Female Entrepreneurship

8/6/2019 Female Entrepreneurship

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/female-entrepreneurship 1/23

THE FEMALE-ENTREPRENEURSHIP FIELD: 1990-2004

Maika Valencia, ESADE. [email protected]

0. Abstract

The present literature review is an attempt to trace the actual state of academic research

on female entrepreneurship. Reviewing and summarizing the trends emerging from the

findings of previous studies on women’s presence in the entrepreneurial activity during

the last decade. The studies were classified using Gartner’s (1985) new venture creationframework, involving the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur, the nature of

women-owned business, the process by which the new business is started, and the

environment surrounding the new venture. It also summarizes emerging trends, future

research questions are proposed, and implications are discussed.

1. Introduction

The increasing presence of women in the business field as entrepreneurs or business

owners1 in the last decades has changed the demographic characteristics of

entrepreneurs. Women-owned businesses are playing a more active role in society and

the economy, inspiring academics to focus on this interesting phenomenon. Could the

increase of women in professional activities such as entrepreneurship result from social

evolution in regard to gender role perception? Do sociocultural factors have a direct

positive influence on the increasing presence of women in the entrepreneurial world?

Are changes in institutional factors such as public economic policies conducive to

female entrepreneurial activity? These are some of the questions that need to be

explored in order to explain the increasing presence of women as business owners.

1 For the purpose of this paper no distinction will be made between the terms ‘women entrepreneurs’ and ‘women

business owners’, since the study focuses on venture creations by women.



This phenomenon has been recognized in the business and management scientific

community within the last decades. Important academic publications such as Frontiers

of Entrepreneurship (Babson conference proceedings, 1981-), Journal of Business

Venturing (1985-) and Entrepreneurship, and Theory & Practice (formerly American

Journal of Small Business, 1988-) have encouraged the creation of studies on women as

business owners (Swedberg, 2000; Veciana 1999; Brush, 1992). Advances in this field

of studies have been helped by the fact that world institutions such as the United

Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have

recognized the importance of producing reports and statistics separated by gender and

have encouraged their member countries to carry out such studies.

This paper attempts to present the state of academic research on women entrepreneurs.

A review and summary of trends emerging from the findings of previous studies of the

presence of women in entrepreneurial activity is presented. Using Gartner’s (1985)

model for describing new venture creation, as a useful model to classify research on

women entrepreneurship. This paper first presents the empirical support for the

characteristics of the ‘individual’ dimension, followed by studies focusing on the

’organization’ level, the ‘process’ of venture creation, and ending with the

‘environment’ dimension.2

The final section presents conclusions.

2 Literature review

2.1 Model and source review

In order to present the literature review of female-entrepreneurship in the last decades,

authors have used different models to put the existing general literature in the field of

entrepreneurship in order, but similar dimensions of analysis are suggested in their

proposed frameworks (Veciana, 1999; Bull and Willard, 1993; Bygrave, 1993; Low and

MacMillan, 1988; Gartner, 1985).

2 See anexes 1 and 2 for the conclusions and references of authors who have researched the field, in the respectiveorder of each dimension.



For the present work we have decided to choose the new venture creation phenomenon

as the criteria to organize and review the literature. There exist differents models to

describe the venture creation (e.g. Timmons, 1977; Gartner, 1985), but due to the

research developed in the female-entrepreneurship area, we considered the model

proposed by Gartner in 1985 more suitabled.

The four dimensional conceptual framework of Gartner (1985) provides a way of

analyzing past research studies, at the same time of being useful drawing researcher’s

attention to considerations inherent in each of the four dimensions. Resulting in a useful

and practical model to organize the research work realized about female-

entrepreneurship. Gartner (1985) provided that framework for describing the creation

of a new venture, taking into consideration four dimensions: the individual (the

entrepreneur), the organization (the venture created), the process (previous activities to

start a venture) and the environment (external factors). This comprehensive model

recognizes the complexity and variation that thrives in the new venture creation

phenomenon. Then, the model allowed us to make a classification of studies according

to the dimensions involved in the venture creation, providing a more accurate analysis

of entrepreneurial activity. Indeed, this model has been used by other authors within the

female-entrepreneurship field because of its adaptation and practicity to it.

The elaboration of the present literature review was based mainly on an exhaustive

identification of academic articles published during the period of 1990-2004 in the

leading entrepreneurship journals, such as Frontiers of Entrepreneurship (journal with

more publications in this field), Journal of Business Venturing, and Entrepreneurship,

and Theory & Practice (formerly American Journal of Small Business). Other sources

were also incorporated, including books, conference proceedings, and the Global

Entrepreneurhsip Monitor (GEM), created in 1999, due to its importance in the

entrepreneurship field3.

3 The GEM is the world’s largest and longest-standing study of entrepreneurial activity, a project whichfocuses on researching in the entrepreneurship field, creating large data set and entrepreneurial

measurements, and running several studies oriented to measure differences in the level of entrepreneurialactivity among countries with the objective that results may contribute to enhance this activity.



2.2 The Individual Dimension

In the field of entrepreneurship, the earliest studies had focused on the figure of the

entrepreneur, concentrating on the sociodemographical and psychological

characterization at an individual level. Empirical studies tried to identify the personal

characteristics that could define and differentiate entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs

(Low and MacMillan, 1988; Fagenson, 1993). However, as a result of these studies,

some authors suggest that it would be more fruitful to investigate the different types of

entrepreneurs, instead of differentiating them from non-entrepreneurs, due to the

enormous diversity of entrepreneur profiles (Amit, 1994). It was believed research from

these perspectives could offer significant explanatory and predictive potential about the

entrepreneur. However, research from the traits perspective has not, progressed beyond

the early foundations of McClelland (Shanthakumar, 1992), and has even been labeled

as a “dead end” (Gartner, 1988).

The GEM realized on 2004 a cross-national study on women’s entrepreneurial activity,--the first study launched by the Consortium on female entrepreneurship-. This study

included 34 country members from all over the world4, for each income group of

countries was analysed the behavior of women entrepreneurs’ dimension, wich

considered universal factors such as: age, education, work status, network, perceived

skills, opportunity recognition, and fear of failure. (Minniti et. al; 2005). The results

related to the traits perspective (e.g. women entrepreneurs’ age are in the range of 25-34

years old, except in the high-income countries where it was 35-44 years old) do not

differ from male entrepreneurs. Moreover, other studies concluded the same, not

significant demographic distinctions were found between the characteristics of male and

4 In order to present the results of the study, the GEM grouped the countries in three levels according totheir GDP per capita: low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. Levels were determined asfollows: not exceeding US$10,000, between US$10,000 and US$25,000, and exceeding US$25,000respectively. Low-income countries: Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Ecuador, Hungary, Jordan, Peru, Poland,South Africa, and Uganda. Midle income countries: Grecia, Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, Portugal,

Singapore, Slovenia, and Spain. High-income countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, and the USA.Minniti et al., GEM (2005).



female entrepreneurs (Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990; Brush and Bird, 1996; Hisrich

et al., 1997).

Nevertheless, among personal characteristics of women entrepreneurs, there were clear

differences in two background variables: education and professional experience. These

variables turned out to play an important role in venture creation success and survival

(Dolinsky et al., 1993; and Fischer et al., 1993). Educational level has been shown to

have a positive impact on initial entry and future business performance, and there is a

strong causal link between experience (industry and managerial), formal education and

successful performance (Hisrich and Brush, 1988; Fischer et al., 1993). Further,

professional experience is considered by many authors to be a key structural factor

having a major impact on the ability of women to start a business and to improve their

business performance (Shabbir and Di Gregorio, 1996; Catley and Hamilton, 1998).

A study carried out in the USA by Boden and Nucci (2000) states that women

entrepreneurs have a lower educational background than their male counterparts, but it

is worth mentioning that the samples considered in this study were from 1982 and 1987,

which clearly implies a different scenario from that of today. Furthermore, Fischer et al.(1993), and Dolinsky et al. (1993) maintain that there are no relevant differences in the

educational levels between men and women entrepreneurs. These studies were carried

out in developed countries, Canada and the USA respectively, and the results cannot be

generalized to fit other contexts, such as those of developing countries. As it was

showed in the GEM study (Minniti et al., 2005), women entrepreneurs that are the most

likely to start a new business in high-income countries have some graduate experience

while that in low-income countries the majority have not completed a secondary degree.

Several empirical studies reveal that women entrepreneurs have had less experience

than men entrepreneurs in managing employees, less years of industrial experience, less

experience working in similar firms or helping to start new businesses (Brush, 1992;

Fischer et al., 1993; Carter et al., 1997; Lerner et al., 1997; Boden and Nucci, 2000).

Considering this precedent, women appear to be at disadvantage with respect to men inventure creation activity.



In an attempt to find a psychological characterization of the entrepreneur, empirical

studies exploring cognitive and personality aspects such as the studies realized by

Catley and Hamilton (1998) and Sexton and Bowman (1990) maintain that there are

no significant differences between male and female entrepreneurs regarding

psychological characteristics. A recent theory developed by the psychologist Baron-

Cohen (2003) indicates, from a genetic and biological foundation, women are physically

better “wired” (brain’s structure) for empathy than men, implying that they are better at

social skills, such as their perception of other people and social adaptability.

Furthermore the social feminism theory suggests women are better empathizers due to

the fact that persons are shaped by different societal experiences. Where men are

socialized to be masterful, dominant, and competitive, women are socialized to be

nurturing and relational (Gilligan, 1982 and Aldrich, 1989; in Greene et al., 1999).

Despite of these theories suggesting same profile for women and men behavior not

conclusive results are found in empirical studies on entrepreneurs, e.g. Leahy and

Eggers (1998).

Women’s own attitudes about and perceptions of themselves are in line with the

theories mentioned above. Empirical research carried out by Hisrich (1996, 1997) found

that women rated themselves higher in the capacity of dealing with people. According

to Kamau (1999), and Fagenson and Marcus (1991), women perceived entrepreneurship

more positively than men, and considered a good relationship with employees, clients

and other professionals vital for business success and growth. Baron and Markman

(2003) have stated that an entrepreneur with greater social competence has better

performance.

Within the psychological characterization studies, what motivates the entrepreneur to

create a business? This is one of the questions being explored most. In the individual

dimension, male and female entrepreneurs have shown differences. There are many

motives for a person to become an entrepreneur. Institutions and authors have classified



them as ‘necessity-push’ and ‘opportunity-pull’ motivations (e.g. The GEM). ‘Push’

motivated entrepreneurs are those whose dissatisfaction with their current position, for

reasons unrelated to their entrepreneurial characteristics, pushes them to start a venture.

‘Pull’ motivated entrepreneurs are those who are attracted by their new venture idea and

initiate venture activity because of the attractiveness of the business idea and its

personal implications (Amit, 1994; GEM, 1999; Bygrave, 2002).

According to various empirical studies (Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Kyro, 2001;

DeMartino and Barbato, 2003), some of the main ‘push’ and ‘pull’ motivations for

women to become entrepreneurs are the following: 1) ‘push’ factors are dissatisfactionwith their job, flexibility to manage family obligations, independence and work

aspirations; and 2) ‘pull’ factors are self-fulfillment, family and lifestyle motivators, and

social recognition. In a study run by Amit (1994), ‘pull’ entrepreneurs were found to be

more successful than ‘push’ entrepreneurs.

There are mixed results as to which motivators have a stronger influence on women to

become entrepreneurs. Catley and Hamilton (1998) suggested that women and men

entrepreneurs are similarly motivated, and it is by ‘pull’ factors. And the same result has

been supported in the “GEM. 2004 Report on women and entrepreneurship” (Minniti et

al., 2005), where respondents said they were involved in entrepreneurial activities

mainly because of opportunity. A 71,4% of women choose entrepreneurship in order to

exploit an opportunity, and the number of women who choose entrepreneurship because

of necessity were concentrated in low-income countries. Although, there exists otherempirical studies supporting the view that women are more motivated to become

entrepreneurs because of ‘push’ factors (Fischer et al., 1993; Marlow, 1997; and Glas

and Petrin, 1998). DeMartino and Barbato (2003) suggest that career motivation

differences between men and women entrepreneurs become greater when the

comparison takes into account the status of “married with dependent children”. Caputo

and Dolinsky (1998) found that the presence of children increased the propensity of

women to start their own businesses. This finding results coherent because women deal

with the problematic of balancing family and business.



Even though most of the articles published in the last decades are about the individual

dimension (Annex 1), many discrepancies can be observed in the findings, principally

in the professional experience and cognitive skills defining women entrepreneurs.

2.3 The Organization Dimension

The research realized in this dimension –the organization- have studied the following

objectes of study: ownership, sectors of activity, management strategies, business

performance and success.

According to Rosa and Hamilton (1994), there were no significant differences between

men and women entrepreneurs in forms of ownership of ventures. Some differences

were found in forms of association. Men frequently form associations with four or more

other owners, while women form associations with just one other owner (most likely a

domestic partner). Other distinction in women’s organizations is that they tend to have

domestic partners and other relatives who contribute to the business in some way, even

in the ‘individual’ cases where there is a sole woman in business. Rosa and Hamilton

(1994) describe the findings related to kinship and ownership as institutionalized social

trends. Their findings show that inheritance levels for women were very low compared

with those for men, and this was more dramatically observed in traditional sectors.

Regarding to strategies in the new venture created, a general strategy follow in greater

degree in women-owned businesses is a product-service quality strategy (Chaganti and

Parasuraman, 1996). With respect to the rhythm of growth, tend to have slower early

growth trajectories (Minniti, 2005). Women showed a preference for slower-growth

strategies due to the risks associated with fast-paced growth strategies (Cliff, 1998), .

Gundry and Welsch (2001) analyzed rapid-growth-oriented women entrepreneurs and



identified their distinctive characteristics as having a team-based form of organizational

design, strong leadership, and utilizing a wider range of financing sources for the

expansion of the venture.

In relation to financing strategies, women and men entrepreneurs generally use one

external source of finance - a credit bank (Hokkanen et al., 1998). Due to the

characteristics of the women-owned businesses and their activity sector, they are more

likely consumer-oriented businesses, small companies, and involve in traditional sectors

(low-risk) Minniti, 2005; Anna et al., 1999. All these factors influence that financing

strategy to be very simple; providing most of women all the required start-up capitalthemselves.

Financing through the use of venture capital in women-owned businesses is still very

uncommon; very few women entrepreneurs receive equity. Those who do, are women

whose companies have large sales figures and whose owners have more training or

expertise in finance and prior experience as senior executives (Allen and Carter, 1996;

Brush et al., 2000; Carter, 2002). It is important to point out that these cases were

observed in the USA, where women-owned business are more diversified than those in

developing countries, and are able to have access to this kind of financing.

Business performance is one of the more reviewed topics within this field, and findings

on it can be grouped into two categories: authors who maintain that there is a similar

performance in women- and men-owned organizations (Watson, 2002; Watson and

Robinson, 2003), and authors who suggest women-owned organizations are lower in

performance than men-owned organizations (Fischer et al., 1993; Srinivasan et al.,

1994; Sexton & Robinson, 1989). Watson and Robinson (2003) point out that

in performance measurement, if risk is controlled then no significant differences result

between the performances of male- and female-controlled small and medium

enterprises. Watson (2002) found no significant differences between male and female-

controlled businesses, referring to total assets (TITTA), return on assets (ROA), or



return on equity (ROE). But, according to findings of other authors stating that women-

owned organizations have a lower performance than men-owned organizations, the

average sales, earnings and growth rate of women-owned business were significantly

lower than those of their male counterparts (Sexton & Robinson, 1989). In terms of

survival and growth rates, women-owned firms had lower rates than those of men-

owned firms (Fischer et al., 1993; Srinivasan et al., 1994). As the above empirical

studies cited, it can be observed the way in which performance is measured results

diverge. All these studies have in common that they make reference to performance as

equivalent to an economic performance, and not considering other variables to measure

such as owner’s expectations, company goals, etc. As Solymossy (1998) refers,

measuring success is to some extent problematic due to an absence of consensus as to

what constitutes entrepreneurial success; various success dimensions belong to

economic performance, measuring only one aspect of success: economic. And there is

other aspect, frequently missed that refers to the subjective part of the entrepreneur’s

expectations, which in the case of women entrepreneurs result very significant.

Research carried out on this dimension implies the need of further studies that could

give a better understanding to the women entrepreneurs’ phenomenon. For instance, it

would be interesting to explore the role that play personal achievement rather than

economic achievement as success indicator, or identify key variables involved in

organizational strategies adequated to the type of companies created by women.

2.4 The Process Dimension

There are very few studies focusing on the process dimension within the female-

entrepreneurship field of research (Annex 2). The studies reviewed in the present paper

on this dimension involve start-up activities, strategies, and organization design.

It was found little research about the stage previous to beginning the start-up process -

business start-up intentions-. In a study realized by Gatewood (1995) explored cognitive



factors related to internal and stable explanations of intentions to start a business, she

stated that these intentions play an important role in successful business start-up

activities for women, whereas external factors, such as market needs, are more

significant for men.

According to the study by Alsos and Ljunggren (1998), there were differences between

men and women in the variety of entrepreneurial activities carried out during the start-

up process. They state that women entrepreneurs elaborate on business plans to a lesser

extent, have a larger need for external capital, hire employees to a lesser extent and on

the average, and take more time between initiations of activities. These observations arein correspondence to what have been mentioned above in the organization dimension,

regarding to the type of business created by women –e.g. involved in traditional sectors,

small business size, etc.-, because of their business characteristics it is not necessary a

large external capital nor hire employees, etc.

Srinivasan (1994) recognizes that start-up activities play a critical role in both the

survival and growth of a business. In his study he used data from two different periods

of time, taking the first year (start-up) and the third year (survival and growth) as

reference. Alsos and Ljunggren (1998) state there were similar success rates for men

and women in setting up a business even their start-up activities had differences. But

Srinivasan (2004) suggests that maybe these differences are determining factors in why

women-owned businesses present lower rates of survival and growth than men-owned

businesses. Taking into account the kind of women owned-companies, micro and smallbusinesses most of them, we considered that the manner of how venture creation

process is completed results vital for their survival.

The process of how men and women entrepreneurs organize their businesses seems

similar. Both prefer to start a business with someone they know well or have had ties

with on a social level, and both prefer same-sex teams. Social networking and social

capital play an important role for women entrepreneurs (Aldrich et al., 2002). Lerner et



al. (1999) recognize the fact that a single strong affiliation with a women’s organization

can improve business performance.

As we have observed thorugh the literature revision, new venture creation process is the

least explored within the female entrepreneurship literature. Therefore, several topics

under this field need to be explored in order to indentify the critical variables presented

in the venture creation process.

2.5 The Environment Dimension

Entrepreneurship is generally accepted to be a contextual phenomenon, affected by the

economic, political, social, and cultural environment in which it occurs (Steams and

Hills, 1996; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996 in Solymossy, 1998). In the female

entrepreneurship field, literature reviewed under this dimension has focused mostly in

issues referring to accessibility and availability of capital through debt financing, from a

perspective of gender discrimination. Hardly any studies focus on other variables

influencing venture creation by women entrepreneurs.

The economic theory formulated by North, D. (1990), institutional economy, utilized in

studies in the entrepreneurship field, e.g. Veciana, 1999; Urbano, 2003; results useful togive an order to empirical studies, classifying them into ‘formal institutions’ and

‘informal institutions’, former term referring to all legal frames, and the latter refering

to sociocultural values within the society. Taking this into account it could be said that

most of the empirical studies reviewed are focused on the ‘formal institutions’, e.g.

capital access, regulations, etc., and very few others focused on the ‘informal

institutions’, e.g. attitudes and perceptions of society, family support, etc.



Formal institutions, mixed results were found concerning external debt financing -bank

loans-. Several studies state that there was no proof of discrimination against women on

the basis of gender in terms of access to capital and terms of credit (loan size, interest

rate or interest margin). Lenders mainly discriminate on the basis of business size,

preferring to lend to larger businesses. Women-owned businesses in most of the cases

are smaller than men-owned businesses (Read, 1994; Fabowale et al., 1995; Coleman,

1998; Hokkanen, 1998). Here again, it is important to point out that all the empirical

studies cited above make reference to samples in developed countries and therefore

differ from the situation found in developing countries. In the case of developing

countries inaccessability to external financing for women is notorious. The existence of

special financing programs for women through development banks or women’s

associations (ie. the Women’s World Bank) are examples that the necessity exists and

that market institutions are not fulfilling it. Even in developed countries, women

perceive difficulties in access to financing. According to Fay and Williams (1993) and

Coleman (1998), women may experience gender discrimination when seeking start-up

capital and with the terms of credit, but that a high level of education and a good

relationship with the financial institution may help them compensate for this

disadvantage.

Read (1994) concludes in his study of the UK, there are no relevant differences between

women and men entrepreneurs in the use of banking facilities, in attitudes towards bank

charges and in experiences in dealing with banks. The only difference detected was that

women not only used the bank as a financial source but also as an advisor. This may be

due to the fact that the UK is one of the countries with a highly progressive society and

strong banking infrastructure. These characteristics are certainly not present in many

other countries, and taking this fact into account the conclusion of the study cannot be

generalized for all women entrepreneurs.

The most recent studies on capital access explore the equity-financing market for

women-owned companies. These studies has been realized in the USA, Greene et al.

(1999) points out that a very small percentage of women-owned businesses has access

to these resources. It is important to note very few women-owned business are in the



high-growing sectors which are the ones characterized in this kind of lending market.

They explain that the institutional environment of the venture capital industry is a close

and tightly interconnected network. Women, by extension of the social network theory,

are left out of this formal venture capital network.

The rest of the articles reviewed within the environment dimension, not related to

capital, cover different topics, among them, company government regulations. Hisrich

et al. (1997) mention that women perceive this aspect more unfavorably than men. In

relation to the industry environment, interaction with industry forces was perceived as

similar by gender (Rosa and Hamilton, 1994). In reference to the possible problems

presented, they are related to business learning experience derived from the nature of

the industry, and are also perceived as similar by gender (Barrett, 1995; and Hisrich et

al., 1997).

As mentioned before, fewer studies have been developed in the field of ‘soft’ or

‘informal’ aspects. In this area, social networking has played a very important role in

the field of entrepreneurship and venture creation. As the GEM (2005) explored in theirstudy on women entrepreneurs, mentoring and network support are crucial in boosting

women’s attitudes with respect to leadership and new venture creation. Aldrich (1989),

and Moore and Buttner (1997) mention that men and women create different types of

networks, and that women’s networks are characterized by having more informal

associations and by having same-gender members.

Other variables explored within cultural aspects, referes to perception of

entrepreneurship, family environment, and formal employment barriers. A study by

Holmquist (2001) is one of the few studies analyzing the role of the sociocultural

variables. A cross-country comparative analysis between the USA and Sweden was

carried out, analyzing cultural aspects related to the presence of women in

entrepreneurship. Holmquist sustains that there are culturally based differences in

perceptions of entrepreneurship and gender roles. Her research proves that the distance



between being an entrepreneur and an employee, and between male and female roles

resulted different for each context analysed.

Other studies confirm the view that social attitudes towards women in business have an

impact on women’s aspirations towards business creation (Huq and Richardson, 1997).

Family support is crucial in the business set-up, especially in developing countries, as

was observed in several empirical research: Huq and Richardson (1997) run an

empirical study to explore the issues surrounding the aspiration of a woman to set-up

her own business in a developing country –Bangladesh-, findings showed family

support is a critical factor. Glas and Petrin (1998) found family support was animportant variable involved in entrepreneurial career choices of women entrepreneurs in

Slovenia. Shabbir and Di Gregorio (1996) realized a study in Pakistan exploring how

women interpret structural factors that influence the process of business start-up; and

women expressed that for them was essential to have internal resources e.g.

qualifications, experience; and family support in order to start a business.

It is well stated in all these studies mentioned above that social attitude to female

entrepreneurship play a critical role. As much as other formal structures, such as the

formal employment market and corporative world, affecting women’s decisions to start

their own businesses, due to the ‘glass ceiling’ issue (Alvarez and Meyer, 1998). These

two areas identified influence women’s decision to become entrepreneurs; we consider

that a cross-country study would be helpful to contrast how these factors affect women

in developing and developed countries.

2.6 Conclusion

The female-entrepreneurship is having a greater importance within economies,

according to the GEM (2005) estimates that about 73 million people are active

entrepreneurs in the 34 nations, of those 40,54% are women. It is important to note that

in the present literature review most of the empirical research reviewed did not clearly



state a theory supporting the studies. Female entrepreneurship can be considered a very

broad and recent field of study, where several theories can be linked to the study of this

phenomenon, such as gender theories, managerial theories, public policy, etc. that is

probably the reasons why most of papers in the area are empirical and not properly

theory development. The papers published by the management journals selected in the

present work review the feminist theories of social and liberal feminism as the most

frequently used theories. In this section it will be presented conclusions, and areas for

further research are proposed for each new venture creation dimension, and some

methodological aspects.

In relation to the individual dimension, it could be said not major differences exist

between male and female entrepreneur, both utilize a common entrepreneur profile;

except for experience in professional activities. Special attention should be paid to the

most recent studies that explore a genetic basis for special attributes of women in social

ability and empathy, and the role these attributes play in venture creation. The social

feminism theory should be further studied to determine how the societal experience of

women influences their entrepreneurial activity. This conclusions were made as a result

of what have been observed in the tendency of latest papers published, the small

quantitiy of research dedicated to this less explore areas, and because it would result

more interesting to focus on this theories since most authors conclude women and men

use common personal characteristics as entrepreneurs. So, it will worth to look in new

theories that point on new aspects of skills and personality.

With regard to the organization dimension, future studies should draw special attention

to the sector or industries in which the venture created by women is situated (Anna et

al., 1999; Rosa and Hamilton, 1994), and focus to the performance measurement

indicators used in women-owned businesses. Because what we have been observed in

this revision are differences on performance measurement and then, different

conclusions have been produced. Besides that most performance studies just consider

the economic elements and not deal with levels of satisfaction; which should be take

into account since women consider them very important. Very small quantity of



research was dedicated to the analysis of strategic and structural forms of organizations

run by women.

In the field of female entrepreneurship, the venture creation process dimension is the

level least studied. Very few papers have been written on the subject, therefore making

it still necessary to explore and identify key variables as well as specific activities

women engage in to create a new business, giving special attention to networking

theory and social capital roles.

Concerning the environment dimension, it was showed entrepreneurship is a contextual

field, and for women sociocultural aspects have a great influence, the family support,

sex roles variables, and other sociocultural factors such as society’s perceptions of or

attitudes toward venture creation and the image of women entrepreneurs are very

influencing in their career choice decision to become an entrepreneur. Even though

these significant indicators were identified within the empirical studies reviewed, few

studies had focused on them.

Respect to methodological aspects results important to mention the limited existence of

comparative studies, and studies involving developing countries (annex 3). Very little

research pertaining to developing countries has been carried out, according to the

studies reviewed here, it is mentioned differences in women entrepreneurs from one

society to another exist. Then, more comparative studies that include developing

countries should be carried out and the influence of situational environment on venture

creation by women should be further studied.



3. Bibliography

Aldrich, H., Carter, N., & Ruef, M. (2002). With very little help from their friends: Gender andrelational composition of nascent entrepreneurs' startup teams. Frontiers of

Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Aldrich, H. (1989). Networking among women entrepreneurs. In Hagan, O., Rivchun, C. & Sexton,D. (Eds), Women-owned Business, 103-132. NY: Praeger.

Allen, K., & Carter, N. (1996). Women entrepreneurs: Profile differences across high and lowperforming adolescent firms. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Alsos, G., & Ljunggren, E. (1998). Does the business start-up process differ by gender? Alongitudinal study of nascent entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Alvarez, S., & Meyer, D. (1998). Why do women become entrepreneurs? Frontiers of


Amit, R., & Muller, E. (1994). "Push" and "Pull" entrepreneurship. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship,Babson College.

Anna, A. L., Chandler, G. N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N. P. (1999). Women business owners intraditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 279-303.

Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Men, women and the extreme male brain. UK:Penguin Press.

Baron, R., & Markman, G. (2003). Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs' social

competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41-60.

Barrett, M. (1995). Feminist perspectives on learning for entrepreneurship: The view from smallbusiness. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Bird, B., & Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 41-62.

Boden, R. J. Jr., & Nucci, A. R. (2000). On the survival prospects of men's and women's newbusiness venture. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(4), 347-362.

Brush, C. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and future

directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 5-30.

Brush, C., & Bird, B. (1996). Leadership vision of successful women entrepreneurs: Dimensionsand characteristics. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Brush, C., Carter, N., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (2000). Women and equity capital: An exploration of factors affecting capital access. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Bull, I., & Willard Gary E. (1993). Towards a Theory of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business

Venturing, 8(2), 183-195.

Caputo, R. & Dolinsky, A. (1998). Women's choice to pursue self-employment: The Role of

financial and human capital of household members. Journal of Small Business Management , 36(3), 8-18.



Carter, N. (2002). The role of risk orientation on financing expectations in new venture creation:Does sex matter? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Carter, N. M., Williams, M., & Reynolds, P. D. (1997). Discontinuance among new firms in retail:The influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender. Journal of Business Venturing,

12(2), 125-145.

Catley, S., & Hamilton, R. (1998). Small business development and gender of owner. Journal of

Management Development, 17(1).

Chaganti, R., & Parasuraman, S. (1996). A study of the impacts of gender on business performanceand management patterns in small businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 73-75.

Cliff, J. E. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towardsgrowth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), 523-542.

Coleman, S. (1998). Access to capital: A comparison of men and women-owned small business.Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

DeMartino, R., & Barbato, R. (2003). Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:Exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators. Journal of Business

Venturing, 18(6), 815-832.

Dolinsky, A. L., Caputo, R. K., Pasumarty, K., & Quazi, H. (1993). The effects of education onbusiness ownership: A longitudinal study of women. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice.

Fabowale, L., Orser, B., & Riding, A. (1995). Gender, structural factors, and credit terms betweenCanadian small businesses and financial institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 41-65.

Fagenson, E., & Marcus, E. (1991). Perceptions of the sex-role stereotypic characteristics of entrepreneurs: Women's evaluations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33-47.

Fagenson, E. A. (1993). Personal value systems of men and women entrepreneurs versus managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(5), 409-430.

Fay, M., & Williams, L. (1993). Gender bias and the availability of business loans. Journal of

Business Venturing, 8(4), 363-376.

Fischer, E. M., Reuber, R. A., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151-168.

Gartner, W. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venturecreation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.

___________ (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small

Business, 12(4), pp. 15-28.

Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study on cognitive factorsinfluencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business

Venturing, 10(5), 371-391.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, The. (1999). http://www.gemconsortium.org



Glas, M., & Petrin, T. (1998). Entrepreneurship: New challenge for Slovene women. Frontiers of


Good, D., & Mielnicki, L. (1996). Toward equal access: The fiscal strength and creditworthiness of women-owned enterprises. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Greene, P., Brush, C., Hart, M., & Saparito, P. (1999). Exploration of the venture capital industry: Isgender an issue? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Gundry, L. K., & Welsch, H. P. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 453-470.

Hisrich, R., Brush, C., Good, D., & DeSouza, G. (1997). Performance in entrepreneurial ventures:Does gender matter? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Hisrich, R. & Brush, C. (1986). Characteristics of the minority entrepreneur. Journal of Small

Business Management. 24(4), 1-8.

Hisrich, R., Koiranen, M., & Hyrsky, K. (1996). A comparison of men and women entrepreneurs: Across-national exploratory study. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Hokkanen, P., Lumme, A., & Autio, E. (1998). Gender-based non-differences in bank shopping andcredit terms. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Holmquist, C. (2001). Does culture matter for the formation of views on entrepreneurship andgender roles? Case studies of women as high-tech (IT) entrepreneurs in Boston andStockholm. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Huq, A., & Richardson, P. (1997). Business ownership as an economic option for middle-incomeeducated urban women in Bangladesh. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Kamau, D., McLean, G., & Ardishvili, A. (1999). Perceptions of business growth by womenentrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Kourilsky, M. L., & Walstad, W. B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge,attitudes, gender differences, and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing,

13(1), 77-88.

Kyro, P. (2001). Women entrepreneurs question men's criteria for success. Frontiers of


Lamolla, L. (2005). Emprender en femenino: la evolución de las políticas económicas locales paraemprendedoras en Cataluña. Tesis Doctoral. Universitad Autonoma de Barcelona.

Leahy, K., & Eggers, J. (1998). Is gender still a factor in entrepreneurial leader behavior? Frontiers

of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Lerner, M., Brush, C., & Hisrich, R. (1997). Israeli women entrepreneurs: An examination of factors affecting performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 315-339.

Low, M., & MacMillan, I. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of

Management, 139-161.

Marlow, S. (1997). Self-employed women - New opportunities, old challenges? Entrepreneurship

and Regional Development, 9, 199-210.



Minniti, M., Arenius, P. & Langowitz, N. (2005). 2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship.

GEM.

Moore, D. P. & Buttner, E. H. (1997). Women entrepreneurs: Moving beyond the glass ceiling.Thousands Oaks. CA: Sage publications.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Read, L. (1994). Raising finance from banks: A comparative study of the experiences of male andfemale business owners. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Rosa, P., & Hamilton, D. (1994). Gender and ownership in UK small firms. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 11-27.

Sexton, E. A. & Robinson, P. B. (1989). The Economic and Demographic Determinants of Self-Employment. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Sexton, D., & Bowman-Upton, N. (1990). Female and male entrepreneurs: Psychologicalcharacteristics and their role in gender related discrimination. Journal of Business

Venturing, 5, 29-36.

Shabbir, A., & Di Gregorio, S. (1996). An examination of the relationship between women'spersonal goals and structural factors influencing their decision to start a business: The caseof Pakistan. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(6), 507-529.

Shanthakumar, D.K. (1992). Attitudinal characteristics of male and female entrepreneurs in Indiaand a comparison with American entrepreneurs. Doctoral dissertation. Brigham YoungUniversity, UT.

Solymossy, E. (1998). Entrepreneurial dimensions: the relationship of individual, venture, andenvironmental factors to success. Doctoral dissertation. Case Western Reserve University.

Srinivasan, R., Woo, C., & Cooper, A. (1994). Performance determinants for male and femaleentrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.

Swedberg, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship. The Social Science View (First ed.). Great Britain.

Urbano, D. (2003). Factores condicionantes de la creación de empresas en Catalunya: un enfoqueinstitucional. Tesis doctoral. Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona.

Veciana, J. (1999). Creación de empresas como programa de investigación científica. Revista

Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 8(3), 11-36.

Watson, J. (2002). Comparing the performance of male- and female-controlled businesses: Relatingoutputs to inputs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 91-100.

Watson, J., & Robinson, S. (2003). Adjusting for risk in comparing the performances of male- andfemale-controlled SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6), 773-788.



ANNEXES



Annex 1. Summary of empirical research by authors, classified according to

Gartner’s model.

Dimension Empirical support

Individual Amit, 1994Anna et al., 1999

Baron and Markman, 2003Baron-Cohen, 2003Boden and Nucci, 2000Brush and Bird, 1996Brush, 1992Caputo and Dolinsky, 1998Carter et al., 1997Catley and Hamilton, 1998Chaganti and Parasuraman, 1996Cliff, 1998DeMartino and Barbato, 2003Dolinsky, et al., 1993Fagenson and Marcus, 1991Fagenson, 1993Fischer et al., 1993Gatewood et al., 1995Glas and Petrin, 1998Greene et al., 1999

Hisrich et al., 1996Hisrich et al., 1997Kamau, 1999Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998Kyro, 2001Leahy and Eggers, 1998Lerner et al., 1997Marlow, 1997Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990Shabbir and Di Gregorio, 1996

Organization Allen and Carter, 1996Barrett, 1995Boden and Nucci, 2000Brush and Bird, 1996Brush et al., 2000Carter et al., 1997Chaganti and Parasuraman, 1996

Gundry and Welsch, 2001Hokkanen et al., 1998Rosa and Hamilton, 1994Sexton and Robinson, 1989Srinivasan et al., 1994Watson and Robinson, 2003Watson, 2002

Process Aldrich, et al., 2002Alsos and Ljunggren, 1998Carter et al., 1997Gatewood, 1995Lerner et al., 1997Srinivasan, 1994

Environment Allen and Carter, 1996

Alvarez and Meyer, 1998Barrett, 1995Carter, 2002Coleman, 1998Fabowale, et al., 1995Fay and Williams, 1993Greene, et al., 1999Hisrich et al., 1997Hokkanen, 1998Holmquist, 2001Huq and Richardson, 1997Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998Lerner et al., 1997Moore and Buttner, 1997Read, 1994Rosa and Hamilton, 1994Shabbir and Di Gregorio, 1996

Female Entrepreneurship

Documents

Transcript of Female Entrepreneurship