six key principles

that commonly underpin Māori-centred businesses. These consist of tuhono (alignment);

pūrotu (transparency); whakaritenga (balanced motives); paiheretia (integrated goals);

puāwaitanga (best outcomes); and kotahitanga (alliance). It is kotahitanga, the principle of

solidarity and alliance that we would like to explore further. Kotahitanga promotes

cooperation across entities: the process of acknowledging the mana of all involved and re-

establishing whanaungatanga (Ritchie, 1992). Ritchie (1992) describes it as “becoming one

out of many” (p. 72). In too many cases, Māori organisations compete with each other for the

2 Sir Tipene O’Regan

13

same market share while joint ventures and the pooling of resources are left unexplored. The

reciprocity of business alliance is not ultimately about immediate economic return, but can be

seen as “a qualitative state of reaching long-term equivalence that has spiritual as well as

material dimensions” (Spiller et al., 2011, p. 164). Collaboration can lead to greater scope

and scale of commercial, economic and social opportunities such as greater efficiency,

reduced costs, added value, innovation, increased employment opportunities, greater levels of

capital investment, and increased knowledge, all without compromising identity (Durie,

2003; Māori Economic Development Panel, 2012; Spiller et al., 2011).

Māori businesses that have a strong ethic of whanaungatanga are able to capture the support

of the community for particular endeavours. Hollow corporate rhetoric is swiftly recognised,

but by acknowledging that business is an active participant in society and establishing

relational social connections it can create reciprocal well-being and produce a ‘Māori edge’,

or competitive advantage (Māori Economic Development Panel, 2012; Spiller et al., 2010;

TPK, 2007). Furthermore, Māori enterprises may be better aligned to deliver effective

services to their community (Māori Economic Development Panel, 2012). By keeping the

lines of communication open, Māori organisations may be able to tailor their services to the

market, as well the inherent promotion of community well-being. In collectively building a

shared vision, Māori businesses are able to build trust and thus a distinct advantage over

those organisations that operate through the conventional hands-off approach (Spiller et al.,

2010).

Whanaungatanga need not be isolated to the community or domestic level, but can extend to

overseas markets. In developing culture-to-culture connections with other kinship based

cultures such as China who value culture before business, can open up and enhance off-shore

trade (Māori Economic Development Panel, 2012). In fact, success in global markets is

determined by access to existing networks and the cultivation of new relationships (Chetty

and Campbell-Hunt, 2003; Jaeger & Rudzki, 2007; Shaw & Darroch, 2004).

As the recognition of whānau relationships, whanaungatanga encompasses the traditional

Māori teaching and learning relationship of potikitanga/rangatiratanga (Tapsell & Woods,

2008), also referred to as teina/tuakana (Haar & Delaney, 2009). This concept is the

intergenerational knowledge exchange that occurs between the wiser, more experience

rangatira and those younger, less experienced potiki. This knowledge exchange based on

14

intergenerational learning strengthens the bonds of whanaungatanga and vital in the

development of Māori entrepreneurial activity (Tapsell & Woods, 2008; Haar & Delaney,

2009).

ISSUES WITH WHĀNAUNGATANGA

The practise of whanaungatanga as outlined above has the potential to produce many

advantages for Māori business, however, this needs to be balanced against the conflicts and

costs incurred by active participation of whānau members. The assumption that

whanaungatanga will produce only positive benefits, fails to recognise the personal and

economic sacrifice that may occur (Durie, 1997). Whānau members are obliged and

expected to provide assistance via way of financial and/or emotional support as and when

required, often forgoing self and/or family interests for the sake of the collective (Durie,

1997; Metge, 1995). This potential to enhance well-being of others is not indefinite. Unless

whānau members are supported themselves, their capacity to develop others is depleted

(Durie, 1997). Similarly, those who sacrifice too much of themselves may become resentful.

Both the family member and the kaupapa may suffer if they lack commitment and passion

(Lansberg, 1999). Tensions over personal freedom, conflicting aspirations and/or loyalties,

and economic demands must be managed to produce the benefits of whānau support, strong

identity and access to resources and finance. Whanaungatanga is dependent on active

leadership (Durie, 1997). Another aspect that must be recognised is the potential for a deficit

in economic resources due to the increased effort invested in relationship building. Although,

this can be leveraged with the increased investment in social capital (Haar & Delaney, 2009).

Although contemporary visions have extended the view of the whānau to a metaphorical

level, these relationships are not guaranteed to produce the same results as the whakapapa

based whānau. Bonds are much harder to develop and maintain in metaphorical whānau due

to the lower levels of obligation, and may not be as effective (Metge, 1995; Ritchie, 1992).

Durie (1997) the high level of flexibility in the metaphorical whānau as both a strength and a

weakness and a balance must be negotiated. Widmer (2006) found that within friendship

based family configurations, all members, blood relations or friends are deemed family, but

are often kept separate. This affected the research participants beneficially as they

maintained structural autonomy. However, we argue that when applied to business

relationships, this has the potential to create a divide between kinship whānau and non-

15

kinship whānau members. Another dichotomy that much be negotiated is in the leadership of

the whānau. Kaupapa-based whānau the ancestral determinant of leadership is removed and

offers more opportunity for the assertion of mana tangata (mana based on personal merits).

However, the flip side of this is that egoistic tendencies and unhealthy rivalry have a greater

space to flourish (Metge, 1995). In applying the notion of whanaungatanga within non-

kinship whānau, that is in creating alliances with outside organisations, firms must be look at

these networks strategically. Basing the alliances on the whakapapa model and Māori values,

firms much negotiate how to manage conflict as well as set clear guidelines on the expected

levels of support (Metge, 1995).

LIMITATIONS

This paper is a theoretical view on the notions of whanaungatanga and familiness. It is also

experiential in that the actions of ancestors are constantly referred to and relived in new

experiences. Thus is likely to raise further questions, more than it answers. But this allows

the space for these questions to be posed, and a proposed research stream in which to answer

them.

Our research also supposes that Māori businesses all share the same inherited qualities and

attributes, and the same vision of multi-dimensional well-being. Nor has it differentiated

between the many types of family or Māori businesses that exist. The practise of

whanaungatanga and the level of familiness may vary between each organisational structure.

Each whānau has its own characteristics and effectiveness that arises from the personal

qualities and capabilities of its members and the context in which it resides (Metge, 1995).

Widmer (2006) has found that closely related family configurations produce different social

capital to those with diverse friendship family structures. Existing in whānau relationships

are complementary pairs such as the aforementioned potiki/rangatira dualism. Each role has

a different purpose, but is reliant on the other to carry out their function. This creates

oppositional and co-operational tensions that must be balanced. These conflicts are essential

in whānau dynamic, but if left unmanaged they can undermine the solidarity of the whānau

(Metge, 1995). It is also assumed that whānau relationships and understandings of these

relationships are strong to begin with. Yet even within nuclear families, not all members

strongly relate to each other (Widmer, 2006). Inter-family conflict can be a barrier to

establishing whānau relationships. However, it must also be noted that discord may be a

16

source of dynamism. Indeed kotahitanga is about allowing the space for all to be heard

(Ritchie, 1992).

We have focused on distinctive familiness, that which has positive consequences, and

likewise assume that whanaungatanga bonds will have beneficial to the business. Yet

Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) note that social capital is not always advantageous, but can also

impact negatively. Binding social capital, that of dense interconnected networks facilitates

trust and cooperation but can also be a barrier to individuality outside of the family system

(Widmer, 2006). Strong identity and closure, whilst producing positive group performance,

can also generate group blindness, group think, and an unwillingness to take on other

information or alternatives. In addition, the family is a powerful influence on the identity and

dream development of its members, but this can also be a source of control that stifles

individual aspirations (Lansberg, 1999).

The reality of familiness is that it can impact positively and negatively on an organisation.

The competitive advantage is not seen in the resources themselves, but in the way the firm

manages these potentially opposing forces (Irava & Moores, 2010; Nahapiet & Ghoshal,

1998). Enacting effective whanaungatanga relationships is dependent on active leadership

and communication.

CONCLUSION

This is an exploratory paper that looks into the Māori principle of whanaungatanga and the

family business construct of familiness to determine if there is a connection. Some may

question the value of comparing and indigenous concept with an Anglo notion, arguing that

indigenous knowledge needs the space to stand alone as its own concept. We agree with this

argument and do see umanga whanaungatanga as a concept unto itself. The comparison with

the Western construct of familiness is to infuse alternative thinking and worldview into the

current literature, to give it a pathway to permeate mainstream frameworks. We feel this

paper serves its purpose as an act of self-determination: affirming the existence of Indigenous

knowledge that has been largely ignored in Western systems, which according to Battiste

(2002) is the role of the Indigenous scholar.

17

As is the case with family business, the objective of a Māori enterprise goes beyond the

pursuit of individual economic well-being. The purpose of Māori business is the creation of

wealth in its holistic sense encompassing spiritual, environmental, socio-cultural, and

economic well-beings (Spiller et al., 2010; Henare, 2011). Whānau are at the centre of all

dimensions, ultimately underpinning the success of economic entities (Māori Economic

Development Panel, 2012). It is through the institution of whanaungatanga that adheres to

traditional values that we can enrich the collective wealth of the community (NZIER, 2003;

Spiller et al., 2011). Reciprocal relationships of respect are at the heart of Indigenous culture;

common good is reliant on the well-being of all realms (Henare, 1988; NZIER, 2003; Spiller

et al., 2010). Whanaungatanga commands commitment and responsibility from whānau

members. It is seen as a resource to proactive self-determination (Metge, 1995).

By focussing on holistic and communal well-being, partnerships and strategic alliances with

the community, suppliers and other stakeholders can be formed that will be beneficial for the

development of all parties (Spiller et al., 2010). As Māori are more concerned with the

quality of relationships, a sustainable connectedness can be established that engenders trust

and good faith, and ultimately competitive advantage (Spiller et al., 2010).

Whanaungatanga is seen as the process of whānau empowerment, the construction of new

resources and capabilities to create sustainable wealth creation along spiritual, environmental,

socio-cultural and economic dimensions. In a world that emphasises individual autonomy, it

is the family and whānau that we must look to in order to reclaim a sense of humanism, the

spirit of collective responsibility and cooperation (Durie, 1997).

REFERENCES

Battiste, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations education: A

literature review with recommendations. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from

http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/24._2002_oct_marie_battiste_indigenouskn

owledgeandpedagogy_lit_review_for_min_working_group.pdf

Best, P., & Love, M. (2011). Māori values for Māori business: Cultural capital in indigenous

organisations (03-10). Working Paper. Retrieved April 5, from

http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/1623/Working%20paper.pdf

18

?sequence=1

Bishop, R. (2008). Freeing ourselves from neocolonial domination in research: A Kaupapa

Māori approach to creating knowledge. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The

Landscape of Qualitative Research (Third ed., pp. 145-183). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Bishop, R. (2011). Freeing ourselves (Vol. 66). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Business and Economic Research Ltd [BERL]. (2010). The Maori economy - A sleeping

giant about to awaken? Retrieved August 16, 2011, from

http://www.berl.co.nz/1253a1.page

Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe: Clear Light

Publishers.

Chetty, S., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2003). Paths to internationalisation among small- to

medium-sized firms: A global versus regional approach. European Journal of

Marketing, 37(5/6), 796-820.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. (2005). Sources and Consequences of Distinctive

Familiness: An Introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 237-247.

Durie, M. (1997). Whānau, whanaungatanga and health Māori development. In P. T. Whāiti,

M. McCarthy & A. Durie (Eds.), Mai i Rangiātea (pp. 1-24). Auckland: Auckland

University Press.

Durie, M. (2003). Ngā ori futures. Wellington, NZ: Huia.

Frederick, A. H., & Henry, E. (2004). Innovation and entrepreneurship amongst Pākeha and

Māori in New Zealand. In C. H. Stiles & C. S. Galbraith (Eds.), Ethnic

Entrepreneurship: Structure and Process (pp. 115-140). Amsterdam: Elsevier

Science.

19

Frederick, H., & Chittock, G. (2006). Global entrepreneurship monitor Aotearoa New

Zealand: 2005 Executive report.

Haar, J., & Delaney, B. (2009). Entrepreneurship and Maori cultural values: Using

'whanaungatanga' to understanding Maori business. New Zealand Journal of Applied

Business Research, 7(1), 25-40.

Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A Resource-Based Framework for Assessing

the Strategic Advantages of Family Firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1-25.

Henare, M. (1988). Nga tikanga me nga ritenga o te ao Maori: Standards and foundations of

Maori society. Volume 111, Part One, Associated Papers, Report of the Royal

Commission on Social Policy. Wellington: Government Printer.

Henare, M. (2000). Māori of Aotearoa-New Zealand. The Way, April 2000 Special Edition

Pacific Spirituality. 40(2), 126-137.

Henare, M. (2001). Tapu, mana, mauri, hau, wairua. A Māori philosophy of vitalism and

cosmos. In J. Grimm (Ed.), Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of

Cosmology and Community (pp. 197-221). Cambridge: Harvard University Press for

the Centre for the Study of World Religions.

Henare, M. (2003). Changing Images of Nineteenth Century Māori Society – From Tribes to

Nation (Unpublished PhD thesis). Victoria University of Wellington. Wellington.

Henare, M. (2005). Kawa atua, tikanga tangata, he korunga o ngā tikanga Māori philosophy,

metaphysics and ethics in ritual, symbolism, politics & economy. Te Wānanga o

Raukawa (Tribal University), Ōtaki, New Zealand, 24 June.

Henare, M. (2011). Lasting peace and the good life: Economic development and the ‘te

atanoho’ principle of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In V. M. Tawhai & K. Gray-Sharp (Eds.),

'Always speaking’: The Treaty of Waitangi and public policy Wellington, New

20

Zealand: Huia publishers.

Irava, W. J., & Moores, K. (2010). Clarifying the strategic advantage of familiness:

Unbundling its dimensions and highlighting its paradoxes. Journal of Family Business

Strategy, 1(3), 131-144.

Jaeger, S., & Rudzki, R. (2007). How SMEs engage in the global economy – cases from New

Zealand. Paper presented at the 2007 Oxford Business & Economics Conference,

Oxford University, UK.

Law Commission. (2006). Waka Umanga: A proposed law for Maori governance entities

(Report 0113-2334; 92). Wellington: Law Commission.

Leana, C. R., & Rousseau, D. M. (2000). Relational wealth: the advantages of stability in a

changing economy. London; New York: Oxford University Press.

Lindsay, N. J. (2005). Toward a cultural model of Indigenous entrepreneurial attitude.

Academy of Marketing Science Review, 5, 1-17.

Marsden, M. (2003). The woven universe: Selected writings of Rev Maori Marsden.

Masterton: The estate of Rev. Maori Marsden.

Māori Economic Development Panel. (2012). Discussion document. Wellington: Māori

Economic Development Panel.

Metge, J. (1995). nau in the modern world. Wellington:

Victoria University Press.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational

advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.

New Zealand Institute for Economic Research [NZIER]. (2003). Māori economic

development: Te Ōhanga whanaketanga Māori. Wellington: NZIER.

O’Regan, N., & Ghobadian, A. (2004). Testing the homogeneity of SMEs: The impact of size

21

on managerial and organisational processes. European Business Review, 16(1), 64-79.

Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., & Shaw, J. C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social

capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 949-969.

Petrie, H. (2006). Chiefs of Industry. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Puckey, A. (2011). Trading cultures: History of the far north. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Rahman, S. M. (2011, June). Enterprising through Promoting Familipreneurship for

Sustainable Poverty Reduction, Employment Generation and Economic Growth.

Paper presented at the 56th Annual ICSB World Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.

Ritchie, J. E. (1992). Becoming bicultural. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Robinson, D., & Williams, T. (2001). Social capital and voluntary activity: Giving and

sharing in Maori and non-Maori society. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand (17),

52-71.

Shaw, V., & Darroch, J. (2004). Barriers to Internationalisation: A Study of Entrepreneurial

New Ventures in New Zealand. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 2(4), 327-

343.

Spiller, C., Erakovic, L., Henare, M., & Pio, E. (2010). Relational Well-Being and Wealth:

Māori Businesses and an Ethic of Care. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-17.

Spiller, C., Pio, E., Erakovic, L., & Henare, M. (2011). Wise Up: Creating Organizational

Wisdom Through an Ethic of & Kaitiakitanga. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-13.

Suzuki, D., McConnell, A., & Mason, A. (1997). The sacred balance. Vancouver: Greystone

Books

Tapsell, P., & Woods, C. (2008). Potikitanga: indigenous entrepreneurship in a Maori

context. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global

22

Economy, 2(3), 192-203.

Te Puni Kōkiri [TPK]. (2007). Te tirohanga hou: Discovering the ‘‘Maori Edge’’.

Wellington: Te Puni Kōkiri with the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research.

Tinirau, R. (2010). He ara whanaungatanga: A pathway towards sustainable, inter-

generational, research relationships: The experience of Ngāti Ruaka/Ngāti Hine. In J.

S. Te Rito & S. M. Healy (Eds.), Traditional knowledge conference 2008. Te tatau

pounamu: The greenstone door. Traditional knowledge and gateways to balanced

relationships 2008 (pp. 295-304). Auckland: Ngā Pae o te Maramatanga.

Walker, R. (1990). Ka whawhai tonu matou: Struggle without end. Auckland: Penguin.

Widmer, E. D. (2006). Who are my family members? Bridging and binding social capital in

family configurations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 979-998.

Williams, H. W. (1992 [1844]). Dictionary of the Maori language. Wellington: GP

Publications Ltd.