JBE Spring 2018 Print-Ready File...Stephen F. Austin State University Jurgita Baltrusaityte Axelson...

Volume29,No.2

Spring,2018

EditorialStaff

ManagingEditorWilliamT.Jackson

EditorsMaryJoJackson JeffVanevenhoven

The Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship is published by

the Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship

(ASBE) and Stetson University. All ASBE members receive one

copy of the publication. Subscribe, order back issues or single

copies at s can

©2018

TableofContents

Volume 29, No.2

Spring, 2018

Mompreneurship as a Path to Work-life Harmony: Role Conflict as an Antecedent for Entrepreneurial Activity

Randall M. Croom and Carliss D. Miller .....................................................................1

How Women’s Leadership Roles Affect Their Leadership Styles in Family Firms

John James Carter III and Marilyn Young................................................................ 23

Hottest Time for Entrepreneurship Educators

Todd A. Finkle ......................................................................................................... 59

The Impact of Supportive Environment and Entrepreneurial Skills on Students’ Entrepreneurial Inclination

Yakubu Abdullahi Yarima and Norashidah Bint Hashim ....................................... 87

Leadership Paradigms, Generational Differences, and Cultural Norms and Their Effects on Service Qualaity in the Restaurant Industry

Dean A. Koutramanis and Deirdre P. Dixon ........................................................... 105

----2018-2019 Officers----

AssociationforSmallBusiness&Entrepreneurship

Courtney Kernek, Southeastern Oklahoma State University

President

Laurie Babin, University of Louisiana at Monroe

PresidentElect

Laurie Babin, University of Louisiana at Monroe

VicePresidentPrograms

Eugenie Ardoin, University of Louisiana at Monroe

VicePresidentMembership

Kendra L. Ingram, Texas A&M, Commerce

Treasurer&Secretary

Mary Jo Jackson, Stetson University

PastPresident

William T. Jackson, Stetson University

ExecutiveDirector

----EditorialReviewBoard----

Joshua Abor

UniversityofStellenbosch

Joe Ballenger

StephenF.AustinStateUniversity

Jurgita BaltrusaityteAxelson

StockholmSchoolofEconomics

Stephen S. Batory

BloomsburgUniversity

James A. Bell

UniversityofCentralArkansas

Josh Bendickson

University ofLouisianaLafayette

Thomas M. Box

PittsburgStateUniversity

Susan Boyd

UniversityofTulsa

Steve Brown

EasternKentuckyUniversity

Kent Byus

TexasA&M~CorpusChristi

Thomas M. Cooney

Dublin Institute of Technology

James A. DiGabriele

DiGabriele,McNulty&Co.LL

João J. M. Ferreira

UniversityofBeiraInterior

Charles Fischer

PittsburgStateUniversity

Donald W. Garland

NewMexicoStateUniversity

William C. Green

SulRossStateUniversity

Walter E. Greene

GreeneandAssociates

Marko Grünhagen

EasternIllinoisUniversity

Robert D. Gulbro

AthensStateUniversity

Stephen C. Harper

UniversityofNorthCarolina~Wilmington

E. Alan Hartman

UniversityofWisconsin~Oshkosh

Diana M. Hechavarria

University of South Florida

Marilyn M. Helms

DaltonStateCollege

Colin Jones

UniversityofTasmania

Minjoon Jun

NewMexicoStateUniversity

M. Riaz Khan

UniversityMassachusettsLowell

Naresh Kumar

NESHTrainingandConsultancy

Agnieszka Kurczeska

UniversityofLodz

Vaidotas Lukosius

TennesseeStateUniversity

Keishiro Matsumoto

UniversityoftheVirginIslands

Shaun McQuitty

AthabascaUniversity

Teresa V. Menzies

BrockUniversity

Jay Nathan

St.John’sUniversity

Barbara R. Oates

TexasA&M~Kingsville

Linda Ann Riley

RogerWilliamsUniversity

Philip T. Roundy

UniversityofTennesseeat

Chattanooga

Christopher M. Scalzo

MorrisvilleStateCollege

Mark T. Schenkel

BelmontUniversity

Philip Siegel

FloridaAtlanticUniversity

Joseph F. Singer

UniversityofMissouriKansasCity

George Solomon

George Washington University

Tulus Tambunan

UniversityofTrisakti

Ayman El Tarabishy

GeorgeWashingtonUniversity

Leslie Toombs

TexasA&MCommerce

Raydel Tullous

UniversityofTexas~SanAntonio

Jeff Vanevenhoven

UniversityofWisconsinWhite

Water

Rebecca J. White

UniversityofTampa

Densil Williams

UniversityofWestIndiesMona

Phillip H. Wilson

MidwesternStateUniversity

Marilyn Young

UniversityofTexas~Tyler

Dear JBE Readership:

Welcome to the Spring 2018 issue of the JournalofBusinessand

Entrepreneurship.The editors continue to be impressed with the quality of

submissions and the competitiveness of acceptance into the journal. As

mentioned in our previous letter, being recognized in SCOPUS and the

pursuit of other quality metrics demands the caliber of these acceptances.

As we continue to grow and improve we hope the readers will also

appreciate this quality improvement.

If you haven’t submitted a manuscript to JBE recently or ever, please

consider us as a possible publication outlet for your next article. If you have

had an article in JBE please pass the word that having an article in JBE will

make an impactful impact on your publication record.

As a reminder, the Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship

(ASBE) will be holding its annual meeting in conjunction with the

Federation of Business Disciplines in Houston, Texas this coming spring—

hope to see you there.

WilliamT.Jackson(Bill) MaryJoJackson JeffVanevenhoven

ManagingEditor Editor Editor

MOMPRENEURSHIP AS A PATH TO WORK-LIFE

HARMONY: ROLE CONFLICT AS AN ANTECEDENT FOR

ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY

Randall M. Croom

Stetson University

Carliss D. Miller

Sam Houston State University

ABSTRACT

Prior research on nascent entrepreneurship has identified many

antecedents of entrepreneurial choice. These factors range from individual

factors, such as personality, ability, cognition, family environment,

demographics, and personal experiences, to situational factors, such as

opportunity, economy, and environment. In this conceptual paper, we present a

model that specifies the relationship role conflict to entrepreneurial choice. In

particular, we conceptualize mompreneurship as a phenomenon that may not be

well explained by entrepreneurial theories that implicate business growth as a

primary motivation for entrepreneurial decision-making, but rather by

individuals’ desire to reduce role conflict, which is associated with many

negative outcomes. We link major theories of entrepreneurial intent to role

theory and make recommendations for future empirical research.

: entrepreneurship, role conflict, identity, gender, mompreneurship

INTRODUCTION

Why do people choose to become entrepreneurs? This is a question that

has received much attention from entrepreneurship researchers. Some researchers

have suggested that entrepreneurial choice has cognitive foundations, such as the

ability to recognize opportunities (Baron & Ensley, 2006) or to think differently

than other people (Baron, 1998). Some scholars have proposed that entrepreneurs

become self-employed because they have higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy—

they believe that they will be successful entrepreneurs (Cardon & Kirk, 2015;

Chen, Green, & Crick, 1998). Others have taken an approach grounded in

economic theory, arguing that people become entrepreneurs because they seek to

Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship Spring 2018 1

maximize utility—specifically, that people expect the total utility of

entrepreneurship to be greater than the utility of their next best employment

option (Douglas & Shepherd, 2000). And still others suggest that it is an

individual’s environment and experiences that lead them toward

entrepreneurship, such as growing up with parents who were entrepreneurs

(Lindquist, Sol, & Van Praag, 2015) or operating in an environment that supports

entrepreneurship (Di Gregorio & Shane, 2003).

All these factors and more play a meaningful role in the formation of

nascent entrepreneurs. One factor that may also influence entrepreneurial intent

and behavior is the roles individuals play in their work and in their personal

lives. Many times, work/life roles are compatible with each other. For instance, a

professor’s role as a classroom instructor may be largely compatible with their

role as a service committee member embedded in the community, or as a

researcher with great flexibility and autonomy regarding when, where, and how

the research will be conducted. But occasionally, individuals occupy important,

salient roles that come into conflict with each other. A firefighter who is battling

a large, encroaching wildfire may feel torn between his/her role as a firefighter

who is charged with working for the good of the community, and as a

father/mother who is expected to protect the family and home. A professional

football player, deciding whether to engage in protests on game day, may feel

torn between his role as a quarterback who must focus on his sport and a

concerned member of a community who feels compelled to use his platform to

bring attention to social issues. Such role conflicts create challenges for

individuals, organizations, and even society.

One group of people who might feel role conflict acutely is working

mothers (Heilman & Chen, 2003; Schwartz, 1989). In particular, working

mothers often feel pressures to live up to the stereotypes of a “good mother” who

is totally and selflessly devoted to her children and a career-oriented employee

who is driven to succeed and expected to be deeply committed too her company

(Gorman & Fritzshe, 2002). In this paper, we present a conceptual model that

links theories related to role conflict with theories related to entrepreneurial

intention and propose a potential solution to this role conflict: entrepreneurship,

with special attention to the phenomenon known as “mompreneurship.”

Mompreneurship is a term for women entrepreneurs who desire to achieve work-

life harmony by blending the role of mother and businesswoman, thus

prioritizing family work along with professional work full-time (Ekinsmyth,

2013).

2 Spring 2018 Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship

Some researchers have noted that theories of entrepreneurship have

regularly assumed growth as both a goal and as one of the defining

characteristics of entrepreneurial value (Low & MacMillan, 1998; Venkataraman,

1997). However, many prior studies have found that at the aggregate level, female-

led entrepreneurial ventures perform at a lower level than those led by their male

counterparts (see Du Rietz & Henrekson, 2000, for a review). Some of this is due to

structural differences: Du Rietz and Henrekson (2000) found that after a number of

control variables are accounted for, differences in profitability decrease. However,

differences in sales growth remain. Du Rietz and Henrekson suggest that this is due

to differences in preferences for growth. But why might women have differences in

preferences for growth? The whole picture of entrepreneurial intention and

motivation is likely to be complex, but we offer one possibility: some mompreneurs

may not be motivated by the possibility of growth, but the opportunity to reduce role

conflict and increase flexibility and autonomy; ultimately, to bring their lives into

greater congruence with their expected and desired roles regarding work and

motherhood. This paper links theories of entrepreneurial intent to role conflict to

predict mompreneurship. In the process, we hope to shed light on an emergent

phenomenon, provide some direction for future research, and contribute to the

field’s understanding of entrepreneurial motivation and behavior.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Consequences of Role Conflict

Nearly everyone in society occupies multiple roles. Someone who is an

entrepreneur might also occupy roles as a parent, a spouse, a member of a board,

a neighbor, and a volunteer in a community organization, for example. Roles

consist of three components: 1) structurally given demands, such as expectations,

responsibilities, and social norms, 2) a set of personal beliefs about what the role

entails, and 3) role behavior, meaning ways in which people who occupy a role

act (Levinson, 1959). Similarly, Kahn and his colleagues (1964) described the

role process as one that entailed role pressures applied by other people, an

individualized experience of these pressures, and a person’s response to these

pressures. Pressure—whether from expectations, social norms, or the amount of

responsibilities one has as part of fulfilling a role—is simply part of what comes

with occupying a role. But some pressures come not from the role itself, but from


the very fact that an individual occupies more than one role. That is, some of the

pressure felt by individuals is because roles sometimes come into conflict.

Role conflict can be defined as mutually competing demands by people

who communicate role expectations (Kahn et al., 1964). Another way to think

about role conflict is as a phenomenon that occurs when the demands placed

upon an individual are either in conflict or incompatible, such that complying

with all of the demands would be difficult or even impossible. Role conflict can

be intrarole, such that individuals can experience conflict due to competing

demands within a single role, or interrole, in which the demands of multiple roles

create conflict. Role conflict in general has several consequences—many of

which are negative for both individuals and organizations. According to role

theory, when individuals experience role conflict they become less satisfied,

more stressed, and perform worse (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Subsequent

studies were born out of Kahn et al’s and Rizzo et al’s earlier work, revealing

that role conflict can lead to negative psychological consequences such as

emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (Piko, 2006), and anxiety (Hamner &

Tosi, 1974). Additionally, high-level managers experiencing role conflict

reported having less influence in their organization and feeling a greater sense of

job threat (Hamner & Tosi, 1974). While there are negative consequences of role

conflict in general, we also note that specific kinds of role conflict also have

negative consequences. Work-family conflict is one such kind of role conflict,

one upon which we place special emphasis in this paper.

Work-family conflict occurs when demands associated with work

interfere with demands associated with family, and/or vice versa (Greenhaus &

Beutell, 1985; Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983). Like other kinds of

role conflict, work-family conflict has several negative consequences.

Researchers have observed that these fall into three categories: work related

outcomes, nonwork related outcomes, and stress-related outcomes (Allen, Herst,

Bruck, & Sutton, 2000). First, work-family conflict is associated with poor work-

related outcomes, such as reduced job satisfaction (Ernst Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;

Covernman, 1989). Second, work-family conflict is associated with nonwork-

related outcomes, such as life satisfaction, family satisfaction, and in some cases,

marital adjustment (Allen et al., 2000; Ayree, 1992; Coverman, 1989; Duxbury

& Higgins, 1991). Finally, just as role conflict more generally has been shown to

be related to stress, work-family conflict specifically is associated with both

physical and psychological stress (see Allen et al., 2000 for a review). Given all

of the negative consequences that are associated with role conflict in general and


the work-family variety of role conflict in particular, it is not be surprising to find

that individuals work to mitigate or resolve this kind of conflict. Indeed, Kahn et

al (1964) theorized that experiencing role conflict and role ambiguity would lead

to coping behavior in order to reduce stress, a finding supported by subsequent

research (Hall, 1972). How might individuals choose to resolve their conflict?

We believe that the way individuals choose to resolve conflict depends on the

conditions affecting that individual and the nature of the roles that need to be

resolved. We theorize that the nature of the roles occupied by working mothers

influences their choice of resolution. In the next section, we theorize about how

role conflict for working mothers can predict new entrepreneurial ventures.

Working Mothers and Role Conflict

While the foregoing discussion reflects that virtually anyone can

experience role conflict, we focus our discussion here on women who are

working mothers. We do this in part because we believe working mothers are an

important population, but also because there are multiple, salient roles and

identities that working mothers can occupy that help illustrate the relationship

between role conflict and entrepreneurial choice. Hall (1972) developed a

hypothetical model of sub-identity for working, married women in which

multiple roles exist at once—including that of an employee, a wife, a

homemaker, and a mother. Hall suggested that men might have just as many

roles as women, but some of these roles are often salient at different times and

thus are less likely to produce conflict. Whether that is still true today is up for

discussion, but what certainly remains constant is that working mothers face

challenging, competing demands from both work and family. Women are often

expected to be communal (Bakan, 1966), kind, helpful, sympathetic, and

concerned about others, compared to men, who are expected to be forceful,

aggressive, and independent (Heilman, 2001). The aforementioned

characteristics related to communality are consistent with popular

conceptualizations of motherhood: conceptualizations that entail caretaking,

selflessness, and nurturing—but are perhaps at odds with general

conceptualizations of what it means to be a successful businessperson or

professional. Supporting this assertion is a study by Gorman & Fritzsche (2002),

which found that mothers who stayed at home with their children and were

satisfied with doing so were rated as better mothers than mothers who were

dissatisfied with staying home. Additionally, they found that mothers who were


employed outside the home were evaluated as less committed to motherhood and

less selfless than employed mothers who preferred to be at home. The message,

according to Gorman & Fritzsche (2002), is that the ‘good mother’ stereotype

involved staying at home—or at least wishing that you did! Previous work by

Russo (1976) suggested that mothers who choose not to remain home with their

children are perceived as an unhealthy anomaly.

Hall’s model implies that competition among roles depends largely on the

degree to which the roles overlap—where there is little overlap, competition

among these roles is likely to be higher, and thus more role conflict is expected

to emerge. Working mothers might then be expected to experience greater role

conflict than other working women who are not mothers, as their occupation of

multiple roles violate prescriptive norms of gender stereotypes and are thus

deemed incompatible. This may arise from a perceived discrepancy between

what a woman is like compared to what others believe she should be like

(Heilman, 2001). Violating prescribed stereotypes is likely to elicit disapproval

that results in penalties for the violator (Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Heilman, 2001).

Some of these penalties for women include being judged as less psychologically

healthy than women who display more “womanly” attributes (Costrich,

Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, & Pascale, 1975) and being evaluated less favorably

(Haddock & Zanna, 1994; Rudman, 1998). Ironically, while working mothers

can sometimes be punished for being perceived as not motherly enough, it

appears that their careers can also suffer because they are perceived as being too

motherly. Berdahl & Moon (2013) noted that working mothers are “mommy-

tracked”—sidelined and passed over for promotion. While both men and women

experience work-family conflict, it appears that this kind of conflict is more

acute for women (Stroh & Reilly, 1999). In sum, role conflict causes significant

problems—stress, diminished performance, reduced-job satisfaction, increased

turnover intention, and more.

The specific subset of role conflict known as work-family conflict is an

antecedent of these and other negative outcomes. Given the negative outcomes

associated with role-conflict in general and work-family conflict in particular, we

expect that individuals who are experiencing such conflict are motivated to find

mechanisms to reduce, mitigate, or eliminate the role conflict and its

consequences. But how? We suggest entrepreneurship as a solution. Some

scholars have considered entrepreneurship as a solution, prescriptively as a salve

for bias and discrimination in the workplace for women and minorities (Heilman

& Chen, 2003). We believe this perspective has merit, but here we take a


descriptive and predictive approach, and suggest that entrepreneurial choice can

be and often is a result of role conflict in general and work-family conflict in

particularly, especially for working mothers. Entrepreneurship, and particularly

the subset of entrepreneurship termed “mompreneurship,” has the potential to

reduce or eliminate incompatible role demands for reasons we elaborate upon in

the next section. However, given the general supposition that 1) individuals are

motivated to reduce role conflict and 2) entrepreneurship can reduce role conflict

associated with work and family, we make the following proposition:

Proposition 1: An increase in role conflict in general, and work family

conflict in particular, is associated with an increase in entrepreneurial

intent and new venture formation for working mothers.

In the next section, we focus on theories relating to entrepreneurial

intention to role theory, and how this relationship implicates entrepreneurship in

general and mompreneurship in particular as remedies to role conflict.

Theories of Entrepreneurial Intention and Their Relation To Role Theories

Steffen Korsgaard (2007) has defined mompreneurs as female business

owners who are actively balancing the roles of mother and entrepreneur.

Mompreneurship represents entrepreneurship and motherhood as an inter-tangled

concept in which both role identities must be managed in light of the other. As

noted by Korsgaard (2007: 44), “…it is not the need for profit, achievement or

the presence of a unique business opportunity that pushes this woman into

entrepreneurship. It is the simple everyday experience of stress and guilty

conscience about not feeling that she can be a good enough mother while

working a traditional job.” This is substantially different from the undercurrent

of growth focus present in many theories of entrepreneurship. Rather,

mompreneurship may sometimes, though not always, be a result of a more

personal focus. Indeed, as a portmanteau of mom and entrepreneur, mompreneur

necessarily implicates two roles, and these roles may help explain entrepreneurial

intention and behavior. Therefore, it is important to consider theories of

entrepreneurial intention as we attempt to offer an explanation for the

relationship of role conflict theories to entrepreneurial behavior.

Entrepreneurial Intent Theories


While there are several theories related to entrepreneurial intention, we

focus on two of the most prominent: Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

(Azjen, 1991) and Shapero’s Model of the Entrepreneurial Event (SEE)

(Shapero, 1982). While these two models are often positioned as competing

theories, we submit that there are some commonalities between the two that have

implications for our understanding of how roles (and role conflict) influence

entrepreneurial intent and ultimately entrepreneurial behavior. It is important to

understand that intentions are generally the best predictor of planned behavior,

especially when the behavior involves uncertainty such as unpredictable time

lags between intention and action, when the event is nonroutine, or when the

precise behavior is difficult to observe (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000)—a

very characteristic description of the new venture formation process (Katz &

Gardner, 1988; Bird, 1988).

Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) suggests that there are three

antecedents of entrepreneurial intent: 1) normative beliefs—that is, perceived

social norms regarding engaging in the behavior, 2) beliefs about how desirable

the behavior would be to perform, based on an individual’s beliefs about the

likely outcomes of the behavior, and 3) perceived self-efficacy, based on how

feasible an individual believes the behavior is for them to accomplish (Azjen,

1991). Comparatively, Shapero’s Model of the Entrepreneurial Event (SEE)

similarly suggests that there are three antecedents to an entrepreneurial act: 1)

perceived desirability, 2) perceived feasibility, and 3) propensity to act, which

describes an individual difference between people that reflects their willingness

to follow through on their intentions (Shapero, 1982). As other scholars have

noted (See Kruger et al, 2000, for a review), the two theories are homologous to

one another in two major ways: 1) they both contain analogues to self-efficacy,

and 2) they both contain analogues to perceived desirability. The key difference

is that Ajzen’s model reflects a concern about social norms, while Shapero’s

model reflects individual differences in a tendency to act. But summarily, we

note that there are four elements across the two theories: perceptions about how

one should behave relative to social norms, perceptions about one’s own ability

to perform, perceptions about how desirable the activity is, and one’s own

propensity to act on intention. At this point, we elaborate on the theoretical link

between roles and entrepreneurial intent. Figure 1 displays a conceptual model

relating role conflict and family conflict to entrepreneurial and mompreneurial

intent.


Figure 1: Conceptual model relating role conflict to theories of

entrepreneurial intent

Social Norms and Entrepreneurial Intent

First, we draw a connection between Ajzen’s theory of planned

behavior’s concern about social norms and role theories. (Table 1 summarizes

the theoretical links among entrepreneurial intent, roles, role conflict, and

entrepreneurial/mompreneurial activity). Ajzen’s theory holds that individuals

take into consideration social norms and other normative beliefs when planning

behavior (Azjen, 1991). We suggest that cues for these norms emanate from the

roles that individuals occupy—roles themselves consist of social norms (Kahn et

al, 1964; Levinson, 1959). However, these normative roles can come into

conflict with each other. For example, the socially constructed demands of

motherhood—encompassed by the good mother stereotype referenced earlier

(Gorman & Fritzsche, 2002)—and the demands of life as a focused, dedicated

employee can provide competing demands for time and priority. Prioritizing one


role may result in violating expectations for the other, for which there are likely

to be consequences (Cialidini & Trost, 1998).


Beyond our general proposition that role conflict and especially work-

family conflict would lead to entrepreneurial choice, there are other reasons to

believe that role conflict would lead to entrepreneurial choice for working

mothers. Prior research indicates that family considerations are more frequently

tied to women’s employment decisions in general (Carr, 1996), and having

children tends to influence self-employment tendencies for women (Boden,

1999). These provide further evidence that social norms related to one’s role

have an influence on employment decisions, and thus that role conflict is present

based on these norms. Thus, we propose the following:

Proposition 2a: Role conflict in general and work family conflict in

particular have a positive relationship with perceived incongruity of

social norms.

Proposition 2b: The relationship between role conflict in general and

work family conflict in particular and entrepreneurial intent is mediated

by perceived in particular have a positive relationship with perceived

incongruity of social norms.

Desirability of Entrepreneurial Activity and Entrepreneurial Intent

Both Shapero (1982) and Ajzen (1991) implicate the perceived

desirability of engaging in entrepreneurial behavior as an antecedent to

entrepreneurial activity. While there are individual differences that may make

entrepreneurial activity more desirable, such as entrepreneurial orientation, most

prior research takes a positivist approach—i.e., that some characteristic of

entrepreneurship attracts individuals towards entrepreneurial activity. While

these approaches have great merit, we would add to this a relativist approach:

entrepreneurial activity may be perceived as more desirable alternative relative to

traditional employee because of the presence of role conflict. That is, for

working mothers, there may be elements of traditional employment that repel

them from it. Previous research on role conflict show that role conflict adds

pressures— individuals seek to remove stress, anxiety, and improve performance

and action (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000; Kahn, 1964). To the extent that

role overlap in traditional employment is low, competition (and thus conflict)

between roles is high (Hall, 1972), and the less desirable it may be.

In contrast, mompreneurship offers what Korsgaard (2007) termed

“continuity” between different spheres of life for the mompreneur. Thus,


mompreneurship can be conceptualized as a strategy to enhance continuity and

reduce conflict between motherhood and work. To the extent that the strategy is

successful, it it likely to be more desirable than traditional work. Indeed,

Korsgaard (2007, p. 43) found that many mompreneurs expressed a “desire for a

work environment unencumbered with an immediate supervisor impervious to

and unconcerned with the needs of one’s family.” Thus, we propose the

following:


particular have a positive relationship with perceived desirability of

entrepreneurial activity.



by perceived desirability of entrepreneurial activity.

Feasibility of Entrepreneurial Activity and Entrepreneurial Intent

Shapero’s (1982) and Azjen’s (1987, 1991) models for behavioral

intention both elaborate perceived feasibility of the activity as an antecedent of

behavior. These are related to expectancy for success. Expectations for success in

a given circumstance vary from individual to individual. Role theories indicate

that people have individualized experiences of role pressures (Kruger et al.,

2000; Kahn et al., 1964), and beliefs about what a role entails (Levinson, 1959),

and beliefs about how well they can respond to these pressures (Bandura, 1986).

Due to the significant, multiple demands upon working mothers, they may have

different expectations for success than their male counterparts who are not

burdened with the same expectations for parenthood. In general, individuals may

perceive themselves as less likely to be effective or successful in one domain

because they are aware of the demands of another competing domain.

Parenthood and professional life are salient examples for the population of

working mothers, as evidenced by "guilt" about one's performance as a mother

while working a traditional job (Korsgaard, 2007).

It seems reasonable to believe that one might be more likely to be

successful if competing demands are reduced. With fewer incompatible

demands, individuals may view objectives as more feasible. With role demands

that are in alignment rather than competition, mompreneurs may have greater


expectancy for the successful achievement of work-related and family-related

goals. Thus, we propose the following:


particular have a positive relationship with perceived feasibility of

entrepreneurial activity.



by perceived feasibility of entrepreneurial activity.

Propensity to Act on Intentions and Entrepreneurial Intent

Shapero’s theory of entrepreneurial events (1982) specified that intent to

act on one’s intentions were an antecedent of entrepreneurial intent (and

ultimately, behavior). Roles themselves are partly comprised of role behavior;

meaning ways in which people in a given role act, and how they believe they

should act (Levinson, 1959). Thus, what Shapero termed “propensity to act” may

be influenced by the way people believe they should act as the occupant of a

given role. Mompreneurship may be seen as a viable alternative to traditional

employment because it allows mothers who feel like they should use their

education, talent, and capability in a business venture and should be able to

commit time and resources to parenthood as they see fit to act in ways that are

more clearly aligned with their desires. Individuals may become more willing to

act entrepreneurially as other alternatives become less desirable, as

entrepreneurship seems more feasible, and as role conflict makes traditionally

employment less tenable.


particular have a positive relationship with entrepreneurial willingness

to act.



by perceived in particular have a positive relationship with

entrepreneurial willingness to act.


Mompreneurship and Alignment-Seeking Behaviors

We make one final note about mompreneurship. Our central claim is that

role and role conflict influence entrepreneurial choice. However, we also note

that role might influence the kind of entrepreneurial activity one chooses to

engage in. As stated earlier, the goals of mompreneurship may be more geared

toward meeting individual, personal needs (Korsgaard, 2007). A logical

extension of this idea is that mompreneurship may be characterized by an

increased tendency to make certain kinds of entrepreneurial choices. It may very

well be that mompreneurs make different choices because they recognize some

opportunities more easily than other entrepreneurs do. Opportunity recognition

describes the process through which new profitable business ideas are recognized

by individuals (Shane, 2003). Some individuals are more prepared to recognize

opportunities when they present themselves (Kaish & Gilad, 1991), and the

ability to recognize opportunities can stem from one’s prior knowledge of an

industry (McKelvie & Wiklund, 2004), attributions and intentions (Krueger,

2003), search strategies, and social networks (Ozgen & Baron, 2006; Singh,

Hills, Hybels, & Lumpkin,1999). Mothers’ experiences, networks, and

knowledge may allow them to recognize opportunities related to parenting and

children more readily than others. For example, Reagan Moya-Jones, founder of

successful child blanket company, aden + anais, describes her experience thusly

on the company website:

Raegan relocated to New York City in 1997 with her future

husband, where she spent ten years in sales at the prestigious weekly

news publication The Economist. Even though she was far from home

when she became pregnant in 2003 with her first child, Anais Raegan

was comforted knowing she could carry on the time-honored Australian

tradition of swaddling her baby with a muslin blanket. But after scouring

stores across the US for the muslin wraps used by parents everywhere in

Australia, Raegan came up empty-handed. Much to her surprise, the only

available options were made of fleece, flannel or heavy cotton—none of

which she thought were right for swaddling. That’s when the idea for

aden + anais was born. Inventing by way of necessity, Raegan introduced

the first muslin swaddle blanket to the United States in 2006[...]Since

then, aden + anais has brought the Australian legacy of cotton muslin to

the forefront of lifestyle baby care around the globe, [...] available in 65


countries worldwide. Raegan continues to be a decorated business

entrepreneur and success story in the baby industry, paving the way for

aden + anais to become a premiere global lifestyle brand.

Summarily, it was Moya-Jones’ experiences, including the experience of

motherhood, that led her entrepreneurial choice. Mothers are perfectly capable of

starting businesses unrelated to parenthood or children, and regularly do.

However, we suggest that the population of founders of businesses related to

mothers and families will be disproportionately mompreneurs, leading us to

propose the following;

Proposition 6: Mompreneurs will demonstrate a higher propensity to

identify new business opportunities related to parenthood, motherhood,

and children than non-mompreneurs.

DISCUSSION

General Discussion

We believe that this conceptual paper makes a few contributions that

entrepreneurship researchers may find useful. First, entrepreneurship is a

discipline that frequently blends macro management concepts (strategy) with

micro management concepts (organizational behavior). This paper acknowledges

this tradition by considering role theories, specifically role conflict, and its

relationship with foundational theories related to entrepreneurial intention. While

previous research about role conflict often focuses on its negative consequences

for the organization and the individual, we suggest a more positive outcome is

possible: the creation of new entrepreneurs. It is our hope that this work can

benefit scholars interested in nascent entrepreneurship by identifying additional

pathways through which potential entrepreneurs can enter a new business

venture. Entrepreneurs are people who often bring to market solutions that

customers are looking for; it seems appropriate that some entrepreneurs—

mompreneurs—are finding solutions for their own lives. Second, we believe that

one role of a conceptual paper is to help generate ideas that can be tested.

Accordingly, we believe a second contribution of this work is that it makes

propositions that are empirically testable given an appropriate sample. Third,

entrepreneurship research has paid increasing attention to the role of female

entrepreneurs in recent years. Some critiques of entrepreneurship research have


charged that it focuses mostly on men and masculine values, which does not

reflect the growing population of women involved in entrepreneurial ventures

(Bird & Brush, 2002; Korsgaard, 2007). We hope to add to the literature about

women entrepreneurs by looking at an expressly female entrepreneurial

phenomenon.

Practical Implications and Future Research

Role conflict is a common occurrence, and, as discussed here, individuals

seek remedies for this kind of conflict. One practical implication is that

employees who experience role conflict, and especially those who experience

work-family conflict, should perhaps look to entrepreneurship as a solution. A

second implication of work individuals who desire to engage in an

entrepreneurial activity but feel as though they have not yet discovered a winning

idea might look to their roles for inspiration. A third implication is that

organizations may lose talent employees not just to other companies, or even to

home life, but to entrepreneurial ventures (Heilman & Chen, 2003). These

talented people may be lost not because they strongly desired to be an

entrepreneur, but because they strongly desired to end role conflict.

Organizations must continue to build cultures that not just allow parents to

participate, but to embraced their dual identity as employees and parents if they

want to retain talent.

Future research should examine the ways in which the life cycle of

mompreneur-based businesses unfolds. Might critical events, such as the aging

of children and changes in marital status alter decisions about the continuity of

the business? It would stand to reason that if roles and role conflict played a role

in the formation of the business, then a change in roles might also change the

enterprise.

CONCLUSION

In sum, we theorize that role conflict can be an antecedent to

entrepreneurial intentions and ultimately entrepreneurial activity. We link role

theories to theories of entrepreneurial intent, and discuss role conflict in the

context of mompreneurship. While entrepreneurship is not a cure-all, this papers

suggests that entrepreneurship can be a solution to negative phenomena fostered

by role conflict, particularly work-family conflict.


REFERENCES

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences

associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future

research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278-308.

doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278

Ayree, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict among

married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, 45(8),

813–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500804

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. An essay on psychology and

religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Berdahl, J. L., & Moon, S. H. (2013). Workplace mistreatment of middle class

workers based on sex, parenthood, and caregiving. Journal of Social

Issues, 69(2), 341-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12018

Bird, B. (1988). Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention. The

Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442-453. DOI: 10.2307/258091

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

creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 41-65.

https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870202600303

Boden Jr, R. J. (1999). Flexible working hours, family responsibilities, and

-employment

selection. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58(1), 71-83.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(99)00026-8

Cardon, M. S., & Kirk, C. P. (2015). Entrepreneurial Passion as Mediator of the

Self–Efficacy to Persistence Relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 39(5), 1027-1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12089

Carr, D. (1996). Two paths to self-employment? Women's and men's self-

employment in the United States, 1980. Work and occupations, 23(1), 26-53.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888496023001003


Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-

efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business

Venturing, 13(4), 295-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3

Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms,

conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151-192). New York, NY, US:

McGraw-Hill.

Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marecek, J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When

stereotypes hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 11(6), 520-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-

1031 (75)90003-7

Coverman, S. (1989). Role overload, role conflict, and stress: Addressing

consequences of multiple role demands. Social Forces, 67(4), 965-982.

https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/67.4.965

Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more

start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209-227.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5

Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as a utility

maximizing response. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 231-251.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00008-1

Du Rietz, A., & Henrekson, M. (2000). Testing the female underperformance

hypothesis. Small Business Economics, 14(1), 1-10.

Duberley, J., & Carrigan, M. (2012). The career identities of ‘mumpreneurs’:

Women’s experiences of combining enterprise and motherhood. International

Small Business Journal, 31(6), 629-651.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242611435182

Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work–family

conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 60–74.

Ekinsmyth, C. (2013). Managing the business of everyday life: the roles of space

and place in “mumpreneurship”. International Journal of Entrepreneurial


Behaviour & Research, 19(5), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2011-

0139

Ernst Kossek, E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict, policies, and the

job–life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational

behavior–human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139-

149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.139

Gorman, K. A., & Fritzsche, B. A. (2

home (or wish that you did!). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10),

2190-2201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02069.x

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and

family roles. Academy of management review, 10(1), 76-88.

Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). Preferring “housewives” to “feminists”:

Categorization and the favorability of attitudes toward women. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 18(1), 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-

6402.1994.tb00295.x

Hall, D. (1972). A Model of Coping with Role Conflict: The Role Behavior of

College Educated Women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(4), 471-486.

doi:10.2307/2393827

Hamner, W. C., & Tosi, H. L. (1974). Relationship of role conflict and role

ambiguity to job involvement measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(4),

497-499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037340

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes

prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social

Issues, 57(4), 657-674.

Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a solution: the allure

of self-employment for women and minorities. Human Resource Management

Review, 13(2), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00021-4

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A.

(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford,

England: John Wiley.


Kaish, S., & Gilad, B. (1991). Characteristics of opportunities search of

entrepreneurs versus executives: Sources, interests, general alertness. Journal of

Business Venturing, 6(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90005-X

Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429-441.

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work,

family, and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 32(2), 198-215.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90147-2

Korsgaard, S. (2007). Mompreneurship as a challenge to the growth ideology of

entrepreneurship. Kontur, 16(1), 42-45.

Krueger, N. F. J. (2003). ‘The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship’. In Acs,

Z. J. and Audretsch, D. B.

(Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and

Introduction. New York: Springer, 105–40.

Krueger, N. F. J. (2003). ‘The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship’. In Acs,

Z. J. and Audretsch, D. B.

(Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and

Introduction. New York: Springer, 105–40.

Krueger, Jr, N. F. (2003). The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. In Acs,

Z. J. and Audretsch, D. B.(Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An

Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction. New York: Springer, 105–40.

Krueger Jr, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of

entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0

Levinson, D. J. (1959). Role, personality, and social structure in the

organizational setting. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2),

170-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040261


Lindquist, M. J., Sol, J., & Van Praag, M. (2015). Why do entrepreneurial

parents have entrepreneurial children? Journal of Labor Economics, 33(2), 269-

296. https://doi.org/10.1086/678493

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and

future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161.

https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638801400202

McKelvie A, Wiklund J. (2004). How knowledge affects opportunity discovery

and exploitation among new ventures in dynamic markets? In Opportunity

Identification and Entrepreneurial Behavior, Butler JE (ed). Information Age

Publishing: Greenwich, CT, 219–239.

Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social sources of information in opportunity

recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional

forums. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 174-192.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.12.001

Piko, B. F. (2006). Burnout, role conflict, job satisfaction and psychosocial

health among Hungarian health care staff: A questionnaire survey. International

Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(3), 311-318.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.05.003

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role Conflict and Ambiguity

in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391486

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and

benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629-645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.74.3.629

Russo, N. F. (1976). The motherhood mandate. Journal of Social Issues, 32(3),

143-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02603.x

Schwartz, F. N. (1989). Management women and the new facts of life. Women in

Management Review, 4(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001789

Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-

opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.


Shapero, A. (1982). Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D.

Sexton and K. Vesper, eds., The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 72–90.

Singh, R., Hills, G.E., Hybels, R.C., & Lumpkin, G.T. (1999). Opportunity

recognition through social network characteristics of entrepreneurs. In Frontiers

of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 228–241. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1999). Gender and careers: Present experiences

and emerging trends. In G. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship

research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3(1),

119-138.


HOW WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP ROLES AFFECT THEIR

LEADERSHIP STYLES IN FAMILY FIRMS

John James Carter III

The University of Texas at Tyler

Marilyn Young

The University of Texas at Tyler

ABSTRACT

Growing numbers of women are taking leadership positions in family firms.

As environmental conditions change, a clear understanding of the leadership of

women in family firms is needed. Using the theoretical lens of stewardship

theory, we examined women’s leadership in family firms. We employed a

qualitative case study approach and grounded theory analysis involving 15 U.S.

family firms. Our findings revealed four leadership roles for women: Rising

Stars, Team Players, Matriarchs, and Dominant CEOs. We relate these roles to

associated leadership styles and provide suggestions for family firm

practitioners, researchers, and advisors.

family firms, leadership roles, leadership styles, grounded theory,

case study approach

INTRODUCTION

Although scholars have expressed interest in the roles of women in family

firms, the topic of women as leaders in family firms is under researched. Women

have been described in terms of supporting roles (Gillis-Donovan & Moynihan-

Brandt, 1990; Rowe & Hong, 2000) or secondary roles (Frishkoff & Brown, 1996;

Danes & Olson, 2003) or family roles (Sharma, 2004; Jimenez, 2009), but never in

primary or leadership roles to our knowledge. Therefore, we propose that there is a

lack of understanding concerning the roles of women leaders in family firms. To

enhance the understanding of the leadership of women in family firms, we identify

four leadership roles for women: Rising Stars, Team Players, Matriarchs, and

Dominant CEOs and explore the leadership styles associated with these types of

women leaders.

In growing numbers, women are taking on leadership roles in family firms.

Researchers report that women CEOs or presidents lead 24 percent of family-owned

businesses; the next successor is a woman in 31.3 percent of family firms, and that


60 percent of family businesses have women in top management positions (Mass

Mutual American Family Business Survey, 2007). Additionally, female family

members are more interested in joining the family firm at 41% of the companies

reporting. In terms of future CEOs, 70% of the respondent firms are considering a

woman, and 30% are strongly considering a woman for the top position (EY &

Kennesaw State, 2014). In comparison, women managed about five percent of

family firms in 1997 (Arthur Anderson /MassMutual American Family Business

Survey, 1997) and owned less than five percent of all U. S. businesses in 1972

(Nelton, 1998). In comparison to non-family businesses, recent reports show that

women hold only 4.2 % of CEO positions (21 of 500) in America’s 500 largest

companies as listed on the Fortune 500 in 2016 (Zarya, 2016). Women have made

great progress in family firms over the past few decades, but there still is a long way

to go for them to reach parity with men.

Family firms are major contributors to the world economy with an estimated

70% to 90% of the global GDP and 50% to 80 % of jobs created worldwide (EY

& Kennesaw State, 2014). In the U. S., family firms are also important economic

drivers with 35% of Fortune 500 firms being family controlled and family

businesses generating 64% of the GDP (Statistic Brain, 2017). For this study, a

working definition of a family firm is a company in which the governance and/or

management are controlled by one family or a small number of families and in

which behavior in the firm reflects the vision and values of the controlling family

or families (Chua, Chrisman & Sharma, 1999).

Leadership is a skill used to influence followers in an organization to work

enthusiastically towards goals specifically identified for the common good

(Barrow, 1977; Cyert, 2006; Plsek & Wilson, 2001). The role a woman leader

plays in an organization may affect her leadership style, the approach she takes

to influencing followers towards goals in her family firm. Specifically, we

examine the questions: What are the evolving leadership roles of women in

family firms and how do these roles affect women’s leadership styles in family

firms?

We studied 15 small to medium-sized multigenerational family firms with at

least one woman involved in a leadership position, following a case study approach

with detailed retrospective interviews of firm leaders. See Table 1. The transcribed

interviews were analyzed through an iterative grounded theory approach, leading to

a typology of women’s leadership roles, a model of the evolving leadership roles and

leadership styles of women in family firms, and four propositions. Although our

study was not longitudinal in nature, an important contribution of the study is a


conceptualization of the behavioral aspects of leadership roles and styles among

women in family firms over long-term time spans. The average family firm tenure

of our women respondents was 22.7 years, which is roughly equivalent to one family

firm generation. Therefore, this study should greatly aid researchers, practitioners,

and family firm advisors in their understanding of women family leaders in family

firms.

CONCEPTUAL GROUNDING

The next section of the paper examines current theory in the following areas

of family business studies: stewardship theory, women’s roles in family firms,

women’s leadership styles in organizations, and women’s leadership styles in

family firms.

Stewardship Theory

Although stewardship theory and agency theory both address individual-level

behaviors and firm-level governance, scholars have turned to stewardship theory to

explain aspects relevant to family firms, such as noneconomic goals and family

involvement (Madison, Holt, Kellermanns, & Ranft, 2016). Built on the disciplines

of sociology and psychology, stewardship theory points to instances in which a

manager is not motivated by individual goals, but rather behaves as an overseer or

steward whose objectives are in alignment with those of the firm (Donaldson &

Davis, 1991; Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997; Corbetto & Salvato, 2004).

The behavior of the steward reflects pro-organizational, collectivistic goals, rather

than individualistic and self-serving goals. In contrast, agency theory is built on an

industrial organization (IO) economics framework and draws on the property rights

literature and transaction cost economics (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Fama &

Jensen, 1983; Eisenhardt, 1989a). In agency theory, a principal delegates work to

another (agent) who performs that work. The assumptions of agency theory are that

people are boundedly rational, self-interested, and opportunistic.

According to stewardship theory, managers seek rewards that are intrinsic,

such as growth, achievement, and affiliation, rather than extrinsic rewards as in

agency theory. The steward’s actions in behalf of the organization may also

benefit the steward, linking the two together (Corbetto & Salvato, 2004). Family

leaders may have higher goals to benefit the business and the family, rather than

self-serving economic goals (Miller & LeBreton-Miller, 2006). Zahra (2003)


highlighted the stewardship perspective in which owner-managers are likely to

act as good stewards of the firm’s resources. Moreover, a key aspect of the

stewardship perspective is altruism, where the owner-managers attempt to

benefit the organization and its stakeholders and not simply satisfy their own

needs (Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997). In another sense, altruism

means placing the objectives of the business ahead of the objectives of the

individual (Miller & LeBreton-Miller, 2006). An important instance of altruistic

behavior occurs when incumbent generation family leaders choose actions that

favor intergenerational succession, rather than their own financial gain (Meier &

Schier, 2016).

Women’s Roles in Family Firms

Typically, women have played roles related to the family side of the firm, such

as spouse, daughter, parent, in-law, and family leader, as opposed to the business

side (Jimenez, 2009). For many years, women have served behind the scenes as

household managers and child care providers (Sharma, 2004). Women have been

cast in secondary roles, which were poorly paid and not properly acknowledged, and

carried role labels, such as mom, spouse, caretaker, sounding board, negotiator, and

bookkeeper (Frishkoff & Brown, 1996; Danes & Olson 2003). Additionally, the role

of daughter-in-law has often been overlooked in family firms, which has been known

to lead to problems with negative consequences for the family, such as divorce,

which may even drive the family business into bankruptcy (Marotz-Baden &

Mattheis, 1994).

Negative roles for women in family firms have been captured in the notion of

invisibility. The concept of invisible women in family firms has been widely

described in the literature (Dumas, 1989, 1990, 1992). Invisibility occurs because of

two factors: one external and one internal to women in family firms (Gillis-Donovan

& Moynihan-Brandt, 1990; Salganicoff, 1990). First, social forces propagate

typecasting and discrimination against women in society and this is reflected into the

family business. Family culture may echo these social forces and limit the role of

women in family firms by creating rules to guide behavior among family members

(Hollander & Bukoowitz, 1990). Secondly, women may place limitations on

themselves in their roles in the family firm (Salganicoff, 1990). These limiting

factors have led to observations that women are invisible in family firms and that

women have been marginalized without decision making power (Cesaroni & Sentuti,

2014).


Hollander and Bukowitz (1990) reported on two roles for women in family

firms: the over-nurturer and the invisible woman. The over-nurturer is excessive in

her role of mothering; by doing too much of a good thing, she may suffocate family

members in the family business. The invisible woman is not honored or respected

for her achievements and qualifications, either inside or outside of the family firm, to

such a degree that she may not only feel disrespected, but invisible as well. In

another study, Iannarelli (1992) found three types of women in family firms – those

interested in leading the business, invisible women who acted behind the scenes with

little formal recognition, and women who worked in family firms, but were not

interested in leadership. In a study of family firms in Brazil, Curimbala (2002)

discovered three separate roles for daughters: professional, invisible, and anchors.

Factors affecting these roles included the daughters’ positions in the family in

regards to birth order and the presence of male siblings. Professionals worked in

larger family firms with male family members and acted as professionals trying to

separate business from family matters. Invisible heiresses were part of large families

with older brothers and male family members, who made these heiresses appear to

be unnecessary and invisible. Anchors were heiresses in families with

predominately female offspring and were viewed as necessary for firm survival.

Echoing studies from the 1990s, Cappuyns (2007) found that women are

expected to play household and child care roles, but they ran into obstacles against

playing larger roles in the family business. Women were, therefore, restricted in their

participation as leaders in family firms. In contrast, Cole (1997) found that the

traditionally feminine roles, such as nurturing and peacekeeping and listening, may

carryover from the family to the business and be helpful to both. Thus, women

should have a valued place in the family firm.

Women’s Leadership Styles in Organizations

We turn to the larger research domain of organizational studies to examine

women’s leadership styles. There have been a number of research studies to

examine whether men and women exhibit different leadership styles (Vera & Dean,

2005; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). In early organizational research, scholars reported

that there was no difference between the leadership styles of men and women

(Powell, 1990). This argument followed from comparing women and men in the

same managerial role in organizations. This line of reasoning suggested that

managers were concerned more with organizational effectiveness, and thus

subordinates judged them on their managerial skills, rather than on the basis of


gender (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). However, many studies have showed differences

between the two genders. For example, Alimo-Metcalf (2002) found that women

rated higher on transformational leadership than men. Transformational leaders

exhibited charisma, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation

(Vallejo, 2009; Bass, 1985). In other studies, women showed more trust, flexibility

and cooperation, and less directive behavior than men (Vera & Dean, 2005; Eagly

& Johnson). Additional research regarding organizational leadership styles reported

that women were less hierarchical, take more time to make decisions, and seek

more information on others’ opinions than do men (Jackson, Alberti, & Snipes,

2014).

In another organizational research trend, scholars labeled leadership

characteristics and leadership styles as masculine and feminine but proposed that

either gender may employ the characteristics or style (Burke & Collins, 2001). In

the U.S., there has been agreement among researchers that the masculine leadership

style, which is productivity-driven and result oriented, was more successful

(Geddes, 2011; Jackson, Alberti, & Snipes, 2014). Hasan et al, (2011) described

men as direct in decision-making and autocratic and that women were less

aggressive and more nurturing. Eagly and Johnson (1990) earlier proposed that

female leadership was consistently democratic and male leaders more autocratic.

In this research, context was also very important for leadership style. If the leader

was in a role congruent with their gender, they were more likely to organize

activities and accomplish relevant tasks (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Similarly,

Schieman and McMullen (2008) found that women taking on masculine attributes

were not highly rated by subordinates.

Women’s Leadership Styles in Family Firms

From the relatively sparse studies on women’s leadership styles in family

firms, we can make some comments. Researchers have found that women are

more flexible, balanced, collaborative, caring, and loyal leaders than are men in

family firms (Dumas 1990; Salganicoff, 1990; Vera & Dean, 2005). Women

supply intuitive thinking and are very loyal to the family firm, while expressing

concerns for the needs of all members, sensitivity to individual needs, and

flexibility in roles and decisions (Capuyns, 2007; Salganicoff, 1990). Therefore,

women provide unique benefits to their family firms and contribute in large

measure to the success and survival of the business.


While women benefit family firms, there are reciprocal factors in which

family firms benefit women. Women continue to bear the major responsibility in

child rearing; however, there are several advantages provided by family firms for

women, including flexibility in work scheduling and family concern for their

children, access to male dominated industries, and job security after leave

(Salganicoff, 1990). Family firms have more centralized and informal decision-

making processes than non-family firms in which managers are constrained by

more formal control systems (Daily & Dollinger, 1992; Morris, Williams, Allen, &

Avila, 1997). This informality may lead to increased flexibility in decision making

(Poza, Alfred, & Maheshkwari, 1997), which, in turn, may have contributed to the

increased numbers of women in family firms as gender bias is reduced in the U. S.

Compared to corporate businesses, family firms are often less bureaucratic, which

allows owner/managers to make quicker decisions when needed and to respond to

environmental changes more rapidly (Dreaux, 1990; Ward, 1987).

In summary, there is a substantial theoretical foundation of research on

stewardship theory in family business and there is conceptual grounding on

women’s roles in family firms and women’s leadership styles in organizations,

resulting in the beginning of the discussion on women’s leadership styles in family

firms. However, there is a gap in the literature in that the leadership roles and

leadership styles of women in family firms are not clearly delineated. Women are

serving as leaders in family firms in growing numbers and the roles they play and

the styles they use vary between individuals and change over time for individuals.

Our study seeks to add to existing evidence concerning women’s leadership roles

and styles in family firms.

METHOD

We explored the evolving leadership roles and leadership styles of women in

family firms using a qualitative case study approach of 15 companies. Data from a

series of 38 in-depth, semi-structured interviews were analyzed using grounded

theory methodology (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Our study

was designed to build on existing theory in family firm studies.


The Case Study Approach

Following the conceptual grounding in the previous section of this paper, our

study requires a flexible research program in order to increase knowledge of the

leadership roles and leadership styles of women in family firms. The case study

approach is suitable for studies involving ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Eisenhardt,

1989) and focuses on involved participants (Howorth & Ali, 2001). Case study

researchers seek to connect ideas of global significance from localized findings

(Chenail, 2009). A case study is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a

contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (Yin, 2003: 13). The

researcher may utilize case studies to explore existing circumstances and to offer

explanations leading toward theory building (Lambrecht, 2005).

The case study investigator may purposively choose cases that are likely to

replicate or extend the theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The researcher may also select

cases that illustrate applicable concepts (Patton & Applebaum, 2003). Therefore,

qualitative samples may have the objective of developing theory, rather than testing

it (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Qualitative methods help researchers examine

the complicated relationships among components in a particular case. In

exploratory studies, case studies may be useful in developing new theory compared

to the natural science approach (Patton & Applebaum, 2005). Case study

researchers may look for critical cases to prove their main findings or confirming

cases, disconfirming cases, extreme cases, or typical cases (Siggelkow, 2007).

Increasing the number of cases involved in a particular study adds confidence

to findings until the responses become repetitive. Yin (2003) compared the

addition of cases to the addition of experiments, looking for replication.

Eisenhardt (1989) proposed that researchers should continue adding cases in an

iterative process until the incremental improvement is minimal. Our study follows

the positivistic case study approach (Leppaaho, Plakoyiannaki, & Dimitratos,

2016).

Study Participants

One of the authors obtained formal permission from their university’s Internal

Review Board to conduct research using human participants at the beginning of this

project. All respondents were advised of confidentiality and anonymity in their

participation. All names of people, places, and companies have been disguised. We

refer to the respondent family firms in the study as Company A through O with the


letters randomly assigned. We received assistance in finding respondents from many

individuals, including local business leaders, university colleagues, friends,

acquaintances, and students. We included one firm in the study upon the

recommendation of an early respondent. The authors have no ties to any of the

family firms contacted for this study. One of the authors has experience in owning

and managing a family business, which gave some insight in the research process.

We contacted approximately 50 family firms for the study, employing the

requirements of multi-generational family involvement, presence of a woman family

member in the leadership of the company, and willingness and compatibility to

participate in the research project. We concentrated on the focal woman leader(s) in

each family firm, interviewing them and other family members and/or managers who

knew them well. We collected data over an eight-month time period. After

interviewing respondents from 15 family firms, we found a level of redundancy of

responses (Merriam, 2009) with little new information forthcoming at the end of this

time. A copy of the interview elicitation questions is available upon request.

Firms from a variety of industries participated in the study, including five retail

companies, five service companies, two restaurant operations, two wholesale firms,

and one manufacturing company. The number of employees in the respondent firms

ranged from 11 to 430, with a median of 40. The respondent businesses varied in

age from 30 years to 150 years, and the generations of family participation in the

companies ranged from two to four. Each company involved from four to 10 family

members in management and ownership. The firms were located in two U.S. states,

but several have expanded beyond the local region or own multiple, but related,

businesses (see Table 1). All of the family firms remain in operation except for

Company D which was closed

Among the 38 respondents, there were 29 family-member owner/managers,

four family-member managers, three non-family managers, and two former

owners (see Table 2). There were 24 women respondents and 14 men

respondents. The total number of respondents exceeds the number suggested by

Reay (2014). In grouping the 35 family member respondents, seven were first

generation family members, 15 were in the second generation, 11 were in the

third generation, and two were in the fourth generation.


Table 1: Respondent Companies


Table 2: Individual Respondents


Data Collection

The research requirements for the respondent companies were (1.) family

control of management and ownership, (2.) at least 25 years in business and

multiple generation participation, and (3.) at least one woman in a leadership

position. The focus was on established family firms as opposed to start-up

companies. We began with an exploratory interview of a senior family member

to obtain consent for participation in the study and determine suitability of the

firm. Next, we interviewed available owners and managers in the organization.

The interviews were semi-structured and involved open-ended questions

concerning women’s roles in the leadership of the firm. For example, one

question was: “Has the treatment of women in your family business changed in

your experience over the years? Please describe.” The data collected consisted

almost entirely of qualitative interviews along with some company documents.

In-depth interviews. The authors conducted in-depth interviews with 38

respondents, which were tape-recorded with each respondent individually at each

family firm. The authors transcribed about 28 hours of interviews, which varied

in length from 30 minutes to one hour, averaging 45 minutes each. The

transcribed interviews totaled 320 pages, for an average of 8.4 pages per

respondent.

Documents. For each interview, the researchers carefully read information from

each respondent company’s website and relevant information online. Although

observations and documents about each company were collected, they were

supplemental in nature. The in-depth interview transcriptions formed the basis

of the data analysis.

Data Analysis

We followed the analytic techniques and procedures described by Strauss and

Corbin (1998) as grounded theory analysis. First, we analyzed each case separately

and developed case histories of each company (available upon request). Then, we

performed cross case analysis of the data, looking for insights and patterns across the

cases. The transcribed interviews were the basis for our study as we coded and

analyzed the data, using the NVivo10 qualitative software program. Merriam (2009)

described this procedure as “simultaneous coding of raw data and the construction of


categories that capture relevant characteristics of the document’s content” (Merriam

2009:205). We identified and separated important thoughts and phrases and labeled

them as "references" and then "nodes" (which were very similar references) in the

NVivo system. This process is similar to unitizing methods described by Glaser and

Strauss (1967) and Lincoln and Guba (1985). In the midst of the analysis, we

developed an initial model to organize our thoughts in the project. Simultaneously, as

we progressed through the steps of coding, we refined and expanded our typology of

the “Leadership Roles of Women Family Members in Family Firms” and our model

of “The Evolving Leadership Roles and Leadership Styles of Women in Family

Firms” through several iterations until we arrived at our final typology and model

(see Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1: Types of Leadership Roles of Women Family Members in Family

Firms


In the first step of the analysis, called “open coding” by Strauss and Corbin

(1998), we began with 320 pages of transcripts and through a comparative process

identified 811 "references" or incidences of significant, recurring expressions,

which we placed in 636 "nodes" or sub-categories.

In the second step, “axial coding” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), we placed the

636 "nodes" or sub-categories into 391 categories, labeling the categories by

company and respondent (A1 through O3), (see Table 3). This is the category

level of analysis and the beginning of interpretative analysis of the data (Harry,

Sturges, & Klingner, 2005).


Table 3: Axial Coding

The third step of the process, referred to as “selective coding” by Strauss and

Corbin (1998), involves the development of themes across the cases. In this step,

we coded the data into 13 central categories (see Table 4). We identified clusters

of thoughts and phrases and looked for unifying phrases and connective language

to build a framework for analysis (Cresswell, 1998). Among the differences in the

15 family firms in the study, some recurring themes emerged. We traced these

themes across the cases and built a theoretic base to understand the leadership roles

of women in family firms. According to Strauss and Corbin, 1998, this is Level 4

analysis – testing the themes. From this theoretical base, we developed a typology


and then four propositions and a model to explain the relationships of these

propositions. Strauss and Corbin (1998) refer to these steps as Level 5 –

interrelating the explanations and Level 6 – delineating the theory. In the rest of

the paper, we explain the typology and the four propositions and then examine our

findings compared to the literature in a separate discussion section.

Table 4: Selective Coding—Central Categories

FINDINGS AND PROPOSITIONS

Early in the data collection process, it became apparent that differences

existed among our 22 family women respondents concerning levels of ownership

and management. To capture these differences, we conceptualized a two-by-two

matrix using the level of ownership and formal management authority as axes

(see Figure 1). We labeled the four quadrants as follows: Rising Star --low level

of ownership and low level of formal management authority; Team Player -- low

level of ownership and high formal management authority; Matriarch -- high

level of ownership and low formal management authority; and Dominant CEO --

high level of ownership and high formal management authority. As the data

collection progressed, we found that the four types fit the respondents in our

study. Of the 22 women family member respondents, we classified four

currently as Rising Stars; eight as Team Players; four as Matriarchs; and six as

Dominant CEOs. The four roles are progressive with respondents constantly


changing roles and evolving over time (see Table 5). These women respondents

ranged in tenure in their family firms from two years to 40 years, averaging 22.7

years.

Rising Star. In this study, a Rising Star was a daughter or wife who has

entered the family firm and progressed through stages of successor development,

such as training and education in the company, and has risen to the rank of

manager, but has no ownership in the company. All of the women family

member respondents in this study have worked through the position of Rising

Star inside the family business, except for Respondent L1, who co-founded her

family firm with her husband. For example, at Company L, Respondent 2

described his daughter, Respondent L3, “She has worked for us since she was in

high school and then college. Now, she does all of the landscape estimating and

lawn maintenance estimating for Company L. She also does some of the

marketing or creative work that we do here at Company L.”

Table 5: Women Family Members Respondents—Leadership Roles in Family

Firms

Team Player. A Team Player was a daughter or sister who has advanced

through periods of socialization to the family firm and growth as a family firm

manager to a formal leadership position in the family firm, but is not the CEO.

She may lead a division of the company (Respondent F1, N1) and/or hold a top


management position (Respondent A1, A2, E1, H1, I2, and O1). She owns a

share of the company, but not a controlling interest. She is highly respected and

acknowledged for her work in the family firm. At Company I, Respondent 2

explained her position in the company, “I am the total operations manager. I will

not ask anybody to do something that I am not willing to do. I am not anybody’s

boss – I work with them. I am not a superior telling them what to do – I work

with them. I do not like “uppity” management. I am a team leader.”

Matriarch. A Matriarch is a wife and/or mother who owned a controlling

interest in the family business with her spouse (Respondents B1, K1, L1, and

O2). The term “Matriarch” refers to an older woman who is powerful within a

family or organization (Dictionary.com, 2017). In this study, the Matriarch has

decided to take a lesser role in the formal management of the company, but is

well versed in the company and takes part in major decisions. She is a powerful

figure in the family firm. At Company L, Respondent 1 described her situation,

“As time has gone on over the past five years, I am not as hands-on, but I do

know what is going on in the business. I help my husband make major decisions.

I am “in and out” of the offices, but I just got to the point that I did not want to

work day-to-day. My role has evolved. I still am involved in major decisions

and I do talk with the employees off and on, but not like my husband does every

day.”

Dominant CEO. A Dominant CEO is the recognized leader and controlling

owner of the family business. She is the chosen successor (Respondents C1, G1,

I1, M1) or has taken over the company after the death of her husband

(Respondents D1, J1). She is a strong and independent leader who is committed

to the success of her family business. She fits with national trends of increasing

numbers of women CEOs in family firms (Mass Mutual American Family

Business Survey, 2007). Respondent 1 at Company I explained, “My father

chose me as the leader even though that was unusual for the time period. I guess

he saw that I had the interest in the business. There have been times when my

brother does not have the people skills or personality. He has never really just

loved the tire business. My dad knew that I would take on the business and take

hold of it. Every time that something went wrong, I was the one that the

employees would come to for help.”


Progression through Leadership Roles

The leadership roles of women in family firms are constantly evolving, not

static (see Figure 2). On the left side facing of Figure 2, a series of arrows

denotes the upward mobility of women in family firms. The typical progression

through the leadership roles follows a pattern of four periods: a period before

joining the family firm, a period of socialization to the family firm, a period of

growth as a family firm manager, and a period of leadership in the family firm.

Period before joining the family firm. Joining the family by birth or

marriage, a female family member learns about the family firm through part-time

work. She may work elsewhere for another business for a period of time. It is

important for the female to learn about attitudes concerning gender that may

pervade her family firm and the industry in which it operates.

Period of socialization to the family firm. Upon the invitation of the

incumbent leader, she decides to enter the family firm. In the socialization

process, she acquires training and education in the family business and learns to

understand and manage the gender composition of family members within her

successor generation. She becomes a Rising Star in her family firm during this

period of time.

Period of growth as a family firm manager. As a Rising Star, she

experiences a period of growth as a family firm manager. She comes to accept

the shared values of her family, and thus conflict is reduced within and between

generations in her family firm. She manages the responsibility of child care,

often with assistance from her parents. The incumbent leader chooses the

successor(s), and a partial division of ownership occurs in which she is given or

buys some stock in the company. During this period of growth as a family firm

manager, she becomes a Team Player, a recognized leader in the business.

Period of leadership in the family firm. During the period of leadership in

the family firm, many women in this study remained as Team Players or top

managers for many years, earning respect from other family members and

outside stakeholders as well.

In several cases, a Team Player’s husband became the CEO of the family

firm (Respondents D1, J1, K1, and O2). At this point, the Team Player often

moved into the role of Matriarch, where she took less of a formal role in the daily

operation of the family firm, but continued in a position of power as a co-owner

of the business with her spouse.


Upon the death or retirement of the incumbent leader, some Team Players

may become Dominant CEOs in the family firm as the chosen successor. At

Company C and Company I, women were chosen over brothers to become

Dominant CEOs. At Company G and Company M, women were chosen as

Dominant CEOS, but no brothers were involved. A Matriarch may also become

a Dominant CEO upon the death of her husband, the incumbent family leader,

which occurred at Company D and Company J.

Leadership Styles of Women in Family Firms

The leadership styles of women in family firms also change over time,

roughly corresponding to their leadership role (see Figure 2). On the right side

facing of Figure 2, a series of diamond shaped boxes denotes leadership styles

associated with the four leadership roles described above. In this section, we

propose relationships between the leadership roles and leadership styles

described by our respondents.

Rising Stars

Most often in our respondent firms, Rising Stars were young women who

were new to the business and fully aware that they did not know everything. They

understood the importance of listening. For example, at Company D, Respondent

2 stated, “It is important to listen, and I think women are better at listening.”

When asked about her leadership style, at Company L, Respondent 3 explained, “I

would say that I listen and then lead because my parents have more wisdom. It is

definitely, a listen and then lead approach. My parents have so much experience,

and they are generally right…It has been said that the older you get, the smarter

your parents get.”

Our respondents also understood the importance of learning and developing

as managers and future company leaders. At Company F, Respondent 4

described her training as a manager.

I don’t really have a permanent position. But as far as

this year goes, I’m doing financial analyst stuff,

generalizing the cost per load, and what we’re making

on each load, and then trying to problem solve to make it

more efficient on transport and commercial fuels. That

will be the first part of the year and then I’m going to


help propane convert their computer system that they’re

using now to do orders and whatever else. After that

they’ll have their next board meeting and decide where I

go from there.

The Rising Star is being groomed for future leadership. Therefore, we

propose the following:

Team Players

In our study, Team Players were experienced managers in the family firm,

who had also gained some ownership in the business, but not a controlling

interest. These women held positions of authority and were part of the top

management team. In describing their leadership style, they often referred to

being part of a team and allowing others to participate in decision making. At

Company E, Respondent 1 defined her leadership style as follows: “It is

democratic. Every employee would tell you that they have confidence to ask for

forgiveness rather than permission. They have the confidence to make decisions

and go ahead.”

At Company F, Respondent 1 emphasized a reasonable approach to

leadership style, “I would like to think that my style is firm, but fair. I am pretty

demanding; however, I think that I am reasonable enough. I would like to be

described as demanding, but not unreasonable or unbearable. I love to have fun

and laugh.” At Company H, Respondent 1 stated, “You see all types. There are

some heavy-handed strong-willed women. I think women have a more

emotional link to leadership than men do.”

At Company O, Respondent 1, who was an equal partner with her two

brothers in a sibling ownership team, described her leadership style, “I am much

more collaborative in my approach than my dad. I have a lot more structure than

my brother who is younger than me. My approach is to create as much clarity as

possible.”


These observations lead us to propose the following:

Matriarchs

In this study, a Matriarch was a controlling family business owner with her

husband. She was an experienced family business manager in her 50s or 60s

with an average of over 25 years in the firm. All of the Matriarchs happened to

be mothers of daughters, who were also working in the family business as Rising

Stars or Team Players. Although successful in the family business as managers,

the Matriarchs also put a high value on developing their children. For example, at

Company B, Respondent 1 said the following, “One of the things I appreciate the

most about a family business is working with my kids: spending time with them,

seeing their progress, and having business conversations while not at work.”

Further, they were not motivated by extrinsic rewards or acknowledgment. For

example, at Company O, Respondent 2 described her situation:

My husband always said that he and I were equal, but it

was his 900 shares. We were able to pay his brothers and

sisters for their treasury stock. It was his business. He

did not have to do that for me. He was always in charge

even though he said that we were equal partners. I did not

need any more feathers in my hat or more work to do.

Matriarchs exhibited genuine warmth and concern for their employees and

family members, but underneath they were strong like steel and maintained

behavioral boundaries. At Company L, Respondent 1 explained:

My leadership style is that I care about every employee

that works for us-- from the one who mows lawns to the

ones who wash dishes. You have to do your job. There

has to be accountability. With my personality as a

woman, I am very nice and courteous, but at the same

time, you need to do your job. If you do not do your

job, you need to be held accountable for that.


Therefore, we propose the following:

Dominant CEOs

In this study, there were six Dominant CEOs, women who led the

management of the family firm and owned a controlling ownership interest

individually. Although these women were strong leaders, they balanced task and

relationship very well in their companies. Compared to Team Players, who use a

participative or collaborative leadership style as members of a team without

individual controlling ownership of the company, Dominant CEOs do have

individual controlling power and authority. The leadership power emanates from

them, and, therefore, they make decisions and delegate responsibility. For

example, at Company G, Respondent 1 described her leadership style as follows:

I lead in some instances by example. I work on the

business, not in the business. It is a little bit different.

Leadership to me is all about inspiring people to want to

excel and excelling yourself. Doing well yourself is a way

to inspire people and making sure that the ones

underneath you have the tools to learn and grow.

Further, at Company C, Respondent 1 explained her leadership style, “I

delegate a lot actually. I shut down the catering business. Financially, I have to be

smarter…I am learning to live day by day. None of us know what the future holds.

I learned to delegate—now, life is great.” At Company C, Respondent 2 confirmed

her employer’s statement, “Respondent 1 has her way things are done. Out of

respect, you learn her ways. I had my ways but hers were more efficient.”

As Dominant CEOs, women family firm leaders have to deal with men as

employees, which is occasionally troublesome. At Company D, Respondent 1

took over the leadership of the business after her husband died suddenly and

unexpectedly. She experienced some “push back” from employees as she

described:


Women have to overcome the fact that some men are

resentful because you are a woman and you are telling

them what to do. Also, that can be exaggerated in

certain cultures. Some men feel that they do not have to

do what I tell them to do because I should be home

cooking supper. I experienced this and it is the truth.

There is a saying that men can be aggressive, but if a

woman tries to be assertive, more than aggressive, they

look at you as being a b____. I think that women have

to recognize that and understand it and work with it.

Women have to be careful in how they present things.

There is a lot of psychology involved.

Family firm leaders, male or female, have to give directions and expect

employees to produce results. Women CEOs may have additional issues as

described above.

These findings lead us to propose the following:

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our typology of leadership roles of women family members in family firms

and our model of the evolving leadership roles and leadership styles of women in

family firms are worthy of further comment. We believe that our typology and

process model contribute to an understanding of how the leadership roles and

leadership styles of women are changing in family firms. We conclude with some

comments concerning our study’s limitations and suggest some ideas for future

research.

Leadership Roles of Women Family Members in Family Firms

In our typology of women’s leadership roles, we addressed women in primary

roles for the first time in the literature to our knowledge. We based the typology

on the key elements of level of ownership and formal management authority (see


Figure 1). Previous studies referred to women’s roles as supporting (Gillis-

Donovan & Moynihan-Brandt, 1990; Rowe & Hong, 2000) or secondary

(Frishkoff & Brown, 1996; Danes & Olson, 2003). Our typology addressed all

women family members, not just spouses (Posa & Messer, 2001) or daughters

(Curimbala, 2002). Also, our typology addressed women in business roles, not

family roles (Sharma, 2004: Jimenez, 2009).

Previous studies described invisible women in typologies (Hollander &

Bukowitz, 1990; Iannarelli, 1992; Curimbala, 2002), but invisible women were not

a part of our study. According to recent surveys, conditions for women in family

firms are improving and more women are taking on leadership roles (Mass Mutual

American Family Business Survey, 2007; EY & Kennesaw State, 2014). Although

invisible women undoubtedly continue to exist in family firms, we did not focus on

them. We found four leadership roles; Rising Star, Team Player, Matriarch, and

Dominant CEO. None of the four roles we described included invisible women,

although the Matriarch may have come closest. We found the Matriarchs in our

study to be honored and respected, not marginalized without decision making

power (Cesaroni & Sentuti, 2014). The Matriarchs’ qualifications are noted

professionally, not ignored (Cole, 1997). Several women respondents (F1, N1, G1,

and I1) described breakthroughs by acquiring leadership positions in trade

associations in male-dominated industries. We also report on two daughters

(Respondents C1 and G1) who were chosen over their brothers as successors.

These cases provide two examples of breaking the glass ceiling previously imposed

by fathers (Dumas 1989, 1990).

In their typologies of women in family firms, Iannarelli (1992) listed leaders as

one role and Curimbala (2002) described two leadership roles: (1) professionals as

women working with many male family members and (2) anchors as women with

few male family members in the company. In comparison, our study provides four

categories of women leaders with original terminology. The term “Rising Stars”

has been commonly used in many other settings but has not been used before in

family firm studies to our knowledge. Women in family firms which we call Rising

Stars have been recognized as next generation leaders and potential successors for

many years (Birley, 2002; Handler, 1994). Women as “Team Players” have been

described in studies of groups or teams of successors (Cater, Kidwell, & Camp,

2016). We borrow the term “Matriarch” from current American vernacular usage.

The term denotes a woman of uncommon strength and bravery, which we have

contrasted to the term invisible women above. Growing numbers of women are

becoming CEOs in family firms (Mass Mutual American Family Business Survey,


2007), which we describe as Dominant CEOs or sole leaders of family firms. All

four of the terms that we apply in our study are positive and uplifting to women in

their rise in family firms.

Further, we describe women in the four roles of leaders in family firms as

predominantly stewards, who seek the best for their family business above self-

serving goals (Donaldson & Davis, 1991; Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997;

Corbetto & Salvato, 2004). Of the four roles, Team Players and Matriarchs clearly

exhibit pro-company behaviors, placing the objectives of their family firms ahead

of their own objectives (Miller & LeBreton-Miller, 2006) and acting altruistically

toward other team members (Team Players) and other family members

(Matriarchs). By working harmoniously and sharing their skills and talents, Team

Players benefit the family firm, while Matriarchs work without great fanfare or title

to benefit both the business and the family beyond simply satisfying their own

needs (Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997).

Leadership Styles of Women Family Members in Family Firms

Early organizational studies reported little difference in leadership style

between men and women (Powell, 1990: Eagly & Johnson, 1990). However,

later studies found differences between the genders with women scoring higher

in transformational leadership (Alimo-Metcalf, 2002), women showing more

trust, flexibility and cooperation, and less directive behavior than men (Vera &

Dean, 2005; Eagly & Johnson) and women being less hierarchical, taking more

time to make decisions, and seeking more information on others’ opinions than

do men (Jackson, Alberti, & Snipes, 2014). In nearly every case, our

respondents reported differences between the genders. At Company H,

Respondent 1 commented, “I think there are differences between women’s and

men’s leadership styles. I think women have a more emotional link to leadership

than men do.”

Not only did our respondents view women’s leadership styles as different

from men’s, but they also reported distinct differences among women’s

leadership styles in family firms. Our respondents’ answers tended to be

congruent with their leadership roles as Rising Stars, Team Players, Matriarchs,

or Dominant CEOs. For example, at Company B, Respondent 1, speaking as a

Matriarch, replied, “There is absolutely a difference in leadership styles between

men and women...I believe that women are more nurturing.” Similarly,

Respondent I2 speaking as a Team Player, said “I will not ask anybody to do


something that I am not willing to do…I am a team leader.” Overall, we found

that the leadership role of the respondent influenced their view of leadership

style, and we found multiple leadership styles rather than one common

leadership style for all women in family firms.

Organizational research has reported that masculine leadership

characteristics and styles have been preferred over feminine leadership styles

(Geddes, 2011; Jackson, Alberti, & Snipes, 2014). Our respondents reported a

place for both men’s and women’s leadership styles in family firms. For

example, at Company L, Respondent 4 gave his view, “We are a family, so we

are in everything together. My mom and sister will help more with the

marketing and design. I think it really helps to have a male perspective and a

female perspective…I am very much about having men and women in leadership

roles in organizations. My mom and sister are instrumental at Company L as far

as the feel of everything and the menu and all the behind the scenes things.”

Additionally, the role of the Matriarch with the associated leadership style of

nurturing, caring, and boundary setting is appropriate for family firms in

maintaining the “family” dimension (Salganicoff, 1990) and not commonly

associated with masculine leadership.

The family firm literature has reported several factors that benefit women in

family firms, including, flexibility in work scheduling, concern for child care,

and access to male dominated industries (Salganicoff, 1990). Our respondents

confirmed such beneficial aspects. For instance, at Company L, Respondent C is

a young mother who is a Rising Star working in marketing for the company. She

explained her situation, “We have had some opportunities to move out of town.

But here my child can be with me at all times, and I can make my work schedule.

The main reason we stayed in town is that we have the family business and my

parents can help with the child care. It is a big advantage.” According to our

respondents, most of the family firms in our study were in male dominated

industries. Typical of this situation, Company O was in the gasoline distributing

industry. Company O, Respondent 1 described the following, “My position with

the state trade association is vice president this year and will be president next

year. There are only about 90 jobbers in the state. Because I worked for the

association for 3 years and have grown up going to the conventions and have

worked with our company for over 10 years, I have a certain amount of

credibility and recognition.”

Other family firm advantages or benefits found by researchers include

informality and flexibility in decision making (Daily & Dollinger, 1992, Morris,


et al, 1997; Poza, Alfred, & Maheshkwari, 1997). Our respondents also

confirmed these findings. At Company A, Respondent 1 explained, “It is

extremely flexible here, less rigid management styles, particularly coming from

banking where so much is federally regulated. After I got here, the first few

years I walked around and said, ‘Good grief, I can’t believe that they do this.’”

Additionally, at Company G, Respondent 1 stated, “Yes, definitely. It is more

flexible. You can turn things on a dime. You can make a decision to change

something and it can be changed tomorrow and be implemented immediately.”

CONCLUSION

Using a qualitative case study approach and grounded theory analysis of 15

U. S. family firms, we examined the questions: What are the evolving leadership

roles of women in family firms and how do these roles affect women’s

leadership styles over time? Our study provides evidence that women are

advancing as leaders of family businesses using four key roles: Rising Stars,

Team Players, Matriarchs, and Dominant CEOs and employing leadership styles

congruent with those roles. Whereas our qualitative case-study based approach is

rich in detail and description, we recognize its limitations as to sample size and

generalizability. Additionally, we acknowledge that there may be cultural

limitations because this study took place in a North American context.

Overall, because conditions have changed greatly over the past 15 to 20

years (EY, & Kennesaw State, 2014) and much of the family firm research on

women dates from the 1990s, we believe that it is time for scholars to re-address

issues concerning women in family firms. We suggest that future research in

other cultural contexts outside North America could provide additional insight

into women’s leadership roles and leadership styles in family firms. Although

studies concerning the roles of daughters (Dumas 1989, 1990; Hollander &

Bukowitz, 1990; Vera & Dean, 2005) and spouses (Posa & Messer, 2001) exist,

it may be time to update the research in specific roles of women in family firms.

Another suggestion for future research is to re-assess the advantages and

disadvantages for women in managing and owning family firms (Salganicoff,

1990). Finally, scholars may address questions concerning the authenticity of

advances for women in family firms: Are the reported advances real or are they

politically correct facades for keeping things the way they have been?

In this study, we describe the roles of women family firm leaders and the

associated leadership styles. We emphasize that the four roles constantly evolve


with women moving from Rising Star to Team Player to Matriarch to Dominant

CEO as changes in management responsibilities and company ownership occur.

Our study fills an important gap in the understanding of the leadership roles of

women in family firms not previously described to our knowledge in the

literature.

We suggest that scholars, advisors, and practitioners alike could play an

active role in facilitating and providing assistance in developing women leaders

within family firms. When interacting with family firm leaders, scholars and

advisors should carefully consider the leadership roles and leadership styles of

women presented in this study. Advisors should recognize that women may hold

powerful positions of equal responsibility to men. Even though women’s

leadership styles may contain elements, such as caring and nurturing, or team

related elements, such as tendencies to favor collaboration and participation,

women may also possess the strength of steel. Finally, we encourage advisors to

urge practitioners to make full use of their available family human resources,

including women.

REFERENCES

Alimo-Mecalfe, B. (2002). Leadership and gender: A masculine past; a feminine

future. Thematic paper for CERFE Project. Available at

<http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/gender_research_forum/grf

_papers_feb_june/cer_fin_gen_lea_pap.pdf>.

Arthur Andersen/MassMutual. (1997). American Family Business Survey 1997.

Chicago, IL: Kennesaw State University/Loyola University Chicago.

Barrow, J. C. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual

framework. Academy of Management Review, 2, 233–251.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New

York: Free Press.

Birley, S. 2002. Attitudes of owner-managers’ children towards family and

business issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(1): 5-19.

Burke, S., & K. M. Collins (2001). Gender differences in leadership styles and

management skills. Women in Management Review, Vol. 16(5/6), 244-256.


Cappuyns, K. (2007). Women behind the scenes in family businesses. Electronic

Journal of Family Business Studies, 1(1), 38- 61.

Cater, J. J., Kidwell, R., & Camp, K. (2016). Successor team dynamics in family

firms. Family Business Review, Volume 29, Issue 3, 301-326.

Cesaroni, F. M., & Sentuti, A. (2014). Women and family businesses, when

women are left only minor roles. The History of the Family, 19(3), 358-379.

Chenail, R. (2009). Communicating your qualitative research better. Family

Business Review, 22, 105-108.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business

by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19–39.

Cole, P. M. (1997). Women in family business, Family Business Review, 10(4),

353-371.

Corbetto, G. & Salvato, C. 2004. Self-serving or self-actualizing? Models of

man and agency costs in different types of family firms: A commentary on

“Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues

and exploratory evidence.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4): 355-

362.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research, 3rd edition. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curimbala, F. (2002). The dynamics of women’s roles as family business

managers, Family Business Review, 15(3), 239-252.

Cyert, R. (2006). Defining leadership and explicating the process. Nonprofit

Management and Leadership, 1(1), 29–38.

Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1992). An empirical examination of ownership

structure in family and professionally managed firms. Family Business Review,

5(2), 117–136.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997. Toward a stewardship

theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 20-47.


.

, 16(1),

going public. Family Business Review, 3(3), 225–243.Dumas, C. (1989).

Understanding the father-daughter and the father-son dyads in family-owned

businesses. Family Business Review, 2, 31–47.

Dumas, C. (1990). Preparing the new CEO: Managing the father-daughter

succession process in family business. Family Business Review, 3(2), 169–181.

Dumas, C. (1992). Integrating the daughter into family business management.

Entrepreneurship, Theory, and Practice, summer, 41–47.

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy

of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy

Frishkoff, P.A., and Brown, B.M. (1993). Women on the move in family

business, Business Horizons, March- April, 66-70. Reference in Dumas, C.

(1998) Women’s Pathways to Participation and Leadership in the Family-Owned

Firm, Family Business Review, 11(3), 219- 228.

Geddes, D. (2001). Sex roles in management: The impact of varying power of

speech style on union members ‘perception of satisfaction and effectiveness."

The Journal of Psychology, 126(6), 589-607.

Gillis-Donovan, J. & Moynihan-Brad, C. (1990). The Power of invisible women

in the family business, Family Business Review 3(2), 153-167.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies

for qualitative design. Chicago: Aldine.

Handler, W. C. 1994. Succession in family business: A review of the research.

Family Business Review, 7(2): 133-157.

Harry, B., Sturges, K. M., & Klinger, J. K. (2005). Mapping the process: An

exemplar of process and challenges in grounded theory analysis. Educational

Researcher, 34, 3-13.

Hasan, S. A., Irma, Z., & Muhammad, I. S. (2011), The effects of supervisor-

subordinate gender on subordinates’ involvement across managerial functions.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, June, 3(2),

314-324.

Hollander, B. S. & Bukowitz, W. R. (1990). Women, family culture and family

business, Family Business Review, 139-151.

Howorth, C., & Ali, Z. A. (2001). Family business succession in Portugal: An

examination of case studies in the furniture industry. Family Business Review,

14, 231-244.

Iannarelli, C. L. (1992). The socialization of leaders in family business: An

exploratory study of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Pittsburgh, PA.

Jackson, A. R., Alberti, J. I., & Snipes, R. L. (2014). An examination of the

impact of gender on leadership style and employee job satisfaction in the modern


workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict,

18(2), 141-154.

Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior,

agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305-

360.

Jimenez, R. M. (2009). Research on women in family firms current status and

future directions. Family Business Review, 22(1), 53-64.

Lambrecht, J. (2005). Multigenerational transition in family businesses: A new

explanatory model. Family Business Review, 28, 267-282.

Leppaaho, T., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Dimitratos, P. (2016). The case study in family

business: An analysis of current research practices and recommendations. Family

Business Review, 29(2), 159-173.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage

Publications.

Madison, K., Holt, D. T., Kellermanns, F. W., & Ranft, A. L. 2016. Viewing

family firm behavior and governance through the lens of agency and stewardship

theories. Family Business Review, 29(1), 65-93.

Marotz-Baden, R., & Cowan, D. (1987). Mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law:

The effects of proximity father-daughter and father-son family business

management transfer comparison on conflict and stress. Family Relations, 36,

385–390.

MassMutual, Kennesaw State, & Family Firm Institute (2007). American family

business survey. Atlanta, GA.

Meier, O., & Schier, G. 2016. The early succession stage of a family firm:

Exploring the role of agency rationales and stewardship attitudes. Family

Business Review, 29(3), 256-277.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm

performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review,

19, 73-87.

Morris, H. M., Williams, R. O., Allen, J. A., & Avila, R. A. (1997). Correlates

of success in family business transitions. Journal of Business Venturing, 12,

385-401.

Nelton, S. (1998). The rise of women in family firms: A call for research now,

Family Business Review, 11(5), 215-218.

Patton, E., & Applebaum, S. H. (2003). The case for case studies in management

research. Management Research News, 26, 60-72.

Plsek, P., & Wilson, T. (2001). Complexity, leadership, and management in

healthcare organizations. British Medical Journal, 323, 746–749.

Powell, G. (1990). One more time: Do female and male managers differ? Academy

of Management Executive, 4, 68-78.

Poza, E. J., Alfred, T., & Maheshwari, A. (1997). Stakeholder perceptions of culture

and management practices in family and family firms: A preliminary report. Family

Business Review, 10(2), 135–155.

Poza, E. J. & Messer, T. (2001). Spousal leadership and continuity in the family

firm. Family Business Review, 14(1), 25-36.

Reay, T. (2014). Publishing qualitative research. Family Business Review, 27,

95-102.

Rowe, B. R & Hong, G.S., (2000). The role of wives in family business: the paid

and unpaid work of women, Family Business Review, 8(1), 1-13.

Salganicoff, M. (1990). Women in family businesses: challenges and

opportunities, Family Business Review, 3(2), 125-137.

Schieman, S., & McMullen, T. (2008). Relational demography in the workplace

and health: an analysis of gender and the subordinate-superordinate role-set.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49(3), 286-300.


transformational theoretical approach: An exploratory study. Family Business

Review, 22(2), 136-150.

Vera, C. F. & Dean, M. A., (2005). An examination of the challenges daughters

face in family business succession. Family Business Review, 18(4), 321-345,

Ward, J. L. (1987). Keeping the family business healthy: How to plan for

continuing growth, profitability, and family leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods, 3rd ed. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zahra, S. A. (2003). International expansion of U.S. manufacturing family

businesses: the effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business

Venturing, 18: 495-512.


HOTTEST TIME FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP

EDUCATORS

Todd A Finkle

Gonzaga University

ABSTRACT

Today is the best time in the history of the field of entrepreneurship for

faculty in the field of entrepreneurship. This past year, the field had the highest

number of open positions at colleges and universities. This article examines the

job opportunities and candidates in the field of entrepreneurship from 1989-

2018. In 2017/18 there were 557 advertisements for entrepreneurship positions.

The number of candidates who advertised for entrepreneurship positions was a

mere 99 for a ratio of 5.6 jobs per candidate. This was the highest ratio of jobs

per candidate since the collection of data began for this study. The article

examines the characteristics of jobs and candidates and concludes with a

discussion on the implications to the field of entrepreneurship education.

Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurship Faculty,

Entrepreneurship Jobs, Tenure Track Jobs, Higher Education, Entrepreneurship

Trends

INTRODUCTION

Utilizing institutional theory (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) and institutional

entrepreneurship (Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence, 2004), this study examines the

annual trends in the number and type of jobs and candidates over a 29-year

period from 1989 to 2018. This article examines whether the field of

entrepreneurship is institutionalized at Schools of Business Administration.

It is essential that schools, candidates, and doctoral students understand

what the current trends are occurring within the field of entrepreneurship within

higher education. By understanding these trends, schools can better prepare

future faculty to teach in the field of entrepreneurship. Faculty and doctoral

students can target specific opportunities and then negotiate from strength based


on the dynamics of the marketplace. The information from this study will allow

them to better position themselves in the job market and assist them in

negotiating a compensation package.

Theoretical Development

According to Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence (2004: 657), institutional

entrepreneurship refers to the activities of actors who have an interest in

particular arrangements and who leverage resources to create new institutions or

to transform existing ones.

Institutional theory (Meyer and Rowan, 1977) posits that organizations

which

Powell, 1983)

and Deeds, 2001).

environment.

failure to a

mandates). At this point new and existing organizations will adopt the structural

form even if the form doesn't improve efficiency.

Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that often these "institutional myths" are

merely accepted ceremoniously for the organization to gain or maintain

legitimacy in the institutional environment. Organizations adopt the

"vocabularies of structure" prevalent in their environment such as specific job

titles, procedures, and organizational roles. The adoption and prominent display

of these institutionally-acceptable "trappings of legitimacy" help preserve an aura

of organizational action based on "good faith". Legitimacy in the institutional

environment helps ensure organizational survival.


However, these formal structures of legitimacy can reduce efficiency and

hinder the organization's competitive position in their technical environment. To

reduce this negative effect, organizations often will decouple their technical core

from these legitimizing structures. Organizations will minimize or ceremonialize

evaluation and neglect program implementation to maintain external (and

internal) confidence in formal structures while reducing their efficiency impact.

DiMaggio and Powell (1983) conclude that the net effect of institutional

pressures is to increase the homogeneity of organizational structures in an

institutional environment. Firms will adopt similar structures because of three

types of pressures. Coercive pressures come from legal mandates or influence

from organizations they are dependent upon. Mimetic pressures to copy

successful forms arise during high uncertainty. Finally, normative pressures to

homogeneity come from the similar attitudes and approaches of professional

groups and associations brought into the firm through hiring practices.

Based on the theoretical foundation for the study, the following research

questions will be answered: (1) What are the current market trends for

entrepreneurship faculty and jobs in higher education? (2) What are the current

market trends for entrepreneurship faculty and jobs in higher education for tenure

track positions (including tenure track AACSB positions and candidates)? The

results of this study will update the status of the field regarding its

institutionalization. The study will not only answer the research questions, but

also give an in-depth discussion on implications to the field of entrepreneurship

education. The findings of this study will assist faculty and administrators in

their future decisions and strategies.

EXTANT RESEARCH

The first researchers to examine market trends for entrepreneurship

faculty were Finkle and Deeds (2001; 2002). They concluded that the field of

entrepreneurship was becoming increasingly institutionalized but was still

lacking in many areas. They found that most entrepreneurship positions were not

tenure track, and there was no universal mandate for entrepreneurship at Schools

of Business Administration. Entrepreneurship education was an afterthought or

electives, departments were extremely rare, and Colleges non-existent. Other

studies that have built upon their initial study (see Finkle, 2006; 2007; 2008;

2010; 2012a; 2012b; 2013a; 2013b; 2015; 2016; Finkle & Kuratko, 2004).


Finkle (2007) examined market trends and AACSB positions. AACSB

positions was included as an indicator of legitimacy. In other words, were

schools devoting resources to hire faculty? And if so, this would indicate

institutionalization.

According to the AACSB (2015), AACSB accreditation depicts the

highest measure of achievement for schools of business worldwide. AACSB

schools have to pass a voluntary, non-governmental review of educational

institutions and programs. Schools that earn AACSB accreditation are

committed to quality and continuous improvement. Finkle’s (2007b) study

found that during 2004/05 there were 122 tenure track AACSB positions and 102

tenure track candidates or 1.2 tenure track AACSB positions per tenure track

candidate. Overall, he found that the field was making significant progress

towards becoming more

Finkle’s (2010) study found an increasing institutionalization of

entrepreneurship on a world-wide basis. From 1989/90 to 2007/08, the total

number of international jobs grew from 0 to 76. The study also found that the

growth of international positions more than doubled from 2006/07 to 2007/08.

Finkle (2013a; 2013b) examined trends through 2011/12 and found a

total of 319 available entrepreneurship positions and 245 candidates during the

final year. One significant finding of the study was the increase in the number of

schools that were seeking candidates with a primary interest in teaching/research.

Out of the 319 advertisements, 202 (63%) were for primary candidates. At the

time of the study, this was the highest number of primary advertisements.

Another interesting finding was the advertisement of 203 tenure track positions.

There was only one year which is the largest number since the beginning of the

Great Recession in 2007. However, the number of tenure track candidates was

higher at 231. The findings indicate an increase in the institutionalization of the

field.

Finkle (2015) examined the trends in the market for entrepreneurship

faculty from 1989/90 to 2013/14. He found that in 2013/14 there were only 147

candidates, which was 84% lower from its peak at 270 in 2008/09. The last time

it was that low was in 2005/06 when there were 141 candidates. This was

probably due to the financial crisis. In 2008/09, during the middle of the Great

Recession, there were almost 100 more tenure track candidates than tenure track

positions (260 versus 165). During 2013/14, there were 150 tenure track


positions and 138 tenure track candidates. The findings show that the number of

tenure track candidates in 2013/14 dropped to the second lowest level since

2005/06. Of the tenure track positions that were being advertised, 52% were for

senior faculty (Associate or above). Finkle (2015) concluded that the field of

entrepreneurship was continuing to be institutionalized.

METHODOLOGY

The foundation for this study was based on the author’s experiences in

the doctoral program from 1989-1993. During that time frame, there were few

jobs and the competition for entrepreneurship positions was fierce. In 1993, the

year the author was on the market, there were 40 tenure track candidates

(excluding applications from faculty at existing schools) for 23 tenure track

positions in entrepreneurship. Out of the 23 tenure track positions, only 18

schools were seeking candidates with a primary interest in the field of

entrepreneurship. So, the ratio of tenure track candidates per primary tenure

track jobs was 2.2. The fierce competition for jobs, led the author to study this

topic as a matter of survival.

The date for this study was collected from several sources over a 29-year

period. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the Academy of Management

Placement used to send out newspapers and pamphlets which listed a brief

description of jobs and candidates. In addition to these, microfiche of old

editions of the Chronicle of Higher Education were used to supplement the early

documentation of the positions.

During the early days of the Internet, advertisements started appearing on

the Academy of Management Placement site. Over the past decade, several

To collect and analyze the data, a data base was created. The data was

collected year round from the end of the month of the Academy of Management

Meeting until the start of the next year’s AOM meeting. All duplicates were

dropped.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Five tables were constructed to answer the research questions. Since the

tables documented the changes of numbers from 1989 through 2018, it gives the

reader an ability to evaluate the trends in the field of entrepreneurship over a

short and long period of time.

Table 1 examines the number of United States and international

candidates and positions. These were then broken down into subtopics of

interest. These subtopics were Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary areas of interest,

which indicated the level of interest that a school or candidate has in

teaching/research in the field of entrepreneurship.

Table 2 breaks down the total number of positions and candidates from

Table 1 and determines the number and percentage that were tenure track. These

tenure track positions were then broken down into the ranks that schools and

candidates were advertising for. The ranks were Assistant, Associate, Full,

Endowed, or Open. Open indicated that a school would accept applications for

any position.

Table 3 examines the specific expertise that schools and candidates

advertised. For instance, let’s assume that the University of Washington was

seeking a candidate with a primary area in Entrepreneurship, a secondary interest


in Strategy/Business Policy, and a tertiary interest in Technology and Innovation

Management, Table 3 would categorize these areas into the table and turn them

into percentages.

Tables 4 and 5 break down the number of AACSB tenure track positions

into states within the United States in 2016/17 and 2017/18. It also denotes the

positions’ rank, interest, and if it is an advertised position for an associate or

director of a Center for Entrepreneurship.

Table 1: Entrepreneurship Positions and Candidates, 1989-2018

Table 1 shows that the total number of advertised jobs (tenure track and

non-tenure track) over the past 29 years. The total number of jobs was the

highest ever this past academic year at 557 or 8.8% higher than 2016/17.

Despite the record-breaking increase in jobs, there were only 99 advertised

candidates in 2017/18. This was the second lowest number of candidates since

2003/04 when there were 98 candidates.

On a ratio basis, there were 5.6 jobs per candidate. This is an extremely

positive number for candidates and the growth and institutionalization of the

field of entrepreneurship. It shows that schools are increasing their

advertisements for entrepreneurship positions at a record pace. Hence, schools

appear to be integrating more entrepreneurship curriculum. It must be noted that

these jobs include adjuncts, visiting and instructor positions as well as tenure

track positions. Tenure track positions will be evaluated in Table 2.

International

Table 1 also examined international positions and candidates. During

2017/18, there were 195 international positions, which was the highest number

since the study began. This number is 15% higher than 2016/17. It is continued

proof that the field of entrepreneurship is increasingly being institutionalized on

a global basis. Like non-international candidates during 2017/18, the number of

international candidates was only 29. These numbers were extremely positive

for candidates seeking international positions as the number of international jobs

per international candidate was about 6.7. There were significant opportunities

in the global job market.


Interest Level

Finally, Table 1 examined the number and percentage of jobs and

candidates in terms of interest in the field. These were broken down by primary,

secondary and tertiary interest. During this past year, there were 418 (75%)

advertised primary positions, 81 (15 %) secondary positions, and 58 (10%)

tertiary positions.

In 2017/18, 53 (54%) of the candidates advertised entrepreneurship as

their primary area of expertise. Additionally, 24 (24%) and 22 (22%) advertised

entrepreneurship as their secondary and tertiary areas of interest.

According to the results of this study, 2017/18 was one of the best times

to be a primary candidate in the field of entrepreneurship. There were 418

primary jobs for each primary candidate or 8 primary jobs per primary candidate.

These numbers indicate a plethora of opportunities for candidates specializing in

entrepreneurship as their primary area of expertise.

Table 2: Tenure Track Positions and Candidates, 1989-2018

Table 2 documents all the advertised tenure track positions and

candidates for entire period of the study from 1989 through 2018. The table

breaks down the tenure track positions and candidates in the ranks of Assistant,

Associate, Full, Endowed, and Open.

During 2017/18 there were 305 (55%) tenure track positions out of the

557 total advertised positions from Table 1. This was the largest number of

tenure track positions since the inception of the study. It must be noted that the

percentage of tenure track positions has leveled off over the past four years.


Table 1: Number and Level of Interest in Entrepreneurship for Candidates

and Positions 1989-2018


Only 205 (68%) of the 305 tenure track entrepreneurship jobs were tenure

track AACSB positions. Out of those, 137 (67%) were AACSB tenure track

positions located in the United States. In 2017/18, the total number of tenure

track positions by rank were: 161 (53%) assistant, 47 (15%) associate, 23 (8%)

full, 33 (11%) endowed chair, and 41 (13%) open positions. Overall, schools

were seeking 144 (47%) senior level tenure track faculty.

In 2017/18 there were 98 tenure track candidates. The advertised rank of

the candidates was: 87 (89%) assistant, 9 (9%) associate, 1 (1%) full, 1 (1%)

endowed chair, and 0 open. In 2017/18, the ratio of all the tenure track positions

(305) per tenure track candidates (98) was about 3.1.

The tenure track positions were also cross-listed with the schools listed

on the AACSB web site. These tenure track positions were then determined to

be AACSB tenure track positions. In 2017/18, the ratio of tenure track AACSB

positions (205) per tenure track candidate (98) was 2.1. This is a buyer’s job

market.

A closer examination of the characteristics of the 98 tenure track candidates

reveals some interesting findings. There were 29 international candidates.

Twenty-two of the candidates had entrepreneurship listed as at least one of their

major areas during their Ph.D. program.

There were 52 tenure track candidates that advertised entrepreneurship as

their primary area of expertise, 24 as their secondary area of expertise, and 22 as

their tertiary. While 54 of the 98 tenure track candidates listed entrepreneurship

as their primary area, their educational backgrounds did not match up with their

advertised expertise. Only 22 of the candidates had entrepreneurship listed as

part of their major degree. Five candidates listed other fields as other fields (e.g.,

Psychology, Sociology, Environmental Science, Educational Leadership, and

Engineering). Of the 98 tenure track candidates, only 19 listed entrepreneurship

as their only major.

Finally, almost all of the candidates were seeking an assistant professor

position. In regards to sex, data was obtained on 83 of the candidates and 64

(77%) of them were male.

These numbers of the candidates are extremely encouraging for

candidates. Candidates must be aware that these trends are in their favor as they

can use these numbers to negotiate strong compensation packages (e.g., teaching

load, pay, grants, summer research money, stipends, computers, graduate

assistants, travel funds, research, moving money, teaching and service

expectations).


On the opposite side, this is one of the worst time for schools to be

recruiting tenure track faculty in entrepreneurship. Not only are the numbers

down significantly, but the areas of expertise do not appear to match up with

what candidates are marketing themselves. Schools need to be careful that they

are getting what applicants are selling. Due diligence must be done on these

candidates to verify their qualifications. In defense of the applicants, it may be

that they have significant experience in being an entrepreneur.

Table 2: Rank of Tenure Track Candidates and Positions, 1989-2018


Table 3 shows the specialties that candidates and schools have advertised

in their profiles from 1989 through 2018. This table is critical, so the field can

get an idea of where the trends in the field of entrepreneurship are heading. If

candidates can see the specialties that schools are advertising, they can better

prepare themselves for opportunities. If schools see the areas that candidates are

studying, this will give them a better idea of what is available in the marketplace

or maybe even what the trends are in the market.

An example of the table can be seen if candidate David Deeds advertised

for an entrepreneurship only position, he would insert entrepreneurship only into

his profile. If Stanford University is seeking a primary candidate in

entrepreneurship with secondary and tertiary areas in Organizational Behavior

and International Management, each column will be selected. David Deeds

could potentially be a candidate for the Stanford University position. He is not an

ideal candidate, but a potential candidate. An ideal candidate would have all

three areas that Stanford is advertising.

Table 3 is divided into positions and candidates. The table is broken

down into five categories: Entrepreneurship only, Strategy, International, OB/HR

(Organizational Behavior/Human Resources Management), and TIM

(Technology and Innovation Management).

The percentages for the advertised candidates in 2017/18 were:

Entrepreneurship Only (9%), Strategy (55%), International

Business/Management (28%), OB/HR (19%), and Technology and Innovation

Management (23%). The percentages for the other areas that candidates

advertised for included: Organizational Theory (15%), Business Ethics/Business

Society (9%), Operations (4%), Research Methods (4%), Consulting (3%),

Gender & Diversity (2%), and Non-Profit (1%).

The percentages for the advertised jobs in 2017/18 were:

Entrepreneurship Only (68%), Strategy (15%), International Management (4%),

OB/HR (8%), and Technology and Innovation Management (2%).

The percentage for advertised jobs in other areas were: Management

(9%), Marketing (4%), Real Estate (3%), Finance (2%), Accounting (1%),

Creativity (1%), Economics (1%), Information Technology (1%), Organizational

Theory (1%), Business Ethics/Business Society (1%), Digital/Ecommerce (1%),

Law (1%), Real Estate (1%), and Operations (1%).

The percentages for the table were very similar to last year. The

advertisements for candidates with a primary area only in entrepreneurship

continues to grow. Strategy was the most correlated area with entrepreneurship.


Strategy is a legitimized field within higher education, which is required at all

AACSB schools. Hence, there are potentially more opportunities for jobs in

strategy versus entrepreneurship. The dynamic of strategy and entrepreneurship

could give candidates a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

Table 3: Percentage of Applicants and Positions Cross-Listed by Field, 1989-

2018

Tables 4 & 5: AACSB Tenure Track Positions Advertised by State in the

United States, 2016/17 & 2017/18


Tables 4 & 5 show the total number of AACSB positions which were

advertised in 2016/17 and 2017/18 broken down by state in the United States,

rank, and interest. Each position was also identified whether it had an opening

for a Director or Co-Director of a Center for Entrepreneurship.

In 2016/17, there were 170 total tenure track AACSB positions. Of

those, 113 (67%) were in the United States, which were comprised of 73, 29, and

11 primary, secondary, and tertiary positions.

The results also show that out of total tenure track AACSB positions in

2017/18 was 205.

Of those, 137 (67%) were in the United States, which were comprised of 101, 28,

and 8 primary, secondary, and tertiary positions.

In 2016/17, the largest number of jobs AACSB tenure track positions

located in the United States were in the following states: California (10), New

York (9), Massachusetts (8), Texas (6), North Carolina (6), Illinois (6), Ohio (6),

and Arizona (4). Forty states advertised for at least one tenure track AACSB

position in entrepreneurship in 2016/17.

In 2017/18, the largest number of jobs AACSB tenure track positions

located in the United States were in the following states: Texas (11), California

(11), Florida (10), New York (9), Pennsylvania (8), Indiana (6), Illinois (6),

Massachusetts (6), Virginia (6), Louisiana (5), Alabama (4), Michigan (4),

Missouri (4), New Jersey (3), North Carolina (3), and Ohio (3). There were

another 13 states that had 2 tenure track openings and 11 states with one opening.

Forty states advertised for at least one tenure track AACSB position in

entrepreneurship in 2017/18.

Entrepreneurship Center Directors Advertisements in 2016/17 & 2017/18

Tables 4 & 5 also show the number of advertisements for AACSB tenure

track positions for directors or associate directors of Centers for

Entrepreneurship in the United States. Overall, in 2016/17 and 2017/18 there

were 37 and 36 openings for directors or associate directors for Centers for

Entrepreneurship all over the world. There was a total of 8 and 2 that were

AACSB tenure track positions, of which 6 and 1 were in the U.S.

In their search for a Director, higher education appears to be seeking

more than the traditional skill set that academics bring to the table. Depending

on the job, Directors can be required to perform a multitude of duties that are not

traditional (e.g., technology transfer, fundraising, seminars, build and maintain


advisory boards, manage budgets, hire employees). Directors need to be able to

relate to people from industry for potential donations to the university. It is

relatively common that the highest rated schools for entrepreneurship have two

Directors; one for working with industry and another that is an academic that

focuses on curriculum.

Table 4: AACSB Tenure Track positions advertised by state in the U.S.

2016-2017 (n=113)

State Totals Assistan

t

Associa

teFull

Endowe

d Open

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Texas 3 2 1 2 2 1 1

California 9 1 0 3 1 4 1 1

*

Indiana 1 2 0 1 1 1

Virginia 3 0 0 1 1 1

Illinois 4 1 1 1 3 1 1

Pennsylva

nia 2 0 0 1 1

New York 7 2 0 2 1 1 1 4

Oregon 1 1 0 1 1

Georgia 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

N.

Carolina 4 2 0 1 2 2 1

Ohio 5 1 0 2 1 2 1

Michigan 0 0 1 1


Colorado 2 0 0 1 1

Florida 3 0 1 1 1 2

Massachus

etts4 4 0 2 1 1 1 3

Utah 1 0 0 1

Minnesota 0 1 0 1

Missouri 1 0 0 1

Arkansas 0 1 0 1

Arizona 4 0 0 1 1 1

*

1

*

Idaho 0 1 0 1

Alabama 1 1 0 1 1

Louisiana 2 0 0 2

North

Dakota 1 0 0 1

Tennessee 2 0 0 2

Maryland 0 2 0 2

Mississipp

i 0 2 0 1 1

Montana 0 0 1 1

Oklahoma 2 0 0 1 1

South

Carolina 3 0 0 2

1

*


West

Virginia1 0 1 1 1

Wisconsin 0 1 1 1 1

Nebraska 0 1 0 1

Alaska 0 1 0 1

Connectic

ut 1 0 1 1 1

Hawaii 1 0 1 1 1

Kentucky 1 0 1 1 1

Nevada 1 0 0 1

*

Vermont 0 1 0 1

Washingto

n 1 0 0

1

*

Totals 7

3

2

9

1

1

2

3

1

9 7

2

2 6 1 3 0 0

1

7 0 0 8 4 3

* Associate Director or Director of an Entrepreneurship Center


Table 5: AACSB Tenure Track positions advertised by state in the U.S.

2017-2018 (n=137)

State Totals Assistan

t

Associa

teFull

Endow

edOpen

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Texas 7 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1

California 8 3 0 5 3 1 1 1

Florida 6 4 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

New York 6 3 0 2 2 1 1 2 1

Pennsylva

nia 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Indiana 5 1 0 3 1 1 1

Illinois 4 2 0 2 1 2 1

Massachu

setts6 0 0 2 1 3

Virginia 3 2 1 2 2 1 1

Louisiana 4 0 1 1 1 3

Michigan 4 0 0 2 2:

1*

Missouri 2 2 0 1 2 1

New

Jersey3 0 0 1 1 1

Alabama 4 0 0 3 1


N.

Carolina 1 2 0 1 1 1

Ohio 3 0 0 1 1 1

Colorado 1 1 0 1 1

Connectic

ut 1 1 0 1 1

Kentucky 2 0 0 2

Maryland 2 0 0 2

Mississip

pi 2 1 0 1 1 1

Nebraska 1 1 0 1 1

New

Mexico2 0 0 1 1

Oklahoma 2 0 0 1 1

Rhode

Island1 0 1 1 1

South

Carolina 2 0 0 2

South

Dakota 1 0 1 1 1

Washingt

on 2 0 0 1 1

Wisconsin 0 1 1 1 1

Arizona 1 0 0 1

Arkansas 1 0 0 1


Georgia 1 0 0 1

Hawaii 1 0 0 1

Iowa 1 0 0 1

Kansas 0 1 0 1

North

Dakota 1 0 0 1

Tennessee 1 0 0 1

Utah 1 0 0 1

West

Virginia1 0 0 1

Wyoming 1 0 0 1

Totals 10

1

2

8 8

4

3

1

9 6

1

2 5 2 5 0 0

2

3 0 0 18 4 0

* Associate Director or Director of an Entrepreneurship Center

IMPLICATIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATORS

This study investigated whether the field of entrepreneurship has become

increasingly institutionalized by answering the following research questions: (1)

What are the current market trends for entrepreneurship faculty and jobs in

higher education? (2) What are the current market trends for entrepreneurship

faculty and jobs in higher education for tenure track positions (including tenure

track AACSB positions and candidates)?

Table 1 shows that the field of entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly

institutionalized. In 2017/18, the field saw the highest number of jobs, at 557.

The ratio of the total jobs per candidate was 5.6, which was the highest ratio

ever. The growth of international positions was also a sign that the field was


becoming increasingly institutionalized. There were 195 international positions

during 2017/18, which was the highest number since the study began. The ratio

of international positions per international candidate during 2017/18 was 6.7.

Another indicator of institutionalization was the high number of jobs which

advertised for candidates with a primary area in entrepreneurship. Out of 557

jobs, 418 (75%) were targeted towards primary candidates. This is a strong

indicator that schools are increasing their resources towards entrepreneurship.

The second research question asked: What are the market trends for

entrepreneurship faculty in higher education for tenure track positions and

candidates in entrepreneurship (including tenure track AACSB positions)? In

2017/18 there were 305 tenure track positions. This was the highest number of

tenure track positions since the inception of the study. Fifty-five percent of all

the advertised entrepreneurship jobs were tenure track positions. The others

(252) were for adjuncts, non-tenure track positions, and visiting.

Two-hundred and five (67%) of the tenure track positions were at

AACSB accredited institutions. One hundred and thirty-seven were at schools

located in the United States. That was an increase of 21% from last year.

Schools were seeking approximately 50% senior level tenure track

faculty. This is an indication of a need for senior level faculty to come in and

either create or build upon the current infrastructure within the school enhancing

its legitimacy. It is excellent time to be a senior level faculty member in the field

of entrepreneurship. As schools seek these experienced faculty, it is in tune with

the field becoming increasingly institutionalized as schools are devoting more

resources to senior level positions.

Implications to Faculty & Doctoral Students

This is a sellers’ market for entrepreneurship faculty. Factors

contributing to the increase in the percentage of jobs per candidate may include

the following:

1) The economy is now in its ninth year of expansion since the Great

Recession. The unemployment rate is less than four-percent. When

the economy is good, people do not tend to go back to school. It may

be that fewer people want to spend four years getting a Ph.D., when

there are so many job opportunities. The opportunity costs of getting

a Ph.D. would be the combination of what you would earn at a job for


four years plus the money you spend to earn the Ph.D. This could be

a significant number, which could take years to recuperate. For the

millennial generation (18 to 34-year old), who already have a debt

level of over $1 Trillion, academia may not be so attractive. Only

22% of millennials are debt free.

2) The current state of academia and higher education is not as attractive

as it has been in the past. On the positive side, there are more tenure

track positions. However, as the number of advertisements for

positions has increased, there has been a decrease in the percentage of

entrepreneurship tenure track positions over the past 10 years. The

percentage of tenure track positions has dropped from 76% to 55%.

This is in tune to what has been happening in academia, which is an

increasing movement towards adjuncts.

3) In recent years, academia has been heavily critiqued because of the

high costs. Some universities are being pressured by state

governments and other stakeholders to eliminate tenure and reduce

costs. Other schools are being pressured by stakeholders to hold

faculty more accountable. They do this through the usual annual

reviews, but many schools now have post tenure reviews. This has

effectively eliminated the freedom faculty have had in the past to

pursue personal interests.

4) Academia’s total compensation package cannot compete with many

jobs in industry (Depending on the field). Academia can restrict

faculties ability to earn money. In general, there is a defined salary

and benefits with very limited abilities for outside income. This is

also becoming increasingly restricted due to pressure on faculty after

earning tenure.

5) Due to the decrease in the number of high school students coming out, there has been an increase in pressure on universities to offer larger financial aid packages and find specific niches in the marketplace to survive. The availability of technology into the competitive realm of higher education is making it easier for potential students to apply for financial aid and scholarships.


6) Many schools have been increasing their tenure and post tenure

requirements, which has put increasing stress on faculty and their

families. This has created a dilapidating culture. Some jobs in

academia are less appealing than others due to all the forces above.

Doctoral students have five primary options available after they

graduate: 1) Go to a research school, which places a heavy emphasis on quality

research. These schools typically pay more money. However, competition will

be stronger for these positions due to the appeal of more compensation and

lower teaching loads. 2) Students can go to a more balanced school where

research and teaching are more equally weighted. These schools may be more

suited for candidates that are not as motivated to spend most of their time doing

research and enjoy teaching. 3) Candidates can go to traditional teaching-

oriented schools. These schools put most of their emphasis on teaching and tend

to have higher teaching loads. They generally do not tend to pay as much. 4)

Candidates can go into industry and become an entrepreneur or work for

someone in government or industry.

A good potential strategy for doctoral students is to obtain a job at a

doctoral institution due to all of the benefits that come with that job. In

academia, it is extremely difficult to move up (e.g., moving from a teaching or

balanced school to a research-oriented school). By starting at a doctoral school,

this will give you more time and resources to build up your research base. The

currency in academia tends to be research and your name is your brand. By

writing some strong articles early in your career, you can build up your brand

and enhance future opportunities. Even if you decide that you do not want to

stay at a research school, you can always move down to balanced or teaching

schools.

An important question that candidates must ask themselves is if they

want to join an entrepreneurship program or create their own program.

Candidates must ask the right questions when interviewing to determine if a

school has the appropriate resources for either choice. Schools value candidates

with an entrepreneurial mindset. Candidates that can use practical skills (e.g.,

build and market a program and/or create and run a Center for Entrepreneurship)

will have a significant advantage in the market.


Implications to Administrators

The numbers in the study indicate that schools seeking entrepreneurship

candidates will have difficulties filling their slots. This is one of the worst times

for schools to be recruiting tenure track faculty in entrepreneurship. Not only are

the numbers down significantly, but the areas of expertise do not appear to match

how candidates are marketing themselves. Administrators need to be careful in

their hiring practices. Candidates may not have the skill set that they are looking

for.

Furthermore, given that almost half of the tenure track jobs were for

senior level candidates, schools need to create a strategy to attract senior

candidates. It is recommended that schools target candidates that fulfill their

needs. This may mean being creative in the compensation packages. To attract

quality entrepreneurship faculty, schools must be willing to offer a strong

compensation package (Salary, course release, grants, research funding, travel

allowance, graduate assistants, computers, etc.). In some of the higher cost

cities, like Seattle, schools may want to add a housing allowance.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of this study may include a reduction in the number of

entrepreneurship positions due to budget cuts. Some schools may not be able to

find a quality candidate. Therefore, they may postpone the hiring of a faculty

member.

Another limitation may be candidates or positions that the author missed

when performing research. Despite the daily examination of job opportunities,

the author may have missed some. Finally, the study was not able to capture the

names and descriptions of faculty that do not advertise their profile but apply

directly to a school. These would include faculty at existing institutions.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Future opportunities for research should include an in-depth longitudinal

study that focuses on the profiles of candidates and their careers. What are they

hired as? What is their salary, teaching load, and service requirements? This

would enable the field to see how new hires are being institutionalized into

schools. Furthermore, it is essential to determine if faculty are earning tenure


and being promoted. Are entrepreneurship faculties moving up in schools to

management levels (e.g., Deans, Chairs of Departments, etc.)? The field has

come a long way. Initially it received little respect, but over time it has become

increasingly legitimized.

Another area of research would be the examination of the advertised jobs.

Who are the schools hiring and for what reasons? What courses do they teach?

Are entrepreneurship faculty expected to teach in other areas? What

requirements or demands are being placed on entrepreneurship faculty? How are

schools valuing entrepreneurship journals?

DiMaggio, P. & W.

Dowling, J. &

Organizational Behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122-136.

Finkle, T.A. (2016). A Current Look at Salaries and Faculty Demand within the

Field of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship,

21(2), 45-69.

Finkle, T.A. (2006). A Review of Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship

Faculty from 1989 2004. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2005:

Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research

Conference, Edited by Shaker Zahra, Candida Brush, Per Davidson, Patricia


Greene, R. Harrison, James O. Feit, Miri Lerner, Jeffrey Sohl, & Dean Shepherd,

Johan Wiklund, & M. Wright. Babson College: MA 168.

Finkle, T.A. (2015). An Examination of the Job Market for Entrepreneurship

Faculty from 1989 to 2014. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(3), 55-

78.

Finkle, T.A. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education Trends. Research in Business

and Economics Journal February, 1, 35-53.

Finkle, T.A. (2008). Global Trends in the Job Market for Faculty and Schools in

the Field of Entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the 2008 Annual American Society

of Business & Behavioral Sciences National Conference (ASBSS), 803-810.

Finkle, T.A. (2013a). Job Opportunities for Faculty in the Field of

Entrepreneurship. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 18(3),

94-112.

Finkle, T.A. (2013b). Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship Faculty from

1989-2011. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 16, Special Issue, 59-76.

Finkle, T.A. (2007). Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship Faculty from 1989-

2005. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 10, 1-25.

Finkle, T.A. (2012a). Trends in the Field of Entrepreneurship from 1989-2011.

26th Proceedings of the Annual National United States Association for Small

Business & Entrepreneurship Conference, 1042-1055.

Finkle, T.A. (2012b). Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship Faculty from

1989 to 2010. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 21-40.

Finkle, T.A. & D. Deeds (2002). Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship

Faculty from 1989-2001. 16th Proceedings of the Annual National United States

Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference 121.


Finkle, T.A. & D. Deeds (2001). Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship

Faculty during the Period 1989-1998. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(6), 613-

630.

Finkle, T.A. & D.F. Kuratko (2004). Characteristics of the top ranked

entrepreneurship centers. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2003:

Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research

Conference, Edited by William D. Bygrave, Candida Brush, Per Davidson,

Patricia Greene, R. Harrison, James O. Feit, Miri Lerner, G. Dale Meyer, Jeffrey

Sohl, & A. Zacharackis. Babson College: MA.

Kauffman Foundation (2013). Entrepreneurship Education Comes Alive Across

Campus.Kansas City, MO.

Meyer, J.W. & B. Rowan (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal

Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

Scott, W.R. (2008). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Los

Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, D.C. Used all volumes from

1989-2018.


THE IMPACT OF SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT AND

ENTREPRENEURIAL SKILLS ON STUDENTS’

ENTREPRENEURIAL INCLINATION

Yakubu Abdullahi Yarima

Aminu Saleh College of Education

Norashidah Bint Hashim

Universiti Utara Malaysia

ABSTRACT

The study was designed to explore the mediating effect of entrepreneurial

Skills on the relationship between supportive environment and entrepreneurial

inclination among university students in Nigeria. The study used structural

equation modelling Smart-PLS (2.0) to analysis the data obtained from a sample

of 432 final year students cross six universities to test the hypotheses. The study

established a significant positive association between internal supportive

environment and the students’ entrepreneurial inclination. However, the study

found no significant association between external supportive environment and the

students’ entrepreneurial inclination. In addition, the study established that

entrepreneurial skills significantly mediate the association between internal

supportive environment, external supportive environment and students’

entrepreneurial inclination. The study provided suggestion for future research

.

: Entrepreneurial inclination, internal supportive environment,

external supportive environment, entrepreneurial skills.

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurial career has been recognized as an integral part for the economic

growth and development of any nation (Carland & Carland, 2010; Henry, Hill, &

Leitch, 2005; Matlay, 2009). It is an essential element for national development,

through the economic growth across the world absolutely impacted by the

emergence entrepreneurial activities (Fayolle, Benoit & Narjisse, 2006; Hattab,

2014). Accordingly, supportive environment plays an essential role in promoting

entrepreneurial skills, competencies and attitudes in several ways which in turn

encourages potential entrepreneurial career choice. Equally, supportive

environment is considered as the most effective means of implanting


entrepreneurial culture by developing students’ entrepreneurial skills; and thereby

increasing the supply of future graduate entrepreneurs (Jones, Miller, Jones,

Packham, Pickenell, & Zbierowski, 2011; Sesen, 2013).

In the recent years, attention has been focused on entrepreneurial career as

leading economic factor for creating job opportunities, economic growth, wealth

creation, poverty reduction, and positive social development (Ethugala, 2011;

Kelley, Singer, & Herrington, 2012). However, Rae, Penaluna and Dhaliwal

(2011) argue the need for universities to develop in their graduates an

entrepreneurial mind-set, skills and experience as part of their program of study.

Hence, the aim of this study is to empirically investigate the mediating role of

entrepreneurial skills on the relationship between supportive environment and

students’ entrepreneurial inclination among university graduates. The study also

provides statistical inference on the direct relationships supportive environment

and students’ entrepreneurial inclination and makes suggestions for future

research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Entrepreneurial inclination is described as a mental process that orientates

the individual’s decision to become an entrepreneur (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Gupta

& Bhawe, 2007). It is seen as conscious and precise decision made for preference

of entrepreneurship as an alternative career option (Moriano, Gorgievski, Laguna,

Stephan & Zarafshani, 2012). Accordingly, entrepreneurial career preference is

frequently influenced by a various factor such as the dynamic career environment,

individual traits, financial aspects, educational elements, family related issues and

role models (Liñán, Rodríguez-Cohard, & Rueda-Cantuche, 2011; Kroon &

Meyer, 2001; Zhang, Duysters & Cloodt, 2013).

On the other hand, entrepreneurship education is seen as sequence of

activities which targets to empower individual to promote and improve

entrepreneurial skills, knowledge, values and indulgent that allow a wide variety

of problems to be defined, analysed and resolved (Neck & Greene, 2011; Peterman

& Kennedy, 2003). Subsequently, entrepreneurial skills promote entrepreneurial

intentions and stimulates entrepreneurial awareness, which can be leveraged to

discourse numerous subjective norms and resource barricades to entrepreneurial

activities (Draycott & Rae, 2011; Jones, et al., 2011; Packham, Jones, Miller,

Pickernell, & Brychan, 2010; Verheul, Thurik, Grilo, & van der Zwan, 2012). In

fact, there are substantial evidences supporting the positive link between


entrepreneurial skills and new venture creation (Gorman, Hanlon & King, 1997;

Martin Cruz, Rodriguez Escudero, Barahona & Leitao, 2009; Peterman &

Kennedy, 2003; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Seet & Seet, 2006).

Supportive environment is described as a combination of factors

surrounding the business atmosphere that play a significant part in the promotion

of entrepreneurial activities and entrepreneurial inclination (Franke & Luthje,

2004; Valliere & Peterson, 2009). Several studies reported that supportive

environment in form of favourable regulatory, cognitive and normative institutions

positively influence the rate of business start-ups and entrepreneurial career

activities in an economy (Bruton, Filatotchev, Chahine, & Wright, 2010; Engle,

Schlaegel & Dimitriadi, 2011; Falck, Heblich & Luedemann, 2012). Hence, this

study proposed a model in which entrepreneurial skills play a critical mediating

role (see Figure 1) in relationship between supportive environment and

entrepreneurial inclination. Hence, the development of the following hypotheses:

H1: Internal supportive environment will be positively related to students’

entrepreneurial inclination.

H2: External supportive environment will be positively related to students’

entrepreneurial inclination.

H3: Internal supportive environment will be positively related to entrepreneurial

skills.

H4: External supportive environment will be positively related to entrepreneurial

skills.

H5: Entrepreneurial skills will be positively related to students’ entrepreneurial

inclination.

H6: Entrepreneurial skills mediate the relationship between internal supportive

environment and students’ entrepreneurial inclination.

H7: Entrepreneurial skills mediate the relationship between external supportive

environment and students’ entrepreneurial inclination.

METHOD


Participants and Procedures

In this study, a stratified random sampling technique was applied to select

a sample of 432 final year students from a variety of academic arena including;

agricultural science, business, engineering and technology across six universities

in the Northern Nigeria. The survey was conducted within 2015/2016 academic

session using questionnaire forms which were personally administered to the

respondents by the researchers and some faculty members at each of the six

universities. Table 1 presents the demographic profile for the respondents of the

study.

(n = 432)Demographic variable Category Frequency Percentage (%)

Age 18-29

30-39

40-49

50 & above

327

58

8

2

82.79

14.68

2.03

0.50Gender Male

Female

261

134

66.08

33.92Area of study Business

Agriculture Engineering

Technology

182

90 44

79

46.08

22.78 11.14

20.00

Occupational experience Self-employed

Civil servant

Working for others

Apprenticeship

Never employed

89

61

44

42

159

22.53

15.44

11.14

10.63

40.25

Measures

Entrepreneurial inclination

Entrepreneurial inclination is operationalized as the conscious and precise

decision made for preference of entrepreneurship as career (Moriano, et al., 2012).

The entrepreneurial inclination was measured using 12 items adapted from the

work of Moy Jane, Vivienne, Luk Philip and Wright (2003). However, the

construct was initially measured using 12 items (Jane, et al., 2003) but here in this


study the eleventh item “I prefer entrepreneurial career to recognize and exploit

business opportunities” and twelfth item “I prefer entrepreneurial career to develop

new ideas, innovations and initiatives” were divided into two items each because

of their double barrel nature.

Internal Supportive Environment

Internal supportive environment is operationalized as university supported

programs that play important roles in the development of students’ entrepreneurial

activities and entrepreneurial career preference as an alternative career option

(Parnell, Crandall, & Menefee, 1995). In this study, we adapted 5 item of internal

supportive environment from Turker, Onvural, Kursunluoglu, and Pinar, (2005).

Though, some items in scale were slightly modified to reflect the current area of

the study (Nigeria) rather than the place of its origin (Turkish). In addition, the

second item in the original measures “my university provides the necessary

knowledge and support about entrepreneurial career” was divided into two

separate items to avoid double barrel question.

External Supportive Environment

Operationally, external supportive environment is a combination of

external factors surrounding the business environment which play significant part

in the formation and promotion of entrepreneurial career and entrepreneurial

activities in a society. The scales used for measuring external supportive

environment in the study were slightly adapted version used by Turker, et al.,

(2005). However, items two and three of the original measures “Taking loan from

banks is quite difficult for graduate entrepreneurs” and “state laws are

unfavourable for running a business” were modified to positive questions so as to

tally with the other questions and to avoid misleading the respondents.

Entrepreneurial skills

Entrepreneurial skill is operationalized as individual student’s ability to

develop a concept and a business plan, perform environmental scanning and

opportunity recognition; and networking (Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998). In this

study, entrepreneurial skills were measured using six items also which were

adapted from Liñán (2008). However, item four “I have the leadership and

communication skills to manage my own business” and item six “I have the


networking skills and professional contracts to establish and manage my business”

were divided into two items each because of the double barrel nature of the items.

Table 2 presents the summary of the measures and sources.

Table 2:Summary of Measures of Variables

Variables No. of

items

Cronbach’s alpha Sources

Entrepreneurial inclination 14 0.78 Jane, et al., (2003)

Internal Supportive Environment

5 0.88 Turker, et al., (2005)

External Supportive

Environment

5 0.86 Turker, et al., (2005)

Entrepreneurial skills 8 0.92 Liñán (2008).

Note: All variables were measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

A multivariate data analysis was conducted using Smart-PLS (version 2.0) to

evaluate the measurement model and to test the formulated hypotheses of the

study. The PLS-SEM technique was used in the study for its ability to evaluate the

entire measurement model as a whole and analyse the association between the

independent variables and the dependent variable; and their measures (Hair, Black,

Babin, & Anderson, (2010). The study applied PLS-SEM algorithm to evaluate

the measurement model and the structural model was evaluated using PLS-SEM

Bootstrapping; and the results were reported as such.

Results

Measurement Model

Measurement model was used to assess the validity and reliability of the

construct measures using PLS-SEM Algorithm (see Figure 1). Accordingly, Hair,

Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt, (2013) recommend that validity and reliability index

are the two main standards used in PLS-SEM analysis to evaluate the goodness of

measurement model. The results in table 3 indicates the composite reliability of

the latent constructs which ranges between 0.81 to 0.84 for the all the latent

constructs; thus fulfilled the suggested level of 0.70 and above (Hair et al., 2010).

In addition, the result shows that average variance extracted (AVE) stands between

0.52 to 0.53 which are all exceeded the threshold level of 0.50, thereby sustaining

the convergent validity for all the latent constructs (Hair et al., 2013).


Figure 1: PLS-SEM Algorithm

Construct Indicator Loading Composite

Reliability

AVE

Entrepreneurial inclination EEI 09 0.630 0.81 0.52

EEI 10 0.683

EEI 13 0.813EEI 14 0.744

Entrepreneurial Skills EES 04 0.756 0.82 0.53

EES 05 0.687

EES 06 0.734

EES 07 0.737

Internal Supportive

Environment

INT 01 0.751 0.82 0.53

INT 02 0.804

INT 03 0.732

INT 04 0.822

INT 05 0.455

External Supportive

Environment

EXT 01 0.769 0.84 0.53

EXT 03 0.766

EXT 04 0.667

EXT 05 0.707


Furthermore, the result in table 4 displays the AVEs (diagonal side in bold)

and the squared of inter-construct correlations (off the diagonal side). The result

established that all the AVEs values are greater than the values of squared inter-

constructs correlations; thus satisfied the requirement for discriminant validity.

Hence the study confirmed the reliability and validity of the latent variables (Hair,

Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, 2012).

Table 4: Square Root of AVE and Correlation of Latent Variables

1 2 3 4

Entrepreneurial inclination 0.721

Entrepreneurial Skills 0.318 0.729

Internal Supportive Environment 0.112 0.203 0.729

External Supportive Environment 0.191 0.172 0.440 0.725

Structural Model

The structural model was assessed in this study using path coefficient and

the R2 value (Hair, et al., 2010). PLS-SEM bootstrapping was used at 5000 sub-

sample to establish the significance of the path coefficients in the study (see Figure

2). The results in table 6 and 7 display the outcomes of the hypotheses test, path

coefficients, t-values and p-values.


Figure 2: PLS-SEM Bootstrapping

Table 5: Path Coefficients and Hypotheses Testing (Direct Relationship)

Hypothesis Path Beta Standard Error

T-value P-value

Decision

H1 INT-> EEI 0.146 0.060 2.428 0.01** Supported

H2 EXT ->

EEI

-0.012 0.068 0.177 0.43 Not

supported

H3 INT ->

EES

0.102 0.054 1.889 0.03* Supported

H4 EXT ->

EES

0.158 0.057 2.759 0.00** Supported

H5 EES -> EEI

0.295 0.058 5.087 0.00** Supported

Note: **Significant at 0.01 (1-tailed), *Significant at 0.05 (1-tailed).

Hypothesis 1 predicts a positive relationship between internal supportive

environment and entrepreneurial inclination. Accordingly, the result in table 5

discloses that there is a positive and a significant relationship between internal

supportive environment and entrepreneurial inclination (ß = 0.146, t = 2.428, p <


0.01); hence, H1 is supported. In contrary, the result shows no significant

relationship between external supportive environment and entrepreneurial

inclination (ß = -0.012, t = 0.177, p < 0.43); therefore, H2 is not supported. In

addition, the result also reveals that a positive and significant relationship exist

between internal supportive environment and entrepreneurial skills (ß = 0.102, t =

1.889, p < 0.03); thereby the result indicates support for H3. Similarly, the result

indicates that the relationship between external supportive environment and

entrepreneurial skills is positively significant (ß = 0.158, t = 2.759, p < 0.00);

henceforth supporting the H4. Furthermore, the result submits that there is a

positive and a significant relationship between entrepreneurial skills and

entrepreneurial inclination (ß = 0.295, t = 5.087, p < 0.00); therefore, H5 is hereby

supported.

Table 6: Path Coefficients and Hypotheses Testing (Indirect Relationship)

Hypothesis Path Beta Std.

Error

T-value P-value Decision

H6 INT -> EES ->

ECP 0.033

0.016 1.99 0.02* Supported

H7 EXT -> EES ->

ECP 0.052

0.022 2.34 0.01** Supported

Note: **Significant at 0.01, *Significant at 0.05

Table 6 above, displays the results of indirect association between

independent latent variables and the dependent latent variable through a mediating

variable as assumed in hypothesis 6 and 7 of the study. Hypothesis 6 assumed

entrepreneurial skills mediate the relationship between internal environment and

entrepreneurial inclination, the result discloses the t-value of 1.99 (ß = 0.082, p <

0.00) is higher than threshold of 1.64 and above at 0.05 level of significance (Hair

et al., 2010); hence H6 is supported. The result in relation to H7 shows t-value of

2.34 (ß = 0.052, p < 0.01) on association between external environment and

entrepreneurial inclination using entrepreneurial skills as mediating variable. This

t-value is greater than threshold value of 1.64 and above at 0.05 level of

significance (Hair et al., 2010), demonstrating that entrepreneurial skills mediate

the association between external environment and students’ entrepreneurial

inclination.


DISCUSSION

The study was designed to empirically test the mediating effect of

entrepreneurial Skills on the association between supportive environment and

students’ entrepreneurial inclination. The study was conducted using a sample of

final year students from different faculties across six universities in the northern

Nigeria. The descriptive analysis of the respondents showed that majority were at

the age bracket between 18 to 29 years (83%), while those at the age bracket of 30

and above constituted 17%; male respondents represented about 66% of the total

respondents and female counterpart represented 34%. In this study, 46% of the

respondents are studying business, 23% agriculture, 20% technology and 11%

engineering. In addition, 40% of the respondents were never employed; 23% were

self-employed; 15% were civil servants while working for others and

apprenticeship accounted for 11% each. The descriptive analysis establishes that

the respondents provide sufficient variance for the study of this nature.

As predicted, the result in relation to the H1 was found to be positively

significant; hence empirically the result supported H1. This result coincides with

the findings of the previous studies that argue supportive environment positively

influences entrepreneurial inclination (Engle, et al, 2011; Falck, et al., 2012). In

contrary, the result reported no significant association between external supportive

environment and students’ entrepreneurial inclination. In addition, the result

demonstrates internal supportive environment impact positively on entrepreneurial

skills; therefore, supporting H3. Similarly, previous studies reported favourable

institutional environment promotes entrepreneurial skills (Engle, Dimitriadi,

Gavidia, Schlaegel, Delanoe, Alavarado, He, Buame, & Wolff, 2010; Manolova,

Eunni, & Gyoshev, 2008; Reynolds 2011). Furthermore, the result submits that

entrepreneurial skills positively influence the students’ entrepreneurial inclination;

consequently, H5 is thereby supported. This result is also in line with the several

previous studies demonstrating the influence of entrepreneurial skills on

entrepreneurial career preference (Abdulai, 2015; Block, Hoogerheide & Thurik

2011; Engle, et al, 2010; Giacomin, Janssen, Pruett, Shinnar, Llopis & Toney

2011; Hattab 2014; Hussain & Norashidah, 2015; Iakovleva, Kolvereid &

Stephan, 2011; Molaei, Zali, Mobaraki & Farsi, 2014; Rae & Woodier-Harris,

2013).

Accordingly, the result highlighted on the analysis of the indirect

relationships as hypothesized in H6 and H7 of this study. The finding reveals that

entrepreneurial skills can mediate the relationship between institutional supportive


environment and the students’ entrepreneurial inclination; hence H6 is hereby

established. In addition, the finding also reveals that entrepreneurial skills can

significantly mediate the relationship between external supportive environment

and the students’ entrepreneurial inclination; indicating the acceptance of H7.

Therefore, these suggest that the impact of supportive environment on students’

entrepreneurial inclination can be enhanced by providing the students with the

necessary entrepreneurial skills as an intervening factor.

CONCLUSION

The aim of the study was to empirically investigate the impact of

supportive environment and entrepreneurial skills on students’ entrepreneurial

inclination. Empirically, the findings reveal a strong positive association was

found between internal supportive environment and students’ entrepreneurial

inclination. These findings are in covenants with previous studies which also show

supportive environment positively influences students’ entrepreneurial

inclination. However, in contrary the findings reveal no significant association

between external supportive environment and students’ entrepreneurial

inclination. Furthermore, the findings reveal that associations between supportive

environment and entrepreneurial skills; and entrepreneurial skills and

entrepreneurial inclination were found to be statistically significant. In addition,

entrepreneurial skills were statistically found to mediate the association between

supportive environment and students’ entrepreneurial inclination. Henceforth, the

implications for entrepreneurship researchers and educators are to find and adopt

teaching methods that boots students’ entrepreneurial skills which in turn enhances

the students’ entrepreneurial inclination.

REFERENCES:

Abdulai, A., (2015). Entrepreneurship education and its impact on self-

employment intention and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Humanities and Social

Sciences, 3 (1): 57-63.

Block, J. H., Hoogerheide, L., & Thurik, R. (2013). Education and

entrepreneurial choice: An instrumental variables analysis. International Small

Business Journal, 31(1), 23-33.


Boyd, N.G. & Vozikis, G.S., (1994). “The Influence of self-efficacy on the

development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions”, Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice, 18(4), 63-77.

Bruton, G. D., Filatotchev, I., Chahine, S., & Wright, M. (2010). Governance,

ownership structure, and performance of IPO firms: The impact of different

types of private equity investors and institutional environments. Strategic

management journal, 31(5), 491-509.

Carland, J. W. & Carland, J. C., (2010). Entrepreneurship Education: Building

for the Future. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 40-60.

Chen C.C., Greene P.G. & Crick, A., (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy

distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4),

295-316.

Cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career

Development, 39, 162–185.

Draycott, M. & Rae, D., (2011). “Enterprise education in schools and the role of

competency frameworks”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &

Research, 17 (2), 127-145.

Engle, R. L., Schlaegel, C., & Dimitriadi, N. (2011). Institutions and

entrepreneurial intent: A cross-country study. Journal of Developmental

Entrepreneurship, 16(02), 227-250.

Engle, R., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alavarado, I.,

He, X., Buame, S., & Wolff, B., (2010). Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve country

evaluation of Ajzen’s model of planned behaviour. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(1), 35–37.

Ethugala, C. V. (2011). Expectations of the Private and Civil Stakeholders

Responsiveness of the State Sector: Tea Industry of Sri Lanka. Journal of

APBITM, 1(1), 13-19.

Falck, O., Heblich, S. & Luedemann, E., (2012). Identity and Entrepreneurship:

Do School Peers Shape Entrepreneurial Intentions? Small Business Economics

39 (1), 39-59.


Fayolle, A., Benoit, G. & Narjisse, L.C., (2006). Assessing the Impact of

Entrepreneurship Education Programs: A New Methodology, Journal of

European Industrial Training, 30 (8/9), 701-20.

Franke, N. & Lu¨thje, C., (2004). “Entrepreneurial intentions of business

students: a benchmarking study”, International Journal of Innovation and

Technology Management, 1 (3), 269-288.

Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Pruett, M., Shinnar, R., Llopis, F., & Toney, B.,

(2011). Entrepreneurial intentions, motivations and barriers: Differences among

American, Asian and European students. International Entrepreneurship and

Management Journal, 7(2), 219–238.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. & King, W., (1997). “Some research perspectives on

entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small

business management”, International Small Business Journal, 15 (3), 56-77.

Gupta, V.K. & Bhawe, N.M. (2007). “The influence of proactive personality and

stereotype threat on women’s entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies, 13 (4), 73-85.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate

data analysis (7th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T.M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). An primer on

partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). London: Sage

Publication.

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of

the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing

research. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 40(3), 414-433.

Hattab, H.W., (2014). Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial

Intentions of University Students in Egypt, The Journal of Entrepreneurship

23(1): 1-18.

Henry C., Hill, F., & Leitch C., (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training:

Can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Education & Training, 47 (2/3), 98-112.


Hussain, A., & Norashidah, B.H., (2015). Impact of Entrepreneurial Education

on Entrepreneurial Intentions of Pakistani Students. Journal of Entrepreneurship

and Business Innovation, 2(1), 43-53.

Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L., & Stephan, U., (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in

developing and developed countries. Education + Training, 53(5), 353–370.

Jones, P. Miller, C., Jones, A. Packham, G., Pickenell, D. & Zbierowski, P.,

(2011). Attitudes and motivations of Polish students towards entrepreneurial

activity. Education þ Training, 53(5), 416-432.

Kelley, D.J., Singer, S. & Herrington, M.D., (2012). “The 2011 Global

environments for entrepreneurship: Evidence from emerging economies in

Eastern Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 203-218.

Martin Cruz, N., Rodriguez Escudero, A.I., Barahona, J.H. & Leitao, F.S.,

(2009). “The effect of entrepreneurship education programs on satisfaction with

innovation behaviour and performance”, Journal of European Industrial

Training, 33 (3), 198-214.

Matlay, H. (2009). “Entrepreneurship education in the UK, A critical analysis of

stakeholder involvement and expectations”, Journal of Small Business and

Enterprise Development, 16 (2), 355-68.


Molaei, R., Zali, M.R., Mobaraki, M.H. & Farsi, J.Y., (2014)."The impact of

entrepreneurial ideas and cognitive style on students’ entrepreneurial intention",

Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 6 (2): 140 – 162.

Moriano, J. A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., & Zarafshani, K.

(2012). A cross cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention.

Journal of Career Development, 39, 162–185.

Moy, J. W., Luk, V. W., & Wright, P. C. (2003). Perceptions of entrepreneurship

as a career: Views of young people in Hong Kong. Equal Opportunities

International, 22(4), 16-40.

Neck, H.M. & Greene, P.G., (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds

and new frontiers, Journal of Small Business Management, 49 (1): 55-70.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D., & Brychan, T., (2010).

Attitudes towards entrepreneurship education: A comparative analysis.

Education + Training, 52(8/9), 568–586.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D., & Brychan, T. (2010).

Attitudes towards entrepreneurship education: A comparative analysis.

Education + Training, 52(8/9), 568–586.

Parnell, J.A., Crandall, W.R. & Menefee, M. (1995). “Examining the impact of

culture on entrepreneurial propensity: an empirical study of prospective

American and Egyptian entrepreneurs”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 1

(1) 39-52.

Peterman, N.E. & Kennedy, J., (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing

students’ Perceptions of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice 28(2), 129-144.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education—A systematic

review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 477–506.

Rae, D. & Woodier-Harris, N. R., (2013). "How does enterprise and

entrepreneurship education influence postgraduate students’ career intentions in

the New Era economy?", Education + Training, 55 (8/9), 926 – 948.


Rae, D., Penaluna, A. & Dhaliwal, H. (2011). “Higher education and graduate

enterprise in the new era”, Graduate Market Trends, Winter, Higher Education

Careers Service Unit, Manchester.

Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-

Garcia, P. & Chin, N. (2005). “Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection

design and implementation 1998-2003”, Small Business Economics, 24 (3), 205-

231.

Seet, P.S. and Seet, L.C. (2006), “Changing entrepreneurial perceptions and

developing entrepreneurial competencies through experiential learning: evidence

from entrepreneurship education in Singapore’s tertiary education institutions”,

Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 2 (2), 143-171.

Sesen, H., (2013). Personality or environment? A comprehensive study on the

entrepreneurial intentions of university students, Education + Training, 55 (7),

624 – 640.

Turker, D., Onvural, B., Kursunluoglu, E. & Pinar, C. (2005), “Entrepreneurial

propensity: a field study on the Turkish university students”, International

Journal of Business, Economics and Management, 1 (3), 15-27.

Valliere, D., & Peterson, R., (2009). Entrepreneurship and economic growth:

Evidence from emerging and developed countries. Entrepreneurship & Regional

Development, 21(5/6), 459–480.

Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Grilo, I., van der Zwan, P. (2012). Explaining

Preferences and Actual Involvement in Self-Employment: Gender and the

Entrepreneurial Personality, Journal of Economic Psychology, 33 (2), 325-341.

Zhang, Y., Duysters, G., & Cloodt, M., (2013). The role of entrepreneurship

education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention.

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 3 (4), 14-21.


LEADERSHIP PARADIGMS, GENERATIONAL

DIFFERENCES AND CULTURAL NORMS AND THEIR

EFFECTS ON SERVICE QUALITY IN THE RESTAURANT

INDUSTRY

Dean A. Koutroumanis

The University of Tampa

Deirdre P. Dixon

The University of Tampa

ABSTRACT

The restaurant business is not an emerging market. Standard leadership

practices and styles have been successful for decades. The millennials have

proven to have different dining habits than their predecessors, so it is worth a

look to examine if newer leadership styles could help with basics such as

employee turnover and service quality. Our supposition is that the lack of a

purposeful leadership style and culture could cause a bad service experience, or

even failure with the new cohort of dinners. With the various generations both

managing and determining which restaurants are successful, restaurant

entrepreneurs should examine the new school of leadership paradigms to

determine the impact of leadership and culture on success of the enterprise.

Key Words: leadership, hospitality, Generations, culture service quality

INTRODUCTION

The restaurant industry is a unique and complex industry with long and

deep-rooted ties to classical management and leadership philosophies. Employee

attitude, behavior, and work effort has a significant effect on service quality,

satisfaction, and customer retention in the service industry (Stamper & Van

Dyne, 2003). Developing specific human resource practices can improve various

aspects of job satisfaction across time (Rayton & Yalabik, 2014; Spagnoli,

Caetano, & Santos, 2012). Employee satisfaction positively relates to customer

satisfaction and customer loyalty (Payne & Webber, 2006). An employee's job

satisfaction influences an organization's performance, as customer service is

greatly affected by employee satisfaction (Groch, 2013). Employers can enhance

employee job satisfaction to increase service. The employee attitude impacts

heavily on customer’s perception of service quality (Hartline & Ferrell, 1996),


and employee satisfaction in the hospitality industry is affected by leadership

behavior (Rothfelder, Ottenbacher, & Harrington, 2012).

The service management literature has emphasized the importance of the

human element in the delivery of superior service, and customers’ perception of

exceptional service is often associated with the personal interaction with the

employees (Qu & Sit, 2007). The connection is especially relatable in the

highly competitive restaurant industry. Several variables affect customer

satisfaction and retention in the foodservice industry. Research in the area

indicates that there is a positive correlation between service quality and customer

intentions to return to a full service restaurant (Koutroumanis, Watson, &

Dastoor, 2012). Service quality is an integral part of a restaurant’s success.

Successful operators constantly focus on improving all areas related to satisfying

customers. Employees, particularly the front-line employees, are an integral part

of the service delivery process. Therefore, restaurateurs should focus on

developing processes that build on employee loyalty in order to exceed the level

of customer service that their patrons expect (Stevens, Knutson, & Patton, 1995).

Leadership styles can make a difference in the hospitality industry (Perna,

2016). Even with today’s newer management paradigms and leadership styles

like transcendental leadership (Alexakis, 2011), transformational leadership

(Bass & Bass, 2008), authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), and servant

leadership (Greenleaf, 2002), the mechanistic processes are still very prevalent

in today’s restaurants (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994). From the hostesses programmed

greetings at the front door, to the scripted verbiage recited by the servers,

Taylorism still remains the norm in restaurant operations (Smucker, 2001); will

newer dinners require more?

As generational changes in dining preferences have emerged (Dixon,

Miscuraca, & Koutroumanis, 2018), it is crucial to look at the future dining

habits and trends of the newest cohort of dinners. Today’s leaders and managers

must understand baby boomers to generation “Z” to successfully navigate the

contemporary restaurant business landscape.

Organizational culture has become a construct that has received a lot of

attention from researchers. Organizational culture is the “glue” that keeps an

organization together and gives the organization its distinct characteristics

(Creque, 2003). Davidson (2003) has additionally linked organizational culture

to service quality.

Service quality has received attention from researchers since the mid

1980’s with the primary work being conducted by Parasuraman, Berry and


Zeithaml (1988). Studies specifically involving the hospitality industry and

service quality have also been examined (Bojanic & Drew Rosen, 1994;

Koutroumanis et al., 2012; Saleh & Ryan, 1991; Stevens et al., 1995). The

current research examined leadership paradigms, generational differences and

cultural norms and their effects on service quality in the restaurant business.

MECHANISTIC PRACTICES IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY

The restaurant industry is a very complex and unique industry, dealing

with multiple facets of typical business operations. In essence, restaurateurs are

running two critical components of business operations: manufacturing and sales,

all under one roof (Biswas & Cassell, 1996). It is one of the only industries that

must coordinate these complex tasks within the confines of the same facility. The

manufacturing component has to do with kitchen operations. Restaurateurs must

coordinate human resource management practices for this component of

business, as well as develop strategic processes to execute production and

expediting of all food and beverage items. Secondly, restaurateurs must

coordinate proper human resource management practices in hiring, developing

and executing proper salesmanship and service practices to ensure a positive

dining experience (Biswas & Cassell, 1996; Smucker, 2001) Therefore,

restaurateurs must be concerned with both product quality and the level of

service quality provided (Bojanic & Drew Rosen, 1994).

Sasser, Olsen and Wyckoff (1978) further define and break down the

characteristics of service industries into the following four characteristics:

simultaneity, heterogeneity, intangibility and perishability(Biswas & Cassell,

1996). Simultaneity, as discussed above refers to the manufacturing and

consumption of the food products with in the same facility. This function is

different from the traditional manufacturing setting where the manufacturer

could be thousands of miles from the consumer. Heterogeneity refers to the way

that restaurants attempt to consistently reproduce the food and service. This is

very difficult to accomplish consistently because of several factors including,

raw product quality, staff attitude, turnover, mood and atmosphere. Intangibility

refers to the actual service being provided. Perception of service quality differs

from person to person and depends on the individuals’ perceptions and

expectations, making this construct very difficult to understand. Finally,


perishability is concerned with the shelf life of the food products being served.

This characteristic shows that there is a definite life span associated with the food

products being purchased (Biswas & Cassell, 1996; Smucker, 2001). The

preceding factors clearly show the differentiation and complexity involved with

the restaurant industry as opposed to other businesses.

Every generation develops new philosophies on how to manage people in

organizations (Smucker, 2001). From Frederick Taylor’s scientific “one best

way” approach, to today’s management philosophies’ impact on the industry

have been extremely dynamic. With advances in motivational driven

management to leadership theories, it seems that the restaurant industry has

fallen behind the curve in some of its practices. As advanced as management

thought has come, it seems that the restaurant industry still heavily relies on the

classical hierarchal processes (Alexakis, 2011).

McDonald’s has been to the restaurant industry what Henry Ford was to

the automobile industry. Ray Kroc set in motion tasks that specified exactly

what needed to be done step-by-step and required vigorous training of the staff to

make sure that the proper procedures were followed. This strategy was

Taylorism at its best and was the driving factor that spurred the unprecedented

growth of the McDonald’s fast food chain (Smucker, 2001; Taylor & Lyon,

1995). The principles and philosophies of their success pored over to the other

fast food chains as well. McDonalds has become the benchmark to reach in the

fast food industry.

With the success that had been spurred from McDonalds in the fast food

segment, restaurant companies involved with full service operations have also

turned to the philosophies of what is now known as “McDonaldization” to

structure their businesses (Smucker, 2001). National chain restaurants and

independents alike have adopted many of the standardization philosophies and

implemented them into extremely detailed operations and training manuals. This

standardization exists in all facets of the operation from the front of the house to

the kitchen. Many restaurants have implemented recipe manuals, production

schedules, purchasing schedules and step-by-step instructions in place that depict

exactly what the desired outcome (food item) needs to be and looks like. If the

kitchen staff can read (manuals today are multilingual) and are properly trained,

the products will be consistent nationwide. In the front of the house all actions

are specifically programmed into the staff, from greeting the customers to order

taking to how and when to present the check at the end of the meal (Smucker,

2001).


The McDonalds approach converges on the principles of mass

production, again lending itself back to Taylor and his “one best way”

philosophy. The underpinnings of this philosophy weigh in on the ability of

organizations to strive for stability and control of operations (Taylor & Lyon,

1995). A competing paradigm and one that challenges the virtues of mass

production is that of mass customization. One of the reasons for this shift in

paradigms is the fact that the consumer is becoming more sophisticated thereby

creating a demand for the customization paradigm (Taylor & Lyon, 1995).

Originally, companies like McDonalds had the philosophy of “have it our way”

(mass production), until their main competitor Burger King said the customer

could “have it their way” (mass customization) (Taylor & Lyon, 1995).

Customer orientation is at the root of this philosophy. Restaurants have adapted

to the philosophy of customer orientation. Although there is a set menu and the

menu items are set to specific standards, customers have, in most cases the

ability to modify what they want and how it is prepared. This shift in paradigms

has also come at a cost. Taylor and Lyon (1995) state that in order to perform at

this level employees need to have increased levels of training to be able to handle

the diversity of customer requests.

Leadership in Hospitality

Traditionally the hospitality industry is known for highly bureaucratic

management style and philosophy (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994). Classical

management styles are that of highly defined, routininzed practices, which have

strict adherence to specific rules and regulations (Smucker, 2001), which can be

traced back to Max Webber and his contribution to management thought. The

traditional management philosophy in the hospitality industry does not take into

effect the person, or individual doing the job, but focuses more on the job itself.

Identifying what the specific tasks and requirements of the job are and then

training the employees to perform these duties has been and remains to be the

norm in the restaurant industry (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994). In most cases the

restaurant industry is very militaristic in nature and a very difficult and

demanding industry in which to work. The classical management style works

well when there is little competition, and an over supply of labor force. This is

definitely not the case in the restaurant industry. Competition is fierce, and lack


of labor has plagued this industry for a long time. Additionally, turnover in this

industry is in upwards of 250% (Sanson, 2004).

With the classical management style still prevalent in the industry,

organizations have begun to examine different management styles and

approaches. A popular style in this industry is known as Transactional

leadership style (Avolio & Bass, 2001). This leadership style simply defined is a

“this for that” type of philosophy. These type organizations are highly goal

oriented and use rewards and punishments in order to accomplish tasks (Tracey

& Hinkin, 1994). A server not showing up for a shift could illustrate an example

of this philosophy in the restaurant industry. That individual would likely be

suspended for one to two shifts, taking cash out of their pockets. A positive

example is a server winning a sales contest and reaping a cash bonus or reward.

Both examples have both positive and negative consequences for each action.

Transformational leadership is another leadership style that has received

little to no attention as it relates to the restaurant or hospitality industry (Tracey

& Hinkin, 1994), but research is starting to show its importance (Salem, 2015).

Transformational leadership stresses the importance of organizational goals to its

employees and the role that the employees will have in the attainment of these

goals (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994). Charisma is a critical factor in the

transformational paradigm, which the leader uses to change the behavior of the

employees and create a “buy – in” to the organizational philosophies. Tracey

and Hinkin (1994) state that leaders in the hospitality industry are beginning to

see the importance of some of these transformational characteristics in leading

their organizations into the future.

Other leadership styles gaining in popularity include transcendental

leadership, servant leadership and authentic leadership. The restaurant owners

and managers must understand their leadership styles to better serve their

business (Von Bergen, Soper, & Gaster, 2002), and understanding their personal

style makes them more authentic to the employees. Servant leaders strive to

increase teamwork and personal involvement to capitalize on group benefits

(Gillet, Cartwright, & Van Vugt, 2011) for the restaurant. Transcendental

leadership in the hospitality industry implies stretching the limits of employees

so they perform optimally (Nicolaides, 2008). Incorporating these more recent

leadership styles in the restaurant business can prove to be beneficial (Alexakis,

2011).

According to David Ulrich (1998), human resource practices, and how

they are viewed, must be radically changed for organizations to optimize the use


of their human assets. In order for this to be achieved, organizations must first

understand and manage the complexities of their respective organizational

cultures (Goodman, Zammuto, & Gifford, 2001) and the different generational

cohorts (Rowe, 2008).

Generational Impact of Consumers

Millennials have been touted as being different from the prior

generational cohorts, but each generation of dinners have unique desires and

needs (Howe & Strauss, 2009). In general difference among the generations can

be something as simple as emotional appeals for Generation Y and value appeals

for Baby Boomers (Kumar & Lim, 2008), so restaurant entrepreneurs must

examine which markets they are in and what these individuals prefer. Baby

Boomers (1945-1964) make up approximately a quarter of the population; they

were inclined not to eat out as much, but like top service when they did (Rowe,

2008). Generation “X” individuals (1965-1980) tend to be more causal and

desired to spend time with their families when they dined (Rowe, 2008).

Millennials (1981-1995), also known as Generation “Y”, are more casual and

tended to dine out much more often and were interested in customer loyalty

programs (Flynn, 2016). This generation also had higher expectations of service

quality than others have had (Kueh & Ho Voon, 2007), and this large generation

also cares about restaurant’s being green (Atzori, Shapoval, & Murphy, 2018).

Finally, Generation “Z” (1995 until today) was slightly larger (26%) than the

Baby Boomers, and were more likely to look for healthier options and social

interaction with their meals ("Satisfying Millennial & Gen Z coffee drinkers,"

2016). Leaders of restaurants need to think about each of these distinct groups

and have a strategy for the overall business, just as they need to manage their

culture to ensure service quality standards.

Organizational Culture in the Hospitality Industry

Employee perspective with regard to the organization has shown to have

positive effects on the success of the organization. Having the right employees

will enhance the probability for success in any company in any industry

(Davidson, 2003). The hospitality industry is no stranger to that, and has a


greater likelihood of being impacted by its employees’ actions than other

industries (Koutroumanis et al., 2012).

Schein (1990) defines culture as “what a group learns over a period of

time as that group solves its problems of survival in an external environment and

its problems of internal integration. Such learning is simultaneously a

behavioral, cognitive, and an emotional process”(pp.111). Organizational

culture is defined by Davidson (2003) as “the shared beliefs and values that are

passed on to all within the organization”(pp.206). Organizational culture is a

construct that has been discussed and defined in various ways by many

researchers. One of the first researchers to use the term and write about

organizational culture was Andrew Pettigrew in 1979 (Schein, 1990). Prior to

Pettigrew there was a lot of focus on organizational climate. Researchers have

shown parallels between the two constructs (Davidson, 2003). According to

Schein (1990), the main differences between organizational climate and

organizational culture are the levels of complexity of the two constructs.

Organizational culture takes a more in-depth look at the organizational

components, whereas organizational climate is simply a surface view of the

organization.

Researchers have made comprehensive strides in order to define the

concept of organizational culture. In 1990 Schein defined organizational culture

as: (a) a pattern of basic assumptions; (b) invented, discovered, or developed by

a given group; (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation

and internal integration; (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid

and, therefore; (e) is to be taught to new members as the; (f) correct way to

perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 1990, p. 111).

Deshapande and Webster (1989) show a correlation between organizational

culture and marketing management (Creque, 2003). They study postulated that

the culture of an organization could be utilized as a tool to strengthen the

organization and help in the attainment of goals.

In 2002, Ogbonna and Harris investigated organizational culture in an

international five star hotel, a national four-star hotel, and two national

restaurants and wine bars in the United Kingdom. This study examined

organizational culture and the effect forced changes in culture had on the

organization. The researchers wanted to see if an organizational change in

culture could be used as a management tool to enhance operations. The

researchers felt that for the core staff, indoctrination with a specific culture

would have a positive effect on the organization. However, the employees that


turn over quickly, which are common in this industry, never become acclimated

within the culture (Ogbonna & Harris, 2002).

Another study conducted by Davidson (2003), examined the linkage

between organizational climate and service quality in the hotel industry. The

results of this research showed a high correlation between organizational climate

and performance. Davidson states, “the culture and climate shape not only

employee actions but also their commitment to a service ethic. It is this

commitment to service that is of paramount importance if customer satisfaction

is to be achieved”(pp. 211). The model he postulates discusses organizational

culture as the glue between organizational climate, HR practices, and service

quality (Davidson, 2003).

Current researchers of organizational culture have identified a model of

culture type, which, is broken down into four segments of identification,

including: Clan culture type; Adhocracy culture type; Market culture type; and

Hierarchy culture type (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). The Clan culture type is

defined as a “family style” culture type. There is a high degree of cohesion, a

sense of loyalty and commoradery among the employees, and a big sense of

ownership that the employees take within the organization (Cameron & Quinn,

1999). The Market culture type is the complete opposite of clan culture, with a

high degree of competitiveness. It is more individualistic in its approaches to

organizational goal attainment (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Hierarchy type culture

has its roots in Max Webber’s philosophies of management and structure. The

philosophy revolves around the premise of high levels of structure and authority

(Cameron & Quinn, 1999). Finally, Adhocracy culture type is the opposite of

the hierarchy culture type. This culture type is more free flowing in nature, and

extremely organic in nature, the pure antithesis of both Taylor’s and Webbers

philosophy and principles of management.

One also needs to examine the culture of the leader of the organization.

The leaders’ own culture, background and heritage are also important for the

formulation of their leadership style and its impact on the business (Stone et al.,

2017)

All of the systems in restaurants, whether related to Frederick Taylor and

his scientific management philosophies or the leadership theories, at the end of

the day are there to improve the organization. In the hospitality / restaurant

industry it comes down to service quality, and the level to which it is extended to

the customers.


Service Quality in Hospitality

Service organizations strive to provide their customers with highest level

of service in order to gain and sustain competitive advantage against industry

rivals (Chua Chow & Luk, 2005; Koutroumanis, Alexakis, & Dastoor, 2015).

Customer’s perceptions of service quality play a vital role in the long-term

success of organizations, thereby prompting management on developing

sustainable programs that will build higher levels of perceived service (Meng &

Elliott, 2009). Research has shown that employee behavior has plays a

significant role in the delivery of quality service (Davidson, 2003; Koutroumanis

et al., 2015). Service can be broken down into three different categories: physical

qualities (visible components); interactive service (actual performance of the

service); and corporate quality (image). The intangible nature of the construct of

service quality makes it difficult to properly measure and analyze

(Anantharanthan Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985). In 1985, Parasuraman

et al. identified and attempted to quantify some type of dimensions in order to

begin to understand how and why service quality occurs. In the first attempt to

find quantifiable measures of this intangible construct Parasuraman, et al. (1985)

identified the following ten dimensions:(1) Reliability – consistency of

performance; (2) Responsiveness – willingness of employees to provide service;

(3) Competence – possession of knowledge and skills to perform the task; (4)

Access – approachability; (5) Courtesy – politeness, respect, friendliness; (6)

Communication – keeping customers aware of what is going on; (7) Credibility –

trustworthiness, honesty, believability; (8) Security – elimination of risk, danger;

(9) Understanding/knowing the customer – knowing the customers’ needs; (10)

Tangibles – physical evidence of service. Further research by Parasuraman et al.

(1988) found levels of overlap in some of the dimensions identified in the 1985

study. They therefore merged the ten dimensions to create five new dimensions.

They are as follows: (1) Tangibles – facilities, equipment, and appearance of

personnel; (2) Reliability – ability to perform the promised service; (3)

Responsiveness – willingness to provide the service promptly; (4) Assurance -

knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and

confidence; (5) Empathy – caring, individualized attention the firm provides its

customers (Parasuraman et al., 1988). These dimensions were tested and

validated across a multitude of different service industries, and then formulated

into the first instrumental measure of service quality, SERQUAL.


These studies prove that in the service industry, especially the restaurant

industry, there are many more factors attributed to success. There are obviously

intangible facets to the business that Taylorism’s “best way” philosophy will fail

to address. Research has shown that it takes more today to satisfy customers than

simply having great execution of operations (Stevens et al., 1995). Factors

shifting the paradigm more to the mass customization philosophy again seem to

be playing a major role here in the service quality paradigm (Taylor & Lyon,

1995).

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The literature presented in this paper posits a very interesting position for

the restaurant / hospitality industry. The literature clearly showed that improving

service quality is the ultimate goal of the restaurant industry. By increasing the

level of service quality provided to customers, one can see a positive impact on

profits (Koutroumanis et. al, 2015; Stevens et al., 1995). Therefore, if service

quality is the underlining concern in the restaurant industry the question becomes

how to maximize it. With an extremely high turnover rate, upwards of 250%, a

key to improving service quality will start with reducing turnover (Sanson,

2004). This can be accomplished through a combination of strategies including

examining the leadership, generational differences and culture paradigms

discussed in this literature. First the creation of the proper organizational culture

is paramount. Of the four cultures described by Cameron and Quinn (1999), the

clan culture type seems to best fit the characteristics of the new restaurant model

we are attempting to build. With a team oriented focus and friendly, family type

values this culture type will lend itself well in building better service quality

(Koutroumanis, et. al, 2015).

Developing a new leadership style is where this process can become very

intricate. Transformational, servant and authentic leadership could each have a

positive link to both the culture type and service quality. However, there would

need to be a combination of strategies, both the newer styles and classical

leadership styles for success in this industry. The deep indoctrination of

Taylorism cannot be totally discarded. Mass customization is a positive

proponent to service quality, but specific standards and policies must remain in

order to give the restaurant consistency. Complete employee autonomy is not a

viable option for this industry. A combination of leadership style, generational

attention and modification in organizational culture type would be the best


attempt in trying to shift the managerial direction of this industry and increase

service quality.

REFERENCES

Alexakis, G. (2011). Transcendental leadership: The progressive hospitality

leader's silver bullet. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3),

708-713.

Atzori, R., Shapoval, V., & Murphy, K. S. (2018). Measuring Generation Y

consumers’ perceptions of green practices at Starbucks: An IPA analysis.

Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 21(1), 1-21.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2001). Developing potential across a full range of

Leadership Tm: Cases on transactional and transformational leadership:

Psychology Press.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development:

Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,

16(3), 315-338.

Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research,

and managerial applications: Free Pr.

Biswas, R., & Cassell, C. (1996). Strategic HRM and the gendered division of

labour in the hotel industry: a case study. Personnel Review, 25(2), 19-34.

Bojanic, D. C., & Drew Rosen, L. (1994). Measuring service quality in

restaurants: an application of the SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research

Journal, 18(1), 3-14.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organisational

culture. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Chua Chow, C., & Luk, P. (2005). A strategic service quality approach using

analytic hierarchy process. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,

15(3), 278-289.


Creque, C. A. (2003). Organizational culture type and business process

orientation congruence in buyer-seller relationships. Nova Southeastern

University. Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Davidson, M. C. (2003). Does organizational climate add to service quality in

hotels? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(4),

206-213.

Dixon, D. P., Miscuraca, J. A., & Koutroumanis, D. A. (2018). Looking

Strategically to the Future of Restaurants: Casual Dining or Fast Casual?

Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 102-117.

Flynn, M. (2016). How to engage both Billennials and Boomers. Restaurant

Hospitality.

Gillet, J., Cartwright, E., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Selfish or servant leadership?

Evolutionary predictions on leadership personalities in coordination games.

Personality and individual differences, 51(3), 231-236.

Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., & Gifford, B. D. (2001). The competing

values framework: Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the

quality of work life. Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 58-68.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of

legitimate power and greatness: Paulist Press.

Groch, J. (2013). Satisfaction: A path to success for the gof industry. Paper

presented at the Mustage International Academic Conference, Las Vegas, NV.

Hartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer-contact

service employees: an empirical investigation. The Journal of Marketing, 52-70.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2009). Millennials rising: The next great generation.

New York, NY: Vintage.

Koutroumanis, D. A., Alexakis, G., & Dastoor, B. R. (2015). The influence

organizational culture has on commitment in the restaurant industry. Small

Business Institute Journal, 11(2), 27.

Koutroumanis, D. A., Watson, M. A., & Dastoor, B. R. (2012). Developing

organizational culture in independently owned restaurants: Links to service


quality and customers' intentions to return. Journal of Applied Business

Research, 28(1), 15.

Kueh, K., & Ho Voon, B. (2007). Culture and service quality expectations:

Evidence from Generation Y consumers in Malaysia. Managing Service Quality:

An International Journal, 17(6), 656-680.

Kumar, A., & Lim, H. (2008). Age differences in mobile service perceptions:

comparison of Generation Y and baby boomers. Journal of services marketing,

22(7), 568-577.

Meng, J., & Elliott, K. M. (2009). Investigating structural relationships between

service quality, switching costs, and customer satisfaction. The Journal of

Applied Business and Economics, 9(2), 54.

Nicolaides, A. (2008). Transcendental leadership versus management in the

South African hospitality industry: A recipe for success. Paper presented at the

The Eighth International Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Change in

Organisations.

Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2002). Managing organisational culture: Insights

from the hospitality industry. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(1), 33-

53.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of

service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing,

41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A multiple-

item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of

retailing, 64(1), 12-40.

Payne, S. C., & Webber, S. S. (2006). Effects of service provider attitudes and

employment status on citizenship behaviors and customers' attitudes and loyalty

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 365.

Perna, B. S. (2016). Exploring Situational Leadership in Quick Service

Restaurants. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 8(2), 1.


Qu, H., & Sit, C. Y. (2007). Hotel service quality in Hong Kong: An importance

and performance analysis. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Administration, 8(3), 49-72.

Rayton, B. A., & Yalabik, Z. Y. (2014). Work engagement, psychological

contract breach and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 25(17), 2382-2400.

Rothfelder, K., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Harrington, R. J. (2012). The impact of

transformational, transactional and non-leadership styles on employee job

satisfaction in the German hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality

Research, 12(4), 201-214.

Rowe, M. (2008). Generation Revelations. Restaurant Hospitality, 26-30.

Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analysing service quality in the hospitality

industry using the SERVQUAL model. Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324-

345.

Salem, I. E.-B. (2015). Transformational leadership: Relationship to job stress

and job burnout in five-star hotels. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(4),

240-253.

Sanson, M. (2004). Revved and ready. Restaurant Hospitality, 88(2), 41-49.

Sasser, W. E., Olsen, R. P., & Wyckoff, D. D. (1978). Management of service

operations: Text, cases, and readings. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Satisfying Millennial & Gen Z coffee drinkers. (2016). Nation's Restaurant

News.

Schein, E. (1990). Organiztaional Cul ture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-

119.

Smucker, J. (2001). Employee empowerment and self-direction in a family dining

restaurant chain: A case study. Walden University. Philadelphia, PA.

Spagnoli, P., Caetano, A., & Santos, S. C. (2012). Satisfaction with job aspects:

Do patterns change over time? Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 609-616.


Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for

measuring service quality in restaurants. Cornell hotel and restaurant

administration quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.

Stone, D. L., Canedo, J. C., Harrison, T. L., Lukaszewski, K. M., Suazo, M., &

Krueger, D. C. (2017). THE RELATIONS BETWEEN

ENTREPRENEURS'ETHNICITY, FAMILISM VALUES, BELIEFS, AND

USE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship,

28(2), 50-81.

Taylor, S., & Lyon, P. (1995). Paradigm lost: the rise and fall of

McDonaldization. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, 7(2/3), 64-68.

Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1994). Transformational leaders in the hospitality

industry. Cornell hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, 35(2), 18-24.

Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human resources. Harvard Business

Review, 76(1), 124-135.

Von Bergen, C., Soper, B., & Gaster, B. (2002). Effective self-management

techniques. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 1.


JBE Spring 2018 Print-Ready File...Stephen F. Austin State University Jurgita Baltrusaityte Axelson...

Documents

Transcript of JBE Spring 2018 Print-Ready File...Stephen F. Austin State University Jurgita Baltrusaityte Axelson...