Gender and Entrepreneurship: A Review and Process Model

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
27,5 Gender and entrepreneurship:
a review and process model
Diane M. Sullivan and William R. Meek
428 Management and Marketing Department, University of Dayton,
Dayton, Ohio, USA
Received June 2011
Revised January 2012
January 2012 Abstract
Accepted January 2012 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on gender, and specifically, women
and entrepreneurship as well as present a process model of gender and entrepreneurship to guide
future research.
Design/methodology/approach – Following research from Baron and Henry, the literature is
organized into a process model of gender and entrepreneurship and a brief review of the research on
each stage of the model is presented. Further, building on the process model, specific propositions
associated with each stage that are motivated by expectancy theory are developed.
Findings – Research on women and entrepreneurship has increased over the last two decades and
there is much research yet to be done.
Practical implications – Practical implications include that women may engage in networking
activities focused on family and friends for obtaining financial resources.
Social implications – Based on this review, evidence suggests societal attributions and
socialization processes relative to the sexes may create barriers to entry for women due to the
uneven distribution of assets, educational foci, and daily life activity expectations amongst the sexes.
These factors, in effect, create the glass ceiling that women are often described as facing that extends
to entrepreneurship. To lessen these effects, women might be advised to pursue education within fields
more closely linked to high-growth industries.
Originality/value – The authors review research on women and entrepreneurship from 1993-2010
and organize the literature within Baron and Henry’s process model of entrepreneurship. As such, the
paper illuminates a process model of gender and entrepreneurship that builds from and extends
research linking the I/O psychology and entrepreneurship literatures.
Keywords Gender, Entrepreneurship, Women, Business, Literature review
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Entrepreneurship has grown to become an important research domain. Concurrent
with its growth, interest in examining women’s issues associated with
entrepreneurship has also emerged. This is not surprising as business ownership is
one avenue through which women can break through the glass ceiling encountered
within organizations. Entrepreneurship is also associated with increasing the equality
across socioeconomic and demographic groups in society, contributing to the growth in
women entrepreneurs (Brush, 1992; Brush et al., 2009). In fact, between 1997 and 2002
the rate of women pursuing entrepreneurship increased by 19.8 percent (Lowry, 2006).
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 27 No. 5, 2012
pp. 428-458 The authors would like to thank the editor, Dianna L. Stone, and two anonymous reviewers for
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
their helpful comments and advice throughout the process of submitting and revising this
DOI 10.1108/02683941211235373 manuscript.
In light of the recent proliferation of women entrepreneurs, researchers have sought Gender and
to better understand issues associated with women and entrepreneurship. Given the entrepreneurship
increasing prevalence of research studying women and entrepreneurship, the purpose
of this article is to review the literature on research examining gender broadly and
women specifically and entrepreneurship. In doing so, we follow recent research
connecting entrepreneurship and industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology. We
organize the literature on gender and entrepreneurship within the micro-oriented 429
process model of entrepreneurship developed by Baron and Henry (2011) in order to
illuminate a process model of gender and entrepreneurship. To guide future research,
we also develop propositions motivated by expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) to
elaborate how stages of the entrepreneurial process relate to women entrepreneurs.
Before the review and process model of gender and entrepreneurship, we first briefly
describe Baron and Henry’s model and expectancy theory.
Process model of entrepreneurship

Recently, scholars have sought to link I/O psychology and entrepreneurship research.
In one such noteworthy effort, Baron and Henry (2011, p. 276) developed a process
model of entrepreneurship describing how “entrepreneurs create and operate viable
new companies through vigorous application of their ideas, skills, knowledge and
talents”. The process includes four stages:
(1) motivation (factors related to what motivates individuals to become
entrepreneurs);
(2) opportunity recognition (factors related to the likelihood individuals will
recognize opportunities and the types of opportunities recognized);
(3) acquiring resources (factors related to individuals’ behaviors, skills, and actions
as they impact the acquisition of firm resources); and
(4) entrepreneurial success/performance (factors related to achieving
organizational-level outcomes).
Figure 1 illustrates the basic model that Baron and Henry develop. In developing the
model, Baron and Henry also identify several theoretical perspectives and phenomena
related to each stage of their process model. These are listed in Table I.
In our review and in the process model of gender and entrepreneurship presented
next, we organize and describe the literature on women entrepreneurs as it relates to
these four stages and the theories and phenomena identified by Baron and Henry’s
model that are detailed in Table I.
Expectancy theory
One of the most prominent theories of work motivation, expectancy theory (Vroom,
1964), has been well adopted within the I/O literature to explain what motivates
individuals to engage in certain actions. Broadly, expectancy theory proposes
individuals engage in actions, or behaviors, to the extent that they believe (expectancy)
those actions will lead to outcomes that will be rewarded (instrumentality), and they
must value those outcomes/rewards (valence).
We believe that expectancy theory is particularly relevant in explaining how and
why women engage in the process of entrepreneurship. “Expectancy theory sees the
JMP
27,5
430
Figure 1.
Baron and Henry’s (2011)
Basic Process Model of
Entrepreneurship
anticipation of a reward as functioning selectively on actions expected to lead to it”

(Campbell et al., 1970, p. 343). We believe during different stages of the entrepreneurial
process expectancy theory arguments may be particularly powerful in explaining why
women may (or may not) engage in specific actions. In particular, we believe that their
beliefs regarding whether their actions will lead to certain entrepreneurial outcomes at
each stage may unfold in interesting ways. Further, we believe women entrepreneurs’
preferences for certain entrepreneurial outcomes, or rewards, may vary from men’s
suggesting interesting relationships related to their behaviors and the outcomes they
seek. Next, we describe the procedures used to identify articles included in the review
as well as boundary conditions of the paper.
Procedures and boundary conditions

In conducting the literature review, we searched for articles from 1993-2010 on the
topic of women and entrepreneurship. We focus on this timeframe because the last,
commonly-cited, broad review on the topic appeared in 1992 (Brush, 1992). In
determining the journals to search, we followed prior reviews on gender and
entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship more broadly (Brush, 1992; Brush et al., 2009;
Ireland and Webb, 2006). The terms utilized to identify articles included:
“entrepreneur” along with “gender”, “female” and “women” and their derivations.
We also searched “gender”, “female” and “women” and their derivations in
combination with: business owner, self employed, self employment and SME and
their derivations. We selected these terms following prior research (Brush, 1992; Brush
Gender and
Entrepreneurial motivation Expectancy theory
Goal setting
entrepreneurship
† Commitment
† Feedback
† Knowledge
Persistence
Job design 431
† Working conditions
† Work-family conflict
Autonomy
Task significance
Task identity
Skill variety
Individual factors
† Self efficacy
Prior experience
Risk propensity
Optimism
Overconfidence
Need for achievement
Need for independence
Passion
Conscientiousness
Openness to experience
Persistence/perseverance
Planning fallacy
Situational factors
† Government policies
† Rate of new market growth
† Availability within financial markets
Entrepreneurial opportunity Opportunity
recognition † Potential economic value
† Newness
† Perceived desirability
Amount of information
Access to information
Alertness
† Cognitive capacities (e.g. creativity, intelligence)
Prior knowledge/information
Prior work/life experience
Networks that lead to information helpful for identifying
opportunities (e.g. spouses, friends, coworkers, etc.)
Knowledge about customers
Knowledge about how to serve markets
Knowledge about technology
Search activities/active search
Proactive work behavior Table I.
Social network (breadth) Theoretical perspectives
Networking activities as sources of information and phenomena related to
Processes through which opportunities are identified the stages of Baron and
† Pattern recognition Henry’s (2011) Process
† Signal detection theory Model of
(continued) Entrepreneurship
JMP
Perception
27,5 Prototype model of pattern recognition (e.g. heuristics of typical
members of the category)
Regulatory focus theory
Acquiring essential Number of founders
entrepreneurial resources Ability to provide incentives to attract founders/employees
432 Human resource processes
Political and social skills
Social networks helpful for attracting/acquiring:
† Employees and other human resources
† Reputation
† Continued relationships (e.g. suppliers, financiers, etc.)
† Support
† Encouragement
† Expertise
† Tangible resources
† Financial resources
Social capital
Strong ties (e.g. family and close friends)
† Trust
Weak ties (e.g. coworkers, casual acquaintances, etc.)
† Bridging social capital
† Access to other network partners
Social competence
Parents and/or close friends with entrepreneurial experience
Entrepreneurial success/ Satisfaction with one’s career
performance Personal happiness
Effective psychological adjustment
Firm survival
Growth in sales
Growth in income
Growth in number of employees
Market value
Entrepreneurial outcomes other than financial/economic variables
† Attitudes
† Personal and social adjustment
† Health
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (e.g. individual-level variables
related to firm-level variables)
Relationship between optimism and financial performance
Note: Italicized text indicates areas studied in the literature on women and entrepreneurship
Table I. 1993-2010
et al., 2009) and we added additional terms based on newly emerging research topics.
Articles were included only if the central topic(s) or research questions involved gender
and entrepreneurship. Articles tangentially mentioning the terms, only using gender as
a control, or that were teaching cases, were excluded.
In conducting our search, we identified 93 articles. However, several articles
examined topics unrelated to Baron and Henry’s model. As such, we reviewed each
article to ensure it related to one of the four stages of Baron and Henry’s model. Articles
were included if they examined at least one phenomenon/theoretical perspective
described by Baron and Henry as detailed in Table I. This led us to include 60 articles Gender and
that were reviewed to help us develop the process model of gender and entrepreneurship
entrepreneurship.
Next we describe the process model of gender and entrepreneurship. Unlike Baron
and Henry (2011), we describe how each stage of the process relates, specifically, to
women entrepreneurs as evidenced by our review of the existing literature in order to
illuminate a process model of gender and entrepreneurship. Further, to guide future 433
research, we develop propositions related to each stage that are motivated by
expectancy theory. Because space limitations preclude an in-depth discussion of every
article, in each section we limit our descriptions to include representations of the
overall findings related to each stage. A comprehensive listing and summary of all
articles reviewed and journals searched can be found in Table II.
Process model of gender and entrepreneurship

Women’s motivation for entrepreneurship
The first stage in Baron and Henry’s (2011) process model of entrepreneurship
investigates factors related to what motivates individuals to become entrepreneurs.
Given the complexity and uncertainty associated with entrepreneurship, they suggest
that individual motives towards entrepreneurship are important. One motive
researchers have examined is job design. Some women view entrepreneurship as a
solution to challenges faced in traditional jobs like unfavorable working conditions or
work-family conflict. With regard to working conditions, research suggests that
women who disliked their supervisors and believed that they could do a better job than
management, were more likely to pursue entrepreneurship (Zapalska, 1997).
Frustration regarding career advancement opportunities (e.g. glass ceilings) has also
been noted as a reason why women pursue entrepreneurship (Buttner and Moore,
1997). Overall, this research suggests that women pursue entrepreneurship to gain
control over their advancement opportunities, performance evaluations, and to create a
more pleasant work environment.
With regard to work-family conflict, women often have a greater responsibility for
childcare activities than men and entrepreneurship is viewed as a mechanism toward a
more flexible schedule. Yet, as entrepreneurs of any gender increase the amount of time
they spend caring for children, the duration of their self-employment decreases
(Williams, 2004). Nonetheless, women have exhibited a greater preference for
family-related motivators than men, particularly when they have children (DeMartino
and Barbato, 2003). In general, research findings are consistent suggesting that women
are motivated to pursue entrepreneurship to gain schedule flexibility, higher family
involvement, and more time at home when compared to men (Parasuraman and
Simmers, 2001).
Beyond job design, several individual-level factors, including career reasons,
motivate women to pursue entrepreneurship. Carter et al. (2003) examined career
reasons of self-realization, financial success, roles, innovation, recognition, and
independence. Their results suggest men are motivated more by financial success and
innovation than women. However, women still value financial success, but they
evaluate it as less important than the need for independence. Other studies examining
career reasons have found similar results. For example, women college students and
business owners in Israel ranked independence, flexibility, and a dislike of authority as
27,5
JMP
434
1993-2010
Table II.
Summary of gender and
entrepreneurship articles
Mediator/
Citation/model stage/journala Main independent variables Dependent variable(s) (DV) moderator Theoryb Methods Key findings
Alsos et al. (2006) Gender Financial capital Funding None stated Mail survey and phone interviews Women grow firms less first 19
Resources/Success/Perf Firm growth Sales turnover perceptions Norwegian firm founders ðn ¼ months of operations
ETP Perceived funding Founder 360Þ for financial capital DV; n ¼Gender difference disappears if
requirements behavior 327Þ for sales turnover DV) control for amount of financial
Investor relationships Financial capital Hierarchical linear regression; capital invested in firm
Applied funding bivariate t-test Higher financial capital men
procure is why men’s firms grow
more than women’s
Anna et al. (1999) Venture efficacy Sales N/A Social learning Survey and in-depth interviews Traditional owners had: higher
Success/Perf Career expectations Business type theory Women entrepreneurs in efficacy for opportunity
JBV Importance of firm support traditional and non-traditional recognition, life balance and
firms in Utah and Illinois ðn ¼ security expectations; financial
143Þ support more important than non-
MANCOVA; Hierarchical traditional owners
regression Non-traditional owners had:
higher efficacy for planning;
expectations for money
Bates (2002) Industry Discrimination in market N/A None stated US Bureau of the Census database Gender trait determines market
Success/Perf Young firm access n ¼ 40;000 active small access
JBV 1992 sales businesses in US 1992 Women entrepreneurs not taken
Owner gender Logistic regression seriously outside of traditional
niches of retailing and personal
services
Baughn et al. (2006) GDP Proportion of women to men N/A Institutional theory Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Countries higher in overall
Motivation Entrepreneurial norms entrepreneurs survey data entrepreneurial activity have
ETP Gender equality 41 countries sampled 2000-2003 higher women’s participation
Multiple regression A country’s normative support for
women’s entrepreneurship
predicted by country’s level of
gender equality
Boden and Nucci (2000) Hours worked Firm survival None None stated Repeated measures survey design Education and prior work
Success/Perf Management experience US Census firm owner data 1982 experience positively relate to
JBV Capital invested ðn ¼ 1; 802 men; firm survival
n ¼ 2,174 women); New firms have higher survival
1987 ðn ¼ 454 men; prospects than acquired firms
n ¼ 451 women) Women use less financial capital
Multiple regression than men to start firms
Buttner (2001) Persevering Leadership/ Management N/A Relational theory Structured focus group interviews Consistent with relational theory,
Resources Mutual empowering style n ¼ 117 women entrepreneurs women use relational practices to
JBE Creating team Content analysis manage their firms
Achieving
(continued)
Mediator/
Buttner and Moore (1997) Reasons for leaving prior Measures of success N/A None stated Focus groups and survey data Most women leaving large firms
Motivation organization (pull versus push n ¼ 129 women entrepreneurs 12 for entrepreneurship more
JSBM factors) US states motivated by “pull” factors (self-
Factor analysis determination, challenge) versus
“push” factors (discrimination)
Women motivated by “pull”
factors; view success via self-
fulfilment versus profit
Caputo and Dolinsky (1998) Number of children Respondent type of N/A None stated Survey data from 1998 Having a self-employed spouse
Motivation Financial and human capital employment in 1998 1988 young women’s cohort of the increased likelihood of a woman
JSBM Household member resources National Longitudinal Survey of being an entrepreneur
Hours worked Labor Market Experience
n ¼ 5; 159 members between ages
14 and 24 in 1969
Logistic regression
Carter et al. (1997) Resource access Discontinuance Founding None stated Survey data from 1986 Women-owned firms have higher
Success/Perf Owner characteristics strategy n ¼ 203 retail firms in two probability of discontinuing than
JBV Founding strategy Resource access Midwestern US states men
Gender Logistic regression Women using super achiever
strategy have higher chance of
survival
Previous start-up experience
increases likelihood of survival
for men, not women
Carter, Gartner, Shaver and Self-realization Reasons for starting firms N/A None stated Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Nascent entrepreneurs evaluated
Gatewood (2003) Financial success Dynamics Database, survey and entrepreneurial reasons of roles
Motivation Roles interview data and recognition lower than non-
JBV Innovation n ¼ 205 women; n ¼ 179 men entrepreneurs
Recognition nascent entrepreneurs Men evaluated financial success
Independence Factor analysis; ANOVA and innovation higher than
women
Carter, Shaw, Lam and Wilson Gender Bank lending decisions N/A None stated Experimental design, verbal Women loan applicants assessed
(2007) protocol analysis on extent of firm research; Men
Resources Data from major UK clearing assessed on extent of opportunity
ETP bank information and financials
n ¼ 35 loan officers (16 men, 19 Women loan officers emphasized
women) meeting applicants and marital
Verbal protocol analysis status; Men officers emphasized
applicant’s commitment,
especially women’s
(continued)
entrepreneurship
Gender and
435
Table II.
27,5
JMP
436
Table II.
Mediator/
Chaganti et al. (1995) Goal orientation Capital structure decisions N/A Financial-economic Longitudinal NFIB survey data Entrepreneurs’ personal
Resources Business outlook perspective n ¼ 903 firm owners (83 percent characteristics key capital
ETP Human capital men) structure decisions
Strategic changes Two-group discriminant analysis Women, compared to men,
Gender preferred internal sources of
equity versus external sources
Cliff (1998) Gender Growth intentions N/A None stated Qualitative and quantitative Firms owned by women smaller
Success/Perf Firm resources personal interview data than men’s
JBV Founder resources n ¼ 141 men’s small firms; n ¼ Women emphasize personal
Prior ownership experience 88 women’s small firms from versus economics factors in firm
Home responsibilities Vancouver growth decisions
Importance of growth Content analysis; Chi-square tests
Coleman (2000) Firm age Use of financial products N/A None stated Survey data from 1993 Women entrepreneurs less likely
Resources Firm size (e.g. credit, leases, mortgages) n ¼ 3; 797 men entrepreneurs; to use external financing
JSBM Entrepreneur Gender n ¼ 840 women entrepreneurs Lenders may discriminate against
Organizational form SIC from National Survey of Small women when granting access to
classification Business Finances capital
t-tests; logistic regression
Collins-Dodd et al. (2004) FTE/PTE employees Firm revenues N/A None stated Mail survey n ¼ 86 women; n ¼ Men generate less revenue than
Success/Perf Home-based firm Profits 74 men certified general women per FTE and PTE; Men
JSBM Demographics (e.g. gender, accountants in British Columbia,earn higher revenue per hour
age, education, etc.) Canada worked and for each year
Hours worked Regression experience
City characteristics Women motivated by work/
Motivation family balance have more positive
financial outcomes than men with
same motivations
Crant (1996) Gender Entrepreneurial intentions N/A None stated Survey data Entrepreneurial intentions are
Motivation Education n ¼ 91 undergraduate and n ¼ 90 higher for men versus women,
JSBM Entrepreneurial parents MBA students MBA versus undergraduates, and
Proactive personality ANOVA; Regression for those with entrepreneur
parents versus non-entrepreneur
parents
Proactive personality positively
relates to entrepreneurial
intentions
Cron et al. (2009) Gender Treatment recommended Relationship None stated Experimental simulation Women take clients into account
Success/Perf Customer attributes Price quote orientation n ¼ 174 women and n ¼ 362 men with pricing and charge less than
OBHDP Firm size Income Gender veterinarian business owners men
Firm age ANOVA; Structural equation Women veterinarian’s income
Market potential modeling significantly lower than men’s
(continued)
Mediator/
DeMartino and Barbato (2003) Family/lifestyle and Gender of entrepreneur None None stated Survey Women have greater preference
Motivation Advancement/wealth creation n ¼ 261 MBA alumni who for family-related motivators for
JBV motivators became entrepreneurs entrepreneurship compared to
Logistic regression men
Demartino et al. (2006) Age Career orientation/ N/A None stated Survey Women entrepreneur’s personal
Motivation Time achievement n ¼ 2; 400 MBA alumni life scale ratings higher than men
JSBM Dependent children Family orientation t-tests; Regression Men entrepreneur’s career/
achievement ratings higher than
non-entrepreneurs and women
Having dependent children
decreased career/achievement
scores and increased personal life
scores of both genders
DeTienne and Chandler (2007) Entrepreneurial experience # Opportunities identified N/A Human capital Study 1: experiment with n ¼ 95 Human capital varies by gender
Opportunity recognition Prior employment Identification sequence theory undergraduate students Men have more industry and
ETP Industry experience Innovation level Social feminist Study 2: survey of n ¼ 189 high technical experience
Technical experience theory tech entrepreneurs Men and women use different
Age ANOVA; Multinomial logistic opportunity identification
regression processes and sequences
Fabowale et al. (1995) Firm age Loan turndown rates Systematic None stated 1990 National survey of Canadian Women entrepreneurs less
Resources Demographics (experience, Co-signature requests gender bias Federation of Independent satisfied than men
ETP education) Ratio of amount received to Business Women associated with smaller
Industry amount requested n ¼ 758 women; n ¼ 1; 907 men firms
Organizational form Interest rates Logistic regression; Multiple Credit terms and granting
Sales and growth regression decisions did not differ across
# of employees genders
Collateral
Source of loan(s)
Fasci and Valdez (1998) Age Ratio of net profit to gross N/A None stated Mail survey Gender negatively relates to
Success/Perf FTE revenue of the business n ¼ 328 women; n ¼ 276 men profits of women accounting
JSBM Home-based firm US CPAs practices when controlling for
Prior experience Multiple regression business/personal characteristics
Hours worked Ownership provides women the
Education flexibility to balance work/family
Marital status goals
Business characteristics
Fay and Williams (1993) Education Loans granted N/A None stated Two experimental simulations of When applicants have university
Resources Loans declined or restricted bank loan officers degree, gender not related to
JBV n ¼ 43 women; n ¼ 51 men likelihood of receiving loan; when
Chi-square test don’t have a university degree
loans more often granted to men
Education more important factor
for women than men
(continued)
entrepreneurship
Gender and
437
Table II.
27,5
JMP
438
Table II.
Mediator/
Gatewood, Shaver and Gartner Cognitive factors of: Entrepreneurial persistence Gender None stated Repeated measures survey Women become and persist as
(1995) Attributions n ¼ 85 clients of SBDC entrepreneurs for self-fulfilment
Motivation/success/Perf Beliefs in personal efficacy ANOVA; MANOVA and family goal reasons
JBV
Gatewood, Shaver, Powers and Expectancies Page views N/A Expectancy theory Experiment Men had higher overall
Gartner (2002) Word counts Qualitative n ¼ 179 undergraduate students entrepreneurial expectancies than
Motivation assessment of participants’ ANOVA women
ETP answers Negative feedback participants
had lower post-test expectancy for
starting a business than positive
feedback participants
Godwin, Stevens and Brenner Establishing mixed-sex Access to firm resources N/A Institutional theory N/A, Conceptual paper Women may enhance their access
(2006) founding teams Social network to broader networks, more
Resources theory resources and enhanced
ETP RBV legitimacy by partnering with a
man
Greve and Salaff (2003) Phase of firm development: Network size N/A None stated Cross-sectional survey Phase 1 entrepreneurs have
Resources/ Opportunity 1. Motivation Social capital n ¼ 213 US, n ¼ 52 Italian, n ¼ smallest network; Phase 2 the
Recognition 2. Planning 261 Swedish, n ¼ 62 Norwegian largest
ETP 3. Establishment entrepreneurs Women have more contacts than
4. Taking over a firm Regression; ANOVA men
Entrepreneurs from different
countries spend different amounts
of time developing and
maintaining networks
Women have more family in their
networks than men
Gudmundson and Hartenian (2000) Motivation for diversity Workplace diversity N/A Expectancy theory Mail survey Men entrepreneurs were more
Resources Perceptions of losses n ¼ 207 entrepreneurs from likely to have a diverse workforce
JSBM associated with environmental Milwaukee than women
threats Correlation analysis; Regression Men owned larger firms than
women, which may require a
more diverse workforce
Gundry and Welsch (2001) Entrepreneurial intensity Growth orientation N/A None stated Survey High growth women
Success/Perf Opportunity costs n ¼ 832 women entrepreneurs entrepreneurs more likely to use:
JBV Firm structure MANOVA team-based firm structure,
Sources of capital personal savings and friends or
family for start-up capital, and
SBA loans for expansion
(continued)
Mediator/
Harrison and Mason (2007) Gender Business angel market N/A Social feminist Survey Women angels are marginally
Opportunity Recognition Demographics theory n ¼ 21 women; n ¼ 19 men more likely to invest in women-
ETP Investment motivation business angels from UK owned firms
Investment preferences Chi-square test; Frequency Overall, in the angel capital
Investment activity analysis; Percentages market there are relatively few
differences related to gender
Haynes and Haynes (1999) Firm quality (credit riskiness) Types of credit received N/A None stated Repeated measures survey Women entrepreneurs borrow
Resources Founder gender Types of debt instruments Entrepreneurs from the 1987 and more from family and friends
JSBM 1993 National Surveys of Small than men
Business Finance (NSSBF) Men and women have similar
1987 n ¼ 2; 284; 1993 n ¼ 2; 969 access to lines of credit from
Non-linear logistic regression commercial banks
Women have more debt in
mortgage loans and less in leases
and equipment loans compared to
men
Jennings and McDougald (2007) Work/family interface Firm performance N/A Work-family N/A, Conceptual paper Proposes women have smaller
Success/Perf Coping strategies interface firm sizes, revenues, and income
AMR than men due to work/ family
interface and coping strategies
used
Jones and Tullous (2002) Age Financial and accounting N/A None stated Secondary data from SBDC Women perceived a greater need
Resources Education needs consultant records for financial and accounting help
JSBM Weak tie contacts Amount and type of contact n ¼ 133 pre-venture clients of a than men
Time spent with weak ties between clients and regional SBDC Hispanic and Anglo women
Type of interaction consultants ANOVA believe they need more finance
help than men
Only Hispanic women feel they
need more accounting help than
men
Kantor (2002) Qualitative Non-financial indicators of N/A None stated Case study of Southern Asian When studying women
Success/Perf entrepreneurial success/ women entrepreneurs entrepreneurs, measures of
ETP performance entrepreneurial success/
performance should be expanded
to include non-economic outcomes
like empowerment
(continued)
entrepreneurship
Gender and
439
Table II.
27,5
JMP
440
Table II.
Mediator/
Langowitz and Minniti (2007) Income Nascent entrepreneurs N/A Expectancy theory Survey Subjective perceptual variables
Motivation Education Necessity versus opportunity Neo-classical 2001 Global Entrepreneurship relate to the entrepreneurial
ETP Fear of failure entrepreneurs economic theory Monitor data n ¼ 24; 131 across propensity of women and account
Entrepreneurial contacts 17 countries for differences in entrepreneurial
Perception of opportunities Probit analysis activity across the sexes
Assessment of one’s own Women perceive themselves in a
start-up KSA’s less favorable way than men in all
countries, regardless of
entrepreneurial motivations
Lerner and Almor (2002) Perception of environment Volume of sales N/A Resource-based Survey Sales volume positively relates to
Success/Perf Strategic planning Owner income view n ¼ 220 Women Israeli all firm and entrepreneur
JSBM Firm resources # of employees Entrepreneurs capabilities
Entrepreneurial skills Regression Proactiveness in terms of
Management styles strategic planning is a central
Previous experience capability that positively relates
to firm performance measures
Lerner, Brush and Hisrich (1997) Motivations and goals Firm performance N/A Social learning Survey Economic necessity motives
Success/Perf Demographic variables # of employees theory n ¼ 220 Women Israeli positively related to profitability;
JBV Network affiliation Profits Entrepreneurs achievement positively related to
Human capital Gross revenues t-tests; Multiple regression income; independence negatively
Environmental influences related to revenues
Women belonging to a
networking firm had higher
profitability; those with multiple
advisors had higher revenues
Malach-Pines and Schwartz (2008) Gender Entrepreneurial and N/A Social role theory Study 1: phone survey of n ¼ 514 Men perceive themselves as more
Motivation managerial traits and values Evolutionary theory Israeli adults (51 percent women) suitable for entrepreneurship than
JMP Entrepreneurial intentions Attraction selection, Study 2: survey of n ¼ 313 Israeli women do
Career reasons attrition model management students (52 percent More men had a firm or intended
women) to start one than women did
Study 3: interviews with n ¼ 101 Women assessed flexible working
Israeli small business owners (32 schedule, dislike of authority, self-
percent women) actualization, and a wanting to
Factor analysis; t-tests; ANOVA; pass something to one’s family as
MANOVA; Percentages more important career reasons
than men
Manolova, Carter, Manev and Human capital Growth expectancy Gender Expectancy theory Survey Men’s networking positively
Gyoshev (2007) Networking n ¼ 544 new venture owners in related to their growth
Success/Perf Bulgaria (47 percent women) expectancies; women’s was not
ETP Multiple regression Human capital positively related
to the growth expectancies for
women, but not men
(continued)
Mediator/
Matthews and Moser (1996) Gender Interest in small firm N/A None stated 5 year longitudinal panel study Family business positively relates
Motivation Family background ownership n ¼ 89 former business students to individuals’ entrepreneurial
JSBM (50 men, 39 women) interests
MANOVA Men’s interest in entrepreneurship
is consistently higher than
women; women’s interest declines
over time
Maysami and Goby (1999) Conceptual Review of women’s N/A None stated N/A, Conceptual paper Motives for women’s
Motivation entrepreneurial motives entrepreneurship include desire to
JSBM be one’s own boss, autonomy, and
independence
Morris, Miyasaki, Watters and Female identity Growth orientation N/A Feminist theory Cross-sectional surveys (n ¼ 103) Women pulled into
Coombes (2006) % of equity-owned and in-depth personal interviews entrepreneurship via recognizing
Success/Perf Perception women face (n ¼ 50) of high and low-growth an opportunity are more growth-
JSBM obstacles entrepreneurs from central New oriented than those pushed due to
Marketing and selling York circumstances like job loss,
Industry Regression; Correlation analysis; financial needs, or family changes
Revenue Qualitative keyword analyses
Entrepreneurial motives
Noorderhaven, Thurik, Wennekers Dissatisfaction with society Rate of self-employment N/A None stated Panel study of European Countries with dissatisfied
and Stel (2004) Dissatisfaction with life within a country countries from multiple secondary citizens have a higher proportion
Motivation GDP per capita data sources 1978-2000 of entrepreneurship
ETP (Compendia 2000.2; OECD Push factors may be important
databases) predictors of entrepreneurship in
n ¼ 48 modern economies
Regression
Orhan (2001) Gender Entrepreneurial motivations N/A None stated Survey of men and women The financing gender bias women
Resources/success/Perf Resources for starting firm entrepreneurs; interviews are often described as facing is
JSBM Access to financing n ¼ 562 men; n ¼ 403 women due to the types of firms launched
Mean comparisons; Qualitative (low return; high risk)
interpretations Social networks used by men and
women for resources vary; men
use professional ties and women
use familial ties (e.g. spouses)
Orser, Riding, and Manley (2006) Gender of ownership team Applications for loans or Interactions Socialization theory Survey data from Statistics Women are less likely to pursue
Resources leases between size and Role investment Canada firm growth than men
ETP Industry sector sector theory n ¼ 2; 844 SMEs ðn ¼ 2; 357 men; After controlling for size and
Firm size Occupational n ¼ 487 women) sector, women were not less likely
crowding t-tests; Chi-square tests; Logistic to seek debt, leases, or supplier
regression financing than men but were less
likely to seek equity financing
than men
(continued)
entrepreneurship
Gender and
441
Table II.
27,5
JMP
442
Table II.
Mediator/
Parasuraman and Simmers (2001) Gender Motives Moderator: Gender role theory Survey of MBA students who Men reported higher autonomy,
Motivation/success/Perf Self-employed Satisfaction Gender were either self- or job involvement, time
JOB Organizationally employed Time at work/home organizationally- employed commitment to work, work-family
Work-family conflict n ¼ 386 conflict, and job satisfaction;
Hierarchical multiple regression Women reported more schedule
flexibility, family involvement,
time commitment to home, and
life stress than men
Shabbir and Di Gregorio (1996) Personal goals Structural factors N/A None stated Qualitative case study Womens’ entrepreneurial goals
Motivation n ¼ 33 Pakistani women ðn ¼ 16 include satisfaction, security and
JBV entrepreneurs, n ¼ 17 non- freedom
entrepreneurs) Prior work experience and extent
Case analysis of family support related to
women’s ability to start a firm in
Pakistan
Shelton (2006) Conceptual N/A N/A Role involvement N/A, Conceptual paper Women may utilize work-family
Success/Perf Role conflict theory management strategies to help
JSBM improve the performance and
growth of their firms
Role sharing may be especially
helpful for women to maximize
work and family roles
Singh and Lucas (2005) Homemaker or non- Resources of the potential N/A None stated Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Non-homemakers had higher
Resources homemaker new ventures Dynamics Database, survey and education and household income
ETP Business planning Entrepreneurs’ expectations interview data than homemakers
Firm size regarding their firms n ¼ 116 homemaker (women); Non-homemakers required more
Location n ¼ 700 non-homemaker capital to fund their firms and
entrepreneurs projected higher revenues than
Mean comparisons homemakers
Homemakers sought funding
from friends and family more
than non-homemakers
Sonfield, Lussier, Corman and Gender Firm innovation N/A Entrepreneurial Mail survey and telephone Found no gender differences in
McKinney (2001) Risk strategy matrix interviews innovation/ risk or in strategies
Success/Perf Strategic decision-making n ¼ 184 small firm owners in the employed
JSBM US (59 percent male) Men reported higher overall
Chi-square tests; Logistic satisfaction with firm
regression performance than women
(continued)
Mediator/
Sorenson, Folker and Brigham Collaborative network Firm performance Moderator: Conflict Secondary data from the Survey Women have a greater preference
(2008) orientation (CNO) gender management theory of Family Business from 1997 for CNO than men
Success/Perf Resource ðn ¼ 212Þ to 2000 ðn ¼ 193Þ Gender moderates the
ETP dependence theory ANOVA; Regression relationship between CNO and
firm performance where men had
higher performance than women
Tan (2008) Entrepreneurial orientation Return on assets N/A None stated Mail survey; interviews EO was similar for men and
Success/Perf (EO) Return on sales n ¼ 53 randomly sampled high- women; women were more
JBE Gender Sales growth tech Chinese enterprises (18 prepared to take risks and make
Investing for future advantage women) bold strategic moves; EO was
ANOVA; Multiple regression; more positively associated with
Qualitative case analysis revenues and sales growth for
women than for men
Ufuk and Özgen (2001) Age Reasons for pursuing N/A Role conflict theory Interview survey Women experience high life stress
Success/Perf Education entrepreneur-ship n ¼ 220 Turkish women due to balancing multiple
JBE Length of entrepreneurship Family and work stressors entrepreneurs responsibilities involving work
ANOVA; G-test and family
Watson (2002) Total assets Firm performance N/A Social feminist Longitudinal data from the Women entrepreneurs had lower
Success/Perf Owner’s equity theory Business Growth and total income and profit than men
ETP Total income Performance Surveys conducted and invested less money into their
Profit by the Australian Bureau of firms compared to men
Statistics Overall, when matching inputs to
n ¼ 4; 923 Australian firms outputs, no performance
Split-group and ANOVA analyses differences between men and
women’s firms were found
Wiklund, Davidsson and Delmar Workload Attitude toward growth N/A Expectancy-value Longitudinal telephone Non-economic outcomes relate to
(2003) Work task theory of attitudes interviewsn ¼ 1; 248 entrepreneurs’ attitudes toward
Success/Perf Employee’s well-being entrepreneurs from growth
ETP Personal income manufacturing, service, and retail Women reported desire for
Control industries independence was a strong
Independence Regression motivator for their growth
Survival of crises intentions
Product/service quality
Williams (2004) Time spent caring for children Duration of self-employment N/A None stated Data from European community Number of children positively
Motivation household panel survey from relates to duration of self-
ETP 1994-1999 employment for men; no
n ¼ 6; 000 relationship for women
Survival analysis Caring for children negatively
relates to self-employment
duration in many, but not all
countries
(continued)
entrepreneurship
Gender and
443
Table II.
27,5
JMP
444
Table II.
Mediator/
Wilson, Kickul and Marlino (2007) Gender Entrepreneurial: intentions Moderator: Career theory Study 1: survey of n ¼ 4; 292 US Men reported higher levels of self-
Motivation Self-efficacy gender middle/high school students efficacy and entrepreneurial
ETP Education Study 2: survey of n ¼ 993 MBA intentions than women
students in seven graduate Entrepreneurship education
programs positively related to the
t-tests; ANOVA entrepreneurial self-efficacy for
women MBA students, but not
men’s
Zapalska (1997) Gender Firm types N/A None stated Telephone survey Both genders report
Motivation Firm objectives n ¼ 150 (n ¼ 110 men; n ¼ 40 entrepreneurial motives of control
JSBM Previous experience women) entrepreneurs in Poland over lives, reducing
Percentages dissatisfaction with prior work,
find a job, finances
Women reported their career
choices were impacted by political
and economic motives
Zhang, Zyphur, Narayanan, Gender Genetic influences on Extraversion Diathesis stress Survey Women have a shared genetic
Arvey, Chaturvedi, Avolio, Zygosity individuals’ entrepreneurial and neuroticism model in behavioral n ¼ 1; 285 pairs of identical twins influence on their tendency to
Lichtenstein and Larsson (2009) Extraversion propensities genetics (449 men; 836 women pairs) and pursue entrepreneurship
Motivation Neuroticism n ¼ 849 same-sex twin pairs) Men have a shared environmental
OBHDP drawn from the Swedish Twin influence on their tendency to
Registry pursue entrepreneurship
Genetic model fitting techniques; Extraversion and neuroticism
Structural equation modeling mediate the genetic influences on
women’s entrepreneurial
tendency; extraversion mediates
shared-environmental influences
on men’s tendency
Zhao, Seibert and Hills (2005) Formal learning Entrepreneurial intentions Entrepreneurial Social cognitive Repeated measures survey No gender differences were found
Motivation Previous entrepreneurial self-efficacy theory Data collected from MBA in terms of entrepreneurial self
JAP experience students in 1998 ðn ¼ 778Þ and in efficacy
Risk propensity 2000 ðn ¼ 265Þ Women did report lower
Gender Confirmatory factor analysis; intentions to become an
Structural equation modeling entrepreneur than men
Notes: aThe abbreviations for the journals searched are as follows: Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Academy of Management Review (AMR), Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ), Entrepreneurship, Theory
and Practice (ETP), Journal of Applied Psychology ( JAP), Journal of Business Ethics ( JBE), Journal of Business Venturing ( JBV), Journal of Management ( JOM), Journal of Managerial Psychology ( JMP), Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology ( JPSP), Journal of Organizational Behavior ( JOB), Journal of Small Business Management ( JSBM), Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship ( JSBE), Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes (OBHDP), Organization Science (OS), and Strategic Management Journal (SMJ). We also searched the new journal, the International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship (IJGE) which was
founded in 2009, as its aims are specifically to explore the field of gender and entrepreneurship. Note not all journals searched yielded articles relevant to the review. We include the listing of all journals searched for
comprehensiveness. bSeveral articles were phenomenological in nature. For papers where no theoretical perspective was explicitly described, “none stated” is included for this column
more important reasons to start a business than men (Malach-Pines and Schwartz, Gender and
2008). Maysami and Goby (1999) also found that Asian women entrepreneurs highly entrepreneurship
value the autonomy, independence, and self-actualization accompanying an
entrepreneurial career.
Personality is also related to individuals’ entrepreneurial motivations. Crant (1993)
found that a proactive personality was positively associated with entrepreneurial
intentions, and men possessed higher entrepreneurial intentions than women. A study 445
of MBA students found no differences in the level of self-efficacy between men and
women, but women still possessed lower entrepreneurial intentions than men (Zhao
et al., 2005). Finally, the Big Five personality characteristics of extraversion and
neuroticism have been found as important for women’s entrepreneurial propensity;
only extraversion was important for men (Zhang et al., 2009).
Individual factors like persistence and need for achievement also vary by gender.
DeMartino et al. (2006) found no differences in the achievement orientation of women
entrepreneurs versus women non-entrepreneurs, whereas men entrepreneurs
possessed a higher need for achievement than men non-entrepreneurs. Reasons for
perseverance in the pursuit of starting a business differ too, with women persisting for
internal attributions and men for external attributions (Gatewood et al., 1995).
Situational factors, including government policies, have also been examined relative
to motivating women. Research in Poland found transitioning from a communist
government to a free market society motivated women to pursue entrepreneurship
because the opportunity was available for the first time (Zapalska, 1997). Another
cross-cultural study found the overall level of societal support for entrepreneurship
relates to the level of women’s entrepreneurship (Baughn et al., 2006). That is, countries
with social norms supporting entrepreneurship have higher overall levels of
entrepreneurship and higher levels of women’s entrepreneurship.
Other situational factors studied are family background and support for
entrepreneurship. Although women often look to entrepreneurship for
autonomy/independence, in many Eastern countries, decisions are made only with
permission from the male head of the family and women are generally not respected as
authority figures in the workplace (Shabbir and DiGregorio, 1996). This suggests that
situational factors regarding the role of women in society that can make the process of
becoming an entrepreneur more difficult can simultaneously motivate women to
overcome obstacles to gain autonomy/independence. With regard to family
background, studies have examined the association between having entrepreneurial
parents and children’s entrepreneurial motivations. Broadly, this research suggests
that although men’s entrepreneurial interests are longer-lived than women’s, both men
and women are motivated if either parent was an entrepreneur (Matthews and Moser,
1996). Similarly, Malach-Pines and Schwartz (2008) found that compared to men,
women entrepreneurs were more likely to have an entrepreneurial mother. Finally,
having a self-employed husband increases the likelihood of a woman being
self-employed (Caputo and Dolinsky, 1998).
Several studies have relied on premises from expectancy theory to examine the
motivation of women entrepreneurs. In an experimental study of undergraduate
business students, men were found to have higher expectancies of entrepreneurial
performance than women, regardless of the feedback (positive or negative) received
(Gatewood et al., 2002). Similarly, Wilson et al. (2007) found that within samples of
JMP teenagers and MBA students, women had lower entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
27,5 entrepreneurial intentions than men. However, an entrepreneurial education was more
positively related to the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of women than men, suggesting
women may benefit more from gender-specific entrepreneurial education. Finally,
Langowitz and Minniti (2007) found self-confidence and perceptions of opportunity
were positively related to women’s likelihood of pursuing entrepreneurship. Broadly,
446 existing research employing expectancy theory suggests that if women believe they
have the abilities to become an entrepreneur, and a belief that these abilities will lead to
successful outcomes, they are more likely to pursue entrepreneurship.
In reviewing factors related to women’s motivations to pursue entrepreneurship, we
believe interesting consistencies emerge across the findings that can be further
elaborated by premises from expectancy theory. In particular, research on gender and
entrepreneurship points to the multi-faceted reasons individuals pursue
entrepreneurship. However, based on the gender and entrepreneurship research, it
appears that women are motivated by a broader scope of factors compared to men.
Research consistently illustrates that whereas women perceive entrepreneurship as a
means to alleviate career constraints (Buttner and Moore, 1997), work-family balance
concerns (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Parasuraman and Simmers, 2001), and view it as
a means for financial freedom (Carter et al., 2003), men evaluate quality-of-life factors as
less important when considering an entrepreneurial career. Because of this, we believe
that womens’ expectations regarding the scope of benefits and outcomes they are likely to
attain through pursuing an entrepreneurial career are much broader compared to men.
P1. The factors related to women’s motivation to pursue entrepreneurship will be
more diverse than men because their expectations regarding the benefits of
entrepreneurship are more multi-faceted than men.
Women’s opportunity recognition

The second stage of Baron and Henry’s model examines factors related to the
likelihood individuals will recognize opportunities and the types of opportunities
recognized. Since Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000) paper on the definition of
entrepreneurship, the concept of the entrepreneurial opportunity and factors related to
the identification of opportunities has become tantamount in entrepreneurship
research. In fact, research on the concept of the entrepreneurial opportunity has been
one of the most researched topics within entrepreneurship research over the last decade
(e.g. an EBSCO search of terms “opportunity” and “entrepreneurship” finds 1,885
articles). Thus, we were surprised only three articles examined factors related to the
likelihood women will recognize opportunities and the types of opportunities they
recognized. Broadly, these papers found:
.
women’s social networks relate to their identification of opportunities (Greve and
Salaff, 2003; Harrison and Mason, 2007); and
.
women’s prior work/life experiences vary from men, which relate to their
opportunity recognition and the types of opportunities they pursue (DeTienne
and Chandler, 2007).
With regard to women’s social networks (e.g. the relationships entrepreneurs possess
to others that provide business support/resources), Greve and Salaff (2003) found both
men and women heavily rely on their networks when discussing ideas and engaging in Gender and
activities helpful for opportunity recognition. However, women rely more on family to entrepreneurship
help with opportunity recognition than men. To the extent that angel investors engage
in entrepreneurial opportunity recognition processes, Harrison and Mason (2007) found
interesting differences in the entrepreneurial investments made by men and women
angels. They found women angels utilize difference sources of deal flow
(e.g. opportunity identification), they are less likely to invest by themselves, and 447
they are more likely to mentor the businesses within which they invest. Overall, their
findings suggest that when identifying entrepreneurial opportunities to invest in,
women angel investors rely heavily on their networks for identifying opportunities and
sharing investment risks. Further, they are more willing to act as network partners via
mentoring women entrepreneurs.
With regard to prior work/life experiences, DeTienne and Chandler (2007) explored
differences between women and men’s human capital and how they related to the
opportunities identified. They found that the number of jobs held and the retail work
experience of women were positively related to the number of opportunities women
identified (for men, their number of start-ups was positively related to the number
identified). Further, women and men use different processes to identify opportunities.
Compared to men who either use financial assets to acquire existing firms or identify
and serve new markets with unmet needs, women rely on information gained from
previously working within an industry to identify existing customer needs that are not
being adequately met. Overall, these findings point to the importance of women’s prior
work experiences relative to opportunity recognition.
Although only three articles examined this topic, we were compelled by the numerous
other articles reviewed that, although not examining factors related to opportunity
recognition, mentioned a consistent theme across the types of opportunities women
pursue. In particular, women pursue opportunities in lower growth and performance
industries compared to men, like service and retail (Alsos et al., 2006; Orser et al., 2006).
Thus, it is no wonder that their businesses have lower revenues and profits, fewer
employees, and grows less than male-owned firms (Boden and Nucci, 2000). Perhaps this
is not surprising, as research suggests prior work experiences closely relate to the types of
opportunities women identify and their prior work experiences are in lower-growth
industries (DeTienne and Chandler, 2007). Further, because women’s social networks
help them identify opportunities, and their networks consist of mainly family members or
people from the industries where they have experience (Greve and Salaff, 2003), the fact
that their ventures have lower performance is not surprising.
We believe that expectancy theory may provide additional insight into factors
related to how and why women identify and pursue entrepreneurial opportunities.
Individual’s perceptions regarding their skills and abilities relate to their expectancy
perceptions and research suggests individuals will put increased effort into tasks they
believe they can handle (Bandura, 1982) and that will result in success (Gatewood et al.,
2002). As such, we believe women may pursue certain opportunities due to their
performance expectations of ventures pursued in different industries. Women’s skills
and abilities come from work experiences in lower-growth industries, as do their
networks. Because of this, they may believe that efforts to identify opportunities and
launch ventures in high-growth industries will not result in favorable, or desired,
outcomes (e.g. performance, work-family balance). Instead, women may believe their
JMP likelihood of success is higher when pursuing opportunities within industries where
27,5 they have experience, due to having helpful skills, abilities and social networks. This
leads us to the following proposition regarding likelihood that women will recognize
opportunities and the types of opportunities they will recognize.
P2. The types of entrepreneurial opportunities women will pursue will be in
relatively lower-performing industries compared to men (e.g. retail, service,
448 etc.) because of their expectations regarding their likelihood of success in
higher-growth industries.
Women’s acquisition of entrepreneurial resources

Stage three of Baron and Henry’s (2011) model examines factors related to behaviors,
skills, and actions of individuals as they impact the acquisition of entrepreneurial
resources. They propose that numerous factors like entrepreneurs’ use of social networks
and the nature of managerial and human resource management practices impact
entrepreneurs’ acquisition of resources. Consistent with this, research on gender and
entrepreneurship has examined a number of factors related to women entrepreneurs’
resource acquisition. This research has focused on activities used to acquire resources like
information and tangible resources, human resources, and financial resources. With
regard to gaining access to information and tangible resources, research suggests
women’s networks are particularly important. Godwin et al. (2006) found by expanding
the founding team to include men, women can enhance their venture’s attractiveness,
allowing them to increase the diversity of their network and gain access to novel
information, financial, and tangible resources. Greve and Salaff (2003) found that women
with networks composed of family who possess entrepreneurial experience have better
access to information that helps with initial business launch and operational tasks.
Further, Jones and Tullous (2002) found women who engage in face-to-face meetings with
weak tie networks (SBDC consultants) were able to gain access to accounting information.
Women entrepreneurs also engage in different behaviors to attract and retain
human resources. Gudmundson and Hartenian (2000) found men better equipped to
attract and incentivize a diverse workforce than women. This was attributed to men
pursuing high growth/revenue firms whereas women pursue businesses in lower
growth sectors like retail and service. Buttner (2001) found women might be able to
counter their lack of financial and tangible incentives by utilizing a relational
management style to grow their employees and enhance relationships with important
resource providers like suppliers. By engaging in managerial activities aimed at
developing a shared vision and fostering a team environment amongst stakeholders,
women can secure relationships with important resource providers.
Finally, most research on women’s resource acquisition activities examines the
acquisition of financial resources and three main findings have emerged. Women
engage in personal savings to fund their businesses (Chaganti et al., 1995), the types of
firms launched and the educational activities women engage in impact their acquisition
of debt financing (Coleman, 2000; Fay and Williams, 1993), and women’s networking
activities play a prominent role in their access to financing (cf., Carter et al., 2007;
Haynes and Haynes, 1999).
With regard to acquiring debt financing, research suggests interesting differences
between men and women. Fay and Williams (1993) found that having a university
degree was more important for women versus men in loan granting decisions.
Similarly, Coleman (2000) found that to receive a loan, women were required to provide Gender and
more collateral and pay higher interest rates than men. Overall, this research suggests entrepreneurship
when it comes to debt financing, educational activities, activities geared toward
generating collateral, and activities enabling them to either pay higher interest rates or
positioning them to qualify for lower rates are important for women.
One of the most prominent findings regarding women entrepreneurs gaining access
to financial resources involves their networking. Compared to men, women obtain most 449
funding through strong tie networks (family and friends) (Carter et al., 2007; Haynes
and Haynes, 1999; Orhan, 2001; Singh and Lucas, 2005). Research suggests this may be
due to the types of ventures women start and their lower funding requirements (Orhan,
2001; Singh and Lucas, 2005). Nonetheless, networking activities involving family
members and friends are important to women for acquiring financial resources versus
general social networking (e.g. trade associations). Other research has explored how
women’s activities toward developing and maintaining weak tie relationships
(e.g. professional and non-socioemotionally close relationships) relate to their
acquisition of financial resources. This research suggests women spend less time
developing and perceive lower social capital (e.g. quality relationships) with financial
institutions (Fabowale et al., 1995; Orser et al., 2006), and they receive lower funding
compared to men (Alsos et al., 2006; Fabowale et al., 1995). Reasons for this lower
funding, however, are attributed to the industry of women’s ventures. Overall,
networking activities are important for women to gain access to financial resources
and engaging strong ties is particularly fruitful.
In considering research on the behaviors, skills, and actions of women
entrepreneurs as they attempt to acquire resources, we believe interesting
relationships exist between women’s beliefs regarding their resource acquisition
behaviors and the actual resources they will acquire. Much research suggests that the
amount of financial resources women entrepreneurs acquire, particularly from formal
financing sources (banks), is lower than men and this is attributed to women pursuing
businesses in lower capital intensive/growth industries (Coleman, 2000; Fay and
Williams, 1993; Orhan, 2001; Singh and Lucas, 2005). We believe this relationship may
not be as cut and dry as others have proposed and believe reasons for these financing
outcomes are associated with women’s expectations for success in higher capital
intensive/growth industries. That is, women may intentionally pursue ventures in
lower capital intensive/growth industries because of their expectations for success.
Because they expect to be more successful in lower growth industries that are not
typically candidates for formal financing sources, they will engage in fewer activities
associated with acquiring formal financing. Further, because women pursue ventures
in lower capital-intensive industries, they will engage in fewer, overall, financial
resource acquisition activities. In sum, building from P2, we believe that women
perceive their likelihood of success to be greater in lower capital intensive/growth
industries, which lessens the likelihood they will engage in activities geared toward
acquiring financial resources.
P3a. Because women expect that their likelihood for success will be higher in low
capital intensive industries, they will a) seek to acquire fewer financial
resources from formal sources (e.g. banks) and b) they will engage in fewer,
overall, financial resource acquisition activities when compared to men.
JMP Instead of financial resources, we believe women will seek access to other resources
27,5 that will increase the competitiveness of their firms. Women realize resource
acquisition activities geared toward financial and tangible resources may produce
fewer results when compared to men (Buttner, 2001; Godwin et al., 2006). As such,
women will seek alternative behaviors to allow them access to other important
resources like human and network resources. Because their ventures may not be as
450 capital intensive, lessening their abilities to attract and incentivize human and network
resources via financial/tangible resources, women will engage in relationship building
activities in order to attract and incentivize human resources and network partners
that are helpful as they develop and operate their ventures.
P3b. Because women do not expect to be able to attract, incentivize, and retain
important stakeholder relationships (e.g. human resources, supplier
relationships) via financial and tangible incentives, they will pursue
alternative actions (e.g. managerial and human resource practices,
modifying the composition of the new venture team) to build and maintain
important stakeholder relationships.
Women’s entrepreneurial success/performance

The final stage of Baron and Henry’s (2011) model examines factors that lead to
organizational outcomes like firm performance and survival, and founder outcomes
like career satisfaction and health. Within research on women’s entrepreneurship, five
categories of success/performance outcomes have been studied:
(1) successful venture launch;
(2) psychological and health outcomes;
(3) firm profitability/founder income;
(4) firm growth; and
(5) firm survival.
With regard to successful firm launch, Gatewood et al. (1995) found women’s internal
motivations (desire to be their own boss) versus external motivations (identifying a
market need) were stronger predictors of women’s successful business launch.
External motivations were stronger for men. Other research has examined alternative
outcomes of women’s entrepreneurial success including women’s empowerment,
satisfaction with their venture, and health outcomes. Kantor (2002) broadly proposed
that when studying women’s entrepreneurial success, research should consider
alternatives to financial outcomes including how national culture can support women’s
empowerment and provide them control over (versus just access to) resources.
Similarly, Sonfield et al. (2001) found that men perceive a higher satisfaction with their
firm’s performance than women because of men’s orientation towards strategic
decision making. Finally, Parasuraman and Simmers (2001) and Ufuk and Özgen
(2001) found that women entrepreneurs have higher levels of life stress compared to
men because of factors like struggling to balance work and family, lower job
involvement, and less time commitment to work because of balancing multiple
responsibilities. Overall, this research suggests that a broader scope of entrepreneurial
success/performance outcomes may be relevant to women entrepreneurs compared to
men.
With regard to traditional measures of entrepreneurial success/performance, Gender and
research has examined factors related to firm sales/profitability and firm growth. This entrepreneurship
research has found that individual factors including women’s motivations for pursuing
entrepreneurship like achievement and independence (Lerner et al., 1997),
entrepreneurial orientation (Tan, 2008), and a desire to achieve work-family balance
(Collins-Dodd et al., 2004) are positively related to firm revenues and sales growth.
Others have found the opposite relationship. Fasci and Valdez (1998) found that to 451
achieve a work-family balance, women were more inclined to launch home-based
businesses, which was related to lower income for women accountants. Others have
examined the relationship between women entrepreneurs’ resources and skills relative
to financial performance. This research has found that women’s marketing resources
and managerial skills and practices (Cron et al., 2009; Lerner and Almor, 2002; Lerner
et al., 1997) as well as their financial resources (Lerner and Almor, 2002; Watson, 2002)
positively relate to firm sales and profitability. However, women also have fewer
overall resources compared to men and thus lower overall financial performance
(Bates, 2002; Watson, 2002).
Research examining firm growth has also found a positive relationship between
entrepreneurs’ financial resources and sales growth. However, men have greater access
to funding and therefore higher firm growth compared to women (Alsos et al., 2006).
Beyond financial resources, research has examined other factors related to firm growth
including managerial and individual factors. For example, utilizing a collaborative
firm management style (Gundry and Welsch, 2001; Sorenson et al., 2008) and
employing effective work-family management strategies (Jennings and McDougald,
2007; Shelton, 2006) to reduce role conflict, has been positively related to firm growth.
Research has also found that motivations including growth intentions (Cliff, 1998) and
desire for independence (Wiklund et al., 2003) were positively associated with firm
growth. Further, having a higher education and prior work experience have been
positively associated with women’s firm growth, but not men’s (Manolova et al., 2007).
Finally, research has examined factors related to firm survival as an indicator of
women’s entrepreneurial success. Carter et al. (1997) found that although women have
a higher likelihood of discontinuing their venture, they can increase their likelihood of
survival if they utilize a “super achievers” management strategy, which involves
modifying product/service offerings to “be all things to all people”. Beyond
management practices, Boden and Nucci (2000) found that women with a higher
education and more work experience increased their likelihood of survival. Further,
having more financial resources was also positively related to firm survival; however,
women had fewer financial resources at start-up than men.
In building from the research on women’s motivation to become entrepreneurs as
well as the research on the success/performance of women’s ventures, we believe that
interesting relationships emerge relative to women’s expectations and values
associated with their entrepreneurial success. Research on women’s motivation to
pursue entrepreneurship suggests they view entrepreneurship as a means to lessen the
effects of situational constraints (Baughn et al., 2006; Zapalska, 1997), working
conditions impacting career advancement opportunities (Buttner and Moore, 1997),
and work-family constraints (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Williams, 2004). Because
of this, we believe that the measures of entrepreneurial success women value are likely
to vary from men. Women view entrepreneurship more as a means of alleviating glass
JMP ceilings, achieving autonomy and independence, and allowing for a more effective
27,5 balance between work and family life. And, even though some women have noted
financial motivators for entrepreneurship (Carter et al., 2003), women view this as a
secondary concern relative to men. Consequently, we propose that women emphasize,
or value, different expectations regarding the outcomes of a successful entrepreneurial
career. We believe these will be geared less toward financial measures and more
452 toward outcomes associated with their quality of life.
P4. When assessing their entrepreneurial success, women entrepreneurs will rely
less on financial measures of performance when compared to men. Instead,
women will more heavily weight their entrepreneurial success relative to
outcomes associated with increased quality of life (e.g. autonomy,
work-family balance, increased career opportunities).
Discussion
The main purpose of this paper was to review the literature on gender, and specifically,
women and entrepreneurship as well as present a process model of gender and
entrepreneurship. To achieve this, we presented a review of the literature on women
entrepreneurs organized within Baron and Henry’s (2011) process model of
entrepreneurship. As such, this paper builds from and extends research exploring
the connection between I/O psychology and entrepreneurship research. Further,
whereas Baron and Henry’s model presents a general process model of
entrepreneurship, we have described research on factors related specifically to
women’s motivation to become an entrepreneur, their opportunity recognition, their
acquisition of entrepreneurial resources, and their success/performance. Thus, we not
only provide a review of the recent literature on women entrepreneurs, but also provide
a unique perspective on how the entrepreneurial process unfolds for women.
Beyond organizing the existing literature into a process model, we also synthesized the
literature on each stage of the model and presented propositions corresponding to each
stage that were motivated by expectancy theory. In doing so, we believe that a unique
contribution of this paper is that it may help explain why some entrepreneurial processes
vary for women as compared to men entrepreneurs. Broadly, we believe that women’s
motivations, opportunities pursued, resource acquisition activities/outcomes, and
success/performance outcomes can be explained by women’s’ expectations regarding the
outcomes of their entrepreneurial efforts (P1-P3b). In addition, in line with recent research
that has called for alternative measures of success/performance when studying women
entrepreneurs (cf. Buttner and Moore, 1997; Kantor, 2002), we advance the idea that
women’s valence for specific entrepreneurial outcomes may vary from men (P4).
Practical and societal implications

Beyond research implications, important practical and societal implications regarding
women’s entrepreneurship also emerge from this paper. In particular, much of the
research cited suggests that although women entrepreneurs may experience positive
entrepreneurial outcomes at different stages of the entrepreneurial process, they
appear to be disadvantaged compared to men entrepreneurs. For example, much of the
research has found that women have differential access to resources. Financial
resources are a particularly important resource for firm performance and survival and
research suggests that women have less access to and/or control over financial
resources compared to men (Alsos et al., 2006; Boden and Nucci, 2000; Kantor, 2002). Gender and
Other research has taken a broader view of firm resources and has proposed that entrepreneurship
women entrepreneurs have fewer, overall, resources compared to men. Further, it has
been proposed that this lack of resources lowers women’s abilities to excel in terms of
their firm’s financial performance relative to men (Bates, 2002; Watson, 2002).
From practical and societal standpoints, we believe this is a cause for potential
concern. Some research explains reasons for these resource and performance differentials 453
such as women’s firms are structurally different than men’s as they are concentrated in
personal service and retail industries not applicable to larger business clients (Coleman,
2000; Haynes and Haynes, 1999). Others suggest societal attributions and socialization
processes relative to the sexes create barriers to entry for women due to the uneven
distribution of assets, educational foci, and daily life activity expectations, amongst the
sexes (Baughn et al., 2006; Brush et al., 2009). These factors, in effect, create the glass
ceiling that women are often described as facing that extends to entrepreneurship. And,
given that many entrepreneurs emerge from the managerial ranks of organizations and
that women are often concentrated within lower organizational levels (Baughn et al.,
2006), this suggests potential concern if women are unable to obtain the managerial
experience necessary to develop the skills and social networks needed for successful
resource acquisition and entrepreneurship. Because entrepreneurship has broadly been
associated with increasing equality across socioeconomic and demographic groups in
society (Brush, 1992; Brush et al., 2009), we believe that in order for women to more fully
benefit from entrepreneurial careers, they may need to pursue avenues for increasing
their access to important entrepreneurial resources. We believe the broader implication
suggests the need to encourage women to pursue education within non-traditional fields
to better position them to enter high-growth industries.
Future research directions

Beyond developing propositions to guide future research, reviewing the literature on
women entrepreneurs relative to Baron and Henry’s (2011) process model revealed
gaps in the literature. As previously described, Table I includes the main theoretical
premises and phenomena Baron and Henry include in their discussion of the process
model of entrepreneurship. Areas studied relative to women entrepreneurs are bolded.
Although research is needed in several areas, we were particularly surprised by the
paucity of research related to women’s opportunity recognition. Given the importance
of the concept of opportunity within entrepreneurship research (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000), we would specifically call for research to examine factors
related to women’s opportunity recognition like how the amount or quality of
information available to women relates to their recognition of opportunities. Although
some research has found that the primary sources of information vary for men and
women entrepreneurs (Greve and Salaff, 2003), little research has examined how that
information might vary in amount and quality, as well as how it might relate to
broader entrepreneurial outcomes. Another fruitful avenue might include an
integration of regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1998). Recent entrepreneurship
research has begun to explore the relationship between individuals with a promotion
versus prevention focus on entrepreneurial outcomes and exploring differences that
might exist between women and men entrepreneurs relative to these foci might inform
research regarding the types and quality of opportunities men and women recognize.
JMP References
27,5 Alsos, G.A., Isaksen, E.J. and Ljunggren, E. (2006), “New venture financing and subsequent
business growth in men- and women-led businesses”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and
Practice, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 667-86.
Anna, A.L., Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E. and Mero, N.P. (1999), “Women business owners in
traditional and non-traditional industries”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 3,
454 pp. 279-303.
Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 122-47.
Baron, R.A. and Henry, R.A. (2011), “Entrepreneurship: the genesis of organizations”, in Zedeck,
S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, APA,
Washington, DC, pp. 241-73.
Bates, T. (2002), “Restricted access to markets characterizes women-owned businesses”, Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 313-24.
Baughn, C.C., Chua, B-L. and Neupert, K.E. (2006), “The normative context for women’s
participation in entrepreneurship: a multicountry study”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and
Practice, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 687-708.
Boden, R.J. Jr and Nucci, A.R. (2000), “On the survival prospects of men’s and women’s new
business ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 347-62.
Brush, C.G. (1992), “Research on women business owners: past trends, a new perspective and
future research directions”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 5-26.
Brush, C.G., De Bruin, A. and Welter, F. (2009), “A gender-aware framework for women’s
entrepreneurship”, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 8-24.
Buttner, E.H. (2001), “Examining female entrepreneurs’ management style: an application of a
relational frame”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 253-69.
Buttner, E.H. and Moore, D.P. (1997), “Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship:
self-reported motivations and correlates with success”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 34-46.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. and Weick, K.E. (1970), Managerial Behavior,
Performance, and Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Caputo, K. and Dolinsky, A. (1998), “Women’s choice to pursue self-employment: the role of
financial and human capital of household members”, Journal of Small Business
Carter, N., Williams, M. and Reynolds, P. (1997), “Discontinuance among new firms in retail: the
influence of initial resources, strategy and gender”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 125-45.
Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gatewood, E.J. (2003), “The career reasons of
nascent entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 13-39.
Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W. and Wilson, F. (2007), “Gender, entrepreneurship, and bank lending:
the criteria and processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications”,
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 427-44.
Chaganti, R., DeCarolis, D. and Deeds, D. (1995), “Predictors of capital structure in small
ventures”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 7-18.
Cliff, J. (1998), “Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards Gender and
growth, gender, and business size”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 523-42.
entrepreneurship
Coleman, S. (2000), “Access to capital and terms of credit: a comparison of men- and
women-owned small businesses”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 37-52.
Collins-Dodd, C., Gordon, I.M. and Smart, C. (2004), “Further evidence on the role of gender in
financial performance”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 395-417. 455
Crant, J.M. (1993), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 42-9.
Cron, W.L., Gilly, M.C., Graham, J.L. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (2009), “Gender differences in the pricing
of professional services: implications for income and customer relationships”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 93-5.
DeMartino, R. and Barbato, R. (2003), “Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:
exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 815-32.
DeMartino, R., Barbato, R. and Jacques, P.H. (2006), “Exploring the career/achievement and
personal life orientation differences between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs: the
impact of sex and dependents”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44 No. 3,
pp. 350-68.
DeTienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2007), “The role of gender in opportunity identification”,
Fabowale, L., Orser, B. and Riding, A. (1995), “Gender, structural factors, and credit terms
between Canadian small businesses and financial institutions”, Entrepreneurship, Theory
and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 41-65.
Fasci, M.A. and Valdez, J. (1998), “A performance contrast of male- and female-owned small
accounting practices”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 1-7.
Fay, M. and Williams, L. (1993), “Gender bias and the availability of business loans”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 363-74.
Gatewood, E.J., Shaver, K.G. and Gartner, W.B. (1995), “A longitudinal study of cognitive factors
influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 371-91.
Gatewood, E.J., Shaver, K.G., Powers, J.B. and Gartner, W.B. (2002), “Entrepreneurial expectancy,
task effort, and performance”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 187-206.
Godwin, L.N., Stevens, C.E. and Brenner, N.L. (2006), “Forced to play by the rules? Theorizing
how mixed-sex founding teams benefit women entrepreneurs in male-dominated
contexts”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 623-42.
Greve, A. and Salaff, J.W. (2003), “Social networks and entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship,
Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Gudmundson, D. and Hartenian, L.S. (2000), “Workforce diversity in small business: an empirical
investigation”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 27-36.
Gundry, L.K. and Welsch, H.P. (2001), “The ambitious entrepreneur: high growth strategies of
women-owned enterprises”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 453-70.
Harrison, R.T. and Mason, C.M. (2007), “Does gender matter? Women business angels and the
supply of entrepreneurial finance”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 445-72.
JMP Haynes, G.W. and Haynes, D.C. (1999), “The debt structure of small businesses owned by women
in 1987 and 1993”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
27,5
Higgins, E.T. (1998), “Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle”, in
Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 30, Academic Press,
New York, NY, pp. 1-46.
Ireland, R.D. and Webb, J.W. (2006), “A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship
456 research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 891-927.
Jennings, J.E. and McDougald, M.S. (2007), “Work-family interface experiences and coping
strategies: implications for entrepreneurship research and practice”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 747-60.
Jones, K. and Tullous, R. (2002), “Behaviors of pre-venture entrepreneurs and perceptions of their
financial needs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 233-49.
Kantor, P. (2002), “Gender, microenterprise success and cultural context: the case of South Asia”,
Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007), “The entrepreneurial propensity of women”,
Lerner, M. and Almor, T. (2002), “Relationships among strategic capabilities and the
performance of women-owned small ventures”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 109-25.
Lerner, M., Brush, C. and Hisrich, R. (1997), “Israeli women entrepreneurs: an examination of
factors affecting performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 315-39.
Lowry, Y. (2006), “Women in business, 2006: a demographic review of women’s business
ownership”, SBA Office of Advocacy Small Business Research Summary, No. 280, pp. 1-34.
Malach-Pines, A. and Schwartz, D. (2008), “Now you see them, now you don’t: gender differences
in entrepreneurship”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 811-32.
Manolova, T.S., Carter, N., Manev, I. and Gyoshev, B. (2007), “The differential effect of men and
women entrepreneurs’ human capital and networking on growth expectancies in
Bulgaria”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 407-26.
Matthews, C.H. and Moser, S.B. (1996), “A longitudinal investigation of the impact of family
background and gender on interest in small firm ownership”, Journal of Small Business
Maysami, C.R. and Goby, V.P. (1999), “Female business owners in Singapore and elsewhere: a
review of studies”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 96-105.
Orhan, M. (2001), “Women business owners in France: the issue of financing discrimination”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 95-102.
Orser, B.J., Riding, A.L. and Manley, K. (2006), “Women entrepreneurs and financial capital”,
Parasuraman, S. and Simmers, C.A. (2001), “Type of employment, work-family conflict and
well-being: a comparative study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 551-68.
Shabbir, A. and Di Gregorio, S. (1996), “An examination of the relationship between women’s
personal goals and structural factors influencing their decision to start a business: the case
of Pakistan”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 507-29.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-26.
Shelton, L.M. (2006), “Female entrepreneurs, work-family conflict, and venture performance: new Gender and
insights into the work-family interface”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 285-97. entrepreneurship
Singh, R.P. and Lucas, L.M. (2005), “Not just domestic engineers: an exploratory study of
homemaker entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 79-90.
Sonfield, M., Lussier, R., Corman, J. and McKinney, M. (2001), “Gender comparisons in strategic 457
decision-making: an empirical analysis of the entrepreneurial strategy matrix”, Journal of
Small Business Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 165-73.
Sorenson, R.L., Folker, R.L. and Brigham, K.H. (2008), “The collaborative network orientation:
achieving business success through collaborative relationships”, Entrepreneurship,
Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 615-34.
Tan, J. (2008), “Breaking the ‘Bamboo Curtain’ and the ‘Glass Ceiling’: the experience of women
entrepreneurs in high-tech industries in an emerging market”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 547-64.
Ufuk, H. and Özgen, Ö. (2001), “Interaction between the business and family lives of women
entrepreneurs in Turkey”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 95-106.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Watson, J. (2002), “Comparing the performance of male-and female-controlled businesses:
relating outputs to inputs”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 91-100.
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P. and Delmar, F. (2003), “What do they think and feel about growth? An
expectancy-value approach to small business managers’ attitudes toward growth”,
Williams, D.R. (2004), “Effects of childcare activities on the duration of self-employment in
Europe”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 467-85.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007), “Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and
entrepreneurial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education”,
Zapalska, A. (1997), “A profile of women entrepreneurs and enterprises in Poland”, Journal of
Small Business Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 76-82.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M.J., Narayanan, J., Arvey, R.D., Chaturvedi, S., Avolio, B.J., Lichtenstein, P.
and Larsson, P. (2009), “The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: effects of gender and
personality”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 1 No. 10,
pp. 93-107.
Zhao, H.S., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6,
pp. 1265-72.
Further reading
Morris, M.H., Miyasaki, N.N., Watters, C.E. and Coombes, S.M. (2006), “The dilemma of growth:
understanding venture size choices of women entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business
Noorderhaven, N., Thurik, R., Wennekers, S. and Stel, A. (2004), “The role of dissatisfaction and
per capita income in explaining self-employment across 15 Eurpoean countries”,
JMP About the authors
Diane M. Sullivan is an Assistant Professor at the University of Dayton. She completed her PhD
27,5 in Management at the University of Central Florida, specializing in entrepreneurship and
strategic management. Her primary research interests include entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial
networks, entrepreneur’s knowledge, minority issues in entrepreneurship, and organizational
creativity. Diane M. Sullivan is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
dsullivan1@udayton.edu
458 William R. Meek is an Assistant Professor at the University of Dayton. He completed his PhD
in Entrepreneurship at the University of Louisville. His primary research interests include
franchising, family business, environmentally responsible entrepreneurship, social
entrepreneurship, and minority issues in entrepreneurship.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Gender and Entrepreneurship: A Review and Process Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender and Entrepreneurship: A Review and Process Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Process model of entrepreneurship

anticipation of a reward as functioning selectively on actions expected to lead to it”

Procedures and boundary conditions

Process model of gender and entrepreneurship

Women’s opportunity recognition

Women’s acquisition of entrepreneurial resources

Women’s entrepreneurial success/performance

Practical and societal implications

Future research directions

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like