Greene 2018

A Research Agenda for Women and Entrepreneurship
Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 01/19/2018 11:39:40AM
via University of Durham
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 1 15/12/2017 07:53

Elgar Research Agendas outline the future of research in a given area. Leading scholars are
given the space to explore their subject in provocative ways, and map out the potential direc-
tions of travel. They are relevant but also visionary.
Forward-looking and innovative, Elgar Research Agendas are an essential resource for PhD
students, scholars and anybody who wants to be at the forefront of research.
Titles in the series include:
A Research Agenda for Management and A Research Agenda for Human Resource
Organization Studies Management
Edited by Barbara Czarniawska Edited by Cary L. Cooper, CBE and
Paul Sparrow
A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship
and Context A Research Agenda for Shrinking Cities
Edited by Friederike Welter and Justin B. Hollander
William B. Gartner
A Research Agenda for Women and
A Research Agenda for Cities Entrepreneurship
Edited by John Rennie Short Edited by Patricia G. Greene and
Candida G. Brush
A Research Agenda for Neoliberalism
Kean Birch

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 2 15/12/2017 07:53

A Research Agenda
for Women and
Entrepreneurship
Identity Through Aspirations,
Behaviors and Confidence
Edited by
PATRICIA G. GREENE
Paul T. Babson Chair in Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson College, USA
CANDIDA G. BRUSH
Franklin W. Olin Distinguished Chair of Entrepreneurship and Vice Provost of Global
Entrepreneurial Leadership, Babson College, USA
Elgar Research Agendas
Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 3 15/12/2017 07:53

© Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush 2018
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without
the prior permission of the publisher.
Published by
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
The Lypiatts
15 Lansdown Road
Cheltenham
Glos GL50 2JA
UK
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

William Pratt House
9 Dewey Court
Northampton
Massachusetts 01060
USA
A catalogue record for this book

is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017950449
This book is available electronically in the

Business subject collection
DOI 10.4337/9781785365379
ISBN 978 1 78536 536 2 (cased)

ISBN 978 1 78536 537 9 (eBook)
Typeset by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 4 15/12/2017 07:53

This book is dedicated to Fyllis Berg-Elton. Her professional approach, attention to
detail, superb coordination and commitment to this project developed and polished
this book into its final form. We are most grateful Fyllis was our partner in this
effort.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 5 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 6 15/12/2017 07:53

Contents
List of contributorsix
1 Introduction: the ABCs of women’s entrepreneurial identity –

aspirations, behaviors and confidence 1
Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush
PART I ASPIRATIONS
2 Developing entrepreneurial identity among start-ups’ female founders

in high-tech: policy implications from the Chilean case 27
Katherina Kuschel and Juan-Pablo Labra
3 Perception of success of men and women entrepreneurs: a social
identity approach 45
Rachida Justo, Cristina Cruz and Julio O. De Castro
4 Aspirations of women entrepreneurs in poverty: the livelihood
entrepreneur66
Smita K. Trivedi
PART II BEHAVIORS
5 On becoming an entrepreneur: unpacking entrepreneurial identity 93

Eliana Crosina
6 Feminist entrepreneurial identity: reproducing gender through
founder decision-making 114
Catherine Elliott and Barbara Orser
7 Identity and identity work in constructing the woman entrepreneur 137
Richard T. Harrison and Claire M. Leitch
PART III CONFIDENCE
8 Context, cognition and female entrepreneurial intentions: it is all about

perceived behavioral control 169
Malin Brännback, Shahrokh Nikou, Alan L. Carsrud and
Diana Hechavarria
vii
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 7 15/12/2017 07:53

viii A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR WOMEN AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
9 Motherhood as a springboard for women’s entrepreneurial action 187

Magdalena Markowska
10 Kickstart or jumpstart? Understanding women entrepreneurs’
crowdfunding performance 207
Smita Srivastava, Pyayt P. Oo, Arvin Sahaym and Thomas H. Allison
Index221

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 8 15/12/2017 07:53

Contributors
Thomas H. Allison is Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Carson

College of Business at Washington State University, USA. He received his PhD
from the University of Oklahoma, USA. His research centers on entrepreneurial
finance; novel forms of entrepreneurial resource acquisition, including crowdfund-
ing; and the effects of narrative and rhetoric on investment decisions.
Malin Brännback, DSc, BSc (Pharm) is Dean and Professor of International

Business at Åbo Akademi University, Finland, where she received her doctorate in
management science in 1996. She also holds a BSc in pharmacy. She was Visiting
Professor in Entrepreneurship at Stockholm University 2012‒2014. She has pub-
lished widely on entrepreneurship, biotechnology business and knowledge man-
agement. She has co-authored with Alan Carsrud several books: Understanding the
Entrepreneurial Mind: Opening the Black Box (2009), Revisiting the Entrepreneurial
Mind: Inside the Black Box (2017), Understanding Family Businesses (2012) and
Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Entrepreneurship and Small
Business (2014). She is on the review board of the Journal of Small Business
Management. Her current research interests are in entrepreneurial intentionality,
entrepreneurial cognition, entrepreneurial growth and performance in technology
entrepreneurship and family business.
Candida G. Brush is the Vice Provost of Global Entrepreneurial Leadership

and a Full Professor at Babson College, USA, and holder of the Franklin W. Olin
Distinguished Chair of Entrepreneurship. She is well known for her pioneering
research in women’s entrepreneurship. She is a Visiting Adjunct Professor to the
Nord University, Bodø Graduate School in Bodø, Norway. Professor Brush is a
founding member of the Diana Project International and holds an honorary doc-
torate from Jönköping University, Sweden for her contributions to entrepreneur-
ship research. Her research investigates nascent entrepreneurial ventures, women’s
entrepreneurship and financing of growth-oriented ventures. She is an active angel
investor and serves on the boards of several companies.
Alan L. Carsrud, PhD, EcD (HC), is Visiting Research Professor at Åbo Akademi
School of Business and Economics of Åbo Akademi University in Finland. He was
previously the Loretta Rogers Chaired Professor of Entrepreneurship at Ryerson
University in Toronto, Canada. He has published more than a dozen books in
entrepreneurship and family business and more than 200 articles on entrepreneur-
ship, family business, social and clinical psychology.
ix
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 9 15/12/2017 07:53

x A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR WOMEN AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Eliana Crosina is a doctoral candidate in the Management and Organization

Department at Boston College, USA. She holds a BSc in business administration
and an MBA from Babson College, USA as well as an MSc in organization stud-
ies from Boston College. Her current research explores how individuals go about
crafting their work identities when they do not have an established organization to
rely upon. She tackles these issues through largely qualitative methods in two main
research streams: (1) exploring identity and organizing among nascent entrepre-
neurs; (2) examining novel processes of identity work.
Cristina Cruz (PhD, University Carlos III, Madrid, Spain) is Entrepreneurship

Department Head and Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Business at IE
Business School/IE University, Madrid, Spain. Her research interests are focused at
the interaction between family business and entrepreneurship, with a special focus
on understanding how enterprising families create value across generations. She is
also an expert on corporate governance issues in family firms.
Julio O. De Castro (PhD, University of South Carolina, USA) is Professor of

Entrepreneurship and Chair of the PhD program at IE Business School/IE
University, Madrid, Spain. His research deals with firm strategy and entrepreneur-
ship. Currently his research uses an entrepreneurial perspective to examine infor-
mal businesses, product piracy, knowledge management, legitimacy, and drivers of
entrepreneurial activity by those at the base of the pyramid.
Catherine Elliott is a Professor at the University of Ottawa’s Telfer School of

Management, Canada, where she teaches organizational behavior and human
resources management. She is co-author of Feminine Capital: Unlocking the Power
of Women Entrepreneurs (Stanford University Press, 2015, with B. Orser) and
co-chair of the Women Entrepreneurs Ontario Collective (2016). Her research
interests focus on gender influences in entrepreneurship, including entrepreneurial
identity and self-efficacy as well as mentoring for entrepreneurial learning and
women’s career advancement. As an experienced human resources professional,
educator, and management consultant, she has worked for more than 20 years
with clients to solve management issues related to human capital and performance
management.
Patricia G. Greene is the Paul T. Babson Chair in Entrepreneurial Studies at

Babson College, USA where she formerly served first as Dean of the Undergraduate
School and later as Provost. Greene’s most recent assignment at Babson was to
serve as the academic director for the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses and
10,000 Women programs. Dr Greene is a founding member of the Diana Project, a
research group dedicated to studying women business owners and their businesses.
She is a former federal appointee to the national advisory board for the SBA’s Small
Business Development Centers. She loves to talk about entrepreneurship, sharing
her soapboxes on changing the way the world does business with anyone who will
listen. Her latest entrepreneurial endeavor is as a co-owner of Artworks, a specialty
store in Gettysburg, PA, USA.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 10 15/12/2017 07:53

CONTRIBUTORS xi
Richard T. Harrison is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation and

Co-Director of the Centre for Strategic Leadership at the University of Edinburgh
Business School, UK. He was previously Dean of Queen’s University Management
School, UK and Founding Director of the Leadership Institute. His current research
interests fall into a number of broad themes that can be linked by a unifying interest
in the nature of the entrepreneurial and business growth process – in social and
corporate as well as new venture contexts ‒ as it is reflected in business develop-
ment (particularly in the financing of innovation and growth), and in the implica-
tions of research and theorizing for practice and public policy. Professor Harrison
is a world-leading authority on business angel and early stage venture finance and
has advised governments, development agencies and business groups internation-
ally on risk capital and venture finance issues. He also researches entrepreneurial
learning and leadership processes, studies the role of entrepreneurship and innova-
tion in emerging economies (notably China and sub-Saharan Africa), examines the
nature of peace entrepreneurship in conflict societies (Northern Ireland, Rwanda,
Kosovo), analyzes the process of business model innovation, and investigates the
generation, protection and exploitation of intellectual capital, including studies
of academic entrepreneurship and technology transfer. He is author of more than
125 papers and book chapters and has published books on crowdfunding, business
angel investing, innovation and economic development, regional policy, entrepre-
neurial learning and entrepreneurial leadership.
Diana Hechavarria is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Muma

College of Business at the University of South Florida, USA. She investigates the
various dynamics confronted by founders during the start-up process. Her research
interests tend to focus on how various social processes and institutional factors
influence individuals differentially when aiming to establish a new firm. Her research
has been published in journals such as Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Small Business Economics, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,
Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
and International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Diana has a PhD
in business administration from the University of Cincinnati, (Cincinnati, OH,
USA), an MA in liberal studies from Florida International University (Miami,
FL, USA), and a BA in sociology from the University of Florida (Gainesville, FL,
USA).
Rachida Justo is an Associate Professor Entrepreneurship at IE Business School,

Spain. Her research, which focuses on social entrepreneurship and women
entrepreneurs, has been published in top-tier international journals such as the
Journal of Business Venturing and Small Business Economics, where she has been
recently appointed as an Editorial Board member. She has also received several
awards such as the ‘Best Women’s Entrepreneurship Paper Award’ from the
Entrepreneurship division of the Academy of Management, and the ‘Outstanding
Award for Best Doctoral Dissertation’ from the Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, Spain.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 11 15/12/2017 07:53

xii A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR WOMEN AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Katherina Kuschel, PhD in social psychology from Universitat Autònoma

de Barcelona, Spain, is Visiting Scholar at Lazaridis School of Business and
Economics, at Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada, and at Universidad Tecnológica
Metropolitana, Chile. She was also Assistant Professor of Management at
Universidad del Desarrollo in Santiago de Chile. Her area of specialization and
research is entrepreneurship, focused on work‒life balance and leadership of
women entrepreneurs in the technology industry. Dr. Kuschel has worked at uni-
versities in Canada, Germany and Chile, concentrating in the study of the chal-
lenges that women start-up founders and innovators face. She is consolidating a
global network of scholars researching work‒family issues among men and women
entrepreneurs.
Juan-Pablo Labra is a civil industrial engineer from Catholic University of Chile,

and has an MBA from Adolfo Ibáñez University, Chile. He lives in Santiago, Chile,
where he teaches at the Engineering School of the Universidad Nacional Andrés
Bello. His research interests are entrepreneurship and start-ups, business models,
design thinking and business storytelling.
Claire M. Leitch (DPhil) holds the Chair in Entrepreneurial Leadership at

Lancaster University Management School, UK, and is Head of the Department of
Leadership and Management. Her research interests concentrate on the develop-
ment, enhancement and growth of individuals and organizations in an entrepre-
neurial context with a particular focus on leadership, leadership development and
learning. Current work takes a critical approach and draws on ideas of gender and
power to examine the interrelationships between the micro- and macro-level influ-
ences impacting agents. She has published in a number of leading international
journals and is the editor of the International Small Business Journal.
Magdalena Markowska is Assistant Professor at Jönköping International Business

School (JIBS), Jönköping, Sweden. She is a recipient of a Postdoctoral Transition
Grant, where as part of the grant she explores the processes of entrepreneurial
identification among creative workers. She is also working on a project sponsored
by the Swedish Knowledge Foundation looking at the phenomenon of ‘mumpre-
neurship’, the motivation for and the implications of becoming a mumpreneur for
the woman’s career, the business she creates as well as more broadly the society.
Her research interests involve entrepreneurial identity and entrepreneurial careers
as well as issues of contextualizing entrepreneurship.
Shahrokh Nikou is a Docent of Business Administration, especially in information

systems, at Åbo Akademi University, Finland. Currently, he is a senior lecturer/
researcher at Åbo Akademi University. He has also studied at the Delft University
of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands and at the Royal Institute of Technology in
Stockholm, Sweden. He received his PhD (Econ) from Åbo Akademi University
in 2012. He is a member of several journal editorial boards and a member of the
program committee in several IEEEs and international conferences. His current
research interest includes entrepreneurial intent, consumer purchasing and digital

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 12 15/12/2017 07:53

CONTRIBUTORS xiii
economy and entrepreneurship. He has published more than 40 articles in journals

and conference proceedings.
Pyayt P. Oo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Entrepreneurship,

Central Michigan University. His research centers on entrepreneurial emotions,
entrepreneurial entry strategies, and their influences on investment decisions in
crowdfunding and other novel means of resource acquisitions.
Barbara Orser is a Full/Deloitte Professor in the Management of Growth

Enterprises at the Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Co-author of Feminine Capital: Unlocking the Power of Women Entrepreneurs
(Stanford University Press, 2015 with C. Elliott), two small business finance books,
and the primary investigator of more than 100 academic and trade studies, Barbara
Orser’s current research interests focus on gender and enterprise growth, financial
literacy, federal procurement and women’s entrepreneurship policy research. She is
the Founder and Chair of the Canadian Taskforce for Women’s Enterprise Growth
(2011) and Co-Chair of the Women Entrepreneurs Ontario Collective (2016).
Dr. Orser is the recipient of several awards that recognize her support for women’s
enterprise, including the Women’s Executive Network ‘100 Most Powerful Women
in Canada’ and the International Alliance of Women ‘World of Difference 100
Award’.
Arvin Sahaym is Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship in the

Carson College of Business at Washington State University, USA. His research is
motivated by the real-world phenomena at the interface of strategy, innovation and
entrepreneurship. He draws upon the theories of organization to understand these
phenomena and contributes to both the theory and the practice of management.
His research has been published in a number of journals including Organization
Science, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Business Venturing, MIS
Quarterly, Journal of Business Research and International Business Review.
Smita Srivastava is a doctoral student majoring in entrepreneurship in the Carson

College of Business at Washington State University, USA. Her research interests
include entrepreneurial resource acquisition and entrepreneurial alertness.
Smita K. Trivedi, PhD is Assistant Professor of Business and Society/Sustainable

Business in the Management Department at the College of Business of San
Francisco State University. Professor Trivedi received her undergraduate degree
from Duke University, USA, in public policy, her master’s degree in administration,
planning and social policy from Harvard University, USA, and her PhD in strategic
management and public policy from the George Washington University School of
Business, USA. Her research is focused on business and poverty alleviation. Her
publications have been in the areas of business ethics education, business and
peace, and her dissertation focused on Indian women entrepreneurs in the context
of poverty.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 13 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 14 15/12/2017 07:53

1 Introduction: the ABCs of women’s
entrepreneurial identity – aspirations,
behaviors and confidence
Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush
I am not one and simple, but complex and many. (Virginia Woolf, 1992: The Waves)
Who am I? This existential question has been central to philosophical pondering

since the actual beginning of philosophy. It is largely a question of personal mean-
ing, and one to which early philosophers brought different ideas. Descartes built
on Plato, purporting that the soul is the answer to personal identity. Later, John
Locke disagreed, maintaining that continuity is the primary issue. His approach
was that one starts with a tabula rasa and is subsequently shaped by experience,
sensations, reflections, and so on. More recently, research regarding identity has
focused on the social aspects, ‘Who am I?’ in reference to something else: groups
(Tajfel, 1978; Tafjel and Turner, 1979) or roles (Stryker, 1980; Stryker and Serpe,
2012).
Our goal for this book is to use a concept of identity to explore ideas related to
entrepreneurial identity for women and their businesses. We believe this is impor-
tant for two reasons. First, the concept of an entrepreneur has historically been that
of a male, and in essence the role and identity are masculine in image and expected
behavior (Bird and Brush, 2002). Second, the bulk of current research on entrepre-
neurship generally, and on the topic of identity and individual aspects of entrepre-
neurs, focuses predominantly on male samples. Some estimate that only 10 percent
of all research in entrepreneurship includes or studies women (Jennings and Brush,
2013). This suggests that both practically and theoretically there is reason to exam-
ine entrepreneurial identity for women and their businesses.
However, given the very broad nature and long history of investigation of iden-
tity, we overlay another set of entrepreneurial concepts to provide insight into
women’s entrepreneurship. We focus this volume (and associated articles) on three
concepts ‒ aspirations, behaviors and confidence ‒ each related to identity in that
they provide insights into our understanding of women entrepreneurs, their ven-
tures and experiences. We consider aspirations to explore what women want to
create or achieve, behaviors to look at how they create and grow businesses, and
confidence to relate to the ‘why’, considered as their trust in themselves and their
degree of self-assurance. Together, these concepts shape and enhance a woman’s
1
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 1 15/12/2017 07:53

2 A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR WOMEN AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
identity in the entrepreneurial process. We are joined in this endeavor by a set of

authors who are also curious about identity and women’s entrepreneurship, and
the relationship to aspirations, behaviors and/or confidence.
The pathway for our exploratory journey is to first quite briefly review the notion
of identity in general, what it is and how it is constructed, and then consider the
linkages between identity, aspirations, behavior and confidence. We then move
to entrepreneurial identity and its particular construction, and finally we explore
women’s entrepreneurial identity. This chapter then provides an overview of each
of the chapters in this volume regarding women’s entrepreneurial identity and aspi-
rations, behaviors and confidence. We conclude with thoughts on what we have
learned through this process, and suggestions for future research.
The question of identity
Identity as a topic of inquiry is found in many social science disciplines, with con-
ceptual differences readily evident both across and within these disciplines (Stryker
and Burke, 2000). However, the main approaches include personal identity, social
identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel, 1982) and identity theory (Stryker and Serpe, 2012).
Personal identity
Personal identity generally includes an individual’s attributes and traits, values,
beliefs and bodily attributes, and in some considerations, also their interests
and competencies (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). While it would seem that the
personal at this level would be the starting point for an identity, it can also be
considered as more of an end, or integrative mechanism, coalescing aspects of
group memberships and/or roles (Markus and Nurius, 1986). Personal identity
is also described as under-researched and, we propose more specifically, under-
theorized in entrepreneurship. When thinking of the relationship to the field of
entrepreneurship in which attributes and traits were an early point of fascina-
tion, we have seen the field largely move beyond these two concepts to other
types of questions.
Social identity theory

On the other hand, social identity theory (SIT) is a fairly well-researched concept
that looks at ‘the group in the individual’ (Hogg and Abrams, 1988: 3). As such, SIT
is a social-psychological perspective which focuses on social categories. These cat-
egories are defined by categorization schemas which are determined through what
are seen as the ‘prototypical characteristics’ of the group (Ashford and Mael, 1989;
Turner, 1985). The groups may be based on demographic characteristics such as
race, gender or age. They may also be based on affiliations such as political parties
or religious denominations, and may be perceived positively or negatively in rela-
tion to another group (Tajfel, 1982; Hogg et al., 1995).

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 2 15/12/2017 07:53

INTRODUCTION: THE ABCS OF WOMEN’S ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITY 3
The purpose of the group classification is primarily to cognitively segment and thus
provide order to one’s social environment, thereby providing a means of adopting a
self-definition while also providing a systematic means of defining others (Ashforth
and Mael, 1989). Personal attributes are often more consistent, while social iden-
tities can be more dynamic as people move in and out of different groups; for
example, move into a different age bracket or stage of life, or change political party.
How social identities are perceived can also be dynamic, changing positively or
negatively in relation or reaction to any particular group (Hogg et al., 1995; Brush
and Gale, 2014).
Identity theory
Role-based identities (mother, architect, entrepreneur, and so on) are at the core
of identity theory (Hogg et al., 1995; Stryker, 1987; Brush and Gale, 2014), a focus
which perhaps more readily accounts for changes in identities (for example, bache-
lor to husband, or manager to entrepreneur) as individuals change personal identity
characteristics (such as competencies) and also make decisions about relationships,
behaviors, occupations, and so on. Given that we all hold many roles, and therefore
we all belong to a number of groups, each of us has multiple, and potentially over-
lapping, identities, related to those roles we enact (Meister et al., 2014; Burke and
Reitzes, 1991). This approach again presents identities as cognitive schemas, built
from comparisons with expectations, specifically the perception of expectations
held for each role (Stryker and Burke, 2000). People generally try to enact their
roles in modes and behaviors deemed socially appropriate for specific roles, while
valuing different roles in potentially different ways and for situationally different
contexts (Adler and Adler, 1987; Schneider et al., 1971; Brush and Gale, 2014).
In the management and business literature, work-related identity is an important

element of a personal or social identity. Merton (1957) defines roles as social posi-
tions that carry expectations for behaviors and obligations to other actors, ideally to
positively affect both the individual and the organization (Brown, 1979; Hall et al.,
1970; Ashforth and Mael, 1989). At the same time, within organizational behavior,
social identity can be derived from that organization as well as sub-organizational
levels, with an outcome, of course, of multiple identities (see Ashforth and Mael,
1989). Not only does the individual derive a social identity from the organization,
but also the work role that a person holds can guide their action (McCall and
Simmons, 1978). At the same time, while a work role will guide action, the role
identity becomes individualized by the role occupant’s interpretation of that role
(Ibarra, 1999).
Identity construction and durability
Because our interest in identity is prompted by questions of how individuals become

entrepreneurs, or entrepreneurial, this begs the question of how identity is created
or constructed, and how durable it is over time. Identity construction takes place

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 3 15/12/2017 07:53

through a complex interplay of cognitive, affective and social interactions that are
contextualized (Marková, 1987); identity motives, pressures that move us toward
certain identity states and away from others, help to guide identity construction
(Breakwell, 1988). The motives themselves may vary through time or situation and
may include things such as affinities for self-esteem, continuity, distinctiveness,
as well as belonging or a sense of meaningfulness (Vignoles et al., 2006). Identity
might be considered both as category-based and role-based (for example, a woman
entrepreneur or an African-American student). However, one identity might be
more salient in different situations, such as a classroom, a social group meeting
or other context (Ashforth et al., 2000) such as a professional environment. While
identity construction might start with personal aspects and group membership, the
identity outcome is also largely dependent on the prioritization of those identity
inputs, or the saliency of each individual part, which is considered to be both muta-
ble and dynamic in reaction to social environments (Meister et al., 2014).
One way to look at saliency is through an individual’s level of commitment to the

identity. ‘Commitment shapes identity salience shapes role choice behavior’ (Mead,
in Stryker and Burke, 2000, p. 286). In other words, commitment to a particular role
identity is high if people perceive that many of their important social relationships
are predicated on occupancy of that role (Stryker and Stratham, 1985). The more
strongly a person is committed to an identity, the greater the level of identity sali-
ence (Stryker, 1980), measured by what it costs to lose important relationships to
others if that identity were closed (Stryker and Burke, 2000).
Overall, ongoing ‘identity work’, indeed ‘conscious identity work’, will include
not only forming, but also maintaining upkeep through repairs and revisions
(Svengingsson and Alvesson, 2003: 1165). The development of narrative has been
presented as a tool for identity construction (Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010). The
approach views identity as ‘the internalized and evolving story that results from a
person’s selective appropriate of past, present, and future’ (McAdams, 1999: 486,
in Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010: 135). As such, narratives are the means of captur-
ing self-schemas and meanings associated with individuals as they interact with
others.
Entrepreneurial identity
In one of the earliest specific works on entrepreneurial identity, Stanworth and
Curran (1976) explicitly drew forth the difference between their analysis of entre-
preneurial roles as related to self-definition and the ubiquitous earlier perspective
of an indelible personality type in place before the undertaking of any entrepre-
neurial roles. Instead, Stanworth and Curran acknowledge the contribution of
social aspects in building the identity, and posit three latent social identities as role
components: artisan, classical entrepreneur and the manager. Since then a variety
of different types of entrepreneurial identities and typologies have been proposed
in the entrepreneurship literature (Woo et al., 1991; Westhead and Wright, 1998;
Vesalainen and Pihkala, 2000; Fauchart and Gruber, 2011), along with a variety of

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 4 15/12/2017 07:53

definitions for the overarching entrepreneurial identity (for a summary see Crosina,
Chapter 5 in this volume).
This body of research has grown significantly and has evolved from the idea of
typologies and the investigation of stereotypes to a deeper, and also broader, study
of entrepreneurial identity, including the contribution of discourse and narrative
as a methodology (Fletcher, 2007; Foss, 2004; Johansson, 2004; Warren, 2004;
Downing, 2005; Berglund, 2008; Down and Warren, 2008; Phillips et al., 2013), pas-
sion (Cardon et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2009; Murnieks et al., 2014) and persistence
(Hoang and Gimeno, 2010), industry (Vesala et al., 2007; Lindgren and Packendorff,
2008; Jain et al., 2009), family business (Shepherd and Haynie, 2009; Watson, 2009),
type of company (Miller et al., 2011) and geographic region and/or culture (Erogul
and McCrohan, 2008; Farmer and Kung-Mcintyre, 2008; Kikooma, 2011; Gill and
Larson, 2014). Two more recent compelling paths have included the pursuit of
understanding any potential differences related to identities within a defined arena
of social entrepreneurship (Light, 2005; Jones et al., 2008), and the role of entre-
preneurship education in shaping entrepreneurial identities (Edwards and Muir,
2012; Vanevenhoven and Liguori, 2013; Hytti and Heinonen, 2013; Donnellon et
al., 2014).
In looking across the existing research in entrepreneurial identity, we see that there
are connections to organizational identity in three ways: distinctiveness, or what is
meant by a specifically entrepreneurial identity; centrality, which we connect with
salience; and endurance, which we connect with construction and/or durability
(Kreiner et al., 2015).
The idea that entrepreneurs are somehow distinct and different represents a cen-
tral theme in the entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Baker and Nelson, 2005), and
to identify oneself as an entrepreneur provides individuals with the opportunity
to satisfy their need for distinctiveness, while recognizing a potential imbalance
with a need for belonging (Shepherd and Haynie, 2009; Tajfel and Turner, 1986;
Turner, 1985). In much of the work related to identity, this is generally ascribed
to be through membership in an organization, one which provides an identity that
is intended to have positive effects for both the individual and the organization
(Brown, 1969; Hall et al., 1970; Lee, 1971, in Ashforth and Mael, 1989: 20). We posit
that the business organization itself is of interest in a quite different way to those
acting as entrepreneurs, especially those in the process of creating an organization.
Not only may the organization not yet exist, but also other groups potentially
contributing to the work identity, such as ‘work group, department, union, lunch
group, age cohort, fast-track group, and so on’ (Ashforth and Mael, 1989: 22), also
either do not exist or at best are emerging. Further, the entrepreneur is often in the
process of creating the new organization, and therefore simultaneously creating a
role identity as the entrepreneur, and the organizational identity, which is often
manifested in the culture of the emerging venture (Gartner and Brush, 2007). More
specifically, the entrepreneurs rely on their tacit knowledge, experience and social

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 5 15/12/2017 07:53

contacts to build the systems, boundaries and overall identity of the emerging
organization. In this process the entrepreneur may actually try on different identi-
ties, as the organizational and entrepreneurial identities are shaped simultaneously.
Distinctiveness must be considered not only in differentiating between an entrepre-

neurial identity and another work identity, but also within types or approaches to
entrepreneurship. For instance, an entrepreneur opening a food truck business may
theoretically hold a different entrepreneurial identity than one pursuing venture
capital for a technology venture. These differences may be predicated on a number
of bases, including motivation and previous experience, role models, funding needs
and sources, team structure, common obstacles, networks, and definitions of suc-
cessful outcomes.
The issue of centrality is also critical, raising the question of the saliency of the
entrepreneurial identity in the personal identity hierarchy. This question will be
particularly relevant as we later move into the question of women’s entrepreneurial
identity (Kreiner et al., 2015). Recognizing that there is not an entrepreneurial
identity (Stanworth and Curran, 1976), we are intrigued by the situation of the
entrepreneurial identity as one of the multiple and overlapping identities that make
up any person, as well as the effect of social interactions in that process (Meister et
al., 2014). Like Meister et al. (2014), we are especially intrigued by the saliency ques-
tion, including the movement from affirmation or self-acceptance to validation (the
need for others to recognize that identity).
And finally, we consider the construction, adoption and endurance of an entre-

preneurial identity, looked at from a diachronic perspective of how the identity
changes over time. Some will adopt the identity of entrepreneur from the moment
they have a concept, while some may not consider themselves entrepreneurs until
others suggest that they are becoming entrepreneurs, and they therefore may then
adopt the identity. But how durable is the identity? In other words, when does a
person gain an entrepreneurial identity, how does it last, and how or when might
a person stop identifying as an entrepreneur? While the category of nascent entre-
preneur has been established (Shaver et al., 2001), the question of when one might
no longer be ‘an entrepreneur’ remains.
Drawing from the career development literature, as an individual engages in

activities to start and launch a venture, their identity is somewhat malleable and
impressionable. But as they gain experience that solidifies their self-concept as
an entrepreneur, their identity develops and the narrative becomes more focused
and clarified (Carlsen, 2006; Hall, 2002). Again, much of this depends on the self-
identification of the roles that must be filled depending on the perception of being
entrepreneurial.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 6 15/12/2017 07:53

Identity and aspirations, behavior and confidence

Identity and aspirations
Our use of aspirations follows Farmer et al.’s (2011: 245) description as ‘longings,
aims, or ambitions’, while we posit that ‘aspiration’ is actually an underdefined and
under-researched concept throughout entrepreneurship. Two exceptions exist: the
aspiration to start a business, which can be seen as the assumption of the identity
of an entrepreneur (Farmer et al., 2011); and aspirations for a high-growth venture
(Cassar, 2007). What is needed is a more articulated approach to investigating and/
or describing what an individual really wants to accomplish through their entre-
preneurial behaviors. Currently, specificity about the overall value desired to be
created through the behaviors generally remains largely amorphous.
The question of aspirations is one that is also too often missed in economic devel-
opment programs. Policy approaches generally adopt ‘three stylized facts’ (Hessels
et al., 2008):
1. The entrepreneur (as business owner) enhances economic growth (Carree and
Thurik, 2003).
2. ‘[H]i-growth firms contribute more to economic growth than small, new
firms’ (Hessels et al., 2008).
3. There is currently little research on growth aspirations within the diversity of
entrepreneurs.
We also question the assumption from an economic development perspective that

business growth is always good and desirable.
In fact, the use of the term ‘aspiration’ itself is in question. While the term ‘aspira-
tion’ is occasionally used interchangeably with ‘goal’, ‘growth ambitions’ (Krueger
and Carsrud, 1993) or ‘objective’, as a cognitive measure it can also be seen as
having possible ties to entrepreneurial motivation, achievement motivation, as well
as Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Simply
put, aspirations relate to what you want to accomplish; motivations put forth why
you want to accomplish something. We also differentiate between aspirations
(what you want to happen) and expectations (what you think is going to happen)
(Manolova et al., 2012; Hessels et al., 2008).
The stage of business creation and development does play a role in the relation-
ship between identity and entrepreneurial aspirations. At the nascent stage, the
desired entrepreneurial identity (possible self) serving as the foundation for the
work identity can be seen to guide both thoughts and behaviors (Cross and Markus,
1994; Markus and Nurius, 1986; Farmer et al., 2011). The identity aspired to as
an entrepreneur would depend on the individuals’ perspectives on the definition
and required roles of an entrepreneur. One way to consider this is to look at the
relationship between business accomplishments and entrepreneurial self-image
(Verheul et al., 2005). (These authors also added a consideration of gender which

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 7 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 1.1 Typology of entrepreneurial identities
Name/type Entrepreneurial activity
Starter Enters an independent business by creating a new one

Acquirer Enters an independent business by acquiring an ongoing concern
Runner Manages a small to medium-sized business beyond start-up
Take-off artist Steers a company into a high-growth trajectory
Turnaround artist Saves a failing company
Innovator Makes something new happen that is not a company
Champion Supports an innovator
Intrepreneur Takes initiative for business unit creation inside an established business
Industry captain Runs a big business
Mumpreneur A woman running a business and caring for children simultaneously, bal-
ancing work and life
Social entrepreneur An entrepreneur with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing
problems
Source: Adapted from K.H. Vesper, in Verheul et al. (2005), Neck et al. (2009), Nel et al. (2010).
will be reviewed in the next section of this chapter.) We added to these authors’ use
of Vesper’s (1999) entrepreneurial typology to include additional potential entre-
preneurial identities which may impact aspirations, and vice versa. Table 1.1 sum-
marizes a typology of entrepreneurial identities.
One helpful exception is seen in the work of Kolvereid (1992), where he recognizes
that ‘most firms are born small and stay small’ and finds only a weak relationship
between motives to start the business and growth aspirations. Patterns in his find-
ings suggest that ‘entrepreneurs with no growth aspirations have a tendency to
be driven by independence and opportunism, entrepreneurs with revenue growth
aspirations by welfare and tax considerations, and entrepreneurs with both revenue
and employment growth aspirations by their achievement motive’. However, he
declares these findings to be weak, concluding that overall aspirations are not found
to be significantly affected by ‘experience, sex, location, or firm size by employee’.
Other work finds that nascent entrepreneurs will be motivated to grow if they
believe that the efforts expended will lead to the outcome they seek (Douglas and
Shepherd, 2000; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Growth is a choice, even though it is
often a measure of firm success (Delmar et al., 2003).
Identity and behavior

Identity is at the root of drivers of behavior (Stryker and Burke, 2000). The per-
sonal search for identity can then be considered as a ‘family of existential motives’
including searches for such fundamental things such as ‘meaning, connectedness,
empowerment, and even immortality’ (e.g., Denhardt, 1987; Fox, 1980; Katz and

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 8 15/12/2017 07:53

Kahn, 1978; all in Ashforth and Mael, 1989: 22). They define situations by providing
an increased sensitivity and receptiveness for behavior cues, therefore providing
guidance on how to act (Stryker and Burke, 2000). They can be motivational and
aspirational as to their desired identity for the future; identity can serve to support,
or debilitate feelings of authenticity, especially in times of transition (Ibarra and
Barbulescu, 2010).
Mead (1934, in Stryker and Burke, 2000) situates the study of identity as creating
a framework to analyze sociological and social psychological issues, providing a
conceptual pathway from identity to behavior. Later, Burke and Reitzes (1981) con-
cluded that the link between identity and behavior was a sense of shared meanings,
with Stryker and Burke (2000) eventually proposing an identity theory model: (1)
recognizing the identity standard as a ‘set of culturally prescribed meanings which
are held by the individual to define the role identity in a particular situation’ (ibid.:
287), in other words, what is expected, or what should be; (2) taking the percep-
tion of meanings in a situation and matching them to the meanings in the identity
standard for that situation; (3) acknowledging the mechanisms that provide the
comparison between the standard and the perception of the existing; and then (4)
concluding with the differences that prompt behaviors to address the differences
between the two (Stryker and Burke, 2000).
One of the challenges in holding multiple identities is to recognize that differ-

ent situations contextually activate different behaviors, as different identities are
invoked in different situations (Stryker and Burke, 2000). Which identity takes
precedence in determining behavior? Backing up from there, each of us has an
internal salience hierarchy which determines which identity takes precedence, as
well as precedence in which situation. A particular situation may cause a specific
identity to be evoked (Stryker and Burke, 2000).
And then there is the question of identity symmetry, essentially the difference
between the actual and the perceived identity. Meister et al. (2014) report that there
is actually little research on any positive effects of identity symmetry. However, as
lack of that perceived validity can potentially lead to a lack of confidence, including
self-questioning, and uncertainty regarding behaviors (Meister et al., 2014), lack of
symmetry (internal and external identity alignment) may exacerbate relationship
issues, particularly at work.
Identity and confidence

Within the field of entrepreneurship, confidence (self-assurance stemming from
one’s trust in one’s own abilities) is most often investigated as self-efficacy, ‘the
conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the
outcomes’ (Bandura, 1977: 193). In Bandura’s early specification of this concept,
self-efficacy expectations mediate between the person and the behavior, while out-
come expectations act between behavior and outcomes (expectation that a specific
behavior will lead to certain outcomes) (Bandura, 1977, 1982). As such, self-efficacy

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 9 15/12/2017 07:53

has the potential to affect both the start and the persistence of a particular behavior
(Bandura, 1977).
Over the course of Bandura’s work in this area he suggests several relevant compo-
nents to the theory. First, the dimensions of self-efficacy include magnitude (simple
to difficult), generality (circumscribed to more general), and strength (weak to
strong) (Bandura, 1977), emphasizing that an assessment of these dimensions must
match the precision of the measurement of the efficacy. Second, the four major
sources of efficacy information, or the ways one obtains information about one’s
own capability, are performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal
persuasion and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). Third, enhanced self-efficacy
may be transferable to substantially different activities; however, the most predict-
able transfers are to more similar activities (Bandura, 1977; Bandura et al., 1969).
And finally, one of Bandura’s more recent yet less-discussed works includes the
consideration of an agentic perspective: ‘To be an agent is to influence intentionally
one’s functioning and life circumstances’ (Bandura, 2006: 164).
Self-efficacy primarily entered the field of entrepreneurship through career prefer-

ence, conceptually interpreted as an interest in becoming an entrepreneur (Scherer
et al., 1989; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994), and evolving
into consideration of other types of entrepreneurial behaviors (Boyd and Vozikis,
1994; Krueger and Dickson, 1994). The first empirical study of entrepreneurial self-
efficacy (Chen et al., 1998) has been followed by a variety of others to further dis-
tinguish the task domains (DeNoble et al., 1999; Kickul and D’Intino, 2005; McGee
et al., 2009). And a variety of methodological approaches have been used to study
self-efficacy differences in numerous areas, with examples including behaviors
(Cassar and Friedman, 2009; Smith and Woodworth, 2012; Tumasian and Braun,
2012), country and/or culture (Jung et al., 2001; Urban, 2006; Naktiyok et al., 2010),
entrepreneurial education (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Karlsson and Moberg,
2013; Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015) and family business (Carr and Sequeira,
2007; DeNoble et al., 2007). Gender, of course, has also been an important part of
self-efficacy studies, and this will be included in the next section of this chapter.
Women’s entrepreneurial identity (why it is different for women)
‘A central premise of SIT is that people identify with groups that contribute to a
positive sense of self, such as high-status or high-power groups (Ellemers, 1993;
Haslam et al., 2000)’ (Justo et al., Chapter 3 in this volume). The perception of
entrepreneurs as traditionally men, independent and risk-takers is mostly a myth,
which is perpetuated by the media, our teaching cases, classroom materials, and
in general conversation (Bird and Brush, 2002). This role stereotype may fit some
entrepreneurs, but not all. Traditional entrepreneurs are thought of in the ideal
as those who brilliantly conceive of a new technology innovation, capture a giant
market, take a company public and make millions of dollars. These entrepreneurs
are financially motivated, take big risks, have networks that are male-dominated,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 10 15/12/2017 07:53

and start businesses in traditional product and market sectors, hoping to generate
jobs and personal wealth (Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1935; Delmar et al., 2003;
Aldrich et al., 1989; Fairlie and Robb, 2009; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
These stereotypes of entrepreneurs being male refer to the traits and behaviors
that are culturally deemed appropriate for men and women, and whether these
relate to the individual’s role or occupation (Heilman, 2001; Meuhlenhard and
Peterson, 2011). For example, jobs can become stereotyped as masculine or femi-
nine (Heilman, 1983), and therefore success in these gendered occupations is then
believed to require correspondingly stereotypical characteristics (Heilman, 1997).
Stereotypical characteristics are quite common as they pertain to dichotomous, vis-
ible behaviors typically labelled as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ (Gupta and Turban,
2012).
Because of stereotypical beliefs about entrepreneurs as being male/masculine,

women entrepreneurs may face competing social identities. Theory suggests that
when an individual faces a competing social identity, they will use cultural associa-
tions of status-worthiness and competence as cues for self-definition. Thus, given
positive associations with masculine entrepreneurial attributes and negative, or at
best neutral associations with feminine entrepreneurial attributes (Ahl, 2006; Bruni
et al., 2004), entrepreneurs more often identify with masculine characteristics.
‘Because of this, and due to the higher status attached to masculine entrepreneurial
values, we expect women entrepreneurs to report masculine values, that is, ones
that are similar to those of their male counterparts’ (Justo et al., Chapter 3 in this
volume).
The same is true for aspirations. The very practice of pursuing high-growth
entrepreneurship ‒ with its aggressive funding goals and interest in pursuing
venture capital funding ‒ has been consistently considered a masculine behavior
(Gupta et al., 2009; Gupta and Turban, 2012). Gupta et al. (2009) found that most
entrepreneurs, and in particular those who created high-performing, high-growth
ventures, are perceived as more stereotypically masculine than feminine.
On the one hand, several scholars have highlighted the importance of women’s
non-monetary expectations from the business as a key to understand gender dif-
ferences in business ownership patterns (e.g., MacNabb et al., 1993; Buttner and
Moore, 1997; Fenwick and Hutton, 2000; Walker and Brown, 2004). Others, how-
ever, have found little gender-based variance in values and attitudes toward success
(e.g., Catley and Hamilton, 1998; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Shane et al., 1991).
Either way, the general social expectation that entrepreneurs should hold high aspi-
rations for growth may create internal identity conflict for women entrepreneurs
who may wish to grow more steadily, slowly, or not at all. In fact, one study of nas-
cent entrepreneurs finds that growth aspirations for men were motivated only by
financial success, while women were motivated by status or role, financial success
and self-realization (Manolova et al., 2012).

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 11 15/12/2017 07:53

The general masculinization of the social role of entrepreneurs also influences

expectations for behavior. In most Western societies, masculine behaviors are
commonly associated with assertiveness and dominance, while feminine behaviors
are connected with warmth and emotional expressiveness (Eagly, 1987). Achieving
success as an entrepreneur has also been traditionally associated with masculinity
(Bird and Brush, 2002; Collins and Moore, 1964; Hisrich and Brush, 1984; Gupta et
al., 2009; Gupta and Turban, 2012; Schein, 1975), as successful entrepreneurs have
been described as bold, aggressive risk-takers; behaviors that are typically associ-
ated with masculinity (Baughn et al., 2006; Gupta and Turban, 2012). Conversely,
femininity has not been associated with ‘successful’ entrepreneurs (Bird and Brush,
2002; Ridgeway, 2001; Rudman and Glick, 2001). Entrepreneurs who exhibit more
femininity may not be considered to have the level of competency required for
business growth and success (Bird et al., 2012; Cejka and Eagly, 1999). By behav-
ing in a feminine manner, entrepreneurs are likely to perpetuate the perception
of societal myths regarding the incompatibility between femininity and venture
success.
Not only do masculine stereotypes and identity influence aspirations and behav-
iors, but these also have an impact on confidence. To be an entrepreneur, one
has to believe one has the necessary skills and capabilities to pursue a particular
career generally, or to be an entrepreneur (Bandura, 1989; Chen et al., 1998). More
specifically, individuals with high entrepreneurial self-efficacy have higher entre-
preneurial intentions (Chen et al., 1998; Krueger et al., 2000). Career literature
shows that, not surprisingly, women have lower self-efficacy in careers perceived
as ‘non-traditional’, and that societal expectations for women in a particular career
shape their self-confidence (Eddleston et al., 2006). As a consequence, women
entrepreneurs may have less self-efficacy in performing entrepreneurial tasks such
as creating and growing a business, or more specifically, in building a team, seeking
resources or interacting with stakeholders (Mueller and Dato-On, 2008).
The next section presents an overview of the chapters in this volume in Part I:
Aspirations, Part II: Behaviors and Part III: Confidence.
Part I: Women entrepreneurs, identity and aspirations
The chapters in Part I explore the relationship between women’s entrepreneurial

identity and aspirations. Identity theory posits that an individual’s personal identity
is linked to motivations, goals and aspirations. In other words, how a person self-
identifies, and sees themselves, can motivate them to aspire to a different or new
identity.
Chapter 2, ‘Developing entrepreneurial identity among start-ups’ female founders

in high-tech: policy implications from the Chilean case’, studies the intersection of
various categories of identity by focusing on a particular industry: women entrepre-
neurs in technology. As such, the authors Katherina Kuschel and Juan-Pablo Labra

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 12 15/12/2017 07:53

touch on issues related to personal, social and work identities. Building on a rela-
tively thin thread in the entrepreneurship literature, the authors use a social iden-
tity framework to investigate identity construction, focusing first on identifying and
examining elements that contribute to women building an entrepreneurial identity,
and subsequently sharing conclusions on the constraints and obstacles faced during
this process. This is a qualitative study, based upon the ubiquitous Berglund (2008)
approach in search of theory development. One of the notable questions addressed
in this chapter concerns a woman’s degree of agency to contribute to the construc-
tion of her entrepreneurial identity, particularly within specific social contexts, in
this case from an industry perspective, the entrepreneurial ecosystem supporting
technological ventures, and geographically: Latin America (largely Chile).
In Chapter 3, ‘Perception of success of men and women entrepreneurs: a social

identity approach’, Rachida Justo, Cristina Cruz and Julio De Castro build from a
post-structural feminist view to apply social identity theory (SIT) to explore their
contention that for women entrepreneurs, parenthood (especially the presence of
dependent children) is a powerful driver of change in an entrepreneur’s perceptions
of success. The authors’ proposition is that the effects of parenthood are stronger
for women than for men. One aspect of aspirations that demands more research
is the relationship of aspirations to existing measures of entrepreneurial success.
This chapter makes four main contributions to the entrepreneurship literature.
First, it more firmly connects SIT inside the field of entrepreneurship. Second, it
looks at the effect of the work‒family interface on shifts in perceptions and values.
Third, it expands the measures of entrepreneurial success to include non-monetary
measures of success. And fourth, it further disentangles within-gender differences
regarding business aspirations in order to better understand the heterogeneity
amongst women entrepreneurs.
‘Aspirations of women entrepreneurs in poverty: the livelihood entrepreneur’, by

Smita Trivedi, is Chapter 4. This, our final chapter related to identity and aspira-
tions, presents the consideration of aspirations as quite relative, and unleashes
it from any stereotypical assumptions regarding an innate connection between
aspirations and opportunity-based entrepreneurship. Trivedi grounds her work
in her interest in poverty alleviation to propose a new definition, ‘livelihood entre-
preneurship’. As such, Trivedi places this concept on a continuum between the
concepts of social entrepreneurship and traditional entrepreneurship, recogniz-
ing that ‘An entrepreneur must first meet her family’s basic needs before she can
dream about expanding or helping others’. In this chapter, poverty is presented as
a multidimensional construct presenting itself as part of economic uncertainty.
Further, Trivedi places the concept of community-based enterprise (CBE) as a
pathway to sustainable local development (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006), while rec-
ognizing the need for a more individual level of analysis and therefore proposing
‘livelihood entrepreneurs’.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 13 15/12/2017 07:53

Part II: Women, entrepreneurial identity and behavior
The chapters in Part II connect and explore the relationship between women’s
social identity and behaviors. It is posited that identity, especially gender identity,
influences behaviors. More specifically:
Social identity theory (SIT) is utilized to examine when entrepreneurs are more likely
to act consistently with their gender-stereotypic role and when they are more likely to
adopt attitudes more congruent with traditional entrepreneurial archetypes. The central
assumption underlying social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974, 1978) is that while there are
elements of self-identity that are derived from individual traits and interpersonal relation-
ships (personal identity), there are many social settings in which people do not act as
independent individuals. (Justo et al., Chapter 3 in this volume)
Part II begins with Chapter 5 by Eliana Crosina, ‘On becoming an entrepreneur:

unpacking entrepreneurial identity’. Following a brief review of literature on iden-
tity and then, more specifically, identity among women entrepreneurs, Crosina
compares entrepreneurial identity among professionals and entrepreneurs, then
highlights what might be unique or different for women. She notes that the cur-
rent literature overlooks how entrepreneurial identity forms and evolves. However,
there is little consensus on what constitutes entrepreneurial identity, other than it
is flexible and requires active ‘work’. The chapter offers a framework for entrepre-
neurial identity construction and includes gender as a key aspect. She argues that
for women entrepreneurs, there is a need to gain legitimacy, and to be flexible or
‘juggle’ their identities based on their multiple roles. The chapter concludes with
suggested research directions.
The next chapter in Part II, Chapter 6 by Catherine Elliott and Barbara Orser,
‘Feminist entrepreneurial identity: reproducing gender through founder decision-
making’, examines how feminist entrepreneurial identity is expressed through
founder decision-making. The authors examine how feminist entrepreneurial iden-
tity is expressed through entrepreneurial actions. Beginning with a review of litera-
ture that covers adult learning theory, they point out that being female may conflict
with one’s entrepreneurial self-image. To examine their research question, 15
self-identified ‘feminist entrepreneurs’ were recruited through Canadian Women’s
Enterprise Centers. They were interviewed in semi-structured phone calls, where
verbatim transcripts were analyzed using an interpretive inductive methodology.
Results showed that their feminist entrepreneurial identity was articulated through
their acquisition of human and financial resources, strategic compromises, market
positioning, governance structures, and relationships. The results yield insight into
the gendered nature of venture creation, and in particular, entrepreneurial identity.
The investigation yields a conceptual model and future research directions.
The final chapter in Part II, Chapter 7 by Richard Harrison and Claire Leitch,
‘Identity and identity work in constructing the woman entrepreneur’, examines
the organizational context and how the identity construction processes take place.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 14 15/12/2017 07:53

Taking a feminist perspective, they ask what is the nature of the identity work
undertaken by women in the process of identity formation, identity activation and
resultant behavior in an entrepreneurial context. The authors use an ethnographic
case study of a female entrepreneur involved in the start-up and growth of her
family business. Data collection took place over 18 months and utilized a combina-
tion of observation, conversations, interviews and documentary materials. Three
overarching themes about identity and identity construction emerged, as well as
two others related to gender. The three overarching themes were identity repre-
sentation, identity construction as an unconscious process, and the influence of life
history. For women in particular, the issue of attaining and gaining credibility and
issue of invisibility for women in family business were important findings.
Part III: Women, entrepreneurial identity and confidence
Part III explores the relationship between confidence (self-assurance stemming

from trust in one’s own abilities), most often studied as self-efficacy, and how this
influences the start and persistence of entrepreneurial behaviors (Bandura, 1977).
The general masculinization of the social role of the entrepreneur, and characteri-
zations of abilities, influence expectations for behavior.
First is Chapter 8 by Malin Brännback, Shahrokh Nikou, Alan Carsrud and Diana
Hechavarria, entitled ‘Context, cognition and female entrepreneurial intentions: it
is all about perceived behavioral control’. The authors explore the concept of per-
ceived behavioral control, which is a person’s subjective belief about their capac-
ity to carry out a task. This subjective belief over the behavior, not the outcome,
is significantly influenced by the context of the entrepreneurial activity and the
self-efficacy of the individual. For their study, the authors explore family business
background and compare male and female entrepreneurs. The study of 2282 stu-
dents, representing universities in eight countries, includes previously used reliable
measures. Their results show that family business does not influence the subjective
belief as to whether women think they will become entrepreneurs, but it does influ-
ence whether they think they will succeed in doing so. They find that perceived
behavioral control and self-efficacy are distinct concepts, and that their impact is
gendered.
The second chapter, Chapter 9 by Magdalena Markowska, ‘Motherhood as a spring-

board for women’s entrepreneurial action’, examines one form of entrepreneurial
identity, ‘mumpreneurs’, and considers the relationship between becoming entre-
preneurial and motherhood. Following Bandura’s social learning theory, the author
posits that mastery experiences, such as giving birth and raising a child, will have
a positive effect on a woman’s confidence in general and on entrepreneurial self-
efficacy in particular. Specifically, she explores whether or not skills and abilities in
child-raising are similar and transferable to entrepreneurial experience. For exam-
ple, she argues that the budgeting, multi-tasking, persuasive and negotiation skills
required for being a mother are similar to those required to be an entrepreneur.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 15 15/12/2017 07:53

This theoretical chapter offers a unique perspective ‒ motherhood as a resource ‒

which is somewhat contradictory to previous literature which considered mother-
hood as a cost, or a disadvantage for women starting and growing businesses (Allen
et al., 2007).
The third chapter in Part III is Chapter 10, ‘Kickstart or jumpstart? Understanding
women entrepreneurs’ crowdfunding performance’, by Smita Srivastava, Pyayt
Oo, Arvin Sahaym and Thomas Allison. The authors examine factors that influ-
ence women entrepreneurs’ seeking funds from crowdfunding lenders through
online platforms. They explore the relationship between social identity, passion,
self-efficacy and prior business knowledge as this relates to crowdfunding per-
formance. Using data from Kickstarter, a large crowdfunding site, they selected a
random sample of female-led projects from three categories ‒ gaming, technology
and product design ‒ and analyzed the videos created by these entrepreneurs. Their
analysis of 197 projects shows that women entrepreneurs with high self-efficacy
will engender more support from potential backers through their strong self-belief.
Passion reflects preparedness and commitment, which also influences backers to
believe in the entrepreneur’s idea.
Conclusion
We began with a general discussion of the elements of identity, self-concept, social

identity and role identity, and how entrepreneurs construct or adopt their entrepre-
neurial identity during organizational emergence or move into a new organization.
We considered how entrepreneurial identity may be distinctive, central or salient,
or enduring depending on the context. We argued that entrepreneurial identity is
inherently tied to three other key concepts: aspirations, behaviors and confidence.
From this general background, we discussed how entrepreneurial identity is differ-
ent for women, largely because of the historical male participation and association
with masculine characteristics and behaviors. Further, the fact that an estimated 90
percent of all research on entrepreneurship focuses on men suggests that much of
what we know about entrepreneurial identity is based on studies of men. Given this
foundation, we proposed that the linkages between entrepreneurial identity, and
aspirations, behaviors and confidence, will shed light on why women will create
and grow businesses, how they will grow businesses, and why women are self-
assured in creating and growing their businesses.
Our call for papers set forth this premise and the authors included in this volume
provide new insights into women’s entrepreneurship. But at the same time, new
research questions are raised. The chapters examining entrepreneurial identity and
aspirations point out that women face contradictions depending on the expecta-
tions or norms in an industry, and therefore they may adopt provisional identities
(Kuschel and Labra, Chapter 2). In addition, parenthood is experienced differently,
which in turn influences personal values as these relate to entrepreneurship (Justo,
Cruz and De Castro, Chapter 3). Further, we learned that socio-economic context,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 16 15/12/2017 07:53

or a drive for livelihood, also influences identity construction (Trivedi, Chapter 4).
Together, these suggest future research questions:
● What is the nature of provisional identities ‒ how are they conceived? Are
they shaped to become enduring identities?
● What are the contextual factors that influence provisional identities?
● How does parenthood influence the construction of entrepreneurial identity?
The chapters exploring linkages between entrepreneurial identities and behav-

ior show that women entrepreneurs are motivated to gain legitimacy (Crosina,
Chapter 5) and credibility (Harrison and Leitch, Chapter 7). Further, the mascu-
line image of the entrepreneur influences identity construction and representation
(Harrison and Leitch, Chapter 7). On the other hand, Elliott and Orser (Chapter 6)
suggest that a feminist entrepreneurial identity is manifested by the behaviors of
an entrepreneur in acquiring resources and market positioning. These also suggest
future research questions:
● Is there a relationship between legitimating or credibility-building behaviors

and endurance of entrepreneurial identity over time?
● Is there also a relationship between identity validation (the need for others to
recognize the identity) and the degree to which the entrepreneur self-identi-
fies with this role?
● Do women adopting a feminist entrepreneurial identity benefit in resource
acquisition behaviors?
Finally, Part III of this book examines the relationship between entrepreneurial
identity and confidence. Resource acquisition, in the form of crowdfunding, was
significantly related to success in crowdfunding (Srivastava, Oo, Sahaym and
Allison, Chapter 10). Brännback, Nikou, Carsrud and Hechavarria (Chapter 8) find
gender differences in perceived behavioral control, and confidence in ability to
complete tasks associated with entrepreneurship. Markowska (Chapter 9) argues
that tasks or behaviors associated with entrepreneurial activity are similar to those
gained in child-rearing and motherhood, and should be considered as a resource.
Questions for future consideration related to these findings are:
● Is there a difference between male and female entrepreneurs and their entre-
preneurial self-efficacy in the venture creation process based on experience in
parenting or child-rearing tasks?
● How is perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy similar and different for
entrepreneurs in other contexts (for instance, high-technology? Consumer
products?)
● What are the educational and training interventions that would support the
development of higher levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy?
While we believe that this volume answers some questions, others raised, like
those above, merit continued research, especially recognizing that the question

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 17 15/12/2017 07:53

of identity overlap at the individual and organizational levels potentially is more

salient for business owners than for those who work for organizations owned by
others. Continued investigation into entrepreneurial identity will provide us with
the knowledge to guide entrepreneurship education, policy recommendations and
the practice of entrepreneurship.
References
Adler, P.A. and P. Adler (1987), Membership Roles in Field Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Ahl, H. (2006), ‘Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions’, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
Ajzen, I. (1991), ‘The theory of planned behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Aldrich, H.E., P.R. Reese and P. Dubini (1989), ‘Women on the verge of a breakthrough? Networking
among entrepreneurs in the United States and Italy’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
1, 339–356.
Allen, E., A. Elam, N. Langowitz and M. Dean (2007), ‘Report on Women and Entrepreneurship’, Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Ashforth, B.E., G.E. Kreiner and M. Fugate (2000), ‘All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role transi-
tions’, Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.
Ashforth, B.E. and F. Mael (1989), ‘Social identity theory and the organization’, Academy of Management
Review, 4(1), 20–39.
Baker, T. and R.E. Nelson (2005), ‘Creating something from nothing: resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
Bandura, A. (1977), ‘Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change’, Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1982), ‘Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency’, American Psychologist, 37(2),
122–147.
Bandura, A. (1989), ‘Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy’, Developmental
Psychology, 25(5), 729.
Bandura, A. (2006), ‘Toward a psychology of human agency’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2),
164–180.
Bandura, A., E.B. Blanchard and B. Ritter (1969), ‘Relative efficacy of desensitization and modeling
approaches for inducing behavioral, affective, and attitudinal changes’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 13(3), 173.
Baughn, C.C., B.L. Chua and K.E. Neupert (2006), ‘The normative context for women’s participation in
entrepreneurship: a multi-country study’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 687–708.
Berglund, K. (2008), ‘Discursive diversity in fashioning entrepreneurial identity’, Chapter 11 in Chris
Steyaert and Daniel Hjorth (eds), Entrepreneurship As Social Change: A Third New Movements in
Entrepreneurship Book, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing,
pp. 231–250.
Bird, B. and C. Brush (2002), ‘A gendered perspective on organizational creation’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 26(3), 41–65.
Bird, B., L. Schjoedt and J.R. Baum (2012), ‘Editor’s introduction. Entrepreneurs’ behavior: elucidation
and measurement’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 889–913.
Boyd, N.G. and G.S. Vozikis (1994), ‘The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial
intentions and action’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 63–63.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 18 15/12/2017 07:53

Breakwell, G.M. (1988), ‘Strategies adopted when identity is threatened’, Revue Internationale de
Psychologie Sociale, 1, 189–203
Brown, M.E. (1979), ‘Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 14, 346–355.
Bruni, A., S. Gherardi and B. Poggio (2004), ‘Doing gender, doing entrepreneurship: an ethnographic
account of intertwined practices’, Gender, Work and Organization, 11(4), 406–429.
Brush, C.G. and M. Gale (2014), ‘Becoming entrepreneurial: constructing an entrepreneurial identity
in an elective entrepreneurship course’, in V. Crittenden, K. Esper, N. Karst and R. Slegers (eds),
Evolving Entrepreneurial Education: Innovation in the Babson Classroom, Bingley, UK: Emerald
Publishing, pp. 305–322.
Burke, P.J. and D.C. Reitzes (1991), ‘An identity theory approach to commitment’, Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54, 239–251.
Buttner, H. and D. Moore (1997), ‘Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: self-reported
motivations and correlates with success’, Journal of Small Business Management, 35(1), 34–46.
Cardon, M.S., J. Wincent, J. Singh and M. Drnovsek (2009), ‘The nature and experience of entrepre-
neurial passion’, Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532.
Carlsen, A. (2006), ‘Organizational becoming as dialogic imagination of practice: the case of the indomi-
table Gauls’, Organization Science, 17(1), 132–149.
Carr, J.C. and J.M. Sequeira (2007), ‘Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and
entrepreneurial intent: a theory of planned behavior approach’, Journal of Business Research, 60(10),
1090–1098.
Carree, M.A. and A.R. Thurik (2003), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth’, in
D.B. Audretsch and Z.J. Acs (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Boston, MA, USA and
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 437–471.
Cassar, G. (2007), ‘Money, money, money: a longitudinal investigation of entrepreneurial career reasons for
growth preferences and achieved growth’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(1), 80–107.
Cassar, G. and H. Friedman (2009), ‘Does self‐efficacy affect entrepreneurial investment?’, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 241–260.
Catley, S. and R.T. Hamilton (1998), ‘Small business development and gender of owner’, Journal of
Management Development, 71(1), 75–82.
Cejka, M.A. and A.H. Eagly (1999), ‘Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex
segregation of employment’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413–423.
Chen, C.C., P.G. Greene and A. Crick (1998), ‘Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepre-
neurs from managers?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316.
Chen, X.P., X. Yao and S. Kotha (2009), ‘Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan pres-
entations: a persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions’, Academy of Management
Journal, 52(1), 199–214.
Collins, O.F. and D.G. Moore (1964), The Enterprising Man, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Press.
Cross, S.E. and H.R. Markus (1994), ‘Self-schemas, possible selves, and competent performance’, Journal
of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 423.
Delmar, F., P. Davidsson and W. Gartner (2003), ‘Arriving at the high-growth firm’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 18(2), 189–216.
Denhardt, R.B. (1987), ‘Images of death and slavery in organizational life’, Journal of Management, 13,
529–541.
De Noble, A.F., D. Jung and B. Ehrlich (1999), ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the development of a
measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial intentions and actions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 18(4), 63–77.
DeNoble, A., S. Ehrlich and G. Singh (2007), ‘Toward the development of a family business self‐efficacy
scale: a resource‐based perspective’, Family Business Review, 20(2), 127–140.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 19 15/12/2017 07:53

Donnellon, A., S. Ollila and K.W. Middleton (2014), ‘Constructing entrepreneurial identity in entrepre-
neurship education’, International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 490–499.
Douglas, E.J. and D.A. Shepherd (2000), ‘Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing response’, Journal of
Business Venturing, 15(3), 231–251.
Down, S. and L. Warren (2008), ‘Constructing narratives of enterprise: clichés and entrepreneurial self-
identity’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14(1), 4–23.
Downing, S. (2005), ‘The social construction of entrepreneurship: narrative and dramatic processes
in the coproduction of organizations and identities’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2),
185–204.
Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation, Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Eddleston, K.A., J.F. Viega and G.N. Powell (2006), ‘Explaining sex differences in managerial career satis-
fiers preferences’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 437–456.
Edwards, L.-J. and E.J. Muir (2012), ‘Evaluating enterprise education: why do it?’, Education + Training,
54(4), 278–290.
Ellemers, N. (1993), ‘The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strate-
gies’, European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 27–57.
Erogul, M.S. and D. McCrohan (2008), ‘Preliminary investigation of Emirati women entrepreneurs in
the UAE’, African Journal of Business Management, 2(10), 177.
Fairlie, R.W. and A.M. Robb (2009), ‘Gender differences in business performance: evidence from the
characteristics of business owners survey’, Small Business Economics, 33, 375–395.
Farmer, S.M. and K. Kung-Mcintyre (2008), ‘Entrepreneur role prototypes and role identity in the US,
China, and Taiwan’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2008(1), 1–6.
Farmer, S.M., X. Yao and K. Kung‐Mcintyre (2011), ‘The behavioral impact of entrepreneur iden-
tity aspiration and prior entrepreneurial experience’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2),
245–273.
Fauchart, E. and M. Gruber (2011), ‘Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: the role of founder
identity in entrepreneurship’, Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935–957.
Fenwick, T. and S. Hutton (2000), ‘Women crafting new work: the learning of women entrepreneurs’,
paper presented at the Adult Education Conference, Vancouver.
Fletcher, D. (2007), ‘“Toy Story”: the narrative world of entrepreneurship and the creation of interpre-
tive communities’, Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5), 649–672.
Foss, L. (2004), ‘“Going against the grain . . .”, construction of entrepreneurial identity through narra-
tives’, in D. Hjorth and C. Steyaert (eds), Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship,
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 80–104.
Fox, A. (1980), ‘The meaning of work’, in G. Esland and G. Salaman (eds), The Politics of Work and
Occupations, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 139–191.
Gartner, W.B. and C.G. Brush (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship as organizing: emergence, newness and trans-
formation’, in M. Minitt (ed.), Entrepreneurship, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishing, pp. 1–20.
Gill, R. and G.S. Larson (2014), ‘Making the ideal (local) entrepreneur: place and the regional develop-
ment of high-tech entrepreneurial identity’, Human Relations, 67(5), 519–542.
Gupta, V.K. and D. Turban (2012), ‘Evaluation of new business ideas: do gender stereotypes play a role?’,
Journal of Managerial Issues, 24(2), 140–156.
Gupta, V.K., D. Turban, S.A. Wasti and A. Sikdar (2009), ‘The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions
of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
33(2), 397–417.
Hall, D.T. 2002. Careers In and Out of Organizations. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hall, D.T., B. Schneider and H.T. Nygren (1970), ‘Personal factors in organizational identifica-
tion’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 176–190.
Haslam, S.A., C. Powell and J. Turner (2000), ‘Social identity, self‐categorization, and work m otivation:

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 20 15/12/2017 07:53

rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organisational outcomes’, Applied
Psychology, 49(3), 319–339.
Heilman, M.E. (1983), ‘Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model’, Research in Organizational
Behavior, 5, 269–298.
Heilman, M.E. (1997), ‘Sex discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: the role of sex stereotypes’,
Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 877–889.
Heilman, M.E. (2001), ‘Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s nascent
up the organizational ladder’, Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 657–674.
Hessels, J., M. Van Gelderen and R. Thurik (2008), ‘Entrepreneurial aspirations motivations, and their
drivers’, Small Business Economics, 31(3), 323–339.
Hisrich, R. and C. Brush (1984), ‘The woman entrepreneur: management skills and business problems’,
Journal of Small Business Management, 22(1), 30–37.
Hoang, H. and J. Gimeno (2010), ‘Becoming a founder: how founder role identity affects entrepreneurial
transitions and persistence in founding’, Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 41–53.
Hogg, M.A. and D. Abrams (1988), Social Identification: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and
Group Processes, London: Routledge.
Hogg, M.A., D.J. Terry and K.M. White (1995), ‘A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity
theory with social identity theory’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255–269.
Hytti, U. and J. Heinonen (2013), ‘Heroic and humane entrepreneurs: identity work in entrepreneurship
education’, Education + Training, 55(8/9), 886–898.
Ibarra, H. (1999), ‘Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
Ibarra, H. and R. Barbulescu (2010), ‘Identity as narrative: prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences
of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions’, Academy of Management Review, 35(1),
135–154.
Jain, S., G. George and M. Maltarich (2009), ‘Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modi-
fication of university scientists involved in commercialization activity’, Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.
Jennings, J.E. and C.G. Brush (2013), ‘Research on women entrepreneurs: challenges to (and from) the
broader entrepreneurship literature?’, Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 663–715.
Johansson, A.W. (2004), ‘Narrating the entrepreneur’, International Small Business Journal, 22(3),
273–293.
Jones, R., J. Latham and M. Betta (2008), ‘Narrative construction of the social entrepreneurial identity’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14(5), 330–345.
Jung, D.I., S.B. Ehrlich, A.F. De Noble and K.B. Baik (2001), ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and its rela-
tionship to entrepreneurial action: a comparative study between the US and Korea’, Management
International, 6(1), 41.
Kalleberg, A.L. and K.T. Leicht (1991), ‘Gender and organizational performance: determinants of small
business survival and success’, Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 136–161.
Karlsson, T. and K. Moberg (2013), ‘Improving perceived entrepreneurial abilities through education:
exploratory testing of an entrepreneurial self efficacy scale in a pre-post setting’, International
Journal of Management Education, 11(1), 1–11.
Katz, D. and R.L. Kahn (1978), The Social Psychology of Organization, 2nd edn, New York: Wiley.
Kickul, J. and R.S. D’Intino (2005), ‘Measure for measure: modeling entrepreneurial self- efficacy
onto instrumental tasks within the new venture creation process’, New England Journal of
Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 6.
Kikooma, J.F. (2011), ‘Negotiating enterprising identities: African woman entrepreneur stories of chal-
lenge, perseverance and triumph’, China–USA Business Review, 10(7), 573–586.
Kirzner, I.M. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Kolvereid, L. (1992), ‘Growth aspirations among Norwegian entrepreneurs’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 7(3), 209–222.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 21 15/12/2017 07:53

Kreiner, G.E., E. Hollensbe, M.L. Sheep, B.R. Smith and N. Kataria (2015), ‘Elasticity and the dialectic
tensions of organizational identity: how can we hold together while we are pulling apart?’, Academy
of Management Journal, 58(4), 981–1011.
Krueger, N.F. and D.V. Brazeal (1994), ‘Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 91–91.
Krueger, Norris F. and Alan L. Carsrud (1993), ‘Entrepreneurs intentions, applying the theory of planned
behavior’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5(4), 315–330.
Krueger, N. and P.R. Dickson (1994), ‘How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: perceived self‐
efficacy and opportunity recognition’, Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385–400.
Krueger, N.F., M.D., Reilly and A.L. Carsrud (2000), ‘Competing models of entrepreneurial inten-
tions’, Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411–432
Lee, S.M. (1971), ‘An empirical analysis of organizational identification’, Academy of Management
Journal, 14, 213–226.
Light, P.C. (2005), ‘Searching for social entrepreneurs: who they might be, where they might be found,
what they do’, draft presented at the Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit and
Voluntary Organizations, November.
Lindgren, M. and J. Packendorff (2008), ‘Woman, teacher, entrepreneur: on identity construction in
female entrepreneurs of Swedish independent schools’, in I. Aaltio, P. Kyro and E. Sundin (eds),
Women Entrepreneurship and Social Capital, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press,
pp. 193–223.
Manolova, T., C. Brush, L. Edelman and K. Shaver (2012), ‘One size does not fit all: entrepreneurial
expectancies and growth intentions of US women and men nascent entrepreneurs’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 24(1–2), 7–27.
Marková, H.R. (1987), ‘In the interaction of opposites in psychological processes’, Journal for the Theory
of Social Behavior, 17, 279–299.
Markus, H. and P. Nurius (1986), ‘Possible selves’, American Psychologist, 41(9), 954.
McAdams, D.P. (1999), ‘Personal narratives and the life story’, in L. Pervin and O. John (eds), Handbook
of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd edn, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 478–500.
McCall, G.J. and J.L. Simmons (1978), Identities and Interactions: An Examination of Human
Associations in Everyday Life, rev. edn, New York: Free Press
McGee, J.E., M. Peterson, S.L. Mueller and J.M. Sequeira (2009), ‘Entrepreneurial self‐efficacy: refining
the measure’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965–988.
MacNabb, A., J. McCoy, P. Weinreich and M. Northover (1993), ‘Using identity structure analysis
(ISA) to investigate female entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5(4),
301–313.
Mead, G.H. (1934), Mind, Self and Society, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Meister, A., K.A. Jehn and S.M.B. Thatcher (2014), ‘Feeling misidentified: the consequences of internal
identity asymmetries for individuals at work’, Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 488–512.
Merton, R.K. (1957), ‘The role-set: problems in sociological theory’, British Journal of Sociology, 8(2),
106–120.
Miller, D., L. Breton‐Miller and R.H. Lester (2011), ‘Family and lone founder ownership and strategic
behaviour: social context, identity, and institutional logics’, Journal of Management Studies, 48(1),
1–25.
Muehlenhard, C.L. and Z.D. Peterson (2011), ‘Distinguishing between sex and gender: history, current
conceptualization and implications’, Sex Roles, 64(11), 791–803.
Mueller, S. and M.C. Dato-On (2008), ‘Gender-role orientation as a determinant of entrepreneurial self-
efficacy’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 3–20.
Murnieks, C.Y., E. Mosakowski and M.S. Cardon (2014), ‘Pathways of passion identity centrality,
passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs’, Journal of Management, 40(6), 1583–1606.
Naktiyok, A., C.N. Karabey and A.C. Gulluce (2010), ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneur-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 22 15/12/2017 07:53

ial intention: the Turkish case’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(4),
419–435.
Neck, H., C. Brush and E. Allen (2009), ‘The landscape of social entrepreneurship’, Business Horizons,
52, 13–19.
Nel, P., A. Martiz and O. Thongprovati (2010), ‘Motherhood and entrepreneurship: the mumpreneur
phenomenon’, International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 3(1), 6–34.
Peredo, A.M. and J.J. Chrisman (2006), ‘Toward a theory of community-based enterprise’, Academy of
management Review, 31(2), 309–328.
Peterman, N.E. and J. Kennedy (2003), ‘Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entre-
preneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129–144.
Phillips, N., P. Tracey and N. Karra (2013), ‘Building entrepreneurial tie portfolios through strategic
homophily: the role of narrative identity work in venture creation and early growth’, Journal of
Piperopoulos, P. and D. Dimov (2015), ‘Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship educa-
tion, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Small Business
Management, 53(4), 970–985.
Ridgeway, C. (2001), ‘Gender, status, and leadership’, Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 637–655.
Rudman, L. and P. Glick (2001), ‘Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women’,
Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.
Schein, V.E. (1975), ‘Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteris-
tics among female managers’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 340–344.
Scherer, R.F., J.S. Adams, S. Carley and F.A. Wiebe (1989), ‘Role model performance effects on develop-
ment of entrepreneurial career preference’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13, 53–81.
Schneider, B., D.T. Hall and H.T. Nygren (1971), ‘Self image and job characteristics as correlates of
changing organizational identification’, Human Relations, 24(5), 397–416.
Schumpeter, J. (1935), The Theory of Economic Development, New York: Oxford University Press.
Shane, S., L. Kolvereid and P. Westhead (1991), ‘An exploratory examination of the reasons leading to
new firm formation across country and gender’, Journal of Business Venturing, Special International
Issue, 6(6), 431–446.
Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman (2000), ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy
of Management Review, 25(1), 217–236.
Shaver, K.G., N.M. Carter, W.B. Gartner and P.D. Reynolds (2001), ‘Who is a nascent entrepreneur?
Decision rules for identifying and selecting entrepreneurs in the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial
Dynamics (PSED)’, Technical Paper, Jönköping International School of Business, Jönköping.
Shepherd, D. and J.M. Haynie (2009), ‘Birds of a feather don’t always flock together: identity manage-
ment in entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 316–337.
Smith, I.H. and W.P. Woodworth (2012), ‘Developing social entrepreneurs and social innovators: a
social identity and self-efficacy approach’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(3),
390–407.
Stanworth, M.J.K. and J. Curran (1976), ‘Growth and the small firm ‒ an alternative view’, Journal of
Management Studies, 13(2), 95–110.
Stryker, S. (1980), Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version, Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/
Cummings Publishing Company.
Stryker, S. (1987), ‘Identity theory: developments and extensions’, in Krysia Yardley and Terry Honess
(eds), Self and Identity: Psychosocial Perspectives, London: Wiley, pp. 89–104.
Stryker, S. and P.J. Burke (2000), ‘The past, present, and future of an identity theory’, Social Psychology
Quarterly, 63, 284–297.
Stryker, S. and R.T. Serpe (2012), ‘Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: theory and research
example’, in W. Ickes and E.S. Knowles (eds), Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior, New York:
Springer, pp. 199–218.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 23 15/12/2017 07:53

Stryker, S. and A. Stratham (1985), ‘Symbolic interaction and role theory’, in I.G. Lindzey and E. Aronson
(eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, New York: Random House, pp. 311–378.
Sveningsson, S. and M. Alvesson (2003), ‘Managing managerial identities: organizational fragmentation,
discourse and identity struggle’, Human Relations, 56(10), 1163–1193.
Tajfel, H. (1974), ‘Social identity and intergroup behaviour’, Information (International Social Science
Council), 13(2), 65–93.
Tajfel, H.E. (1978), Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations, London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982), ‘Social psychology of intergroup relations’, Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.
Tajfel, H. and J.C. Turner (1979), ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’ Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.
Tajfel, H. and J.C. Turner (1986), ‘The social identity theory of intergroup behavior’, in W.G. Austin and
S. Worchel (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn, Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.
Tumasian, A. and R. Braun (2012), ‘In the eye of the beholder: how regulatory focus and self-efficacy
interact in influencing opportunity recognition’, Journal of Business Venturing, 27(6), 622–636.
Turner, J.C. (1985), ‘Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group behav-
ior’, in E.J. Lawler (ed.), Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 77–122.
Urban, B. (2006), ‘Entrepreneurship in the rainbow nation: effect of cultural values and ESE on inten-
tions’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 171–186.
Vanevenhoven, J. and E. Liguori (2013), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education: introducing the
entrepreneurship education project’, Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 315–328.
Verheul, I., L. Uhlaner and R. Thurik (2005), ‘Business accomplishments, gender and entrepreneurial
self-image’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4), 483–518.
Vesala, K., J. Peura and G. McElwee (2007), ‘The split entrepreneurial identity of the farmer’, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(1), 48–63.
Vesalainen, J. and T. Pihkala (2000), ‘Entrepreneurial identity, intentions and the effect of the push-
factor’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 4, 105.
Vesper, K.H. (1999), ‘Unfinished business (entrepreneurship) of the 20th century’, paper presented at
USASBE conference, San Diego, CA, January.
Vignoles, V.L., C. Regalia, C. Manzi, J. Golledge and E. Scabini (2006), ‘Beyond self-esteem: influence of
multiple motives on identity construction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 308.
Walker, E. and A. Brown (2004), ‘What success factors are important to small business owners?’,
International Small Business Journal, 22(6), 577–594.
Warren, L. (2004), ‘Negotiating entrepreneurial identity: communities of practice and changing dis-
courses’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(1), 25–35.
Watson, T.J. (2009), ‘Entrepreneurial action, identity work and the use of multiple discursive resources
the case of a rapidly changing family business’, International Small Business Journal, 27(3), 251–274.
Westhead, P. and M. Wright (1998), ‘Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: are they different?’, Journal
of Business Venturing, 13(3), 173–204.
Woo, C.Y., A.C. Cooper and W.C. Dunkelberg (1991), ‘The development and interpretation of entrepre-
neurial typologies’, Journal of Business Venturing, 6(2), 93–114.
Woolf, V. (1992), The Waves. In Collected Novels of Virginia Woolf, London: Palgrave Macmillan,
pp. 335–508.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 24 15/12/2017 07:53

PART I
Aspirations

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 25 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 26 15/12/2017 07:53

2 Developing entrepreneurial identity
among start-ups’ female founders in
high-tech: policy implications from the
Chilean case
Katherina Kuschel and Juan-Pablo Labra
Entrepreneurial identity and female founders
The science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) sector is driving

economic growth (Csorny, 2013). Although female participation in the technology
industry is growing (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2016), the process is
still slow and female founders represent an underexplored sample in the current
literature of technology entrepreneurship and other social fields. Some studies on
female founders focus on founders’ career advancement and identity (Dy, Marlow,
and Martin, 2017; Marlow and McAdam, 2015), and some report their participa-
tion rate (Berger and Kuckertz, 2016) and barriers they face while raising risk capi-
tal (Gatewood, Brush, Carter, Greene, and Hart, 2009) or scaling their businesses
(Kenney and Patton, 2015; Kuschel et al., 2017).
Social identity is a component of the personal identity associated with the mem-
bership in social cohorts (Alvesson and Due Billing, 2009; Ashforth, 2001).
‘Entrepreneur’ may be a category or social identity. A review of the literature
on entrepreneurial identity conducted by Ollila and Williams-Middleton (2012)
reported that many of the articles reviewed present identity as a fixed state of
existence, resulting in categorizations of entrepreneurial identities (e.g., Vesalainen
and Pihkala, 2000). These categories include entrepreneurial identity as it relates
to ethnicity, gender, career path and family framework, rather than as a method
or process of construction and growth. A small portion of the literature reviewed
discusses themes such as narrative and storytelling as a means towards shaping an
entrepreneurial identity (Jones et al., 2008). Of this selection, some authors also
propose entrepreneurial identity as being constructed in a situation (Down and
Warren, 2008; Hytti, 2003; Johansson, 2004) and through socialization (Falck et al.,
2012; Rigg and O’Dwyer, 2012).
27
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 27 15/12/2017 07:53

Entrepreneurial identity among women

Nadin (2007) studied female entrepreneurs in the care-giving sector and found that
they often silenced their entrepreneurial identity and embraced their female iden-
tity, explained in terms of their desire for legitimacy and integrity. This study also
displays the diversity of positioning and the potential contradictions (for example,
between ‘boss’ and ‘friend’). In other words, their sense of self is shaped by the
social context, but these women also have agency to enact gendered practices and
to contribute to the construction of their identity. Similarly, a study on the narra-
tives of women in family business show how they challenge forces of patriarchy or
paternalism by using an alternative discourse (Hamilton, 2006). A qualitative study
on Spanish women entrepreneurs explained how women perceived the dissonance
between the two discourses of being a woman and an entrepreneur, and how they
engaged in practices of doing and redoing gender (Díaz-García and Welter, 2011).
Morris et al. (2006) pointed out the relevance of identity studies on female entre-
preneurs. They found that modest- and high-growth entrepreneurs differ in how
they view themselves, their families, their ventures and the larger environment.
Their results suggest that growth is a deliberate choice and that women know the
costs and benefits of growth and make cautious trade-off decisions.
To our knowledge, the question of how entrepreneurial identity is constructed

among different industries has not been significantly explored in the literature,
nor have the peculiarities of the identity construction of female founders in the
technology industry and in countries outside the United States (US). This chapter
aims to address the call for discussing two issues that have been not fully recog-
nized within the entrepreneurship research agenda (Ahl, 2006; Bruni et al., 2005;
Díaz-García and Welter, 2011): first, the use of masculine constructs that position
women as the ‘others’ who need to adapt to existing systems and structures; and
second, the vast heterogeneity of women’s entrepreneurship.
Female founders in the technology industry

The technology sector is, by a wide margin, a male-dominated industry. This fact
has been well reported. According to estimations of Coleman and Robb (2009), 5‒6
percent of high-technology entrepreneurs are women, and normally 3‒5 percent
of incubated or accelerated projects are led by women. A recent review of the
literature revealed that there is very limited research on technology businesses
run by women, and even less conducted in Latin American countries (Kuschel and
Lepeley, 2016a). The same authors have analyzed the performance of women in
high-technology industries and observed that, although the proportion of women
in entrepreneurship generally compared with men has increased considerably, the
proportion of women in the high-tech industry ‒ an opportunity-driven type of
entrepreneurship ‒ is still very low. This evidence uncovers the need to increase
efforts to bring women into high-tech participation. Furthermore, women in high-
tech start-ups and entrepreneurship positions can be used as a proxy to assess the

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 28 15/12/2017 07:53

DEVELOPING ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITY AMONG START-UPS’ FEMALE FOUNDERS 29
effects of women leadership (that is, women investors, executive women in tech
companies, women leading networks). At the same time, this solution can also
deal with the need to increase the proportion of women leaders in global and fast-
growing industries by providing role models and access to meaningful education
(Lepeley et al., 2016).
Although the identity construction of female founders in Latin America can be

a prolific line of research and contribute to entrepreneurial education, the lack
of knowledge in the literature is a limit to developing efforts to increase the total
number of female entrepreneurs participating in economic activity (Cohoon et al.,
2010).
In Chile in 2010, the government created the Start-Up Chile program. It is a public
acceleration endeavor intended to expand the entrepreneurial ecosystem and pro-
mote a pro-entrepreneurship culture by ‘importing entrepreneurs’ (Leatherbee
and Eesley, 2014). Today Chile is considered one of the main innovation hubs in
Latin America and around the world, often referred to as ‘Chilecon Valley’ (The
Economist, 2012; Washington Post, 2014).
The aim of this chapter is to identify and examine the elements that contribute to
building identity among female entrepreneurs in the technology industry. Results will
show the constraints and obstacles female entrepreneurs face when attempting to
build their entrepreneurial identity and we expect that these may help policy-makers
to design and implement new reforms that facilitate female participation in entrepre-
neurship. Higher women’s entrepreneurship rate will serve as an important compo-
nent of economic development supporting high growth among women entrepreneurs.
Methodology
Specifically, this study is based on start-ups that participated in the Start-Up Chile
acceleration program (SUP), a public grant of US$33,000 per project. The grant is
‘equity-free’, meaning that the government is not taking business participation.
Normally, three batches of 80 start-ups have been selected each year since 2010.
A start-up is a temporary organization designed to search for a repeatable and
scalable business model (Blank, 2010). We have used data from the Start-Up Chile
program because of its viability and ease of access and also because it may serve as
a proxy of the total population of female founders in tech.
Sample design
Our dataset consisted of 11 participants: (1) eight interviews conducted with
female founders in technology who are participating or have participated in the
Start-Up Chile acceleration program (therefore, from different ‘batches’, genera-
tions, or cohorts); (2) two interviews with female founders whose start-up was not
accelerated; and (3) one venture capital investor (Table 2.1). By this procedure, we

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 29 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 2.1 Sample characteristics
Participant Country Industry Age Co-founders SUP Chile

ID + employees cohort
CM Argentina Fashion e-commerce 32 4+6 11

DG Chile E-commerce 31 3 + 43 9
LF USA Energy 31 1+1 1
PC Chile Education 31 2+4 –
GV Estonia Services (recruiting and hiring) 29 3+2 –
SC Argentina Software as a service 32 4+6 6
AS Venezuela Health technology 26 5+0 11
CN Mexico Entertainment 33 3+0 6
LC Argentina Software as a service 32 4+6 6
VK Argentina Venture capital investment 40 – –
MA Chile Software as a service 32 2+1 6
were able to identify the present and missing elements that are contributing to the
identity-building of female founders. All interviews were conducted during 2015.
Some of the results are illustrated by the data of Start-Up Chile applicants and
beneficiaries, provided by the organization. This was an anonymized database con-
taining the demographic information for each start-up team participating in the
acceleration program during five years between March 2010 and March 2015.
Procedure
The female entrepreneurs included in the sample were contacted by e-mail and
invited to participate in an interview. Before the interview, signature of an informed
consent form was required. It contained a full explanation of the objectives and
scope of the study in compliance with established ethical policies. Researchers and
the participants signed the consent form and a copy was provided to participants.
All participants agreed to participate in audio-recorded interviews.
To fulfill the requirements of the research questions, each interview followed a

semi-structured script with questions related to the following six topics: (1) moti-
vation and previous experience as entrepreneur; (2) role models; (3) funding needs
and sources; (4) team structure; (5) common obstacles; and (6) networks used.
The following is a sample of the kind of questions included in the personal

interviews: ‘Why and how did you decide to apply for Start-Up Chile funding?’
‘What are the future expectations for your venture?’ ‘As a female start-up founder,
did you confront special challenges raising capital?’ Interviews with the entrepre-
neurs lasted between 40 minutes and one hour and 20 minutes. After the interview,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 30 15/12/2017 07:53

each audio recording was transcribed verbatim and entered into the Atlas.ti v.7.0
software for qualitative analysis.
Analysis
We have applied a grounded theory approach to our data, defined as ‘the discov-
ery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research’ (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967: 2). Briefly, a grounded theory approach consists in simultaneous col-
lection and analysis of data, a creation of analytic codes and categories developed
from data and not by pre-existing conceptualizations, inductive construction of
abstract categories, theoretical sampling to refine categories, and writing analytical
memos as the stage between coding and writing.
Results
We observed that the first wave of female entrepreneurs in technology from Latin
American countries shared some common characteristics as they responded to an
underdeveloped entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Female participation
Being a woman as being part of a minority
Table 2.2 shows female participation in the Start-Up Chile program. In the first 13
funding rounds, 445 women out of 2,765 participants were selected for Start-Up
Chile, meaning that 16 percent of the participants were female. We include these
data as they may serve as a proxy for the total female participation in the technol-
ogy industry in Chile.
Table 2.3 shows the number of selected start-ups per funding round and the gender
of the start-ups’ leaders. There is a strong correlation with the results presented in
Table 2.2, as 15 percent of the projects were led by women.
Moreover, the staff of Start-Up Chile (SUP) were proud to grant more opportuni-
ties to women (15 percent on average) than other accelerators do. Other accelera-
tors such as Y Combinator in Silicon Valley did not ask applicants to specify gender
on their application for many years. Although 19.5 percent of the start-ups funded
by YC during 2014 had women on the founding team (Altman, 2014), we do not
have information about start-ups actually led by women. The estimation is 2‒3
percent (Munguia, 2015).
Table 2.4 shows that, despite the lower number of female participants, there was
no significant difference between genders when comparing the number of female
chief executive officers (CEOs) versus the total number of female participants.
Women who held CEO positions represented 44 percent of the total number of

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 31 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 2.2 Female participation in Start-Up Chile
Year Funding round Participants % by gender
Male Female Total Male Female
2010 0 21 2 23 91 9

2011 1 169 26 195 87 13
2011 2 187 34 221 85 15
2012 3 184 39 223 83 17
2012 4 163 40 203 80 20
2012 5 180 46 226 80 20
2013 6 205 36 241 85 15
2013 7 202 36 238 85 15
2013 8 162 40 202 80 20
2014 9 202 46 248 81 19
2014 10 222 34 256 87 13
2014 11 210 29 239 88 12
2015 12 213 37 250 85 15
Total participants 2320 445 2765 84 16
Table 2.3 Number of selected start-ups and gender of leader
Year Funding Start-ups % by gender

round
Male leader Female leader Total projects Male leader Female leader
2010 0 20 2 22 91 9

2011 1 96 11 107 90 10
2011 2 133 21 154 86 14
2012 3 85 15 100 85 15
2012 4 82 18 100 82 18
2012 5 85 16 101 84 16
2013 6 89 16 105 85 15
2013 7 82 18 100 82 18
2013 8 67 18 85 79 21
2014 9 74 26 100 74 26
2014 10 90 10 100 90 10
2014 11 89 10 99 90 10
2015 12 86 14 100 86 14
Total teams 1078 195 1273 85 15

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 32 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 2.4 Number of selected start-ups and gender of the leader
Gender/Role Participants CEOs CEOs vs Participants
Male 2320 1078 46%

Female 445 195 44%
Total 2765 1273
women who participated in the program, versus 46 percent in the case of male
CEOs.
These numbers were apparent in every meeting, seminar with visiting consultants,
networking event, meeting with investors, or demo day. 1 The evident low participa-
tion of women in the accelerator program was taken for granted, as it was similar to
the situation of other accelerators and companies of the technology industry.
Somebody from the audience came to me and said, ‘I loved seeing a woman at a demo
day.’ Then I realized that although there were more women as members of the teams that
participated in the competition, the one who pitched was always a man. (CM, Argentina,
SUP Gen 11)
Female founder as an element of differentiation

Tech ventures founders believed that having a female co-founder might benefit the
company by giving the start-up some visibility:
Beyond the fact that our start-up is about women’s clothing, thinking strategically, when
we had to decide who was going to remain as the public face of our project I said, ‘It’s
better for us that I’ll be the leader, there are only a few women in this field (tech entrepre-
neurship).’ I do all of the pitches. (CM, Argentina, SUP Gen 11)
Female founders had two different attitudes regarding gender, but it was difficult
to find female founders who were neutral to gender. At the very beginning, many if
not all female founders were gender-blind. Then they started to experience obsta-
cles with clients, suppliers and potential investors in Chile; then they began to real-
ize that they had experienced gender discrimination in Chile. They first decided to
react aggressively to this type of discrimination by defending feminism, gathering
themselves to build a women’s group, and building their own networks. Although
some women understood that there were more benefits to being ‘the only woman
in the room’, the majority tended to victimize themselves. For those women who
decided to use gender as a differentiator, they gained several benefits for the com-
pany, for the team and for themselves (that is, self-confidence):
As there are not many women in this field, I am easily remembered everywhere. (LF,
United States, SUP Gen 1)

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 33 15/12/2017 07:53

I never felt less for being a woman, in fact, I never felt any issues for being a woman.
Instead, I always tried to it use it as an advantage to me. (LC, Argentina, SUP Gen 6)
No appropriate role models

For this first wave of female entrepreneurs in technology, low female participation
in the technology industry was the norm. Female founders had no appropriate role
models to follow in the tech industry. There was a lack of role models representing
a female entrepreneur, a female founder, a successful female entrepreneur, a suc-
cessful founder in Latin America or a more ‘balanced’ entrepreneur. Any meeting
or seminar a female entrepreneur went to was full of men, without women as
keynote speakers. Some participants mentioned Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook chief
operating officer, although her profile does not necessarily fit the role of a childless,
young female founder.
Some female and male teachers did serve the role of motivator, enhancing women’s
careers. For many women, the real role model came from their families: the entre-
preneurial activity of the romantic partner or the father and the multiple roles of
the mother.
The romantic partner as entrepreneur

I helped my husband when he started his entrepreneurship, and he helped me back when
I started mine. He used to say, ‘the most difficult part of being an entrepreneur is to be
aware and take actions that nobody else will do for you’. (DG, Chile, SUP Gen 9)
The father as entrepreneur

My dad was always an entrepreneur. Since I was a child, I saw him making millions and then
failing to the point that we didn’t even have food on our table. And then again, the whole suc-
cess and failure cycle would repeat over and over. This had a big impact in the way I see things
in life. For me, to have a corporate job with all its financial stability and predefined career path
was always completely out of the picture. It’s not that I was explicitly taught to think like that,
it’s just that my dad had the courage to take risks and I learnt that from him. I have skills to face
uncertainty that others who are more conservative do not have. (SC, Argentina, SUP Gen 6)
The mother as a working woman

I had a working mother. She was a science teacher. And she had friends that were also
working mothers. She was always a fighter. (PC, Chile, not-accelerated)
No network
For the first wave of female founders, there were no professional networks avail-
able. In the US, there are some networks in the Silicon Valley area, for example
Women 2.0, Women Who Tech, Women Tech Founders, Girls in Tech, Women

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 34 15/12/2017 07:53

Who Code. Girls in Tech and Women Who Code were foreign networks, born in
the US, that initiated activities in Chile in 2013 and gained traction and visibility in
the media over the last few years.
Moreover, female founders usually do not participate actively in these networks at

the early stages of their start-up. Low network activity is explained by the fact that
female founders are frantically working to build their start-ups and do not want
to get distracted. Female networks also replicate gender patterns by not including
men in the conversation.
In Estonia, we have an organization called Big Sisters. I participate in almost every event
they have. But most of our activities aren’t exclusively female focused. Most of them are
focused in start-ups, or in marketing topics . . . topics that don’t have a gender. So, I haven’t
actually been part of a network intended only for women. (GV, Estonia, not-accelerated)
I started to get closer to other female colleagues at Start-Up Chile . . . We have a group
and we get together to speak about a bunch of things, not only personal stuff but about
also the entrepreneurship process that we are going through as female entrepreneurs and
it’s very helpful . . . I think that we have reached a stage where what female empowering
communities should do is to provide more down-to-earth tools, right? Mentorship, access
to investors, technical knowledge, don’t you think? If I want to participate in a funding
round, what kind of paperwork do I need? And I think that many of these female empow-
ering communities are still in the stage of ‘don’t be afraid, you can do it, we’re here to help
you,’ right? More as motivators, and as emotional helpers than as providers of resources
that will really help you get through with your business idea. (CN, Mexico, SUP Gen 6)
I see a trend among all of my friends from the tech and start-ups environment, they have
a strong commitment to motivate other female entrepreneurs, to tell their story to make
themselves more visible, to inspire and help others to actively participate in this genera-
tion of female entrepreneurs. (SC, Argentina, SUP Gen 6)
At the same time, networks are not always perceived as ‘helpful’ for venture
development:
I believe that there is a very negative system of false help. That you have to go through
accelerators that are going to help, that you have to have a mentor, and that every-
one is willing to help you . . . I didn’t receive help from anybody. The guy that started
Mercadolibre didn’t receive any help. The Groupon guys didn’t receive any help. (VK,
Argentina, Angel Investor)
Teams
Small teams
Start-up Chile application limits the number of team members to a maximum of
three people. Table 2.5 shows that participants of the first 13 financing rounds

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 35 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 2.5 Team size
Team size No. of teams % of teams
One member 309 24

Two members 446 35
Three members 518 41
Total 1273 100
Table 2.6a Team leadership by gender and team size: one-member teams
Team leader No. of teams % of teams
Male 270 87

Female 39 13
Total one-member teams 309 100
Table 2.6b Team leadership by gender and team size: two and three-member teams
Team leader No. of teams % of teams
Male 808 84

Female 156 16
Total two- and three-member teams 964 100
grouped in 1,273 teams that had one, two and three members in 24 percent, 35
percent and 41 percent of the sample, respectively.
Tables 2.6a and 2.6b show that team leadership by gender closely follows the
gender participation presented in Table 2.2. Men are leaders of 84 percent of two
and three-member teams.
Table 2.7 shows an analysis of gender composition of two and three-member teams:
65 percent of teams have male-only members, 3 percent of teams have female-only
members, 32 percent of teams are mixed-gender.
It is interesting to contrast the small number of female-only teams shown in Table

2.7 with the leadership role that females adopt within mixed-gender teams. Table 2.8
shows that, within mixed-gender teams, 42 percent of teams are led by a female CEO.
Opening up the composition and leadership within three-member teams, Table

2.9 shows that female leadership is relevant in mixed-gender groups, with a female
founder leading 82 percent of the teams that have two female members.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 36 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 2.7 Gender composition of two- and three-member teams
Team composition No. of teams % of teams
Only male members 624 65

Only female members 31 3
Mixed-gender members 309 32
Total two- and three-member teams 964 100
Table 2.8 Leadership by gender composition within mixed-gender teams of two and three
members
Leader gender Team size
Two members Three members Total
Male 74 104 178

Female 52 79 131
Total teams 126 183 309
% Male leader 59 57 58
% Female leader 41 43 42
Total 100 100 100
Table 2.9 Leadership by gender composition within mixed-gender teams of three members
Leader gender Team composition
Two male, one female One male, two female Total
Male 97 7 104

Female 47 32 79
Total teams 144 39 183
% Male leader 67 18 57
% Female leader 33 82 43
Total 100 100 100
Summarizing, Start-up Chile teams show that women prefer to work either indi-
vidually or in mixed-gender groups. In these teams, females adopt the CEO posi-
tion in 42 percent of cases.
Trust-based teams
The female founders who were interviewed built their teams based on trust. At
the beginning, they formed a small team with friends with whom they had long

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 37 15/12/2017 07:53

relationships, or their romantic partner. They feel that trust-based partnerships

reduce risk:
I met my business partner in high school. Since back then he is somebody who I trust very
much. Trust is key. He knows my bank account password. That level of trust, for sure.
(MA, Chile, SUP Gen 10)
It’s not easy to have a business partner in entrepreneurship. You have to trust and get to
know the other person so much as to get along on a journey that will have highs and lows.
To be able to delegate, know about strengths and weaknesses, and say, ‘okay, you take
care of this . . . or how do we complement each other. It’s not an easy job to start work-
ing right away in an entrepreneurship with somebody that you don’t know. (PC, Chile,
not-accelerated)
For some of them, their romantic partner or best friend seems to fit the business
partner’s requirement of trust:
I started with my husband. He is still co-owner of the company, but in the day-to-day
activities, it’s only me as full time. He has another job. They told us that being copreneurs
is a red flag for investors. (CM, Argentina, SUP Gen 11)
My partner and I, we both quitted Groupon and started our own business. (DG, Chile,
SUP Gen 9)
The criterion for team-building was not specialization in another area of the com-
pany, as experts recommend. This was not considered as a handicap, because later
on they include developers as business partners:
My business partner and I have been friends since we were 5 years old . . . our first com-
pany was a software development company. My partner did the sales and I did project
management, and we met our new partners outsourcing part of our work as they were
our vendors. And we said, ‘why don’t we work as partners? In order to scale up in a much
more solid way.’ (SC, Argentina, SUP Gen 6)
Building self-confidence
Female founders who were interviewed for this study acknowledge that their male
counterparts are far more confident than they are. Part of their challenge is to
become, or at least ‘act’, as a confident founder:
We started without fear, empowered. You have to believe in yourself. My business part-
ners are the two individuals that believe more in themselves in the world. That’s not the
problem. I am the one who stays behind saying, ‘hey, what if this or that happens?’ But the
courage that we’ve had with our website has been great. I get infected by my partner’s level
of trust. They have an incredible courage. If they believe too much in something, I can’t be
a naysayer. (DG, Chile, SUP Gen 9)

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 38 15/12/2017 07:53

You have to believe in yourself and get out there to make things happen. There will be
times when you will not have a clue, and therefore, the idea is to have a solid support
system, with good suppliers, good consultants, and good employees. (VK, Argentina,
Angel Investor)
At the end of the day, your gender doesn’t matter, the road of innovation and entrepre-
neurship is a hard road intended for those who have high levels of self-confidence and
self-esteem. For those who wish to find opportunities. There are limits, for sure, the ones
that you impose upon yourself. (AS, Venezuela, SUP Gen 11)
Discussion
Identity of the first wave of female techpreneurs
These women have created entirely original ventures. The start-up founders lack
awareness of who they are (for example, business women, innovators, saleswomen),
what they want to do (business model), or how they will do it (business plan or exe-
cution). Female founders are working on something they have never been taught to
do (as well as male founders). The tech industry is, by definition, an uncertain path.
Our study revealed five elements that contribute to the female founder identity:
female participation in the tech industry, role models, network, team and attitude,
as shown in Figure 2.1.
First, being part of a well-known accelerator program gives entrepreneurs a social

identity acknowledged by family, friends, other entrepreneurs, co-founders and
investors. Being part of a ‘minority’ also makes female founders feel special. At
the same time, they use their gender as a differentiation element which gives them
an advantage because they become more memorable. This finding is in line with
‘optimal distinctiveness theory’ which states that individuals desire to attain an
optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups
and situations (Brewer, 2003).
Second, identity of the first wave of female founders in Latin America was ‘self-
made’, highlighting attributes and virtues of many people they admired. Although
most of their role models were not female founders, in order to illustrate and
negotiate an entrepreneurial identity they often established provisional identities
(Ibarra, 1999) through the early stages of the venture’s formation. The cultural
factor can also play a role. Peus et al. (2015) found in a sample of 76 mid- to upper-
level female managers from China, India, Singapore and the US that a role model is
a critical factor for career advancement and success. Although they were managers,
and not entrepreneurs as in our sample, the finding is relevant for our discussion on
role models for women. Peus et al. (2015) compared the female employees in those
countries. In their results, while U.S. managers generally referred to role models
from their professional lives, in China and India role models were usually taken
from the private sphere (that is, the mother). Our Latin American data confirmed

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 39 15/12/2017 07:53

Woman as a
Minority
Female
Participation
Differentiation
element
No appropriate
Role Models
role models
Entrepreneurial Network No network

Identity for female
founders in tech
Small Teams
Team
Trust-based
Builidng Self-
Attitude
confidence
Figure 2.1 Elements for female founder identity
the results of Asian data, whose culture is family-oriented and not individualistic as
in the U.S.
Third, female founders did not have emotional or business support from a net-
work. The lack of network affected their socialization and adjustment to their
role. On the other hand, they preferred to trust their own team instead of being
distracted by actively participating in a network that was only just beginning at
that time.
Fourth, contrary to the current academic advice of building an effective and func-
tional team based on the specialization of each member, female founders pre-
ferred to build small and trust-based teams. Some female founders work with their
romantic partner in the management team (Kuschel and Lepeley, 2016b). Although
this type of team may seem to be a disadvantage at the onset of their entrepreneur-
ial venture, it ultimately allowed them to leverage their self-confidence. The female
founders worked to both gain legitimacy (through storytelling) and then maintain

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 40 15/12/2017 07:53

legitimacy (through feedback from their team) in the desired role of ‘entrepreneur’
(Somers, 1994; Kuschel and Lepeley, 2016b; Williams-Middleton, 2013).
Lastly, female founders reported that the struggles and challenges they have faced
in building a successful company have, at the same time, enabled them to build
self-confidence, which is a required asset to navigate through the uncertainties
of the technology industry. We conclude that these five elements help women to
construct their identity, which is an unstable result of these beliefs, people, and
reinterpretation of facts (failures and successes).
Conclusion
Contribution
We have characterized the elements that female founders of technology ventures
utilize to build their identity in the Chilean context. An understanding of entre-
preneurial identity and identity construction will allow policy development and
accelerating growth.
Policy implications for early stages of entrepreneurial ecosystems

Many developing countries are trying to emulate the Chilean entrepreneurial eco-
system. We suggest that these countries deploy initiatives to foster the construc-
tion of social identity and the sense of belonging to a community among female
entrepreneurs that not only funds start-ups but also provides them with advice
from influential and effective leaders (Haslam and Reicher, 2007). Identity con-
struction needs to be seen as equally important as entrepreneurial education and
venture creation (Ollila and Williams-Middleton, 2013). Motivation and a frame-
work of ‘positive relationship between women and technology’ in overall society
will decrease the ‘identity threat’ and will assure the performance and persistence
of women in STEM (Lee et al., 2015).
Policy implications for advanced stages of entrepreneurial ecosystems

The entrepreneurial ecosystem in Chile has now developed into a new stage. In
this new stage, the Chilean ecosystem provides the second wave of female found-
ers with more resources. They have networking activities intended for women in
business (for example, Mujeres Empresarias, Emprendedoras de Chile), and par-
ticularly intended for women in technology ventures (for example, Girls in Tech).
Business angels who invest in Chile are now gathered around a network called
Chile Global Angels. Access to these networks has enabled an increasing number
of female entrepreneurs to participate in entrepreneurial activities, helping to close
the gender gap of participation widely reported in the technology industry.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 41 15/12/2017 07:53

Suggestions for further research

A number of initiatives, companies and programs are diligently working to close
the female entrepreneurs’ participation gap. Although progress is certainly being
made, some may argue that it has not been quick enough. For the industry to
radically transform, it must also be influenced by the rise of successful women-led
start-ups augmented by an influx of investment for their companies. Having more
female tech executives will affect the pace of change. We suggest examining the
impact of the first wave of female founders on further generations of women-led
start-ups. Moreover, women in the business world are helping others to achieve
their goals through mentoring, a move that could improve the outlook for women
in technology.
Female entrepreneurial identity construction requires further investigation and

discussion. The process of founding a business is, for most people, a period of tran-
sition entailing taking on a new role. Such a transition will often result in a change
of values and beliefs. For some women, values ascribed to the entrepreneur will
conflict with conventional feminine values. Our interviewees reported conflicting
values, which need to be further explored and studied to find out whether, or how,
this could affect identity construction. More research is needed on the dynamic
identity claiming strategies that female tech entrepreneurs engage in to gain legiti-
macy (Lepisto et al., 2015).
Note
1 A demo day is an accelerator event where the start-ups are presented to the investors. Each team (previously
selected) presents their business model in a ‘pitch’ format (a two- to five-minute presentation).
References
and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
Altman, S. (2014), ‘Diversity and startups’, accessed February 8, 2016 at http://blog.ycombinator.com/
diversity-and-startups.
Alvesson, M. and Y. Due Billing (2009), Understanding Gender and Organizations, 2nd edn. London:
SAGE Publications.
Ashforth, B.E. (2001), Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Berger, E.S.C. and A. Kuckertz (2016), ‘Female entrepreneurship in startup ecosystems worldwide’,
Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5163–5168.
Blank, S. (2010), ‘What’s a startup? First principles’, accessed February 8, 2016 at http://steveblank.
com/2010/01/25/whats-a-startup-first-principles.
Brewer, M.B. (2003), ‘Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self’, in M. Leary and J. Tangney
(eds), Handbook of Self and Identity (pp. 480–491). New York: Guilford.
Bruni, A., S. Gherardi and B. Poggio (2005). Gender and Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographic Approach.
London: Routledge.
Cohoon, J.M.G., V. Wadhwa and L. Mitchell (2010), ‘Are Successful Women Entrepreneurs Different
from Men?’, Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffmann Foundation of Entrepreneurship, accessed

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 42 15/12/2017 07:53

September 11, 2017 at http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20

and%20covers/2009/07/successful_women_entrepreneurs_510.pdf.
Coleman, S. and A. Robb (2009), ‘Characteristics of new firms: a comparison by gender’, Small Business
Economics, 33(4), 397.
Csorny, L. (2013), ‘Careers in the growing field of information technology services’, US Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed February 8, 2016 at http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/
volume-2/careers-in-growing-fieldof-information-technology-services.htm.
Díaz-García, M.C. and F. Welter (2011), ‘Gender identities and practices: interpreting women entrepre-
neurs’ narratives’, International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 384–404.
Down, S. and L. Warren (2008), ‘Constructing narratives of enterprise: clichés and entrepreneurial self-
identity’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 14(1), 4–23.
Dy, A.M., S. Marlow and L. Martin (2017), ‘A web of opportunity or the same old story? Women digital
entrepreneurs and intersectionality theory’, Human Relations, 70(3), 286–311.
The Economist (2012), ‘The lure of Chilecon Valley’, accessed February 8, 2016 at http://www.economist.
com/node/21564589.
Falck, O., S. Heblich and E. Luedemann (2012), ‘Identity and entrepreneurship: do school peers shape
entrepreneurial intentions?’, Small Business Economics, 39(1), 39–59.
Gatewood, E.J., C.G. Brush, N.M. Carter, P.G. Greene and M.M. Hart (2009), ‘Diana: a symbol of women
entrepreneurs’ hunt for knowledge, money, and the rewards of entrepreneurship’, Small Business
Economics, 32(2): 129–144.
Glaser, B.G. and A.L. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hamilton, E. (2006), ‘Whose story is it anyway? Narrative accounts of the role of women in founding and
establishing family businesses’, International Small Business Journal, 24(3), 253–271.
Haslam, S.A. and S. Reicher (2007), ‘Identity entrepreneurship and the consequences of identity
failure: the dynamics of leadership in the BBC Prison Study’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(2),
125‒147.
Hytti, U. (2003), ‘Stories of entrepreneurs: narrative construction of identities’, Turku University dis-
sertation, Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Series A.1,
accessed September 11, 2017 at http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/98535/Ae1_2003hytti.
pdf?sequence=2.
Ibarra, H. (1999), ‘Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764‒791.
Institute for Women’s Policy Research (2016), ‘Pathways to Equity: Narrowing the Wage Gap by
Improving Women’s Access to Good Middle-Skill Jobs’, Washington: Institute for Women’s Policy
Research, accessed 14 November 2017 at https://iwpr.org/publications/pathways-to-equity-narrow
ing-the-wage-gap-by-improving-womens-access-to-good-middle-skill-jobs/.
Johansson, A.W. (2004), ‘Narrating the entrepreneur’, International Small Business Journal, 22(3),
273‒293.
Jones, R., J. Latham and M. Betta (2008), ‘Narrative construction of the social entrepreneurial identity’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 14(5), 330–345.
Kenney, M. and D. Patton (2015), ‘Gender, ethnicity and entrepreneurship in initial public offerings:
illustrations from an open database’, Research Policy, 44(9), 1773–1784.
Kuschel, K. and M.T. Lepeley (2016a), ‘Women startups in technology: literature review and research
agenda to improve participation’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
27(2/3), 333–346.
Kuschel, K. and M.T. Lepeley (2016b), ‘Copreneurial women in start-ups: growth-oriented or lifestyle?
An aid for technology industry investors’, Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración,
29(2), 1–19.
Kuschel, K., M.T. Lepeley, F. Espinosa and S. Gutierréz (2017), ‘Funding challenges of Latin American

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 43 15/12/2017 07:53

Women Start-up Founders in the Technology Industry’, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management,
24(2), 310-331.
Leatherbee, M. and C.E. Eesley (2014), ‘Boulevard of broken behaviors: socio-psychological mechanisms
of entrepreneurship policies’, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2488712.
Lee, J.K., A.T. Alston and K.B. Kahn (2015), ‘Identity threat in the classroom: review of women’s moti-
vational experiences in the sciences’, Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 321–330.
Lepeley, M.T., E. von Kimakowitz and R. Bardy (2016), Human Centered Management in Executive
Education. Global Imperatives, Innovation, and New Directions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lepisto, D.A., E. Crosina and M.G. Pratt (2015), ‘Identity work within and beyond the professions:
toward a theoretical integration and extension’, in A. Desilva and M. Aparicio (eds), International
Handbook of Professional Identities (pp. 11–37). Rosemead, CA: Scientific & Academic Publishing.
Marlow, S., and M. McAdam (2015), ‘Incubation or induction? Gendered identity work in the context of
technology business incubation’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 791–816.
Morris, M.H., N.N. Miyasaki, C.E. Watters and S.M. Coombes (2006), ‘The dilemma of growth: under-
standing venture size choices of women entrepreneurs’, Journal of Small Business Management,
44(2), 221–244.
Munguia, H. (2015), ‘78 percent of Y Combinator startups have no female founders — and that’s
progress’, accessed February 8, 2016 at http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/78-percent-of-y-combi
nator-startups-have-no-female-founders-and-thats-progress.
Nadin, S. (2007), ‘Entreprepreneurial identity in the care sector: navigating the contraditions’, Women in
Management Review, 22(6), 456‒467.
Ollila, S. and K. Williams-Middleton (2012), ‘Entrepreneurial identity construction – what does existing
literature tell us?’, paper presented at Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference,
accessed February 8, 2016 at http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/162178/local_162178.
pdf.
Ollila, S. and K. Williams-Middleton (2013), ‘Exploring entrepreneurial identity construction: the case
of an action-based entrepreneurship education’, paper presented at Nordic Academy of Management
(NFF) Conference 2013, Iceland, accessed February 8, 2016 at http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/
records/fulltext/179509/local_179509.pdf.
Peus, C., S. Braun and K. Knipfer (2015), ‘On becoming a leader in Asia and America: empirical evidence
from women managers’, Leadership Quarterly, 26, 55‒67.
Rigg, C. and B. O’Dwyer (2012), ‘Becoming an entrepreneur: researching the role of mentors in identity
construction’, Education + Training, 54(4), 319‒329.
Somers, M.R. (1994), ‘The narrative constitution of identity: a relational and network approach’, Theory
and Society, 23(5), 605‒649.
factor’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 4, 111‒136.
Washington Post (2014), ‘Chile teaches the world a lesson about innovation’, accessed February 8, 2016
at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/06/11/chile-teaches-the-world-a-
lesson-about-innovation.
Williams-Middleton, K. (2013), ‘Becoming entrepreneurial: gaining legitimacy in the nascent phase’,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 19(4), 404‒424.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 44 15/12/2017 07:53

3 Perception of success of men and
women entrepreneurs: a social identity
approach
Rachida Justo,* Cristina Cruz and Julio O. De Castro
An important body of research on female entrepreneurship has focused on wom-

en’s perceptions and expectations from the entrepreneurial experience (Bird and
Brush, 2002; Cliff, 1998; Olson and Currie, 1992). On the one hand, several scholars
have highlighted the importance of the women’s non-monetary expectations from
the business as a key to understand gender differences in business ownership pat-
terns (e.g., MacNabb et al., 1993; Buttner and Moore, 1997; Fenwick and Hutton,
2000; Walker and Brown, 2004). Others, however, have found little gender-based
variance in values and attitudes toward success (e.g., Catley and Hamilton, 1998;
Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Shane et al., 1991).
Trying to reconcile both perspectives, this chapter subscribes to a post-structural

feminist view which, rather than searching for universal sex differences, recognizes
that men and women entrepreneurs have both similarities and differences that are
prompted by specific contextual factors (Ahl, 2006; Cliff et al., 2004). Accordingly,
we recognize that entrepreneurs’ perceptions of success do not necessarily con-
form to established gender archetypes, but we examine under which conditions
men and women entrepreneurs differ in the importance they attach to different
success factors. We pay special attention to parenthood and argue that this contex-
tual factor drives some important, yet often overlooked, heterogeneities that exist
within men and women entrepreneurs (de Bruin et al., 2006; Hughes and Jennings,
2012; Hughes et al., 2012).
Using social identity theory (SIT) and insights drawn from the literature on women
entrepreneurs, we contend that parenthood, and especially the presence of depend-
ent children, is a powerful driver of change in entrepreneurs’ perceptions of success
for both men and women entrepreneurs, yet those effects are stronger for women
entrepreneurs.
We provide four main contributions to the literature. First, we bring SIT into the
entrepreneurship literature and to the examination of gender in entrepreneurship.
SIT provides a useful approach to analyze sex differences in entrepreneurs’ percep-
tions of success, one that allows us to decouple the analysis from approaches that
rely on stereotypical examinations.
45
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 45 15/12/2017 07:53

Second, we analyze the effect of the work‒family interface on shifts in perceptions

and values. Although the entrepreneurship literature provides empirical evidence of
the relationship between family responsibilities and women’s initial start-up moti-
vation as a solution to the dual domains of work and family (Caputo and Dolinsky,
1998; Boden, 1999; DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Marlow, 1997; Lombard, 2001),
few studies have taken the analysis further to assess the impact on perceptions
of success. Moreover, while it is taken for granted that for women entrepreneurs
balancing work and family is fundamental, scholars have only recently started to
consider men with respect to these issues (Ahl, 2006; Jennings and McDougald,
2007; Kalnins and Williams, 2014).
Third, we expand the measure of an entrepreneur’s perception of success by includ-

ing non-monetary measures of success under its different dimensions and by
gathering perceptions from direct reports by the entrepreneur. Prior research has
traditionally assessed success indirectly, from measures of motivation for start-
up, which can be colored by other elements. Moreover, rather than grouping all
non-monetary criteria under the same broad concept, we separate them into two
distinct dimensions. The first is an ‘intrinsic’ and feminine dimension which relates
to the importance of the entrepreneur’s position in society, and status as a parent
and as job provider. The second, an ‘independence’ dimension, is rather masculine
in nature, which stresses freedom and self-realization as the main expectations
from self-employment.
Lastly, by focusing on disentangling within-gender differences in business aspi-

rations, we respond to calls from gender scholars to examine the heterogeneity
present amongst women entrepreneurs (de Bruin et al., 2006; Hughes and Jennings,
2012; Hughes et al., 2012), and address how work‒family concerns also affect male
entrepreneurs. Building on SIT we add to the understanding of this heterogeneity.
Specifically, we examine how women and men entrepreneurs’ perception may be
shaped by their individual-level characteristics, that is, the family context in which
they are embedded (Hughes et al., 2012).
Theoretical background and hypotheses

Defining business success: intrinsic and extrinsic values
A growing number of scholars have called for an exploration of new definitions
of business success, ones that extend beyond financial performance (Hudson et
al., 2001; Walker and Brown, 2004). They contend that traditional measures of
success do not account for non-monetary measures (Fenwick and Hutton, 2000;
Still and Timms, 2000; Rogers, 2005). In particular, researchers have highlighted
the importance of female non-monetary expectations from the business as a key to
understanding gender differences in small business ownership patterns (MacNabb
et al., 1993; Buttner and Moore, 1997; Fenwick and Hutton, 2000; Walker and
Brown, 2004). However useful this perspective is, prior studies exploring attitudes
and perceptions of success have found little gender-based variance in fundamental

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 46 15/12/2017 07:53

PERCEPTION OF SUCCESS OF MEN AND WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS 47
values (Catley and Hamilton, 1998; Eagly, 1995; Fagenson, 1993; Kalleberg and
Leight, 1991; Shane et al., 1991).
We contend that confounding variables might be causing those conflicting results.

While there seems to be consensus on categorizing financial achievement as mas-
culine in nature, non-monetary goals are less clear-cut: they include multiple ‒ yet
differing ‒ constructs such as job satisfaction, reputation and flexibility that could
be included in either the feminine or the masculine category, according to how they
are interpreted.
In assessing feminine and masculine categories we follow the research of Bird and
Brush (2002), who define traditional entrepreneurial values as including ‘financial
success (survival, profits and wealth), power in demonstrations of personal efficacy
and business competitive advantage, personal or ego gratification seen in auton-
omy accorded to the self-employed’ (ibid.: 53). In this chapter we argue that these
aspects are consistent with Bem’s (1981) index of what is culturally accepted as
masculine in nature. Bem’s (1981) study shows indeed that concepts such as com-
petitive advantage, ego or autonomy are considered to be masculine attributes. This
contrasts with feminine values as described by Bird and Brush, who consider them
as ‘more existential than driven towards definable goals, reflective of the personal
values of the founder and oriented toward well-being, cooperation and caring, self-
determinations and preservation of relationships’ (Bird and Brush, 1992: 53). This
definition also coincides with Bem’s femininity scale attributes.
Following this discussion, we seek to capture the multidimensional aspects of the

subjective perception of success, by classifying previous indicators of non-financial
criteria into two distinct attributes: the intrinsic dimension of perceived success,
which we contend is feminine in nature; and the independence dimension, which
we argue is related to masculine values. The intrinsic dimension of success refers
to the individual’s intention to have status, approval and recognition from their
family, friends and from the business, and it is consistent with constructs used
in previous studies on motivation, and labeled as recognition (Carter et al., 2003;
Shane et al., 1991), or need for approval (Scheinberg and McMillan, 1988).
On the other hand, the independence dimension of success stresses the values of
autonomy and self-achievement as primary criteria for assessing success. Previous
studies on reasons for start-up have also used a similar construct to describe an
individual’s desire for freedom and control over their career and time (Carter et al.,
2003; Birley and Westhead, 1994; Blaise et al., 1990).
We depart from traditional research in entrepreneurial success in that, given that

both dimensions reflect non-monetary concepts, they would have been associ-
ated with women entrepreneurs, establishing an analogy between ‘non-monetary’
measures and gender stereotypes. However, our approach is consistent with
research that objects to stereotypical feminine view of the firm, and with the
systematic association of those dimensions with women (Cliff et al., 2004; Ahl,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 47 15/12/2017 07:53

2006). Advocates of this view argue that gender-stereotypic values do not always
correspond to entrepreneurs according to their biological sex. In particular, they
claim that men and women entrepreneurs have a mix of masculine and feminine
values. The extent to which they will display one more than the other will depend
on a variety of situational factors.
Among these factors, we focus on the effect of parenthood, given its central role in
shaping personal values and its increasingly recognized influence on work–family
interface. Therefore, we follow a family embeddedness perspective of entrepre-
neurship (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003), which recognizes a relationship between the
entrepreneur’s family value systems and the new venture’s outcome, including per-
formance and the subjective perception of success.
Gender, parenthood and their effects on entrepreneurs’ perceptions of

success
Social identity theory (SIT) is utilized to examine when entrepreneurs are more
likely to act consistently with their gender-stereotypic role, and when they are more
likely to adopt attitudes more congruent with traditional entrepreneurial arche-
types. The central assumption underlying social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974, 1978)
is that while there are elements of self-identity that are derived from individual
traits and interpersonal relationships (personal identity), there are many social
settings in which people do not act as independent individuals. In these situations,
people primarily think of themselves and others in terms of particular group mem-
berships (for example, in terms of their professional or family roles), and tend to
adopt ‘group’ behaviors and attitudes. This latter element of self-identity is called
the ‘social identity’. The social identity incorporates the notion that definitions of
self can relate to multiple groups simultaneously, and that the relative degree to
which people see each of these different identities as self-descriptive varies across
different situations, and/or over time (Haslam et al., 2003).
A central premise of SIT is that people identify with groups that contribute to a
positive sense of self, such as high-status or high-power groups (Ellemers, 1993;
Haslam et al., 2000). In the case of competing social identities, people will use cul-
tural associations of status-worthiness and competence as cues for self-definition.
Thus, because of the positive cultural association of masculine entrepreneurial
attributes, and the negative or neutral association attached to feminine subjective
criteria (Ahl, 2006; Bruni et al., 2004), entrepreneurs will generally tend to identify
primarily with masculine, extrinsic attitudes. Because of this, and due to the higher
status attached to masculine entrepreneurial values, we expect women entrepre-
neurs to report masculine values, that is, ones that are similar to those of their male
counterparts.
However, people’s identification with higher-status groups is not the only operat-
ing mechanism, nor is it immutable. Changes in context can affect the content of
group prototypes to which people refer, and hence lead to a change in self-concept

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 48 15/12/2017 07:53

and attitudes. In order to predict when certain group memberships will tend to
become more powerful determinants of behavior than others, SIT also refers to
salience mechanisms as a basis for self-conceptualization in a given context (Hogg
and Terry, 2000).
We contend that role salience will have significant consequences on entrepreneurs’

perceptions of success. Specifically, we claim that there are specific moments in
an entrepreneur’s life where family role is likely to become more salient than the
entrepreneurial responsibilities, therefore inducing changes in self-concept and
a greater identification with parental values and groups, as compared to entre-
preneurial values and groups. In this case, the presence of dependents (children)
acts as a powerful salience mechanism that provokes a shift towards family-role
salience, with both male and female entrepreneurs expressing greater concern for
intrinsic values rather than for extrinsic values. We denominate this behavior the
‘parenthood effect’. In this situation, the similarities between male entrepreneurs
and female entrepreneurs are the result of the former adopting a feminine perspec-
tive on business. As suggested by Cliff et al. (2004), archetypical feminine qualities
are increasingly touted in popular managerial texts (see, e.g., Fondas, 1997), which
leads the authors to conclude that perhaps they are being implemented in practice.
In our case, men would also be affected by parenthood and internalize intrinsic
perceptions of success.
Additional concerns may moderate identity enhancement motives and people’s

identification to the archetype of the ambitious, extrinsic-oriented entrepreneur.
According to Ellemers et al. (2004):
people are ready to identify with groups that compare unfavorably to other groups (e.g.,
low-status groups), to the extent that they believe in the potential of the group to improve
its plight . . . or perceive their group’s disadvantage as unjust ‒ that is, where inter-group
differences are illegitimate (ibid.: 463)
The authors specify that such behavior may be prompted by ‘a work situation in
which people are systematically excluded from certain rewards or opportunities
on the basis of their category membership (e.g., their age, gender or ethnic back-
ground)’. In other words, people who endure work discrimination are induced to
think of themselves in terms of low-status groups, and adhere to their beliefs and
values.
A well-known phenomenon that might reflect the operation of this process is

the glass ceiling. Male-dominated systems and authoritarian structures in organi-
zational life are indeed known to affect women negatively as they attempt to
ascend the corporate ladder (Buttner and Moore, 1997). Having vicariously or
directly experienced discrimination in the workplace, women are then expected
to identify more with their female colleagues and to express motivations and
entrepreneurial goals that emphasize their belonging to this group. This would be
a key reason why several studies (Mattis, 2004) portray female entrepreneurs as

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 49 15/12/2017 07:53

attaching importance to independence as a primary goal from self-employment.

At this point, it is worth highlighting that independence is a masculine value, just
as financial wealth is, but while male entrepreneurs will tend to emphasize the
latter dimension of success, we hypothesize that female entrepreneurs will pri-
oritize the aspects that improve their social status with respect to previous work
experiences, that is, the independence dimension of success. In this case, the leap
to self-employment might not increase their economic wealth, or at least not in
the initial stages of the business, but it might significantly improve their empower-
ment and self-reliance.
The previous discussion points to the existence of a parenthood effect on the

intrinsic dimension of success and a gender effect on the independence dimension.
Formally stated:
H1: The intrinsic dimension of success will be more important for entrepreneurs with
dependent children than for entrepreneurs without dependent children.
H2: The independence dimension of success will be more important for female entre-
preneurs than for male entrepreneurs.
The moderating effect of gender

Although we suggest that gender does not affect intrinsic perception of success per
se, based on social identity theory we do argue, however, that gender moderates
the relationship between parenthood and the intrinsic dimension of success. In
particular, we propose that when family role becomes salient, women entrepre-
neurs will lean towards feminine values to a greater extent than men entrepreneurs.
Thus, we contend that ‘motherhood’ ‒ that is, the combined effect of women with
dependent children ‒ has its own unique implications beyond those associated with
parenthood. Since theory argues that a salience mechanism must operate in order
to produce a change in an individual’s self-concept, we should account for the
circumstances under which parenthood is likely to act more as a salient descriptor
for women than for men. Ridgeway and Correll (2004) provide a good argument
in this sense when they state: ‘Anytime a woman in the workplace gives behavio-
ral evidence of being a mother of dependent children, she will be categorized as
primary caretaker, priming the status and competence implications of that role’.
This will happen when a women worker becomes visibly pregnant (Halpert et al.,
1993), leaves a meeting early to pick up her children from school or calls in absent
due to a sick child. In the vast majority of work settings, her now-recognized role
as mother will differentiate her from at least some other workers and/or will be
seen as directly relevant to her job performance. ‘As a result, the status implications
of motherhood will be effectively salient in these settings’ (Ridgeway and Correll,
2004: 693).
This salience will not be as strong for men as parents, since our cultural presump-
tions about mothers as primary caretakers are still firmly entrenched and fathers

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 50 15/12/2017 07:53

are mostly expected to provide financially for their children (Bernhardt, 1994;
Deutsch and Saxon, 1998). Consequently, we hypothesize that woman entrepre-
neurs will not necessarily prioritize the intrinsic dimension of success unless there
is a salient context ‒ that is, motherhood ‒ which pushes them to conform to what
is socially expected from them.
Gender discrimination is also likely to become more systematic in this particular

context, in which the presence of dependent children makes gender more salient.
In line with the above-mentioned argument, we claim that this would make the
independence dimension of success more important for female entrepreneurs with
dependents.
Thus, the foregoing arguments suggest that there is a motherhood effect on both
the intrinsic and the independence measures of entrepreneurs’ success, and we
hypothesize that:
H3: The intrinsic dimension of success will be more important for women entrepre-
neurs with dependent children than for men entrepreneurs with dependent children.
H4: The independence dimension of success will be more important for women
entrepreneurs with dependent children than for men entrepreneurs with dependent
children.
Sample and methodology
Data for our study came from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey
conducted in Spain in April 2005. The GEM study tracks entrepreneurship in more
than 40 countries, including Spain, based on a representative telephone survey
of the adult population. The GEM survey requests a broad array of information
related to individuals’ demographics, and business characteristics as well as atti-
tudes and awareness of entrepreneurship in the different countries. Additional
questions were included in the 2005 survey in order to capture perceived entrepre-
neurial success as well as parenthood characteristics.
In 2005, a survey was conducted on a sample of 19 384 individuals. A total of

1236 individuals (6.37 percent) were classified as entrepreneurs following the GEM
methodology. Consistent with previous literature on gender and entrepreneurship,
females were significantly under-represented in the entrepreneurial ranges (Franco
and Winqvist, 2002). Our data yield a percentage of 10.2 percent entrepreneurs
for women with respect to the general adult feminine population, against a 14.6
percent for the masculine population.
We assume that wealth generation is an important goal for every entrepreneur

regardless of biological sex (Holmquist and Sundin, 1988; Kolvereid, 1996), and
operationalize both the intrinsic and independence dimensions as bipolar measures,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 51 15/12/2017 07:53

where non-monetary subjective values are assessed in opposition to profit and eco-
nomic motivations. Indeed, Pfeffer and Salancik (1978: 246) explain that ‘pay is a
complex aspect of work, serving not only to justify the activity but also to convey
worth, status and competence, as well as to provide for various goods and services
obtained outside work’. Since people engage in social comparisons, pushing them
to choose between monetary and non-monetary aspects of work might produce
confusing answers and muddled results. For that reason, and instead of pushing
entrepreneurs to choose between adopting or discarding extrinsic values, we asked
them to assess the relative importance of non-monetary ones with respect to the
former.
In order to measure the intrinsic dimension of perceived success, we used four

items included in a scale developed by Walker and Brown (2004) which captures
the importance of measuring business success in terms of traditional financial
measures (making money) versus other alternative measures (personal satisfaction,
pride in job or flexibility) using a five-point Likert scale. The four selected items
capture the desire expressed by the entrepreneur to pursue social goals from entre-
preneurial activity as opposed to financial goals, that is, making money. We inter-
pret this dichotomy as the difference between ‘intrinsic’ versus ‘extrinsic’ values
when measuring business success. The composite scale reached an acceptable level
of internal consistency (α = 0.70).
The independence dimension of perceived success was measured by means of a

single item. In particular, respondents were asked to rate the importance of being
their own boss as opposed to making money, using a five-point Likert scale with
the anchors of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Although reliance on a
single item is often questionable, single-item measures are considered to be rela-
tively valid and have frequently been used in work attitudes literature (Ganzach,
1998).
Woman: sex was measured as a dummy variable that takes the values of 1 if the
entrepreneur is a woman, 0 otherwise.
Dependent children: Parenthood was measured by a dummy variable coded 1 if the

entrepreneur has at least one dependent child and 0 otherwise. A child was consid-
ered as dependent if they are less than 18 years old.
Control variables: To better isolate the effect of gender and parenthood on per-
ception of success, we controlled for several potential confounding variables.
Entrepreneurs’ characteristics include owner Age (continuous variable), Education
(a three-category variable coded 0 = no education, 1 = at least secondary educa-
tion, 2 = post-secondary education) and Personal income (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 =
high). Entrepreneur’s dedication to the business, Full-time entrepreneur, was meas-
ured as a dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if she works full-time in the busi-
ness, 0 otherwise. Firm characteristics included Employment size, as represented by
the number of employees at the time that the survey was conducted.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 52 15/12/2017 07:53

Additionally, four dummy variables were introduced to control for industry effects,
since previous research has shown that industry characteristics may push entre-
preneurs to develop strategies that are inconsistent with their personal values (Bird
and Brush, 2002; Cliff, 2004; Olson and Currie, 1992). Following Bates (2002), we
grouped industries into five categories: construction, consumer goods, retailing, per-
sonal services and skilled services.
New business: following GEM methodology, we create a dummy variable that indi-
cates the stage of development of a venture, and takes the value of 1 if the firm
owned by the entrepreneur is less than 42 months old, and 0 otherwise. In GEM
terminology, this categorization differentiates between nascent and baby busi-
nesses, rated with a 1; and established businesses, those with 0. We group nascent
and baby businesses under a single category labelled ‘new businesses’.
Moreover, given that previous research has showed that self-reported motivations
for start-up correlate with measures of success (Buttner and Moore, 1997; Carter et
al., 2003), we included the motivation to start the business as a control variable in
the analysis. Following the GEM classification, we distinguish between ‘push’ and
‘pull’ motivators. Push factors drive individuals towards business ownership out
of necessity and are originally linked with dissatisfaction with one’s current posi-
tion (necessity entrepreneur). Pull factors attract individuals into entrepreneurship
because of the future value behind the business opportunity (Ohran, 2004). The vari-
able takes the value of 1 if the entrepreneur was motivated by pull factors (opportu-
nity entrepreneur), 0 if motivated by push reasons (necessity entrepreneur). Lastly,
Overall satisfaction with the job is taken into account, since previous research has
shown that differences in job attitudes may be affected by satisfaction levels and
that women entrepreneurs are consistently more satisfied than men entrepreneurs
(Cooper and Artz, 1995). Specifically, to measure overall satisfaction, we asked
respondents to specify their level of agreement or disagreement (based on a five-
point Likert scale) with the statement ‘I am satisfied with my job’ (Appendix 3A.1).
Analysis and results
Descriptive statistics and correlations appear in Table 3.1. The table indicates that
the intrinsic dimension of success is correlated with opportunity entrepreneurship
and with overall job satisfaction (positive). However, it shows no relationship with
any of the variables measuring entrepreneur, firm or sector characteristics. On the
other hand, the independence dimension shows significant correlation with the bio-
logical sex of the entrepreneur. The positive sign indicates that women rate higher
than men on the independence dimension of success, in line with Hypothesis 2. The
only other significant correlation related to the gender variable can be found with
age. This result is consistent with previous studies on women entrepreneurs which
show that women tend to start ventures at a later age than males, indicating a prob-
able effect of pregnancy and early motherhood as a barrier to venture creation at a
younger age.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 53 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 3.1 Descriptives and correlation
Variables Mean St. dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Employment size 3.24 4.72

2 Industry_construction 0.11 0.31 0.00
3 Industry_goods 0.12 0.32 −0.02 −0.13***
4 Industry_personal 0.08 0.26 0.00 −0.10*** −0.10***
services
5 Industry_retail 0.44 0.49 −0.01 −0.31*** −0.32*** −0.25***
6 Industry_skilled services 0.26 0.47 0.03 −0.21*** −0.22*** −0.17*** −0.52***
7 Personal income 2.13 0.81 0.10** 0.00 −0.07* 0.02 −0.07* 0.12***
8 Education 3.54 1.25 0.03 −0.06* −0.07* 0.16*** −0.23*** 0.26***
9 Age 43.12 11.97 0.04 0.00 0.05 −0.03 0.00 −0.02
10 Full-time entrepreneur 0.95 0.25 0.03 −0.02 0.03 −0.05 0.03 −0.01
11 Pure opportunity 0.63 0.48 0.00 0.01 −0.01 0.01 −0.02 0.02
12 Overall satisfaction 3.75 1.02 0.01 0.00 −0.01 0.00 −0.02 0.03
13 New business 0.32 0.46 0.02 −0.06* −0.03 0.08** −0.04 0.05+
14 Woman 0.42 0.49 −0.01 −0.03 0.04 0.04 0.00 −0.04
15 Dependent children 0.59 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 −0.01 −0.01
16 Intrinsic scale 2.84 0.52 0.02 0.00 −0.03 −0.01 −0.03 0.06+
17 Independence 3.28 0.99 −0.05 0.00 −0.01 −0.01 0.00 0.02
Notes:
N = 1234
+ p ≤ 0.10, * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.
On the contrary, the entrepreneurial stage variable shows significant correlations

with several of the proposed variables, pointing to the importance of distinguishing
between entrepreneurs leading new businesses and those managing more estab-
lished ones. As derived from the table, nascent and baby entrepreneurs are more
likely to belong to personal services and less to industry services than more estab-
lished entrepreneurs. Moreover, their income is lower and their level of education
higher than that of established owners. Interestingly, compared to their established
counterparts, they rate higher the intrinsic aspects of success as opposed to making
money.
In general, the rest of the bivariate correlations are consistent with our expec-
tations. Higher family income is associated with firms of bigger size. Moreover,
highly educated entrepreneurs are younger and have the higher family income
levels. In the same vein, belonging to industries that provide skill services is posi-
tively associated with both high income and education levels. No problem with
multicollinearity seems to exist.
Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analysis. As customary, con-

trol variables were entered first, followed by main effects. Multiplicative terms
were added later to examine the hypothesized interactions. We calculated the vari-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 54 15/12/2017 07:53

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0.26***
0.03 −0.12***
−0.06+ −0.10*** 0.00
0.02 0.04 −0.06* −0.01
−0.03 −0.02 0.05+ 0.01 0.04
−0.12*** 0.07** −0.09*** −0.05+ 0.17*** 0.01
−0.04 −0.01 0.07* −0.03 0.01 0.06 −0.04
0.00 0.11*** −0.86*** −0.02 0.05 −0.03 0.08 −0.10***
0.05 0.02 0.00 −0.05* 0.09*** 0.36*** 0.02 0.04 0.05
0.00 0.03 −0.02 −0.04 0.02 0.01 −0.06+ 0.07* 0.04 0.15*** 1.00
ance inflation factor (VIF) after each regression to make sure the results were not
subject to the threat of multicollinearity. Values were within acceptable limits for
Hypotheses 1 to 4.
Table 3.2 shows the results for the determinants of the intrinsic dimension of suc-
cess using the full sample. Model 1 is the base model that includes only control
variables. This model shows that entrepreneurs who work part-time tend to attach
higher value to the intrinsic aspects of success, when compared to those committed
full-time to their business. This result is consistent with our arguments, since part-
time entrepreneurs, having their financial needs covered by their actual jobs, look
for different aspirations than just earning money when deciding to create their own
business. In the same line, those entrepreneurs who decide to start a new business
because of the attractiveness of the business idea, and not due to necessity, place
a higher value on the intrinsic measure of success. Lastly, it is interesting to note
that the coefficient for the overall job satisfaction is positive and highly significant.
This result is indeed consistent with studies indicating that intrinsic motivation
for employees maximizes heuristic performance, trust, satisfaction and well-being
(Gagné and Deci, 2005).
Models 2 and 3 introduce sex and parenthood effects. As expected, women and
men do not differ in terms of their evaluation of the intrinsic aspects of success,
but parents with dependent children do. The positive significant coefficient for the
dependent children variables indicates that parenthood makes a difference, with

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 55 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 3.2 Effect of gender and parenthood on the intrinsic dimension of success
Dependent variable: Intrinsic goals
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Employment size 0.010 0.011 0.009 0.007

Industry_construction 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.002
Industry_goods −0.008 −0.008 −0.011 −0.010
Industry_skilled services 0.038 0.038 0.040 0.041
Industry_personal services −0.006 −0.007 −0.007 −0.009
High income 0.051 0.051 0.050 0.053
Average income 0.060+ 0.060+ 0.057+ 0.058+
Education _secondary 0.009 0.007 0.005 0.008
Education _primary 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.007
Age −0.015 −0.016 0.030 0.018
Full-time entrepreneur −0.052* −0.052* −0.051* −0.053*
Motivation 0.068** 0.068** 0.068** 0.069**
Overall satisfaction 0.334*** 0.333*** 0.332*** 0.332***
Woman 0.019 0.023 −0.036
Dependent children 0.070* 0.017
Woman x Dependent children 0.090*
R squared 0.126 0.127 0.129 0.132

R squared change 0.126 0.000 0.003* 0.003*
F 13.586*** 12.647*** 12.079*** 11.610***
Notes:
N = 1234. Standardized regression coefficients are shown in the table
+ p ≤ 0.10, * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.
parent entrepreneurs with dependent children placing a higher value on the intrin-
sic dimension of success, providing support for Hypothesis 1. For Hypothesis 3,
Model 3 provides clear support for it: the effect of parenthood is higher for women
than for men entrepreneurs, confirming the hypothesized ‘motherhood’ effect.
Table 3.3 shows the results for Hypotheses 2 and 4, which relate to the inde-
pendence dimension of success. As predicted, the ‘desire to be one’s own boss’
(as opposed to earning money) is higher for women entrepreneurs, confirming
Hypothesis 2. However, the interaction effect of sex and dependents is not signifi-
cant in this case, so Hypothesis 4 is rejected.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 56 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 3.3 Effect of gender and parenthood on the independence dimension of success
Dependent variable: Independence goals
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Employment size −0.054* −0.054* −0.055* −0.055*

Industry_construction −0.002 0.000 0.000 −0.001
Industry_goods −0.012 −0.014 −0.016 −0.016
Industry_skilled services 0.006 0.008 0.009 0.010
Industry_personal services −0.010 −0.012 −0.012 −0.013
High income −0.010 −0.010 −0.011 −0.010
Average income −0.039 −0.040 −0.042 −0.042
Education _secondary 0.176+ 0.171+ 0.169+ 0.169+
Education _primary 0.170+ 0.165+ 0.165+ 0.166+
Age −0.010 −0.015 0.025 0.021
Full-time entrepreneur −0.031 −0.029 −0.028 −0.029
Motivation 0.021 0.020 0.020 0.020
Overall satisfaction 0.014 0.010 0.009 0.010
Woman 0.069* 0.072* 0.054
Dependent children 0.059 0.043
Woman x Dependent children 0.027
R squared 0.009 0.014 0.016 0.016

R squared change 0.005* 0.002 0.000
F 0.862 1.219* 1.294* 1.234*
Notes:
N = 1234. Standardized regression coefficients are shown in the table.
+ p ≤ 0.10, * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Discussion and conclusions
In this chapter we have analyzed how men and women entrepreneurs shift in
their perceptions of two dimensions of success, the intrinsic dimension, which
is more related to feminine values, and the independence dimension, which is
more masculine in nature, as a consequence of parenthood. Our research pro-
vides evidence that these two dimensions, intrinsic and independence, respond
to different logics and are related in different ways to social identity theory. In
doing so we provide both a theoretical and an empirical examination of the logic
behind non-monetary perceptions of success in the context of gender and entre-
preneurship. In our research we take as given the centrality of wealth generation
for entrepreneurs (both male and female), and the relative importance of each
of these subjective criteria is assessed in this research with respect to economic
(extrinsic) success.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 57 15/12/2017 07:53

In particular, our arguments and results provide a theoretically solid picture

with respect to the role of dependents in the context of entrepreneurial percep-
tions of success. In the absence of dependents, women and men entrepreneurs
behave in a similar fashion. Thus, the results indicate that women entrepreneurs
do not necessarily place masculine (extrinsic) criteria in a secondary position with
respect to intrinsic goals, unless the presence of dependent children induces them
to do so.
A corollary of this finding is that men entrepreneurs are not inevitably oriented
against the principle of giving to others as the literature has suggested (Adler, 1999;
Miller, 1976). As entrepreneurs, they exhibit work expectations and values that are
similar to those of their female counterparts. Once they become parents, both men
and women reveal altruistic values such as the desire to help others and to achieve
a work and family balance. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that parenthood is
experienced differently by women and men entrepreneurs, the former exhibiting
intrinsic values to a greater extent than the latter. Following SIT we contend that
the differences are attributable to the diverse expectations that society places on
the entrepreneur as the saliency of parenthood appears: for fathers, to be the eco-
nomic provider; for mothers, to be the primary caretaker and nurturer.
These results are consistent with research by Cliff et al. (2004), which attempts
to reconcile both perspectives by suggesting that female and male entrepreneurs
differ in their rhetoric, but not in their inherent values and actual practices. While
we agree with this argument, we add that the need to conform to social and cul-
tural expectations, be this through simple speech or through real implementation,
emerges when gender becomes salient. Thus by controlling for parenthood, our
chapter helps to explain previous contradictions found between the studies that
attach gender-stereotypic goals to entrepreneurs according to their sex, and those
which reject this view.
In contrast, we found that gender had a direct impact on the independence dimen-
sion of success. As a result of the glass ceiling effect and discrimination experienced
in the labor market, women entrepreneurs are more likely than men to value free-
dom and control over monetary rewards. What is interesting about these findings is
that they clarify part of the existing confusion regarding women’s expectations from
self-employment. The characterization of entrepreneurship as a panacea for bal-
ancing work and family role responsibilities for women is a case in point. Scholars
have indeed recently been calling this claim into question, and have proposed that
although the self-employed experience higher freedom and job satisfaction than
organizationally employed workers, the drive for economic security may also imply
higher levels of work‒family conflict and lower family satisfaction (Moore, 2005;
Parasuraman and Simmers, 2001).
Why, then, are women increasingly entering self-employment? Our findings pro-
vide evidence that gaining balance in their professional career and personal rela-
tionship is not necessarily women’s main expectation from business ownership.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 58 15/12/2017 07:53

Instead, they seem to value above all career autonomy and self-reliance. In this
sense, women seem willing to ‘forgo . . . both the traditional, male-based career
path and the “Mommy track” and are instead building new paths by using entrepre-
neurial activities to expand their careers and relationships’ (Sullivan and Mainiero,
2002: 8).
The results of our study provide a link back to the works of Goffee and Scase (1983)
and Cromie and Hayes (1988) which classify women business owners’ trajectories
according to their orientations towards business performance and their families.
While these studies suggested the existence of a ‘Mummy track’ for entrepreneur-
ial women, their findings have not been validated by subsequent research, and
researchers have not built on them to understand how parenthood affects male and
female entrepreneurs’ perceptions of success (Ohran, 2004).
We believe that our research provides empirical support for these typologies of
women entrepreneurs, allows for the comparison of entrepreneurs of both sexes
according to parenthood, and provides links to the different expectations that these
groups may have from entrepreneurship. A number of questions regarding gender,
perceptions of success and entrepreneurship remain to be examined. In particu-
lar, future research might try to analyze the formation of distinct entrepreneurial
careers based on an individual’s perceptions of life and their roles. Scholars might
also study the implications of those perceptions for career stages and patterns
for women and men entrepreneurs. Finally, and more importantly, future studies
might want to examine the effect of modern family structure and dual-career fami-
lies on entrepreneurial performance.
Our results could also provide interesting theoretical insights about the organiza-
tional policies and practices established by entrepreneurs. These will indeed tend to
create work situations consistent with their own values. For example, motherhood
and the higher value attached to the intrinsic dimension of success could help to
explain why women more often than men will provide environments that allow
employees to balance family and business life, or establish organizational cultures
that minimize conflicts among employees (Robinson, 2001).
In the same vein, Rogers (2005) contends that an entrepreneur’s commitment to

work or family roles will affect the development of their business: ‘women with
family responsibilities will direct their marketing efforts according to the needs of
the family. Travelling may be curtailed, business locations changed, opportunities
rejected, personnel hired, all with the goal of maintaining a balance between work
and family’ (ibid.: 96). Although this affirmation sounds intuitive, further research
is needed to investigate whether the entrepreneur’s definition of success actually
influences firm strategy and financial outcomes. In doing so, an analysis of sex dif-
ferences could also prove insightful. So far, this argument has been used by some
scholars to justify findings that women underperform in comparison to men (Du
Reitz and Henrekson, 2000; Srinivasan et al., 1994), but this argument has not been
empirically tested.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 59 15/12/2017 07:53

Moreover, the exploration of sex differences in perceptions of success may benefit

from country comparisons, and examination of the effect of social and institutional
factors related to culture, history, legislation, educational structures or family poli-
cies. Gender is the ‘result of upbringing and social interaction and it varies in time
and place’ (Ahl, 2006, page 597), so a replication of our study in a distinct context
should prove enriching.
Our results also provide interesting insights on management practice. First, pro-
spective entrepreneurs’ work aspirations and values should be put into the broader
perspective of their present and future family life, acknowledging that people’s
commitment to a specific role (be it work- or family-related) reflects only a transi-
tory set of priorities. Understanding which role prevails at each moment of their
career development is important, because the different commitment to work and
family spheres will affect the possibility of experiencing inter-role conflict. The
latter has indeed been related positively to stress, and negatively to financial success
and satisfaction (Rogers, 2005).
Second, the fact that gender, per se, does not distract entrepreneurs from focusing
on financial profits also has important implications for bank loan officers, venture
capitalists and informal investors. Indeed, the traditional view of women as seek-
ing mainly non-monetary rewards from their business could have placed them at
a disadvantage for receiving financial support. Our chapter shows that this is not
necessarily true, and that all other factors held constant, women and men are ‘made
from the same cloth’.
Lastly, the results of our chapter point to the need for business owners’ advisors
and policy-makers to acknowledge entrepreneurs’ changing requirements during
their lives, and the unique challenges they face when they become parents. Help
could be directed towards identifying coping strategies and sources of support
to address work and family conflict. The issue is not only important for actual
entrepreneurs; it also has implications in terms of future generations of busi-
nesspersons. As suggested by Schindehutte et al. (2003) the entrepreneurial par-
ent’s discontent or satisfaction with their career will later influence the extent
to which their children consider entrepreneurship as a desirable professional
option or not. Public and private agents should, however, avoid actions directed
exclusively towards women and also involve men entrepreneurs, since our results
indicate that for both the presence of dependents is a cause of changes in their
perceptions of success. By concentrating solely on women entrepreneurs, they
might otherwise perpetuate stereotypes of women as the only ones responsible for
childcare (Ahl, 2006).
Finally, in studies of this nature, social desirability bias is always a concern. Like
most previous research in this area, a limitation of our study is the possibility that
entrepreneurs’ answers have been affected by this bias. Further research should
include alternative approaches towards gathering these sensitive and bias-prone
data. Possibilities include more observational techniques (Helgesen, 1990), longi-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 60 15/12/2017 07:53

tudinal tracking of entrepreneurs to assess perceptions over time, organizational

informants (Cliff et al., 2004), or other techniques that allow us to capture percep-
tion and values at different times and under different contingencies.
Note
* Professor Justo acknowledges support received from the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad de España
through research project ECO2015-66146-R: El emprendimiento social desde un enfoque configuracional: Los
determinantes individuales y contextuales de la acción estratégica y persistencia de los emprendedores sociales.
References
Adler, N. (1999), ‘Global leaders: women of influence’, in G.N. Powell (ed.), Handbook of Gender and
Work, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 239–262.
and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
Aldrich, H.E. and J.E. Cliff (2003), ‘The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward a family
embeddedness perspective’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573–596.
Bates, T. (2002), ‘Restricted access to markets characterizes women-owned businesses’, Journal of
Bem, S. (1981), Bem Sex-Role Inventory, Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Bernhardt, I. (1994), ‘Comparative advantage in self-employment and paid work’, Canadian Journal of
Economics, 27(2), 273–289.
Birley, S. and P. Westhead, P. (1994), ‘A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm
growth and size’, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 7–31.
Blaise, R., J. Toulouse and B. Clement (1990), ‘International comparisons of entrepreneurial motivation
based on personal equation, hierarchical analysis, and other statistical methods’, paper presented at
Proceedings of the 39th World Conference for Small Business, Washington, DC.
Boden, R.J., Jr (1999), ‘Flexible working hours, family responsibilities, and female self-employment:
gender differences in self-employment selection’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology,
58(1), 71.
de Bruin A., C.G. Brush and F. Welter (2006), ‘Introduction to the special issue: towards building
cumulative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30,
585–593.
Buttner, E.H. and D.P. Moore (1997), ‘Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: self-
reported motivations and correlates with success’, Journal of Small Business Management, 35(1), 34.
Caputo, R. and A. Dolinsky (1998). ‘Women’s choice to pursue self-employment: the role of financial
and human capital of household members’, Journal of Small Business Management, 36(3), 8–18.
Carter, N.M., W. Gartner, K.G. Shaver and E.J. Gatewood (2003), ‘The career reasons of nascent entre-
preneurs’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13–39.
Catley, S. and R. Hamilton (1998), ‘Small business development and gender of owner’, Journal of
Management Development, 17(1), 75–82.
Cliff, J.E. (1998), ‘Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth,
gender and business size’, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 523–542.
Cliff, J.E., N. Langton and H.E. Aldrich (2004), ‘Walking the talk? Gendered rhetoric vs. action in small
firms’, Organization Studies, 26(1), 63–91.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 61 15/12/2017 07:53

Cooper, A.C. and K. Artz (1995), ‘Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 10(6), 439–457.
Cromie, S. and J. Hayes (1988), ‘Towards a typology of female entrepreneurs’, Sociological Review, 36(1),
87–113.
DeMartino, R. and R. Barbato (2003), ‘Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:
exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators’, Journal of Business Venturing,
18(6), 815–832.
Deutsch, F.M. and S.E. Saxon (1998), ‘Traditional ideologies, non traditional lives’, Sex Roles, 38(5–6),
331–362.
Du Rietz, A. and M. Henrekson (2000), ‘Testing the female underperformance hypothesis’, Small
Business Economics, 14(1), 1–10.
Eagly, A.H. (1995), ‘The science and politics of comparing women and men’, American Psychologist, 50,
145–158.
Ellemers, N. (1993), ‘The influence of socio-cultural variables on identity enhancement strategies’,
European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57.
Ellemers, N., D. De Gilder and S.A. Haslam (2004), ‘Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social
identity perspective on leadership and group performance’, Academy of Management Review, 29,
459–478.
Fagenson, E.A. (1993), ‘Personal value systems of men and women entrepreneurs versus managers’,
Journal of Business Venturing, 8(5), 409–430.
paper presented at 41st Annual Adult Education Research Conference, Vancouver.
Fondas, N. (1997), ‘Feminization unveiled: management qualities in contemporary writings’, Academy of
Management Review, 22(1), 257–282.
Franco, A. and K. Winqvist (2002), Women and Men Reconciling Work and Family Life, Brussels:
European Communities, Eurostat.
Gagné, M. and E.L. Deci (2005), ‘Self-determination theory and work motivation’, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Ganzach, Y. (1998), ‘Intelligence and job satisfaction’, Academy of Management Journal, 41(5),
526–539.
Goffee, R. and R. Scase (1983), ‘Business ownership and women’s subordination: a preliminary study of
female proprietors’, Sociological Review, 31(4), 625–648.
Halpert, J.A., M.L. Wilson and J.L. Hickman (1993), ‘Pregnancy as a source of bias in performance
appraisals’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(7), 649–663.
Haslam, S.A., T. Postmes and N. Ellemers (2003), ‘More than a metaphor: organizational identity makes
organizational life possible’, British Journal of Management, 14, 357–369.
Haslam, S.A., C. Powell and J. Turner (2000), ‘Social identity, self-categorization, and work m
otivation:
rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes’,
Applied Psychology An International Review, 49(3), 319–339.
Helgesen, S. (1990), The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership, New York: Doubleday.
Hogg, M.A. and D.J. Terry (2000), ‘Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts’, Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.
Holmquist, C. and E. Sundin (1988), ‘Women as entrepreneurs in Sweden: conclusions from a survey’,
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1988, The Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship
Babson College, Babson Park, Massachusetts, 626–642.
Hudson, M., A. Smart and M. Bourne (2001), ‘Theory and practice in SME performance measurement
systems’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(8), 1096–1115.
Hughes, K.D. and J.E. Jennings (2012), Global Women’s Entrepreneurship Research: Diverse Settings,
Questions and Approaches, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar
Publishing.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 62 15/12/2017 07:53

Hughes, K.D., J.E. Jennings, C. Brush, S. Carter and F. Welter (2012), ‘Extending women’s entrepreneur-
ship research in new directions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 429–442.
Jennings, J.E. and M.S. McDougald (2007), ‘Work–family interface experiences and coping strategies:
implications for entrepreneurship research and practice’, Academy of Management Review, 32,
747–760.
Kalleberg, A.L. and K.T. Leicht (1991), ‘Gender and organizational performance: determinants of small
business survival and performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 136–161.
Kalnins, A. and M. Williams (2014), ‘When do female-owned businesses out-survive male-owned busi-
nesses? A disaggregated approach by industry and geography’, Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6),
822–835.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), ‘Prediction of employment status choice intentions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 21(1), 47–58.
Lombard, K.V. (2001), ‘Female self-employment and demand for flexible, nonstandard work schedules’,
Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 214–238.
MacNabb, A., J. McCoy, P. Weinreich and M. Northover (1993), ‘Using identity structure analysis
(ISA) to investigate female entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5,
301–313.
Marlow, S. (1997), ‘Self-employed women: new opportunities, old challenges’, Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 9(3), 199–210.
Mattis, M.C. (2004), ‘Women entrepreneurs: out from under the glass ceiling’. Women in Management
Review, 19(3), 154–163.
Miller, J. (1976), Toward New Psychology of Women, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Moore, D.P. (2005), ‘Four career paths of women business owners’, in S.L. Fielden and M. Davidson
(eds), International Handbook of Women and Small Business Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 42–50.
Ohran, M. (2004), ‘Why women enter into small business ownership’, in S. Fielden and M.J. Davidson
(eds), International Handbook of Women and Small Business Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 3–16.
Olson, S.F. and H.M. Currie (1992), ‘Female entrepreneurs: personal value systems and business strate-
gies in a male-dominated industry’, Journal of Small Business Management, 30(1), 49–57.
Parasuraman, S. and C.A. Simmers (2001), ‘Type of employment, work–family conflict and well‐being: a
comparative study’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 551–568.
Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, New York: Harper & Row.
Ridgeway, C.L. and S.J. Correll (2004), ‘Motherhood as a status characteristic’, Journal of Social Issues,
60(4), 683–700.
Robinson, S. (2001), ‘An examination of entrepreneurial motives and their influence on the way rural
women small business owners manage their employees’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship,
6(2), 151.
Rogers, N. (2005). ‘The impact of family support on the success of women business owners’, in S.L. Fielden
and M.J. Davidson (eds), International Handbook of Women and Small Business Entrepreneurship,
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 91–102.
Scheinberg, S. and I.C. MacMillan (1988), ‘An 11 country study of motivations to start a business’,
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1988, The Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship
Babson College, Babson Park, Massachusetts, 669–687.
Schindehutte, M., M. Morris and C. Brennan (2003), ‘Entrepreneurs and motherhood: impacts on
their children in South Africa and the United States’, Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1),
94–107.
Shane, S., L. Kolvereid and P. Westhead (1991). ‘An exploratory examination of the reasons leading to
new firm formation across country and gender’, Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6), 431–446.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 63 15/12/2017 07:53

Srinivasan, R., C.Y. Woo and A. Cooper (1994), ‘Performance determinants for male and female entre-
preneurs’, paper presented at the Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Babson College,
Wellesley, MA.
Still, L.V. and W. Timms (2000), ‘Women’s business: the flexible alternative workstyle for women’,
Women in Management Review, 15(5/6), 272–283.
Sullivan, S.E. and L. Mainiero (2002), ‘The protean careerist – development and innovation in the 21st
century ‒ new links not yet defined’, All Academy of Management Show Program Symposium pres-
entation, Denver, Colorado, August 13.
Tajfel, H. (1974), ‘Social identity and intergroup behavior’, Social Science Information, 13, 65–93.
Tajfel, H. (ed.) (1978), Differentiating Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations, London: Academic Press.
Walker, E. and A. Brown (2004), ‘What success factors are important to small business owners?’,
International Small Business Journal, 22(6), 577–594.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 64 15/12/2017 07:53

Appendix 3A.1
This is a follow-up survey to the GEM survey regarding your business activity.
Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following state-
ments (from 1 = Completely disagree, to 5 = Completely agree):
1. I am satisfied with my job.

2. My personal satisfaction is more important than making a lot of money.
3. Feeling proud about my work is more important than making a lot of money.
4. Making a lot of money is more important than job flexibility.
5. Being able to provide jobs to others is more important than making a lot of
money.
6. Making a lot of money is more important than being my own boss.
7. Social status is more important than making a lot of money.
8. Financial indicators are the best way to measure the success of a business.
9. Spending time with my family is more important than making a lot of money.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 65 15/12/2017 07:53

4 Aspirations of women entrepreneurs in
poverty: the livelihood entrepreneur
Smita K. Trivedi
Introduction
At 16, Palak1 was betrothed to a man in a Gujarati (a large state in western India)
village outside of Ahmedabad, different than her own. She was forced to drop out of
school because her father believed her education was just taking money away from
educational opportunities for her brothers. Two years later she had still never met
her betrothed, but she had started to sell the clothes she had embroidered for years.
This way, she was able to put one of her brothers through school with the money
she made and she was quite proud of this. When asked about her dreams, she asked
first why she should have them when they were not going to come true. After some
prodding, Palak said her dream was to go back to school, become a model and
never get married. But she said she knew none of that would ever happen so she
was content and proud to be putting her brother through school with the money
she made as an embroiderer.
Palak’s world may seem foreign and distant enough that it does not concern you,
such that you may neglect to think about her ever again. But Palak’s story does
matter to you; in fact, this chapter proposes that her story matters to the world.
The world is interconnected as it has never been before, and the global economy
is truly just that: global. Poverty, because of its effects on population, disease and
pollution, affects us all whether we choose to think about it or not. While there
may not be consensus on the best way to handle it, the fact that poverty is a grave,
vast problem is not really under debate (Karlan and Appel, 2011). Scholars as
well as society need to figure out how to address poverty and create a sustain-
able world for us all (Karlan and Appel, 2011: 3). This chapter is about poverty
alleviation led by those living in poverty. It is about women – who have been
identified by the outside world as impoverished – lifting themselves and their
families out of poverty, using their already developed skills and strengths to build
their own enterprises, and therefore helping the world. The chapter attempts to
explain these women entrepreneurs’ lives through the study of a well-established
community-based enterprise based in India, and identifies them as livelihood
entrepreneurs.
66
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 66 15/12/2017 07:53

ASPIRATIONS OF WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS IN POVERTY 67
Addressing poverty from the ground up

There are 702 million people living in extreme poverty (less than $1.25, purchasing
power parity) in the world today (World Bank, 2015). With our current approaches
to poverty eradication, it will take more than 100 years to lift these people out
of poverty (Woodward, 2015). Seventy percent of the world’s poorest people are
women, and they lack access to basic credit, money and opportunities (ILO, 2008).
Research indicates that giving women in poverty access to credit and business
opportunities may be more beneficial to society in general than giving this access
to men, because women tend to invest it in the future such as in the health and
education of children (ILO, 2008; Premchander, 2003). Thus, this chapter will dis-
cuss women entrepreneurs – possibly a key factor in poverty reduction – from the
ground up.
Entrepreneurship, in its common form, is ‘the combination of a context in which

an opportunity is situated, a set of personal characteristics required to identify
and pursue this opportunity and the creation of a particular outcome’ (Martin and
Osberg, 2007). Social entrepreneurship, on the other hand, is loosely defined as
entrepreneurship with the explicit intent of improving society or pooling resources
to address a social need (Martin and Osberg, 2007; Ratten and Welpe, 2011). Many
other forms of entrepreneurship have been studied in the literature. In Table 4.1,
the author has compiled a list of their definitions, themes how they may be grouped,
as well as indicated where research exists on that form of entrepreneurship with
relation to women.
The author intends to contribute a new definition of ‘entrepreneur’ that has been
largely overlooked in the current literature; one that is somewhere on a continuum
between the concepts of social entrepreneurship and traditional entrepreneurship.
An entrepreneur must first meet her family’s basic needs before she can dream
about expanding or helping others. But because the entrepreneurs are living in
poverty themselves, they are helping the world just by helping themselves. Thus
these entrepreneurs have a dual purpose of both achieving poverty reduction (for
the entrepreneur herself and her family) as well as building broader opportunities
in impoverished communities for the future.
In this chapter the author first introduces and develops this type of entrepreneur,
called the livelihood entrepreneur, and explains how it differs from other forms of
entrepreneurship due to the entrepreneur’s goals in the context of poverty. The
concept proposes that the livelihood entrepreneur herself has the opportunity to
participate in the actions that affect her life and the lives of her family and commu-
nity; and in this context is able to bring herself and her community out of poverty.
The concept is developed by a series of propositions to differentiate livelihood
entrepreneurs from other entrepreneurs. It seeks to examine women entrepre-
neurs’ aspirations in a distinct context: that of poverty. Thus, the research question
driving this study is: What are the distinguishing characteristics of women entre-
preneurs living in the context of poverty?

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 67 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 4.1 Different forms of entrepreneurship, their themes, and research on women for each form
Theme Type Definition Studies on women entrepreneurs
Overall ‘any attempt at new business or new venture creation, Women’s businesses are becoming more commonplace
such as self-employment, a new business organization, or throughout the world (Anthias and Mehta, 2003; Carter and
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 68
the expansion of an existing business, by an individual, a Cannon, 1992; Heemskerk, 2003; Marlow, 1997; Serdedakis
team of individuals, or an established business’ (Reynolds et al., 2003).
et al., 1999: 3); ‘the combination of a context in which an
opportunity is situated, a set of personal characteristics
required to identify and pursue this opportunity and the
creation of a particular outcome’ (Martin and Osberg,
2007).
Motivation Social entre- ‘combines the passion of a social mission with an image May be an intervention from outside the community such as
preneurship of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), a women’s
commonly associated with, for instance, the high-tech co-operative in India (Datta and Gailey, 2012); or may be
pioneers of Silicon Valley’ (Dees, 1998). from within the community, ‘a process involving the innova-
tive use and combination of resources to pursue opportuni-
ties to catalyze social change and/or address social needs’
(Mair and Marti, 2006: 2006: 37).
Opportunity- Where they have many options and they choose this one Less evident in women in developing countries (Hernandez et
based (Thurik and Wennekers, 2001; Wennekers et al., 2005; al., 2012).
Wennekers et al., 2010); ‘the pursuit of unexploited or
underexploited business opportunities’ (Acs, 2006).
Necessity- Individuals in developing countries who start small enter- Women entrepreneurs’ motivation is necessity (Buttner,
based prises out of necessity (Brewer and Gibson, 2014); last 1993; Hisrich and Brush, 1983; Schrier, 1975), particularly if
resort where there are no other options left (Acs, 2006). they are members of ethnic minorities (Smith-Hunter and
Boyd, 2004).

Subsistence ‘entrepreneurial actions undertaken by individuals living in Not used yet by others specifically for women, but there is a
poverty’ (Viswanathan et al., 2014: 213). marketing study using women: Venugopal et al. (2015).
15/12/2017 07:53
Livelihood ‘a study of entrepreneurs living in poverty who create Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) entrepreneurs
value for the world by sustaining their own family liveli- in India (Trivedi, 2014).
hoods and thus lift themselves out of poverty . . . Because
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 69
these entrepreneurs are living in poverty themselves, they
are helping the world just by helping themselves. Thus
these entrepreneurs have a dual purpose of both achieving
poverty reduction (for the entrepreneur herself and her
family) as well as building broader opportunities in impov-
erished communities for the future’ (Trivedi, 2014).
Ownership Family busi- Business governed and/or managed with the intention Women not usually chosen to head up family business
or opera- ness to shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a (Sharma et al., 1996: 22). Yet, ‘globally, family-owned and
tions dominant coalition controlled by members of the same family-controlled businesses have higher percentages of
family or a small number of families in a manner that is women in the c-suite – as well as in top management posi-
potentially sustainable across generations of the family or tions and on the board – than other types of companies’
families (Chua et al., 1999). (Moran, 2015).
Community- ‘a community acting cooperatively as both entrepre- Study of intrapersonal resources and success in women’s
based neur and enterprise of the common good’ (Peredo and community-based enterprises (Katongole et al., 2015); there
Chrisman, 2006: 310). is much need for studies about gender in community entre-
preneurship (Vestrum, 2016).
Size Micro- ‘Characteristics are: owner-operator with 10 employees Can help women out of poverty and gender constraints
enterprise or less, no separation of household and business finances, (Apitzsch, 2003; Wahid, 1994); does not necessarily alleviate
high percentage of women owners, fixed assets of poverty for low-income women (Strier, 2010).
US$20, 000 or less, heavy reliance on family labor, limited
access to the formal financial sector, little management
and technical training, limited access to business support

services’ (IADB, 1998: 19).
15/12/2017 07:53
The author attempts to shed light on the aforementioned research question through
an in-depth qualitative study of 134 women livelihood entrepreneurs associated
with the education and training intervention SEWA (the Self-Employed Women’s
Association) in the context of impoverished communities in urban and rural com-
munities around Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. Conducted verbally and through a
combination of semi-structured interviews, and a study of panel data, this research
is about what hopes and dreams the women livelihood entrepreneurs have for
themselves and their families, as well as their goals for the businesses they have
built.
The livelihood entrepreneur
Business in the twenty-first century is not just about making profit, but also about
creating shared value, innovation and social cooperation (Freeman et al., 2007;
Porter, 2011). Value may be created in many ways, but this chapter is most con-
cerned with co-creating value for mutual benefit both for entrepreneurs living
in poverty and thus also for society through poverty alleviation (Griffin, 2016;
Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Simanis et al., 2008). However, to understand how
entrepreneurs can help to alleviate poverty, we must first understand the context of
poverty (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Peterson, 1988).
What is poverty?
There are many definitions of both poverty and poverty alleviation. While most
believe that poverty is only about economic means, some believe it is more than
that: it is ‘a deprivation of basic capabilities’ (Anand et al., 2006; Drèze et al., 1997;
Sen, 1999, 1997, 1973). The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights
(UNHCHR) has a comprehensive definition: ‘Poverty: a human condition char-
acterized by the sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities,
choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard
of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights’ (UNHCHR,
2001). As of the twenty-first century, more than 2 billion people cannot meet their
basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, access to health care, clean water, sanitation
and education (Sachs, 2005). To humanize it further, approximately 27,000 chil-
dren die every day from poverty, from absolutely preventable disease and starvation
(Singer, 2009).
Framework for poverty

The most widely accepted framework for poverty separates poverty into extreme,
moderate and relative forms (Sachs, 2005; UN Millennium Project, 2006; UNDP,
2012). Extreme poverty is when one lives on less than US$1 per day, at purchasing
power parity (ppp) (Sachs, 2005). Purchasing power parity means this is reflecting
the kinds of things we would actually be able to buy for $1 in the United States, not
items that a dollar can buy in the developing world (ibid.). Individuals who have an

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 70 15/12/2017 07:53

income of between US$1‒US$2 per day (ppp) are considered to live in moderate
poverty (ibid.). Those with a household income less than the national average in
their country, and who lack resources that would be taken for granted on the aver-
age income in their country, are considered to be living in relative poverty (ibid.).
Conventionally, the motivation for business creation in the context of poverty is

simple: if basic needs such as food, water and shelter are not met, higher-order
needs cannot be met either (Maslow, 1943). However, what Maslow (and perhaps
many in the Western world) presumes to be the lowest-level needs for someone
living in poverty are not necessarily what the impoverished person perceives to be
their first level of needs. This chapter thus challenges Maslow’s theory that identi-
fies impoverished people in a conventional manner, and instead considers pov-
erty to be a ‘varied and multidimensional’ (Sen, 1973) deprivation, which includes
access to basic needs, income, dignity, well-being and social capital (ibid.). If this
definition of poverty is assumed, the process by which poverty is alleviated must be
multidimensional as well.
The end of poverty (solutions)

Poverty is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed, but there are extremely
different points of view as to who should take on the responsibility to end it, and
how. The conventional yet short-term solution was through basic needs assistance
and foreign aid, such as in the Peace Corps. There are many other solutions, includ-
ing empowerment, giving impoverished people more options in consumption and,
finally, poverty alleviation from the ground up, which will be explored in the fol-
lowing paragraphs.
Empowerment
While basic needs are certainly necessary in the direst conditions, the endless
amount of money that has been sent down the ‘aid’ tube has not ended the problem
of poverty (Karlan and Appel, 2011). Global humanitarian aid agencies began to get
used to the idea of empowerment and ‘teaching to fish’ so as to create longer-term
solutions. Academic definitions of empowerment are varied, meaning: the free-
dom to spend, and ability to share household responsibilities (Devi, 1982), taking
responsibility, achieving self-confidence (Gielnik and Warren, 1995), enhancing
power to make decisions (Devi, 1982; Gielnik and Warren, 1995), to achieve recog-
nition, involvement and a sense of worth in jobs (Vogt and Murrell, 1990).
It is rare that those empowered would give back to their own communities of
poverty, because education may be viewed as a ‘way out’, not a way to continue to
build and create value, yet it still did produce the result of poverty alleviation within
a community (Trivedi, 2005). In order to have a more macro poverty alleviation
result, there should be a feedback loop of empowerment that would filter into the
communities that need poverty alleviation most. There are interventions which do
just this, and this chapter will explore one of them in more depth.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 71 15/12/2017 07:53

Poverty alleviation as consumption

In the last century, there have been some ideas about viewing the ‘aspiring poor’
as a lucrative emerging market (Prahalad and Hart, 2002). Since two-thirds of the
world’s population is poor, it does seem that in numbers there are many who would
be able to consume more. But since the majority of those people have less than $1
(ppp) a day (Prahalad and Hart, 2002), the only types of product for which multina-
tionals could view them as potential consumers would be those that are necessary
to fulfill their basic needs, such as laundry detergent (Chandon and Guimaraes,
2007). While some scholars still assert that consumption can also alleviate poverty
(Prahalad, 2011), there is skepticism as to whether or not viewing them as consum-
ers is the way to ‘alleviate poverty’, or whether it is just shifting the definition of
poverty and alleviating our guilt (Karnani, 2005).
Why poverty alleviation from the ground up

There is a new surge to view these emerging markets not just as consumers, but
as potential producers as well (Prahalad, 2011). C.K. Prahalad would argue that
poverty alleviation is about improving access (both consumption and production)
more specifically: ‘Poverty alleviation is, simply, improving the disposable income
for families ‒ by reducing the costs of services, improving [their] quality, and releas-
ing their time to do work that is productive’ (Prahalad, 2011). Karnani (2007) posits
that instead of selling to the poor, to alleviate poverty we must view them as busi-
nesses to buy from, and ‘raise the real income of the poor’.
Recently, these ideas of improving consumption and production have progressed

to be viewed as ground-up solutions to ending the poverty problem. ‘Enabling local
communities and individuals to convert their ideas into products and services – by
blending modern science and technology, design and risk capital – constitutes the
heart of grassroots innovation’ (Gupta, 2013: 18). A laudable example of grassroots
innovation is the HoneyBee Network, where innovators at the base of the economic
pyramid can harness their ideas and make them accessible to others (Gupta, 2013).
Even William Easterly, a well-known anti-aid economist, has praised the ground-
up solutions to poverty problems via ‘searchers’ who find the reality at the ‘bottom’
and find things that work (Easterly, 2006). This chapter explains some realities in
this context, and highlights some that work by demonstrating when people find
solutions from the bottom up. Thus, it begins with women living in poverty who are
able to create livelihoods for themselves and their families.
The purpose of entrepreneurship in the context of poverty

Seventy percent of the world’s impoverished people are women, and they tradi-
tionally lack access to credit, jobs and money (ILO, 2015). Because women tend
to invest in their children first (ILO, 2008; Premchander, 2003), addressing how
women may receive that access to credit, jobs and money is important. In fact,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 72 15/12/2017 07:53

closing gender gaps ‘can enhance economic productivity, improve development

outcomes for the next generation, and make institutions and policies more rep-
resentative’ (Revenga and Shetty, 2012). While much literature has focused on
women’s micro-enterprise, it has not demonstrated itself to be an exit out of pov-
erty (Bates and Servon, 1998). Entrepreneurship has become more widely consid-
ered as ‘critical to economic development and sustainability worldwide’ (Kelley et
al., 2014). Women’s entrepreneurship in the developing-world context thus needs
more research as a possible way to help eradicate poverty.
Insights from the entrepreneurship literature are lacking when it comes to uncer-
tain environments, and more specifically in the context of poverty. Since uncer-
tainty is at the heart of entrepreneurship, there are studies on how and when
entrepreneurs bear uncertainty (McMullen and Shepherd, 2006), but these disre-
gard those who lack basic needs such as food security and choice. Entrepreneurs
are defined as those who create value by identifying and seizing opportunities in a
particular context, and also hold certain personal attributes such as entrepreneurial
spirit, are inspired, creative, courageous, possess fortitude, and take direct action
(Dees et al., 2001; Drucker, 1995; Low and MacMillan, 1988; Martin and Osberg,
2007; Schumpeter, 1975).
Early entrepreneurship literature focused on entrepreneur characteristics to

explain outcomes (Aldrich and Wiedenmayer, 1993; Gartner, 1988; Tolbert et al.,
2011), and assumed that the main goal of new venture (value) creation was profit
(Chrisman et al., 1998; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006). Eventually there was a lot
more on social entrepreneurship (Desa and Basu, 2013; Spear, 2006), and literature
began to look at the top-down microcredit policies that would fund entrepreneurs
in the developing world (Schreiner and Woller, 2003; Dowla, 2006). More recently
there has begun to be more literature on bottom-up approaches to microcredit
(Imai et al., 2012; Khandker, 2005), where the idea is to help livelihood entrepre-
neurs come up with their own goals and approaches to how they may lift them-
selves out of poverty.
As academics we should test our assumptions, because the current knowledge

about entrepreneurship may not apply to entrepreneurs who live in a multidimen-
sional uncertainty like poverty. In the same vein, social entrepreneurship literature
assumptions may not apply either, because people who have not yet met their most
basic needs may not choose to explicitly help society with their mission (Martin
and Osberg, 2007). Thus it is imperative that we study entrepreneurs in economic
uncertainty because of lack of access and resources, in order to continue our pursuit
of economic progress and knowledge. In the entrepreneurship literature currently
there is a disconnection between looking at the micro (the individual) and the
macro (overall societal betterment), and thus the author examines the individual
entrepreneur herself as the unit of analysis.
An entrepreneurship theory that is closely related to the new concept of livelihood

entrepreneurship is called the community-based enterprise (CBE), proposed to

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 73 15/12/2017 07:53

be a way to attain sustainable local development (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006). In

this case, the meaning of sustainable local development is to improve the quality of
life and meet the needs of those in the local community – which includes poverty
reduction – while still preserving the environment (Rees, 1998; Smith, 1994). The
characteristics of a CBE include basing new ventures on local community skills,
dependence on community participation, and a multiplicity of goals (Peredo and
Chrisman, 2006). A multiplicity of goals is also present in the concept of livelihood
entrepreneurship, and is therefore a good place to begin. Finally, CBEs ‘treat the
entrepreneur and the enterprise as embedded in a network of relationships . . .
[and] the community . . . [is] endogenous to the enterprise and the entrepreneurial
process’ (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006: 310).
However, there are clear differences between CBEs and livelihood entrepreneurs
as well. While CBEs offer a multiplicity of goals for the entrepreneur, livelihood
entrepreneurship is more specific: stability and survival of the family, creation of
a livelihood for the family, is the aspiration. It is a CBE, but specific to subsistence
marketplaces (Sridharan and Viswanathan, 2008; Viswanathan and Rosa, 2007;
Viswanathan et al., 2010). There have been qualitative studies to further differ-
entiate the contexts and cultures of subsistence consumer-merchants (SCMs) in
South India that give some insight in unstable environments (Viswanathan et al.,
2010).
Livelihood creation
While studying poverty alleviation in more depth, the author sat with students in
India who would be classified as ‘street’ or ‘slum’ children, discussing power, and
those students explained that for their families (who are living in poverty), family
livelihood is the goal. This means that making sure that their families have a steady
stream of basic needs (not just for today and tomorrow) was most important, and
was prioritized above all else. Furthermore, poverty alleviation is about people who
are trying to make changes in their lives on a daily basis: it is not just a theoretical
notion, it is about real individuals, their families and their daily lives:
Proposition 1: For the livelihood entrepreneur, the goal of her business is to create a
livelihood for herself and her family.
Livelihood entrepreneurship is a means to alleviate poverty that creates value by

empowering and creating livelihoods for and by the very people who need it most.
This is a study of entrepreneurs who live in poverty and create value for the world by
sustaining their own family livelihoods, identified here as livelihood entrepreneurs.
Current entrepreneurship literature is still just beginning to include observations

of entrepreneurs who are living in extreme poverty, especially through studies of
micro-enterprise (Strier, 2010; Bates and Servon, 1998). The author assumes that
the study of entrepreneurship is to ‘explain and facilitate the role of new enterprise
in furthering economic progress’ (Low and MacMillan, 1988), and that it is there-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 74 15/12/2017 07:53

fore imperative that furthering economic progress be studied in all parts of society,
especially among the most downtrodden. The new concept of livelihood entrepre-
neurship could fill the gap in the literature about entrepreneurs who are living in
poverty and lifting themselves out of it.
The entrepreneurship literature has distinguished between necessity-based and

opportunity-based nascent entrepreneurship (Brewer and Gibson, 2014; Kelley
et al., 2014). Most would imagine that those living in poverty are all necessity-
based entrepreneurs, those individuals who create businesses primarily because
of involuntary job loss and the scarcity of vacancies (Thompson, 2003). This
chapter seeks to distinguish livelihood entrepreneurship from concepts such
as those aforementioned and CBE. Livelihood entrepreneurship does not have
to do with the beginnings of entrepreneurial activity; it may have begun either
as necessity-based (a last resort where there are no other options left) or as
opportunity-based forms of nascent entrepreneurship (where there are many
options and one is chosen) (Wennekers et al., 2005; Wennekers et al., 2010). Nor
does livelihood entrepreneurship deal with the macro-level sustainable develop-
ment issue, as CBEs do (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006). While livelihood entre-
preneurship is about survival, it is not just about subsistence, because it has the
additional embedded component of helping the world without the intention of
helping the world (Sridharan et al., 2014; Viswanathan et al., 2014; Viswanathan
and Rosa, 2007; Viswanathan et al., 2010). Livelihood entrepreneurship is about
sustainability on many levels: sustaining the venture that an entrepreneur
has already created, as well as sustaining their own lives and the lives of their
families.
Livelihood entrepreneurship is the most basic form of entrepreneurship that has

to occur first for those living in poverty, before the traditional entrepreneurship, or
social entrepreneurship, tends to occur. First, the basic needs (livelihood c reation)
of an entrepreneur need to be fulfilled, before there can be an intent to move
toward other needs (such as expansion):
Proposition 2: The livelihood entrepreneur is currently not interested in expanding

her business.
Social entrepreneurship, in particular, goes beyond the initial stages and thus sets
itself apart because it is where the basic needs of that entrepreneur most likely
have already been met. Social entrepreneurship may not apply to livelihood entre-
preneurs, because only a person who has met their most basic needs may choose
to explicitly help society with their mission (Martin and Osberg, 2007). While
some social entrepreneurs do come from the ‘Other 90%’ (Gupta, 2013) most social
entrepreneurs come from social and economic wealth (Zahra et al., 2009). This
chapter therefore proposes that entrepreneurs living in the context of poverty do
not intend to help broader society in the way a social entrepreneur does:

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 75 15/12/2017 07:53

Proposition 3: The livelihood entrepreneur is not motivated by the intention to help

broader society with her business.
The livelihood entrepreneur herself has the opportunity to participate in the actions
that affect her life and the lives of her family and surrounding community, and in
this context it means being able to bring herself and her community out of poverty:
Proposition 4: The livelihood entrepreneur aspires to help herself, her family, and her
immediate surrounding community.
Because the CBE is so deeply connected to the livelihood entrepreneur, this chapter
explains livelihood entrepreneurship through the study of a well-established CBE.
In this particular study, the author does not examine the specific CBEs (micro-
enterprises) of the livelihood entrepreneurs themselves, but rather an overarching
CBE that has intervened to help these livelihood entrepreneurs establish their own
micro-enterprises.
Research design: methodology and setting
The ‘new commons’ approach to development (Hawken, 2007) provides that since
people who live at base of the pyramid (BoP) do not have the resources to lift
themselves out of poverty, the ‘top of the pyramid’, those with the resources, can
improve BoP access through both consumption and production. However, the top
of the pyramid does not know exactly how to help.
In this chapter the author makes the assumption that improving the quality of
livelihood by giving people access to choices, opportunity and social capital is the
essence of poverty alleviation (Sen, 1985). Social capital is the ability to use one’s
relationships as well as the network of the relationships (Granovetter, 1985; Levin,
2008; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). In a previous study by the author, through
careful examination of a few networks in which a trade union in India called SEWA
has been an intervention, it seems that women have gained skills and social capital
because of the organization (Trivedi, 2014). This study therefore assumes that the
social capital of a women entrepreneur in the context of poverty affects her ability
to lift herself out of poverty, since this is one of the primary advantages that the
SEWA intervention gives women (Trivedi, 2014).
New approaches in BoP strategy are appealing, and include business co-ventures,
which create shared value for those in poverty and those who are at the top of the
pyramid as well (Porter, 2011; Simanis et al., 2008). These new business co-ventures
are when those at the BoP are not just consumers or producers, but partners in the
co-creation of value (Griffin, 2016; Hawken, 2007; Simanis et al., 2008). In order to
co-create, the top of the pyramid must understand the context of poverty and how
there have been successes, to sustain livelihoods. The top of the pyramid must also
understand that those living in poverty do not identify themselves as impoverished,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 76 15/12/2017 07:53

but rather identify themselves as change-makers. The intention for this qualitative
study is to aid that better understanding of livelihood entrepreneurs’ experiences,
and to help explain what these successful women actually want.
Research setting
India
As a foreigner traveling the world from the United States, poverty always seems
shocking and apparent when first seen in Asia, Latin America and Africa. For
many, poverty is particularly overwhelming in India, due to the concentration of
poverty as well as dense overpopulation throughout the country. For this reason,
this study is based in India. Additionally, this research focuses on women because,
while the gender gap is narrowing, there are still more men than women glob-
ally who are active entrepreneurs (Kelley et al., 2014: 7). However, the likelihood
of entrepreneurs being female is close to equal or higher than that of being male
in ten countries, all of which are developing (Kelley et al., 2014: 8). The type of
entrepreneurship that exists in these countries must be significantly different for
this to occur. Since India is not one of these nations where the ratio of female to
male entrepreneurs is high, it makes sense to study women entrepreneurs with
low incomes in India, to gain more knowledge about Indian women entrepreneurs
(Kelley et al., 2014: 83).
Ethnic entrepreneurship and social networks

If we explore the theory of CBE and those of ethnic entrepreneurship (Aldrich
and Waldinger, 1990; Bonacich, 1973; Light and Rosenstein, 1995; Waldinger et
al., 1990), it is found that there are some culturally embedded institutions that
shape the founding of new enterprises (Brandl and Bullinger, 2008; Tolbert et al.,
2011). This indicates that we must look at not just new enterprises creating liveli-
hoods in the context of poverty, but also those that may have cultures that nurture
entrepreneurship; thus the necessity to specify a cultural group or ethnicity arises.
This chapter explores livelihood entrepreneurship in the context of India, one of
the four BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India China), and has been an emerging
market of interest over the last several decades (Palepu et al., 2010). However, India
has many different states with different cultures and different economic and social
policies, so it is necessary to narrow down further. The author chose Gujarat as the
research setting because of its liberal economic policies, and because it is a state in
India from where many entrepreneurs have originated (Kalnins and Chung, 2006;
Tsui-Auch, 2005).
Gujarat
As most economies in the world began, the history of India’s economy began
with small businesses. More specifically, in modern South Asian history, Gujarati
and Marwadi merchants, entrepreneurs and bankers (Hindu, Jain and Muslim)

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 77 15/12/2017 07:53

traded and established businesses throughout India, and they without a doubt
helped India’s economy extensively (Leonard, 2011). Gujarat or Rajasthan would
therefore be an ideal place to start when beginning a research study on Indian
entrepreneurship.
Women
Using women as the primary participants is justified because India has a lower
percentage of necessity-based early-stage male entrepreneurs than female, when on
average there is a higher percentage of early-stage female entrepreneurs through-
out the rest of the world (Singer et al., 2014: 85). Historically, research has dem-
onstrated that women have not had equal access to financial resources (Brush et
al., 2002; Kelley et al., 2014). While this inequality is also historically accurate for
Indian women, there is in addition a distinct history of resilience and civil disobedi-
ence as well (for example, the Chipko movement). Hindus worship female forms of
their Ultimate Being and the Indian government has had female prime ministers
and heads of party. There are parts of India where a matriarchal society has existed
and still does (for example, Hindus in Kerala). For all of these reasons, Indian
women would be a unique and interesting set of respondents for this particular
entrepreneurship study.
SEWA
In Indian women’s studies literature, it is discussed that the best strategy to empower
women is through organizing and strengthening their roles in community-based
women’s groups (Gulati, 1993). In fact, in the particular case of women living in
poverty, the group approach has proven to be most effective for income genera-
tion (Nair, 1996). Thus, this is a study of female livelihood entrepreneurs, using the
Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) network intervention located in and
around Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
SEWA is a trade union of female laborers and entrepreneurs who are living in
poverty (SEWA, 2012). The organization is a well-known bounded network. The
women who are a part of the SEWA union receive training, subsidies and loans
from SEWA. Most importantly, they meet other women in their same line of work
in different villages, and get to talk about what different techniques are success-
ful and those that are not for their particular area. They build their weak ties, and
this is most helpful for their success (Granovetter, 1983; Trivedi, 2014). There are
special circumstances where SEWA also gives the women goods, and even ameni-
ties such as shelter or bathrooms. SEWA field workers are mostly women and men
from the local communities themselves, so the trust is built-in from the very begin-
ning. Women in the SEWA network have equal access to the financial resources
that historically have not been available to them (SEWA, 2012).

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 78 15/12/2017 07:53

Data
The targets of the survey are female adults, currently or previously a part of the
SEWA network or trade union. Women entrepreneurs in the SEWA network are
involved in many different types of work, primarily what their villages specialize in.
SEWA helps to build their capacity and helps to build their networks, so that they
may learn how to turn their work into thriving businesses. Different types of work
that SEWA helps with include fabric embroidery and other fabric artisans, animal
husbandry, salt production (through labor), street vending (selling vegetables, food
and some miscellaneous tourist items) and farming.
At the initial stage, SEWA identified five different trades to study from the many
different types of entrepreneurs that SEWA worked with: the professions chosen
were animal husbandry, farming, salt working, fabric embroidery and street vend-
ing. The trades decided upon were based on villages that had not been evaluated,
researched or visited by foreigners, in order to convey their value to SEWA. The
desired sample size of participants was determined to be 125, therefore as a next
step the author pre-determined 25 participants per profession. First, the author
looked at SEWA’s panel data for each of those five types of entrepreneurs in the
specific regions. Then the author conducted a personal interview with each partici-
pant between October 2013 and December 2013. Each interview lasted between 15
and 60 minutes long.
The total sample size for this study was 134 respondents in the SEWA network.
While the population size is unknown, the number of women in the SEWA net-
work in urban Ahmedabad alone (not including surrounding villages which were
part of the sample) was more than 179 000. The sample was approximately evenly
distributed between the five different trades (animal husbandry, farming, salt pro-
duction, street vending and fabric embroidery). Each village the author went to
specialized in one or more of the different entrepreneurial trades identified. Each
participant had attended meetings at SEWA, the trade union and co-operative that
had either trained them in skills or built their networks through meeting with other
village women who were in the same line of work. The mean education level of all
participants in the study was two years of school, and 68 percent of the population
sampled had no schooling at all.
The mean family income for all of the respondents at the time of the survey was
166 rupees per day, which is approximately US$2.75. The mean income for all
respondents before they joined SEWA was 61.4 rupees per day, which is approxi-
mately US$1. The number of people living under one roof with the respondent was
an average and median of six people, and the maximum was 15 people, while the
minimum was one person.
Table 4.2 displays some of the characteristics of the study sample. Also, it is impor-
tant to note that 80 percent of the participants were from rural geographic areas,
and only 20 percent were from urban areas.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 79 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 4.2 Summary of sample characteristics (% or mean)
Mean (from Median Max Min %

134 total)
Age 41.9 40 65 18
Education 2.07 years 0 11 0
None 67.9
1–4 years 6.59
5–6 years 8.95
7–8 years 10.4
9–12 years 5.97
Tenure at SEWA 11.22 12 26 1
Work tenure 21.27 20 60 2
Single 2.2
Engaged to be married 0.75
Married 86
Widow 11.1
Number living under one roof 6.044 6 15 1
Family income per day 226.4 166.66 2000 0
Income before SEWA 61.444 41.666 555.567 0
Rural 79.85
Urban 20.15
Street vendors 20
Animal husbandry 20
Fabric workers 20
Salt workers 18.66
Farmers 19.4
Retired 1.5
Research design
The author asked SEWA to supply panel data to validate family income differences
before and after joining SEWA, but the qualitative study is the primary mode of
inquiry via entrepreneur experiences. The author used survey method with the
respondents to collect qualitative data about their basic attributes as well as those
related to the research question. Since the research question was about distin-
guishing characteristics, and the author proposed that livelihood entrepreneurs are
distinct because of their goals and personal dreams and aspirations, the questions
specifically asked were: ‘What goals do you have for your business?’ and ‘What are
your personal hopes and dreams for yourself?’ Additionally, the author asked about
the SEWA intervention itself and wanted to know what it gave these women. The
author asked, ‘What did SEWA give you?’ and coded the answers.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 80 15/12/2017 07:53

Procedure
The author received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval after creating a
set of questions that indicated constructs and then translated the questions into
Gujarati and back to English to cross-check. While quantitative studies help to
demonstrate theoretical models, a qualitative study can give deeper insight as to
what is necessary for the particular groups studied to succeed. This qualitative
study addresses some (very few) characteristics of the entrepreneurs who have been
successful in the context of poverty. The SEWA intervention may or may not be
directly involved in this success, but asking livelihood entrepreneurs to explain it
in their own words was insightful. From the sample characteristics (see Table 4.2),
we see that the mean income of the sample data respondents went from ~US$1 a
day to ~US$2.75 per day after joining SEWA, so participation in the union seems to
possibly have some effect on their success.
The author conducted semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. The

author asked about participants’ attributes first, which developed Table 4.2 (sample
characteristics). Then the author asked an open-ended set of questions focused on
their aspirations and goals, and how they had changed over time. The author hoped
to enhance understanding on how Indian women livelihood entrepreneurs’ aspira-
tions and goals may be different than those of other types of entrepreneurs. In the
method, the author allowed for emergent patterns. The entrepreneurs interviewed
were those who had expanded their networks through SEWA and had success-
fully built businesses in the context of poverty. First, the author started with the
aagevaan, or the organizer of the group; usually the first woman to join SEWA in
the village. Then the author met with the women she had called to her home to
meet with the author. Each of the women was asked how their life had changed
because of SEWA, and what they wanted in life and for their businesses. After the
data were collected, the author coded the responses by finding general patterns
of frequency and codes, and comparing the different villages and different types
of work. Each of the responses was put into a different category: for hopes and
dreams, they were coded into both the business and personal; for personal, includ-
ing the entrepreneur herself and others, just the entrepreneur herself, just others,
and finally those refusing to give any response. The results are in Table 4.3.
For goals, they were coded based on content: money, expansion, another business
in the future, the idea of moving forward (coming ahead in Gujarati), wanting more
things (anything material), infrastructure, things personally, things more specific to
the future of the business, more work, comfort while working, livelihood-related,
and none. The results are in Table 4.4.
Results and implications

While quantitative studies help to demonstrate theoretical models, a qualitative
study can yield deep insight. Distinguishing characteristics of the livelihood entre-
preneur were revealed through this qualitative study. The first proposition related to

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 81 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 4.3 Summary of hopes and dreams
Categories/ Vendors Animal Fabric Salt Farmers Total %

Entrepreneur husbandrists artisans workers
business
Business and 6 1 6 3 4 20 0.14925

Personal
Personal: me and 7 5 9 2 6 29 0.21641
others
Only others 7 9 7 12 9 44 0.3283
Only me 5 9 4 4 2 24 0.1791
None 2 3 1 4 7 17 0.1268
Totals 27 27 27 25 28 134 1
Table 4.4 Summary of business aspirations
Goal No. of participants % of total number of Approx. %

who mentioned participants
m = money 11 0.082089552 8
e = expansion 18 0.134328358 13
se = another business in future 1 0.007462687 <1
a = come ahead 8 0.059701493 6
t = things 13 0.097014925 10
i = infrastructure 3 0.02238806 2
p = personal things 3 0.02238806 2
sp = future things specific to business 19 0.141791045 14
w = more work 9 0.067164179 7
c = comfort while working 1 0.007462687 <1
L = livelihood 4 0.029850746 3
N = None 68 0.507462687 >50
business goals being about livelihoods for these entrepreneurs (see Table 4.4). Only
49 percent of participants articulated goals for their businesses, and only 14 percent
said they would be interested in expansion. Proposition 2 proposed that expansion
was not yet part of livelihood entrepreneurs’ aspirations, and this was true for most
(but not all). If we delve deeper, this means that more than 50 percent of participants
did not reply with aspirations for their businesses. One even said specifically that
she would prefer to only have the business that she has now, and would not like any
more (that it was ‘enough’). Approximately 3 percent of participants replied that the
goal they had was just to maintain their livelihoods. One of those four respondents
said that she just wanted to be able to put food on the table every day. While this is
not a large number who explicitly stated that livelihoods were their goals, the fact

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 82 15/12/2017 07:53

that less than 15 percent mentioned expansion and more than 50 percent did not
have goals for their businesses implies that both hypotheses are worth exploring
further. The third proposition was about the livelihood entrepreneur not explicitly
stating she wanted to help society. This was not mentioned in any of the participants’
goals or hopes and dreams, except for one, who mentioned peace but only for her
surrounding community. While certainty cannot be claimed about these entrepre-
neurs’ goals, this gives deeper insight into the goals of livelihood entrepreneurs.
The fourth proposition was about who exactly the entrepreneurs intend to help.
When asked about personal hopes and dreams (see Table 4.3), 57 percent of par-
ticipants spoke about their hopes and dreams for their children (even when asked
repeatedly about themselves). Thirty-three percent of all participants spoke only
of others, and said nothing about themselves at all; and 22 percent spoke of a mix
between their own personal hopes and dreams and those of others, who were in
every case specifically their family and community members. Approximately 15
percent spoke of their business in combination with their own personal hopes and
dreams (that sometimes included others as well). Thirteen percent either would
not answer this question or actually stated that they had no hopes or dreams. This
indicates that while we cannot be certain that livelihood entrepreneurs aspire to
help themselves, their family and their immediate community members, it seems to
have held true within this dataset.
These findings imply that aspirations are culturally and perhaps even socio-
economically contextual, because while these women had been successful and able
to lift themselves out of poverty, very few women (14 percent) spoke of expanding
their businesses, and many did not speak about dreams for their own futures. The
study also clearly outlined how respondents felt that SEWA had helped them build
their livelihoods (four of the respondents even mentioned the translation for ‘liveli-
hoods’ when asked what SEWA had given them). Since 48 percent of participants
in this study credited SEWA for their education or training for work, it seems the
SEWA intervention was an education intervention. The livelihood entrepreneur
may need this type of intervention in order to succeed.
Future directions and conclusion

Future directions
Because of the conceptual introduction of livelihood entrepreneurship, the author
may be able to further clarify the concept through future research. First, there is
an opportunity to look more closely at community-based interventions like SEWA
and observe how exactly they helped to train and empower these women. In par-
ticular, the study of the network that SEWA was able to build for these women is
of interest.
Second, there is an opportunity to examine the definition of poverty more closely by

examining the different changes that occurred for these successful e ntrepreneurs.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 83 15/12/2017 07:53

What happened? Did they change their behavior? Was there an increase in social
capital? Was there an increase in access to basic needs? Or was the increase primar-
ily in economic status?
Third, it would be an interesting conceptual project to identify the different ‘rungs’

of emergent entrepreneurs, and whether they might be distinguished by the level of
poverty the entrepreneurs hail from. The few women who did have aspirations for
the future of their enterprises in this study demonstrate that there is a ladder, and
it could be defined more clearly in the entrepreneurship literature. Finally, there is
an obvious opportunity to compare livelihood entrepreneur aspirations and goals
to those of traditional entrepreneurs or social entrepreneurs, in order to distinguish
this type of entrepreneur further.
Conclusion
In this chapter, the goals and aspirations of these successful women livelihood
entrepreneurs are evaluated in an attempt to explain how they may be distin-
guished from other entrepreneurs, and identified as change-makers rather than
women living in poverty. The author concludes that they are different in that they
do not have the same goals for their businesses as other entrepreneurs do, and their
intention is only to help themselves and their families, not to help the world. In this
way, the proposed distinction between traditional and social entrepreneurs appears
to be valid. Since the women in this study were all part of a thriving network of
SEWA women, it is important to note that this may be an integral aspect of suc-
cessful entrepreneurship at the base of the pyramid.
The study of livelihood entrepreneurs is just beginning. For now, we may recognize
there is a new type of woman entrepreneur: one who lifts herself and her family
from poverty and stimulates her developing-country economy. This, in turn, has
many positive effects on development and the world.
Note
1 Names have been changed to protect privacy.
References
Acs, Z. (2006), ‘How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?’, Innovations, 1(1), 97–107.
Aldrich, H.E. and R. Waldinger (1990), ‘Ethnicity and entrepreneurship’, Annual Review of Sociology,
16(1), 111–135.
Aldrich, H.E. and G. Wiedenmayer (1993), ‘From traits to rates: an ecological perspective on organiza-
tional foundings’, Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, 1, 145–195.
Anand, S., F. Peter and A. Sen (2006), Public Health, Ethics, and Equity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Anthias, F. and N. Mehta (2003), ‘The intersection between gender, the family and self-employment:
the family as a resource’, International Review of Sociology/Revue internationale de sociologie, 13(1),
105–116.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 84 15/12/2017 07:53

Apitzsch, U. (2003), ‘Gaining autonomy in self-employment processes: the biographical embedded-

ness of women’s and migrants’ business’, International Review of Sociology/Revue Internationale de
Sociologie, 13(1), 163–182.
Bates, T. and L. Servon (1998), ‘Microenterprise as an exit route from poverty: recommendations for
programs and policy makers’, Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(4), 419–441.
Bonacich, E. (1973), ‘A theory of middleman minorities’, American Sociological Review, 38(5),
583–594.
Brandl, J. and B. Bullinger (2008), ‘Entrepreneurship als institution: Gesellschaftlicher kontext und
individuelle perspektiven’, Sozialwissenschaftliche Aspekte des Gründungsmanagements in Die
Entstehung und Entwicklung junger Unternehmen im gesellschaftlichen Kontext, Hannover, 52–68.
Brewer, J. and S. Gibson (eds) (2014), Necessity Entrepreneurs: Microenterprise Education and Economic
Development. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brush, C.G., N. Carter, P.G. Greene, M.M. Hart and E. Gatewood (2002), ‘The role of social capi-
tal and gender in linking financial suppliers and entrepreneurial firms: a framework for future
research.’, Venture Capital, 4(4), 305–323.
Buttner, E. (1993), ‘Female entrepreneurs: how far have they come?’, Business Horizons, 36(2), 59–65.
Carter, S. and T. Cannon (1992), Women as Entrepreneurs: A Study of Female Business Owners, Their
Motivations, Experiences and Strategies for Success. London: Academic Press.
Chandon, P. and P.P. Guimaraes (2007), Unilever in Brazil (1997–2007): Marketing Strategies for Low-
Income Consumers. Fontainebleau: INSEAD.
Chrisman, J. J., A. Bauerschmidt and C.W. Hofer (1998), ‘The determinants of new venture perfor-
mance: an extended model’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1), 5–29.
Chua, J.H., J.J. Chrisman and P. Sharma (1999), ‘Defining the family business by behavior’,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.
Datta, P.B. and R. Gailey (2012), ‘Empowering women through social entrepreneurship: case study of a
women’s cooperative in India’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, May, 569–587.
Dees, J.G. (1998), ‘The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”’, Stanford University, Draft Report for the
Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Dees, J.G., J. Emerson and P. Economy (2001), Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs.
New York: Wiley.
Desa, G. and S. Basu (2013), ‘Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global
social entrepreneurship’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 26–49.
Devi, U.L. (1982), Status and Employment of Women in India. New Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corp.
Dowla, A. (2006), ‘In credit we trust: building social capital by Grameen Bank in Bangladesh’, Journal of
Socio-Economics, 35(1), 102–122.
Drèze, J., A.K. Sen and World Institute for Development Economics Research (1997), Indian
Development: Selected Regional Perspectives. Delhi; New York: Oxford University Press.
Drucker, P. (1995), Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper Business.
Easterly, W.R. (2006), The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So
Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin Press.
Freeman, R.E., J.S. Harrison and A.C. Wicks (2007), Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation,
and Success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gartner, W.B. (1988), ‘“Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question’, American Journal of Small
Business, 12(4), 11–32.
Gielnik, C. and S. Warren (1995), Empowering Yourself: Self Development for Women. New Delhi:
Universities Press.
Granovetter, M. (1983), ‘The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited’, Sociological Theory, 1,
201–233.
Granovetter, M. (1985), ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness’, American
Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 85 15/12/2017 07:53

Griffin, J.J. (2016), Managing Corporate Impacts: Co-creating Value. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gulati L. (1993), In the Absence of their Men: The Impact of Male Migration on Women. New Delhi:
SAGE Publications.
Gupta, A.K. (2013), ‘Tapping the entrepreneurial potential of grassroots innovation’, Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 11(3), 18–20.
Hawken, P. (2007), Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being, and Why
No One Saw it Coming. New York: Viking.
Heemskerk, M. (2003), ‘Self-employment and poverty alleviation: women’s work in artisanal gold mines’,
Human Organization, 62(1), 62–73.
Hernandez, L., N. Nunn and T. Warnecke (2012), ‘Female entrepreneurship in China: opportunity- or
necessity-based?’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 15(4), 411–434.
Hisrich, R.D. and C.G. Brush (1983), ‘The woman entrepreneur: implications of family, educational,
and occupational experience’, in J.A. Hornaday, J.A. Timmons and K.H. Vesper (eds). Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 255–270). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Imai, K.S., R. Gaiha, G. Thapa and S.K. Annim (2012), ‘Microfinance and poverty – a macro perspective’,
World Development, 40(8), 1675–1689.
Inter-American Development Bank (1998), ‘The microenterprise sector in Latin America and the
Caribbean’, Promoting Growth with Equity (pp. 1–27). Accessed September 13, 2017 at https://publi
cations.iadb.org/handle/11319/4728.
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2008), ‘Small changes big changes: women in microfinance’, ILO
Gender, Equality and Diversity Branch, Geneva, March 27. Accessed 10 June 2016 at http://www.ilo.
org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@gender/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_091581.pdf.
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2015), ‘Women at work’. Accessed September 13, 2017 at
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/
wcms_067595.pdf.
Kalnins, A. and W. Chung (2006), ‘Social capital, geography, and survival: Gujarati immigrant entrepre-
neurs in the US lodging industry’, Management Science, 2(2), 233–247.
Karlan, D.S. and J. Appel (2011), More than Good Intentions: How a New Economics is Helping to Solve
Global Poverty. New York: Dutton.
Karnani, A. (2005), ‘Misfortune at the bottom of the pyramid’, Greener Management International, 51,
99–110.
Karnani, A. (2007), ‘The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: how the private sector can
help alleviate poverty’, California Management Review, 49(4), 90–111.
Katongole, C., J.C. Munene, M. Ngoma, S. Dawa and A. Sserwanga (2015), ‘Entrepreneur’s intrapersonal
resources and enterprise success among micro and small scale women entrepreneurs’, Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 23(4), 405–447.
Kelley, D., C. Brush, C., P. Greene, M. Herrington, A. Ali and P. Kew (2014), ‘Special report: w omen’s
entrepreneurship’, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Wellesley, MA: Center for Women’s Leadership
at Babson College.
Khandker, S. (2005), ‘Microfinance and poverty: evidence using panel data from Bangladesh’, World
Bank Economic Review, 19(2), 263–286.
Leonard, K.I. (2011), ‘Family firms in Hyderabad: Gujarati, Goswami, and Marwari patterns of adoption,
marriage, and inheritance’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 53(4), 827–854.
Levin, D. Z. (2008), ‘Trust’, in S.R. Clegg and J.R. Bailey (eds), International Encyclopedia of Organization
Studies (pp. 1573–1579). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Light, I.H. and C.N. Rosenstein (1995), Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship in Urban America. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Low, M.B. and I.C. MacMillan (1988), ‘Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges’, Journal
of Management, 14(2), 139–161.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 86 15/12/2017 07:53

Mair, J. and I. Marti (2006), ‘Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and
delight’, Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
Marlow, S. (1997), ‘Self-employed women – new opportunity challenges?’, Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 9(3), 199–210.
Martin, R.L. and S. Osberg (2007), ‘Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition’, Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 5(2), 28–39.
Maslow, A. (1943), ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
McMullen, J.S. and D.A. Shepherd (2006), ‘Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the
theory of the entrepreneur’, Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
Moran, G. (2015), ‘Exclusive: this is the type of business most likely to promote women leaders’. Accessed
at http://fortune.com/2015/06/18/family-business-women-leaders.
Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal (1998), ‘Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage’,
Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nair, T.S. (1996), ‘Entrepreneurship training for women in the Indian rural sector: a review of approaches
and strategies’, Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 81–94.
Palepu, K.G., R.J. Bullock and T. Khanna (2010), Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy
and Execution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Peredo, A.M. and J.J. Chrisman (2006), ‘Toward a theory of community-based enterprise’, Academy of
Peterson, R. (1988), ‘Understanding and encouraging entrepreneurship internationally’, Journal of Small
Business Management, 26(2), 1.
Porter, M.E. (2011), ‘Creating shared value’, Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
Prahalad, C.K. (2011), ‘The big picture’, Preface, in T. London and S. Hart (eds), Next Generation
Business Strategies for the Base of the Pyramid (pp. xxvi–xxxii). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Prahalad, C.K. and S.L. Hart (2002), ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’, Strategy + Business, 26,
1–14.
Prahalad, C.K. and V. Ramaswamy (2004), The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with
Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Premchander, S. (2003), ‘NGOS and local MFIs – how increase poverty reduction through women’s
small and micro-entrerprise’, Futures, 35, 361–378.
Ratten, V. and I.M. Welpe (2011), ‘Special issue: community-based, social and societal entrepreneur-
ship’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5/6), 283–286.
Rees, G. (1998), Economic Development, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Revenga, A. and S. Shetty (2012), ‘Empowering women is smart economics’, Finance and Development,
49(1), 40–43.
Reynolds, P.D., M. Hay and S.M. Camp (1999), Executive Report. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
Boston, MA: Babson College and London Business School.
Sachs, J. (2005), The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Press.
Schreiner, M. and G. Woller (2003), ‘Microenterprise in the first and third worlds’, World Development,
31(9), 1567–1580.
Schrier, J.W. (1975), ‘Entrepreneurial characteristics of women’ in J. W. Schrier and J. Susbauer (eds)
Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development: A Worldwide Perspective, Milwaukee, WI: Centre for
Venture Management, 66–70.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1975), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
Sen, A. (1973), On Economic Inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (1985), Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Sen, A.K. (1997), Resources, Values, and Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1999), Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.
Serdedakis, N., G. Tsiolis, M. Tzanakis and S. Papaioannou (2003), ‘Strategies of social integration in the

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 87 15/12/2017 07:53

biographies of Greek female immigrants coming from the former Soviet Union: self-employment as
an alternative’, International Review of Sociology/ Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 13(1), 145–162.
SEWA (2012), ‘Ahmedabad, India’, www.sewa.org.
Sharma, P., J.J. Chrisman and J.H. Chua (eds) (1996), A Review and Annotated Bibliography of Family
Business Studies. Assinippi Park, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Simanis, E., S. Hart and D. Duke (2008), ‘Base of the pyramid protocol: beyond “basic needs” business
strategies’, Innovations, 3(1), 57–84.
Singer, P. (2009), The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. New York: Random House.
Singer, S., J.E. Amoros and D.M. Arreola (2014), Global Report, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
Boston, MA: Babson College and London Business School.
Smith, C. (1994), Economic Development, Growth, and Welfare. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Smith-Hunter, A.E. and R.L. Boyd (2004), ‘Applying theories of entrepreneurship to a comparative
analysis of white and minority women business owners’, Women in Management Review, 19(1),
18–28.
Spear, R. (2006), ‘Social entrepreneurship: a different model?’, International Journal of Social Economics,
33(5/6), 399–410.
Sridharan, S. and M. Viswanathan (2008), ‘Marketing in subsistence marketplaces: consumption and
entrepreneurship in a south Indian context’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(7), 455–462.
Sridharan, S., E. Maltz, M. Viswanathan and S. Gupta (2014), ‘Transformative subsistence entrepreneur-
ship: a study in India’, Journal of Macromarketing, 34(4), 486–504.
Strier, R. (2010), ‘Women, poverty, and the microenterprise: context and discourse’, Gender Work and
Organization, 17(2), 195–218.
Thompson, J.D. (2003), Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Thurik, R. and S. Wennekers (2001), ‘A note on entrepreneurship, small business and economic
growth’, Small Business and Economic Growth (January 2001, 11), ERIM Report Series Reference No.
ERS-2001-60-STR.
Tolbert, P.S., R.J. David and W.D. Sine (2011), ‘Studying choice and change: the intersection of institu-
tional theory and entrepreneurship research’, Organization Science, 22(5), 1332–1344.
Trivedi, S. (2005), ‘Smita in India’, Blog, accessed at sktrivedi.blogspot.com.
Trivedi, S. (2014), ‘Creating livelihoods: Indian women entrepreneur networks in the context of pov-
erty’, Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Tsui-Auch, L.S. (2005), ‘Unpacking regional ethnicity and the strength of ties in shaping ethnic entre-
preneurship’, Organization Studies, 26(8), 1189.
UN Millennium Project (2005), Investing in Development. New York: UN Secretary General and UN
Development Group, accessed November 17, 2017 at http://www.who.int/hdp/publications/4b.pdf.
UNDP (2017), Millennium Development goals: Eight Goals for 2015. Geneva: United Nations Development
Programme, accessed November 17, 2017 at http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sdgover-
view/mdg_goals.html.
UNHCHR (2001), ‘Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: poverty and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights’, Geneva: Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, accessed
Novemver 17, 2017 at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/statements/E.C.12.2001.10
Poverty-2001.pdf.
Venugopal, S., M. Viswanathan and K. Jung (2015), ‘Consumption constraints and entrepreneurial
intentions in subsistence marketplaces’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 34(2), 235–251.
Vestrum, I. (2016), ‘Integrating multiple theoretical approaches to explore the resource mobilization
process of community ventures’, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the
Global Economy, 10(1), 123–134.
Viswanathan, M., R. Echambadi, S. Venugopal and S. Sridharan (2014), ‘Subsistence entrepreneur-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 88 15/12/2017 07:53

ship, value creation, and community exchange systems: a social capital explanation’, Journal of
Macromarketing, 34(2), 213–226.
Viswanathan, M. and J.A. Rosa (2007), ‘Product and market development for subsistence marketplaces:
consumption and entrepreneurship beyond literacy and resource barriers’, in M. Viswanathan and
J.A. Rosa (eds), Product and Market Development for Subsistence Marketplaces. Oxford: Elsevier,
pp. 1–17.
Viswanathan, M., J.A. Rosa and J.A. Ruth (2010), ‘Exchanges in marketing systems: the case of subsist-
ence consumer-merchants in Chennai, India’, Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 1–17.
Vogt, J.F. and K.L. Murrell (1990), Empowerment in Organizations. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
Wahid, A. (1994), ‘The Grameen Bank and poverty alleviation in Bangladesh’, American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, 53(1), 1–15.
Waldinger, R., R. Ward, H. Aldrich and J. Stanfield (1990), ‘Ethnic entrepreneurs: immigrant business
in industrial societies’, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial
Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Wennekers, S., A. Van Stel and M. Carree (2010), The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and
Economic Development: Is it U-shaped?. Hanover, MA: Now Publishers.
Wennekers, S., A. Van Wennekers, R. Thurik and P. Reynolds (2005), ‘Nascent entrepreneurship and the
level of economic development’, Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293–309.
Woodward, D. (2015), ‘Incrementum ad absurdum: global growth, inequality and poverty eradication in
a carbon-constrained world’, World Social and Economic Review, 4. Accessed September 13, 2017 at
http://wer.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/WEA-WER-4-Woodward.pdf.
World Bank (2015), Global Monitoring Report 2015/2016; Development Goals in an Era of Demographic
Change. Accessed September 13, 2017 at www.worldbank.org/gmr.
Zahra, S.A., E. Gedajlovic, D.O. Neubaum and J.M. Shulman (2009), ‘A typology of social entrepreneurs:
motives, search processes and ethical challenges’, Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 89 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 90 15/12/2017 07:53

PART II
Behaviors

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 91 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 92 15/12/2017 07:53

5 On becoming an entrepreneur:
unpacking entrepreneurial identity
Eliana Crosina*
entrepreneurial identities serve as powerful entities that propel entrepreneurial actions . . .
the study of entrepreneurial roles and identities offers tremendous potential for research
in our field
(Murnieks and Mosakowski, 2007: 1, 7)
Introduction and chapter scope
As this opening quote indicates, the study of entrepreneurial identity constitutes

a promising area of research. Identity, in fact, has been found to influence entre-
preneurs’ thoughts and actions including, most notably, how they evaluate oppor-
tunities (e.g., Fauchart and Gruber, 2011) and how they respond to adversity (e.g.,
Powell and Baker, 2014) as they prepare to launch and run their organizations.
Thus, a closer understanding of the content and formation, as well as the upkeep
(or change) of entrepreneurial identity, may afford important insights into the
broader new venture creation process.
Despite recognizing entrepreneurial identity as something central to the behaviors

entrepreneurs engage in, to date, scholars have paid limited attention to it, particu-
larly in terms of what it entails (that is, its content), how people may develop it (that
is, the process they may follow to build it), and the potential differences gender may
play in the construction of the identities of women and men entrepreneurs. Indeed,
if research on entrepreneurial identity is still limited on the whole, research that
deals specifically with issues of identity and its construction among women entre-
preneurs is even sparser (see the work of Bruni et al., 2004; Díaz García and Welter,
2013; Lewis, 2013; and that of Marlow and McAdam, 2015, for notable exceptions).
Making matters worse, the research that does exist on entrepreneurial identity to
date (e.g., Murnieks and Mosakowski, 2007; Hoang and Gimeno, 2010; Fauchart
and Gruber, 2011; Navis and Glynn, 2011; Powell and Baker, 2014) provides vary-
ing definitions of entrepreneurial identity, leaving what it ‘is’, and ultimately how it
may affect behavior, still somewhat unclear.
Taken together, a better appreciation for the identities (and their construction)
among male and female entrepreneurs constitutes an important and promising
93
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 93 15/12/2017 07:53

endeavor, both theoretically and practically. From a theoretical standpoint, this

chapter argues that this focus has the potential to challenge some of the ‘bases’ (see
Cardador and Pratt, 2006), or some of the ‘raw materials’ that scholars have seen
individuals leverage to build their work identities, including certain pre-existing
social groups and roles. From a practical standpoint, a better understanding of
entrepreneurial identity (including its formation and upkeep) may afford new
insights into entrepreneurs’ actions, including those shared by male and female
entrepreneurs, as well as those that may set them apart.
Because research that focuses on entrepreneurial identity largely overlooks how

entrepreneurial identity forms and evolves (including areas of potential differ-
ence and/or overlap among men and women entrepreneurs), this chapter borrows
insights from sister disciplines that have addressed identity and its construction.
First, it reviews existing literature that has attempted to clarify what entrepre-
neurial identity consists of – highlighting why and how exactly this matters – that
is, the various ways in which entrepreneurial identity influences entrepreneurs’
thoughts and actions.
Second, it addresses how entrepreneurial identity may come to be. Insights from
the identity work literature in particular – a growing body of work that focuses on
‘individuals’ active construction of identity in social contexts’ (Pratt et al., 2006:
237) ‒ offer a promising start to make sense of how entrepreneurial identity might
form. Because this literature has largely focused on what professionals do to gain,
maintain or de-emphasize their work identities, this chapter compares identity
work dynamics among professionals with identity work dynamics among entre-
preneurs, highlighting those features of identity and its construction that may be
distinctive for women entrepreneurs. Finally, it suggests avenues for, and chal-
lenges associated with, future research, including aspects that may be of particular
significance when studying entrepreneurial identity among women entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurial identity: overview of existing literature
in the identity literature scarce attention has been paid to entrepreneurship as a site of
identity creation and interpretation. This is ironic because entrepreneurship may offer one
of the most visible instances of identity
(Navis and Glynn, 2011: 480)
Existing literature that addresses entrepreneurial identity has, over the years,
advanced various definitions of it. For example, Stanworth and Curran (1976: 104)
described entrepreneurial identity as the ‘several possible constellations of mean-
ings which may form the core of the entrepreneur’s self-definition of the entre-
preneurial role’; while Vesalainen and Pihkala (2000: 113) noted ‘entrepreneurial
identity . . . as a person’s inclination to adopt a certain type of occupational entre-
preneurial role’.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 94 15/12/2017 07:53

ON BECOMING AN ENTREPRENEUR: UNPACKING ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITY 95
Unlike Stanworth and Curran (1976) and Vesalainen and Pihkala (2000), who
respectively focused on individuals’ meanings around, and on their propensity to
take on, an entrepreneurial role, Watson (2009) and Nadin (2007) portrayed entre-
preneurial identity as a social resource, discursive and symbolic, that entrepre-
neurs strategically deploy primarily to gain legitimacy. Watson (2009), specifically,
showed how entrepreneurial identity may be dynamically negotiated as family
members engage in conversations about their roles in the future of their business;
while Nadin (2007) discussed how female business owners in the care sector play
up their gender to convey their identities as thoughtful entrepreneurs.
More recently, Powell and Baker (2014: 1406) talked about founder1 identity as
encompassing multiple sub-identities that are ‘chronically salient’ to entrepreneurs
in their daily work. They also argued that founder identities entail a combination
of role and social identities, and that congruence (or lack thereof) between how
founders see themselves, and who they aspire to be, influences their behaviors. At
the core of their conceptualization of founder identity is the idea that entrepre-
neurs carefully devise ‘role identities to express their social identities’ (Powell and
Baker, 2014: 1408).
Kašperová and Kitching (2014: 438) cast ‘entrepreneurial identity as a set of con-
cerns emergent from the embodied practices of agents committed to new venture
creation and management in relation to their natural, practical, and social environ-
ments’. In their theorizing, entrepreneurs need to show commitment to their role
to obtain validation from external stakeholders (including their customers, inves-
tors and collaborators.) In elaborating what founder role identities can do, Hoang
and Gimeno (2010) showed how different combinations of founder role centrality
and role complexity shape individuals’ capacity to engage in founding activities, as
well as their responses to negative feedback (Hoang and Gimeno, 2010: 41). Finally,
Navis and Glynn (2011) offered a broader definition of entrepreneurial identity,
also accounting for entrepreneurs’ claims around their organizations and markets.
Table 5.1 summarizes these various, as well as other, definitions.2
As these selected examples implicitly indicate, there appears to be little consensus

to date about entrepreneurial identity, in terms of both what it comprises as well
as how one may develop it. This is in part because extant definitions of entrepre-
neurial identity range considerably in scope, from some that focus solely on the
entrepreneur, to others that also encompass the entrepreneur’s team, their busi-
ness, and the markets in which they operate. Summarizing the state of research in
the field, Laakkonen (2012: 62‒63) noted that: ‘When it comes to entrepreneurial
identity . . . the scholarly literature of entrepreneurship has brought out many con-
cepts that have a strong semblance to it . . . entrepreneurial identity has [however]
not been given a . . . definition per se.’
Interestingly, despite the limited agreement around what entrepreneurial identity

‘is’, and on how it may come to be, scholars almost unanimously consider entrepre-
neurial identity as a key input to entrepreneurs’ thoughts and actions, thus implicitly

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 95 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 5.1 Selected definitions of entrepreneurial identity
Authors & Publication Definitions

References
Stanworth & Curran ‘…the several possible constellations of meanings which may form the
(1976: 104) core of the entrepreneur’s self definition of the entrepreneurial role…’
Vesalainen & Pihkala ‘…entrepreneurial identity can be defined as a person’s inclination to
(2000: 113) adopt a certain type of occupational entrepreneurial role.’
Nadin (2007: 465) [Entrepreneurial identity is framed as the constellation of] ‘...symbolic
spaces through the occupation of which they [entrepreneurs] seek
legitimacy and acceptance…’
Watson (2009: 255) ‘‘Entrepreneurial identity’ can thus be conceptualized as something
like a cultural stereotype – a characterization of a ‘persona’ that a par-
ticular individual may, for example, have attached to them by others...
or may embrace as part of their notion of self… We thus treat the
idea of an entrepreneurial identity as a discursive resource, something
that is part of the ‘linguistic repertoire’ (Potter and Wetherall, 1987)
of contemporary society that people, in different ways, in different
circumstances and with different degrees of emphasis make use of in
their social interactions…’
Shepherd & Haynie ‘…we define the business owner identity as the set of behavioral
(2009: 1251) expectations associated with the business owner role…’
Hoang & Gimeno ‘…an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about oneself in the
(2010: 42) founder role...’
Navis & Glynn ‘…the constellation of claims around the founder, new venture, and
(2011: 480) market opportunity as to ‘who we are’ and ‘what we do’’
Powell & Baker ‘...we broadly define founder identity as ‘the set of identities that is
(2014: 1409) chronically salient to a founder in her or his day-today work.’’
Kašperová & Kitching [Entrepreneurial identity is cast as] ‘… a set of concerns emergent from
(2014: 438) the embodied practices of agents committed to new venture crea-
tion and management in relation to their natural, practical, and social
environments.’
converging on what entrepreneurial identity ‘does’. To illustrate, Fauchart and

Gruber (2011: 936) described how founders’ identities shape the market oppor-
tunities they pursue, as well as the capabilities and resources they deploy to bring
their ideas to fruition; and Powell and Baker (2014) framed identity as a lens that
influences how entrepreneurs respond to adversity, advancing specifically that it
is the structure of founders’ identities that determines their response to it (see also
Shepherd and Haynie, 2009). Finally, Sarasvathy (2001) and Ireland and Webb (2007)
talked about entrepreneurial identity almost as a ‘seed’ fueling the new venture crea-
tion process. In Sarasvathy’s (2001: 250) words, entrepreneurs start out with ‘three
categories of means’, including ‘who they are’. Taken together, it is important to
unpack entrepreneurial identity to better understand entrepreneurial thought and

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 96 15/12/2017 07:53

action. To this end, Vesalainen and Pihkala (2000: 124) noted that when considering
‘the promotion of entrepreneurship, the development of entrepreneurial identities
becomes one of the most important areas of action’.
Another point of convergence among students of entrepreneurial identity seems

to be the flexible, tenuous nature of entrepreneurial identity; one that requires
active ‘work’ or upkeep on the part of individuals (e.g., Rae, 2004; Downing, 2005;
Shepherd and Haynie, 2009; Farmer et al., 2011). That said, we still do not know
much about how such an identity may exactly form and be sustained, and more
specifically what differences, if any, gender may make in how men and women go
about constructing their respective entrepreneurial identities. To this end, Ollila
et al. (2012: 1) lamented that: ‘There exists literature regarding identity and entre-
preneurship, but limited publications of these areas in combination. In particular,
nothing has been proposed regarding the process by which nascent entrepreneurs
construct identity.’
Understanding how entrepreneurial identity is constructed and maintained is

therefore important, for both theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, this
focus has the potential to problematize ‘traditional bases’ of identity construction.
According to Cardador and Pratt (2006: 174), the primary of ‘bases’ of identity
construction are relational, behavioral or symbolic; and include, specifically, pre-
existing social groups and roles, as well as symbols and artifacts.3 In other terms,
identity originates from a person’s organizational or occupational group, their
occupational roles, from the physical objects that comprise their work environ-
ments, as well as from the narratives and meanings that surround them.
The first two of these bases – that is, pre-existing social groups (e.g., Tajfel, 1978,
1982a, 1982b; Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and roles (e.g., Stryker, 1980; Stryker and
Serpe, 1982) ‒ at least on the face of it, appear problematic to account for the
experiences of entrepreneurs because no clearly defined groups and/or roles are
available for them to join or to take on, especially at the beginning of their journeys.
Thus, with no or limited supporting systems to rely on, they must craft their work
identities while at the same time building their respective work contexts (see also
Weick, 1979). This leaves us with symbols and artifacts as possible ‘bases’ of identity
construction.4
These matters become even more complex when we consider the role of gender
alongside entrepreneurial identity. To this end, several scholars (e.g., Bruni et al.,
2004; Díaz García and Welter, 2013; Lewis, 2013; Marlow and McAdam, 2015)
have cast entrepreneurial identity as something that entrepreneurs may stress or
de-emphasize, together with their gender, to gain legitimacy for themselves and for
their ventures. This research frames gender as a socially constructed category that
women in particular selectively draw upon when setting up and running their busi-
nesses. Further, it portrays ‘identity work’ (or the process of identity construction)
and ‘gender work’ (‘doing’ and ‘redoing’ gender) as inextricably connected (Díaz
García and Welter, 2013).

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 97 15/12/2017 07:53

Practically, given that entrepreneurial identity shapes entrepreneurial perception

and behavior, a better understanding of entrepreneurial identity may help us to
gain new insights into each entrepreneurial motivation and action, including those
motivators and behaviors that men and women possibly share, and/or others that
may set them apart. The paragraphs that follow build on the arguments sketched
so far leveraging ideas from identity scholars who have addressed issues of identity
construction in a range of work contexts, and particularly among professionals.
This discussion also highlights what may be unique and/or different when it comes
to the identities of women entrepreneurs.
Identity theories at a glance: building the foundations from sister

disciplines
Identity and identity work
At the individual level, identity may be thought of as ‘a self-referential descrip-
tion that provides contextually appropriate answers to the question “Who am I?”’
(Ashforth et al., 2008: 327). Over the past 30 years or so, scholars have come to use
the term ‘identity work’ or ‘identity construction’ to denote the range of activi-
ties people engage in to actively construct, maintain or de-emphasize their work
identity. Snow and Anderson (1987: 1348), for instance, noted that identity con-
struction relies on ‘(a) procurement or arrangement of physical settings and props;
(b) cosmetic face work or the arrangement of personal appearance; (c) selective
association with other individuals and groups; and (d) verbal construction and
assertion of personal identities.’ Later, Sveningsson and Alvesson (2003) advanced
that identity work is concerned with what people think and do to ultimately foster
their self-coherence and positive distinctiveness.
Sveningsson and Alvesson’s framing implies that identity work is motivated by

individuals’ need to achieve and preserve an overall positive sense of self. In their
review, Lepisto et al. (2015) discuss continuity, authenticity, belonging, self-esteem,
efficacy, coherence and meaning as additional motives for identity work; and
highlight that identity construction generally takes place in situations where such
motives are challenged (see also Ashforth, 2001; Alvesson et al., 2008). ‘Identity
motives’, as such, may be thought of as the fundamental reasons for identity work
(Lepisto et al., 2015).
Existing research that has begun to address identity work among women entrepre-
neurs has highlighted three primary motives as driving the construction of their
identities: (1) gaining legitimacy and acceptance from their stakeholders (in part to
secure the resources they need to set up and run their businesses; see Bruni et al.,
2004); (2) securing and maintaining self-coherence and authenticity in expressing
‘who they are’ through their organizations (see Lewis, 2013); and (3) managing the
‘gender gap’ (see Díaz García and Welter, 2013) .

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 98 15/12/2017 07:53

With respect to legitimacy, Marlow and McAdam (2015: 792) noted that: ‘For
women, claiming entrepreneurial legitimacy is particularly challenging given the
ethos of masculinity which informs this discourse and the associated identity
work it prompts.’ As this quote implies, entrepreneurship is not a ‘gender-neutral
phenomenon’ (e.g., Jennings and Brush, 2013: 679). To the contrary, entrepre-
neurial activity is shaped by the broader social systems in which entrepreneurs
are embedded. Thus, shared beliefs with respect to appropriate behaviors for men
and women influence both how and what entrepreneurs may do to build positive
identities.
Moreover, because ‘the normative entrepreneur is assumed to be “essentially more

masculine than feminine”’ (Collins and Moore, 1964: 5), Marlow and McAdam
(2015: 793) noted that ‘normative constructions of femininity do not fit well with
the historical or contemporary iterations of entrepreneurial identity’. This suggests
that women entrepreneurs, in comparison to their male counterparts, may need
to engage in more, and potentially different, forms of identity work in order to be
taken as seriously.
Finally, to determine appropriate identity work strategies, women must be aware

of the gender perceptions within the sectors they may be interested in entering,
in order to figure out how to ‘negotiate the dissonance between their ascribed
femininity and the masculinity inherent within entrepreneurship’ (Marlow and
McAdam, 2015: 794).
As inferred so far, when ‘identity motives’ are somehow activated, individuals

deploy a range of strategies – including cognitive, verbal and physical ‒ in efforts
to gain, maintain, grow or de-emphasize a given work identity. Cognitive strate-
gies have to do with people’s active reframing of a given set of circumstances. To
illustrate, Pratt et al. (2006) showed how medical residents engage in each identity,
splinting, patching or enriching (that is, leaning on an established identity until the
new identity fully forms, combining identities to make a new and better one, and
adding depth and nuance to their existing identities) to cope with the strenuous
demands of their residency program (see also Kreiner et al., 2006).
Verbal strategies, as the term suggests, involve the purposeful deployment of dis-
course. To this end, Ibarra and Barbulescu (2010: 135) described how individuals in
transition leverage different ‘narratives and other rhetorical strategies’ to preserve a
sense of coherence and continuity during destabilizing phases of their careers (see
also Fine, 1996; Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003;
Watson, 2008).
Physical tactics entail the use of artifacts as well as performances. For instance,
Elsbach (2003) noted organizational members’ different responses to non-territorial
work arrangements,5 and specifically their actions to assert and maintain positive
distinctiveness; and Pratt and Rafaeli (1997) brought to the fore the role of dress
in expressing nurses’ deeply held beliefs regarding their work roles and identities.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 99 15/12/2017 07:53

Emerging research on the strategies women entrepreneurs deploy to build and

maintain their entrepreneurial identities varies considerably. For example, Bruni
et al. (2004) showed that their identity work may entail the purposeful conceal-
ment of female founders’ identities, as well as balancing home and work-related
roles through the strategic deployment of narratives and actions. Díaz García
and Welter’s (2013) research on Spanish women entrepreneurs, and Marlow and
McAdam’s (2015) work chronicling the experiences of women founders part of a
high-tech incubator, described, on the one hand, these women engaging in differ-
ent behaviors to support existing gender differences; while on the other hand, they
drew attention to women’s unique expertise to challenge such differences. Finally,
Lewis’s (2013) study of English female entrepreneurs showed that these women,
in efforts to preserve their self-authenticity, rejected a ‘masculine’ approach to
business, accentuated their femininity, and stressed their professionalism. Taken
together, in all of these examples, irrespectively of the specific strategies women
deployed, their identity and gender work were inextricably connected.
Comparing the careers of professionals and entrepreneurs: challenging

traditional ‘bases’ of identity construction?
As this discussion so far alludes to, despite a growing focus on identity work among
entrepreneurs, issues of identity construction have to date largely been among
professionals – that is, among members of occupational groups who undergo
shared and protracted socialization – including, for instance, medical residents
(Pratt et al., 2006), consultants and investment bankers (Ibarra, 1999) and police
officers (Van Maanen, 1973, 1975).
Because entrepreneurs’ and professionals’ careers differ considerably, it is not sur-

prising that the straightforward applicability of traditional identity perspectives –
most notably, social identity theory and identity theory ‒ may be problematic to
account for the formation and upkeep of entrepreneurial identity. The paragraphs
that follow summarize some of the ways in which entrepreneurs’ and professionals’
experiences differ, reflect on why and how this may be the case, and examine, in
particular, issues of identity development among women entrepreneurs.
To start, entrepreneurs face significant uncertainty and, broadly speaking, lack

the structured support (organizational and professional) that professionals have
access to, starting from the beginning of their careers (Von Nordenflycht, 2010).
To this end, Gartner et al. (1992) noted the extensive equivocality involved in
launching new organizations. Entrepreneurs ultimately seek to resolve some of
this equivocality by creating what Weick (1979) defined as ‘patterns of interlocked
behaviors’ and, more specifically, by ‘talking and act as “as if” equivocal events were
non-equivocal’ (Gartner et al., 1992: 17).
Moreover, entrepreneurs’ specific goals and ambitions, as well as the narratives

they may deploy to build their respective work contexts, are likely to vary, in part
due to the discretion that entrepreneurial careers afford, and more broadly due to

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 100 15/12/2017 07:53

the social-embeddedness of entrepreneurship. To this end, research by Jennings

and Brush (2013) summarizes the various ways in which gender influences entre-
preneurial intention and action. This work shows that women may be driven by
different motives (compared to their male counterparts) in their entrepreneurial
efforts, and that they may face unique possibilities as well as hurdles. These include,
for example, starting their firms moved by a desire to achieve better work‒family
balance (rather than the pursuit of economic gains), as well as dealing with com-
peting demands imposed by their dual roles as mothers and entrepreneurs (for
a detailed review, see Powell and Eddleston, 2008; Eddleston and Powell, 2012;
Powell and Greenhaus, 2012; Jennings and Brush, 2013).
A final feature that sets entrepreneurs’ and professionals’ careers apart is the
absence of shared and established paths to advancement, marked by public mile-
stones and coronated via ceremonies of various sorts (see Greenwood et al., 2002).
This is, at least in part, because entrepreneurs set their own goals and objectives,
and infuse words such as ‘advancement’ or ‘progress’ with ther own meanings. As
such, ‘advancement’ and ‘progress’ may hold different understandings, and evoke
different sets of actions for different people.
Taken together, we may infer broad heterogeneity in the factors that may contrib-
ute to bolster, or conversely to challenge, entrepreneurs’ identities, based on: (1)
why they became entrepreneurs in the first place; and (2) a range of other aspects
(including their specific family situations) that may weigh (positively or negatively)
on their ability to dedicate themselves to their businesses. Given such heterogene-
ity and overall equivocality, traditional identity perspectives (social identity theory
and identity theory), and the ‘bases’ of identity they espouse (pre-existing social
groups and roles, respectively), may not account well for issues of identity forma-
tion and upkeep among entrepreneurs.
Social identity theory, in particular, deals with the structure of identity as related
to people’s group membership (e.g., Tajfel, 1978, 1982a, 1982b; Tajfel and Turner
1979). Because social identity theory speaks to how individuals relate to one or
more collectives, this identity perspective inherently emphasizes the role of imper-
sonal relationships based on group membership, as ‘bases’ of identity construction
(Cardador and Pratt, 2006).
At the core of social identity theory is the idea that a given social group ‒ such as,
for instance, one’s nationality or political affiliation ‒ provides a definition for one’s
identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). As such, according to social identity theory,
people draw selectively upon their membership in different groups to define them-
selves, and ultimately to achieve identities that are self-enhancing.
Entrepreneurs, by definition, may not rely on an existing or well-defined organization

to craft their work identities. Instead, they must develop their work identities while
at the same time defining their respective work contexts; figuratively speaking, while
‘drawing the contours’ of their organizations. Thus, due to the lack of pre-defined

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 101 15/12/2017 07:53

groups for nascent entrepreneurs to join at the start of their careers, social iden-
tity theory appears problematic to account for their experiences. Moreover, insights
from research on minimal groups (e.g., Tajfel et al., 1971) suggest that the mere adop-
tion of a label (such as ‘entrepreneur’) may suffice for individuals to self-categorize
as members of a given collective. It is unclear, however, whether this may apply to
entrepreneurs, partly because their respective circumstances may or may not allow
for evaluative intergroup comparisons, making the label ‘entrepreneur’ equivocal.
While these consideration apply to both men and women entrepreneurs, female
founders, unlike their male counterparts, have been described as relying on their
families and on their gender as additional ‘bases’ for self-categorization. Family,
specifically, has been depicted as a group from which women entrepreneurs draw
the resources and/or the support they may need to establish and sustain their busi-
nesses; as well as, conversely, something that may constrain their initiative and
the development of their entrepreneurial identity (see Bruni et al., 2004; Jennings
and Brush, 2013). Gender has also been cast as an important social category that
brings women together, and that they differentially engage with (for instance, by
emphasizing or downplaying their femininity) based on the circumstances and/or
the sectors they operate in (see Ahl, 2006).
Whereas social identity theory discusses a prominent relational base of identity,

identity theory discusses a behavioral base, linking what people do to ‘who they
are’. More specifically, identity theory deals with the structure of people’s identities
as related to the various roles they play in society (see Stryker, 1980; Stryker and
Serpe, 1982). According to identity theory scholars, thus, the self is made up of
multiple role identities, and people’s actions are influenced by how committed they
are to a given role identity, and how salient such a role identity is. Role identities
that are higher (relative to others) in the hierarchy of salience tend to be more self-
defining than those near the bottom of such hierarchy (Hogg et al., 1995). While
identity theory provides meaningful insights into people’s behaviors who are part
of structured occupations, where the various roles one is expected to take on are
well defined and often laid out from the start of one’s career, it appears somewhat
problematic to account for the experiences of entrepreneurs who, almost by defini-
tion, must craft their roles as they figure out what steps to take with their emerging
organizations (see Gartner et al., 1992).
When it comes to women entrepreneurs, the study of role identities is further com-
plicated by the fact that some women entrepreneurs must also juggle their roles as
mothers as they establish and grow their organizations (see Bruni et al., 2004). The
salience of their identities as mothers may influence not only how they see them-
selves as entrepreneurs, but also the extent to which they ‘take family considera-
tions into account when making work decisions’ and thus in how they may set up
and run their businesses (Powell and Greenhaus, 2012: 325).
Taken together, due to the high equivocality that launching and running a new
organization entails, traditional ‘identity bases’ (Cardador and Pratt, 2006) ‒

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 102 15/12/2017 07:53

e stablished groups and roles ‒ may not account well for how entrepreneurs con-
struct their identities, especially at the outset of their careers (Gartner et al., 1992).
Moreover, a focus on women entrepreneurs raises additional questions with respect
to how social categories such as family and gender, as well as their possible roles as
mothers, may shape the construction and development of their entrepreneurial
identities.
Identity construction among entrepreneurs: focusing on what

entrepreneurs do and where
Given the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs’ experiences, looking at what entrepre-

neurs do as well as the work environments in which they are embedded (including,
specifically, the objects and tools entrepreneurs may use, how they occupy their
respective work areas, as well as the extent to which they may or not appropriate
resources) constitutes a promising starting point to better understand identity for-
mation and upkeep among entrepreneurs.
This idea builds on a longstanding body of research in the entrepreneurship field

that has recognized the merits of a behavioral approach to the study of entre-
preneurs and their ventures (Gartner, 1989), and the powerful role of space
(broadly defined) in influencing the choices in which entrepreneurs engage (e.g.,
Knight, 1921; Schumpeter, 1934) and the types of organizations they launch (e.g.,
Stinchcombe, 1965; Johnson, 2007). Moreover, it leverages emerging literature
in management that examines the relationship between workspace, artifacts and
identity (e.g., Pratt and Rafaeli, 1997; Elsbach and Pratt, 2007).
Scholars of entrepreneurial identity have indeed begun to recognize the need to

engage in a closer examination of entrepreneurial behaviors to better understand
each the content, formation and upkeep of entrepreneurial identity. Kašperová and
Kitching (2014: 446), specifically, have invited research that takes into account not
only what entrepreneurs say, or the stories they tell to gain resources, but also what
they do. In their words, ‘more explicit consideration of non-linguistic practices can
produce new insights into the effects of embodiment on entrepreneurs’ capacities,
concerns and actions’.
Thus, to better appreciate entrepreneurial identity in terms of its content, develop-

ment and maintenance (how it may come to be, and then be sustained), a promis-
ing approach is to look at the situated actions entrepreneurs take over time: what
entrepreneurs do and where, as they attempt to launch and run their businesses.
Specifically, emphasis should be placed not only on entrepreneurs’ choices and on
their behaviors, but also on the range of resources their respective contexts pro-
vide. Thornton, to this end, advanced that: ‘Unless context is taken into account,
the links between the actions of individuals in founding new organizations . . . are
likely to remain elusive’ (Thornton, 1999: 24); and Chen et al. (1998) stressed the
importance, particularly for nascent entrepreneurs, to be embedded in supportive

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 103 15/12/2017 07:53

(psychologically and otherwise) environments. They noted, specifically, that

‘Communities can work toward creating an efficacy enhancing environment by
making resources both available and visible, publicizing entrepreneurial successes,
increasing the diversity of opportunities, and avoiding policies that create real or
perceived obstacles’ (Chen et al., 1998: 296).
These ideas invite reflection around specific features (physical and social) of the
work environments that female and male entrepreneurs may find helpful (or not)
while figuring out what it means to be entrepreneurs, launching and running their
organizations. The respective salience of their various role identities (including, for
example, their possible role identities as parents and/or spouses) will likely shape
what they may deem supporting or inhibiting of their efforts (see also Ahl, 2006;
Powell and Greenhaus, 2012).
Figure 5.1 depicts visually the five key sources of entrepreneurial identity this
chapter has introduced so far; that is, the five building blocks entrepreneurs may
differentially deploy to construct, maintain or de-emphasize their identities as
entrepreneurs. They are: entrepreneurs’ gender; their new ventures; their respec-
tive work environments (where they do their work and surrounded by whom);
the behaviors they engage in to set up and run their organizations; as well as their
occupational meaning (or the meanings they ascribe to ‘being entrepreneurs’).
These five sources are represented in the figure as overlapping and linked by
double-sided arrows to denote their interconnectedness and mutual influence, and
are arranged in a circle to portray their fluidity. For example, at the outset of their
entrepreneurial journeys, nascent entrepreneurs may wish to play up or conceal
facets of their identities (such as their gender) in efforts to gain legitimacy for their
emerging businesses. The environment in which they are embedded is likely to play
a role in what exactly they may do, when and how. Differently, more experienced
entrepreneurs may rely on the connections they have developed in their respec-
tive fields (part of their social work environments) to claim positive identities. Thus,
depending on a range of contextual and individual factors (such as environmental
stimuli and experience), one or more of the circles in Figure 5.1 may become salient,
and guide entrepreneurs’ actions. As these examples allude to, the activation of one
(or more) of these five sources is influenced by, and at the same time shapes, the
others.
While the circles in Figure 5.1 as building blocks of entrepreneurial identity are
unlikely to vary across individuals, there may be differences within and across
genders, in the specific content of and emphasis given to each. For example, there
may be variation in what entrepreneurs believe it means to be entrepreneurs (their
occupational meanings) based on their career goals and objectives, as well as on
the salience of their broader entrepreneurial identity relative to the other identities
they may hold (for example, being a parent). Likewise, their behaviors as entrepre-
neurs will partly depend on the set of resources and constraints they may perceive
and/or face in their respective personal and work contexts. This way, the unique

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 104 15/12/2017 07:53

challenges that confront women entrepreneurs ‒ including being taken seriously,

gaining access to capital, and dealing with childcare responsibilities (Brush, 1997;
Powell and Eddleston, 2008) ‒ are likely to weigh on the formation of their identi-
ties, and thus on their actions as entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurial identity: taking stock and looking forward
As discussed at the outset of this chapter, no universal definitions exist to date

of ‘the entrepreneur’, or of entrepreneurial identity. Borrowing from the identity
work literature, which has cast identity as fluid, this chapter suggests that framing
entrepreneurial identity as a dynamic process may help scholars to embrace mul-
tiple conceptualizations of it, and in so doing, engage in theoretically and empiri-
cally generative conversations. This approach invites us to look at entrepreneurs in
action, as they each contemplate, work toward, launch and operate their businesses
(see also Gartner et al., 1992).
This way, entrepreneurial identity may be seen as the host of self-referential claims
and actions that are associated with launching and running new organizations. As
this working definition suggests, entrepreneurial identity is closely coupled with
the development of entrepreneurs’ firms. Howorth et al. (2005: 38) support this
idea. In summarizing the findings of their research, they noted, specifically, that:
‘Entrepreneurs’ identities were wrapped up with those of their organisation and
they also found it difficult to separate what they are from what they do’.
Thus, contextual and individual factors that influence one’s business develop-
ment have the potential to shape one’s self-understandings and actions as an
Gender
Work
New Venture Environment
(Social & Physical)
Entrepreneurial Occupational
Behavior Meaning
Figure 5.1 Key sources of entrepreneurial identity construction

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 105 15/12/2017 07:53

e ntrepreneur. Examples of such factors include the various social and/or profes-
sional groups one may belong to, the broader institutional context one is embedded
in, as well as one’s expertise – to mention just a few. Of particular importance in
order to advance current research on women entrepreneurs (and their identities)
is to shed light on such factors; what Ahl (2006) referred to as the ‘invisible’ social
structures that shape behavior. Surfacing the values, assumptions and expecta-
tions underlying the systems in which entrepreneurs are embedded will help us
to gain a more contextualized understanding of why entrepreneurs (women and
men) construct their identities as they do, as well as the specific content of their
identities.
As Figure 5.1 shows, entrepreneurs’ organizations constitute a key source of their

identities. This distinguishing feature of entrepreneurial identity calls for the con-
current examination of entrepreneurs’ self-understandings, of their actions, as well
as of their ventures. Looking, for example, at the field one’s organization is in, at the
firm’s value proposition, and at how it is managed, is likely to speak to the founder’s
expertise, preferences and work style – often expressions of one’s identity. This
approach implicitly shifts the focus from gender as ‘a key explanation’ of women’s
entrepreneurial behavior, to gender as one of the many socially constructed inputs
in the creation of entrepreneurial firms ‒ that is, as a source of entrepreneurs’
identities (Ahl, 2006; Figure 5.1).
How to study entrepreneurial identity?

The garden of entrepreneurial theories is ready for a variety of seeds from many
different disciplines and perspectives. As our field emerges, it might begin to look
more like a weed patch, rather than a neatly cultivated garden. At this stage in
our development, ‘weediness’ should be encouraged . . . In our acquisition of theo-
retical requisite variety, we may not, at this stage, possess the wisdom to accurately
differentiate between weeds and flowers ‒ those ideas that are intellectually vapid
versus those ideas that will prove to be useful. Only through continued discussion,
dialogue, and practice . . . can our theories about the nature of emergence be cultivated.
(Gartner et al., 1992: 17)
As this quote illustrates, the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurial identity makes

studying it a complex endeavor. Qualitative approaches may prove particularly
effective in surfacing its dynamic nature. In the words of Langley and colleagues, in
fact, they can help scholars to unpack ‘how and why things emerge, develop, grow,
or terminate over time’ (Langley et al., 2013: 1), ultimately affording rich descrip-
tions and insights of the phenomenon of interest.
Similarly, Gartner (1989: 64) recognized the need to embrace research meth-
odologies that ‘will do justice to the complexity of entrepreneurship’, particu-
larly because ‘The creation of an organization is a very complicated and intricate
process, influenced by many factors [and] . . . The entrepreneur is not a fixed
state of existence’ (Gartner, 1989: 64). Specifically, he pleaded with scholars to

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 106 15/12/2017 07:53

engage in fieldwork to better understand founders as they create and launch their
organizations.
More recently, Hamilton (2014) advocated for moving beyond the study of narra-
tives, by embracing methodologies that may help to capture entrepreneurs’ actions.
Kašperová and Kitching (2014: 447), specifically, advanced that we should ‘explore
physical capabilities, including the use of artefacts, and the consequences for iden-
tity and action’ through ‘ethnographic methods’. This approach may ultimately help
scholars to understand ‘how entrepreneurs, as embodied agents, interact with their
natural, practical and social environments’. Taken together, to better understand
entrepreneurial identity we may consider engaging in in-depth longitudinal field
work, focusing on aspects such as entrepreneurs’ work practices, their attitudes,
environments and relationships. Differently put, promising future research may
shed light on the sources of identity construction highlighted in Figure 5.1 and,
specifically, how entrepreneurs may emphasize them as their experiences evolve.
To capture them as thoroughly as possible, scholars should plan to collect multiple
sources of data. To this end, Gartner et al. (1992: 21) noted that ‘more diverse data
collection methods, particularly qualitative and ethnographic methods, would add
valuable and unique insights to understanding entrepreneurship’. And, further,
that ‘theories on entrepreneurial behavior would benefit from more studies that
utilize a variety of data-collection methods that describe what entrepreneurs do’.
Observations and interviews over time appear particularly appropriate to gain an

in-depth contextualized understanding of entrepreneurial identity and its construc-
tion. As far as observations are concerned, an unstructured approach (Spradley,
1979) seems best suited (at least to start) to remaining open to emerging themes.
Given the well-documented importance of the context in which entrepreneurs are
embedded in shaping their cognitions and actions, careful attention should be paid
to entrepreneurs’ physical work environments, and to the host of relationships
such environments inhibit and/or enable.
As far as interviews are concerned, they have frequently been deployed to study
and explain how individuals, across occupations, develop and maintain their work
identities (e.g., Ibarra, 1999; Pratt et al., 2006). This is largely because interviews
can lend additional insights into people’s thoughts, opinions and feelings that may
otherwise be difficult to see and capture. Combined with observations, they may
provide a more complete account of how entrepreneurs think, and of how they
feel, as they engage in a host of activities to transform their business ideas into
opportunities.
Challenges
There is no shortage of possibilities when it comes to entrepreneurial identity,
particularly because focused research on the topic is still at an early stage. Along
with opportunities, however, also come some difficulties, ranging from conceptual
to more practical.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 107 15/12/2017 07:53

From a conceptual standpoint, discerning entrepreneurial identity from other pro-

cesses that are intrinsic to new venture creation may be challenging because of the
close interdependence of entrepreneurial action and identity. Teasing entrepre-
neurial identity apart from entrepreneurial behavior is important to understand
the motives underlying entrepreneurs’ actions. While there is no one clear way to
tackle this challenge, scholars (and reviewers) may find some reassurance in studies
that leverage multiple sources of data and, specifically, that capture both people’s
self-understandings and their behaviors.
From a methodological and more practical standpoint, to study entrepreneurial iden-

tity as a process, scholars should consider engaging in longitudinal research, from
when aspiring entrepreneurs contemplate their ventures, to when they reach some
critical decision point with their organizations that may alter their choices and/or
their career paths altogether. Besides being time-consuming, such an approach may
be problematic due to the very nature of entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurs, in
fact, spend most of their time working on transforming their ideas into businesses.
This requires an enormous amount of energy and dedication, leaving little, if any,
time to spare for other activities. As such, scholars should invest their time and
efforts at the outset of their research projects to build positive and strong relation-
ships with their informants. This may involve engaging in participant observations,
or finding other ways to reciprocate entrepreneurs for their time and efforts.
Opportunities
Because focused research on entrepreneurial identity is at an early stage, there are
many opportunities for new conceptual and empirical work. Conceptually, scholars
who embrace entrepreneurial identity as a process might be interested in teasing
out how exactly the process unfolds, or the specific steps that comprise it. This may
involve, for example, examining the range of individual and environmental condi-
tions under which certain events, activities and self-views are likely to emerge. To
illustrate, looking at both entrepreneurs’ personal and professional relationships
may shed light on how the social milieu surrounding entrepreneurs shapes their
identities. Because no one single model is likely to account for the experiences of
different entrepreneurs, there will be ample room for theoretical elaboration.
Given that ‘entrepreneurial identity’ encompasses such a broad domain, schol-

ars may choose to focus on developing (theoretically and/or empirically) specific
facets of it. Some, for instance, might consider exploring issues of entrepreneurial
identity formation; that is, how individuals come to see themselves and act as
entrepreneurs. Others may want to look at entrepreneurial identity upkeep ‒ how
entrepreneurs actively nurture their identities as they go through different phases
with their organizations ‒ or, conversely, entrepreneurial identity deletion: what
entrepreneurs may do to eliminate or de-emphasize their entrepreneurial identity.
Empirically, scholars may design their studies to look at the role of specific influ-
ences on each entrepreneurial identity creation, maintenance and/or elimination.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 108 15/12/2017 07:53

To illustrate, to tease out the role of a given workspace in entrepreneurial identity

development, for instance, they may opt to study entrepreneurs who are part of a
given shared workspace over time, and compare their thoughts and actions with
those of entrepreneurs who work in different contexts: at various ‘entrepreneurial
hubs’, or in their own private spaces.
Moreover, scholars may compare and contrast how men and women work on
building their entrepreneurial identities, exploring the resources they leverage, and
the steps they take to gain an understanding of what being an entrepreneur entails.
This may involve specifying different models of entrepreneurial identity formation
and upkeep for male and female entrepreneurs: a particularly promising area for
future research. Indeed, despite a growing interest in issues of gender and entrepre-
neurial identity co-construction, we still know relatively little about it. Particularly,
we do not know much about how, during their new venture creation journeys,
women and men entrepreneurs leverage their gender to gather the resources they
need; and how, confronted with challenges, they may maintain positive identities.
In conducting such comparative work, we should not assume however that all
women and all men are similar in their intentions and approaches. To gain a solid
understanding of entrepreneurial identity, thus, we should equally attend to both
within- and across-gender differences (Eddleston and Powell, 2012). This may favor
the discovery of finer-grained differences or, potentially, enable us to report on
non-differences which rarely seem to have been the subject of scholars’ attention.
In addition, given that existing research has highlighted three central motives –
gaining legitimacy, securing and/or maintaining self-coherence and authenticity,
and managing the gender gap – as driving the constructions of women entrepre-
neurs’ identities, scholars may wish to map how, if at all, women’s identity work
strategies and the content of their entrepreneurial identities vary in conjunction
with the motive(s) that activated their identity work in the first place.
We may also wish to compare the identity work tactics and practices of nas-
cent and more seasoned entrepreneurs, or those of first-time and serial entre-
preneurs, to grasp the role of experience in entrepreneurial identity development
and m aintenance – both within and across genders. Finally, exploring the role of
business failure and success in entrepreneurial identity development appears to
be another germane avenue for future research. Questions that seem particularly
promising include: When, if at all, may failure serve as a positive catalyst for the
development of men and women entrepreneurs’ identities (and for that of their
organizations)? How, if at all, may success become detrimental to the advancement
of people’s entrepreneurial projects and identities?
Taken together, considering entrepreneurial identity as a dynamic process enables

us to think about it expansively and opens the doors to new questions, as well as to
potentially generative cross-disciplinary conversations.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 109 15/12/2017 07:53

Conclusion
To summarize, this chapter reviews in brief what we know about entrepreneurial

identity, as well as existing literatures that address identity and its construction
more broadly. It shows how traditional ‘bases’ of identity (often discussed in the
context of professionals) may be problematic to account for the experiences of
entrepreneurs, and of women entrepreneurs in particular. As such, it advocates
for a closer examination of entrepreneurs’ actions over time, as well as for greater
focus on their respective work contexts. It also argues for the importance of
shedding light on the ‘invisible’ social structures that shape – supporting and/
or constraining – entrepreneur’s behaviors; it offers some thoughts for future
research; and highlights a few of the many possibilities (and inherent challenges)
associated with the study of entrepreneurial identity. My hope is that this chapter
will inspire others to join me (and my colleagues in this volume) in this generative
conversation.
Notes
* I am very grateful to Candy Brush, Patti Greene, Mike Pratt, Jean Bartunek, Katherina Kuschel and Juan Pablo Labra
for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.
1 In their extant conceptualizations of entrepreneurial identity, scholars have on occasion used the words ‘founder’
and ‘entrepreneur’ interchangeably.
2 The purpose of this table is to selectively showcase definitions of entrepreneurial identity to illustrate the breadth of
existing conceptualizations.
3 Following Schein (1990: 111), my definition of artifacts includes ‘everything from the physical layout, the dress
code, the manner in which people address each other, the smell and feel of the place . . . to the more permanent
archival manifestations such as company records, products, statements of philosophy, and annual reports’.
4 This does not discount the possibility of personal relationships and non-role behaviors as contributing to the
development of entrepreneurial identity.
5 By ‘non-territorial work arrangements’ I refer to workspaces in which employees do not have a dedicated seat, but
rather take over space on a ‘first come, first served’ basis (see Elsbach, 2003).
References
and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.
Alvesson, M., K.L. Ashcraft and R. Thomas (2008), ‘Identity matters: Reflections on the construction of
identity scholarship in organization studies’, Organization, 15(1), 5–28.
Alvesson, M. and H. Willmott (2002), ‘Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing the
appropriate individual’, Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619–644.
Ashforth, B. (2001), Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ashforth, B.E., S.H. Harrison and K.G. Corley (2008), ‘Identification in organizations: An examination of
four fundamental questions’, Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.
Bruni, A., S. Gherardi and B. Poggio (2004), ‘Doing gender, doing entrepreneurship: An ethnographic
Brush, C.G. (1997), ‘Women-owned businesses: Obstacles and opportunities’, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–24.
Cardador, M.T. and M.G. Pratt (2006), ‘Identification management and its bases: Bridging management

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 110 15/12/2017 07:53

and marketing perspectives through a focus on affiliation dimensions’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 174–184.
Collins, O.F. and D.G. Moore (1964), The Enterprising Man. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Díaz García, M.C. and F. Welter (2013), ‘Gender identities and practices: Interpreting women entrepre-
Downing, S. (2005), ‘The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic processes
in the coproduction of organizations and identities’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2),
185–204.
Eddleston, K.A. and G.N. Powell (2012), ‘Nurturing entrepreneurs’ work–family balance: A gendered
perspective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 513–541.
Elsbach, K.D. (2003), ‘Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirma-
tion in a non-territorial office space’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 622–654.
Elsbach, K.D. and M.G. Pratt (2007), ‘The physical environment in organizations’, Academy of
Management Annals, 1(1), 181–224.
Farmer, S.M., X. Yao and K. Kung‐Mcintyre (2011), ‘The behavioral impact of entrepreneur iden-
tity aspiration and prior entrepreneurial experience’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2),
245–273.
Fauchart, E. and M. Gruber (2011), ‘Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder
Fine, G.A. (1996), ‘Justifying work: Occupational rhetorics as resources in restaurant kitchens’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 90–115.
Gartner, W.B. (1989), ‘“Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Summer, 47–68.
Gartner, W.B., B.J. Bird and J.A. Starr (1992), ‘Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organi-
zational behavior’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(3), 13–32.
Greenwood, R., R. Suddaby and C.R. Hinings (2002), ‘Theorizing change: The role of professional asso-
ciations in the transformation of institutionalized fields’, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1),
58–80.
Hamilton, E. (2014), ‘Entrepreneurial narrative identity and gender: A double epistemological shift’,
Journal of Small Business Management, 52(4), 703–712.
Hoang, H. and J. Gimeno (2010), ‘Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects entrepreneurial
transitions and persistence in founding’, Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 41–53.
Hogg, M.A., D.J. Terry and K.M. White (1995), ‘A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity
theory with social identity theory’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.
Howorth, C., S. Tempest and C. Coupland (2005), ‘Rethinking entrepreneurship methodology and
definitions of the entrepreneur’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(1),
24–40.
Ibarra, H. (1999), ‘Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adapta-
tion’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
Ibarra, H. and R. Barbulescu (2010), ‘Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences
of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions’, Academy of Management Review, 35(1),
135–154.
Ireland, R.D. and J.W. Webb (2007), ‘A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research’,
Journal of Management, 33(6), 891–927.
Jennings, J.E. and C.G. Brush (2013), ‘Research on women entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and from) the
Johnson, V. (2007), ‘What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of
the Paris Opera’, American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 97–127.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 111 15/12/2017 07:53

Kašperová, E. and J. Kitching (2014), ‘Embodying entrepreneurial identity’, International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 20(5), 438–452.
Knight, F.H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Proﬁt. New York: Hart, Schaffner & Marx.
Kreiner, G.E., E.C. Hollensbe and M.L. Sheep (2006), ‘Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work
and the search for optimal balance’, Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057.
Laakkonen, A. (2012), ‘Construction of the entrepreneurial identity in the family business context – a
cross-cultural study’, Jyväskylä Studies in Business and Economics, 108, 1–297.
Langley, A., C. Smallman, H. Tsoukas and A.H. Van de Ven (2013), ‘Process studies of change in
organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow’, Academy of Management
Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
Lepisto, D.A., E. Crosina and M.G. Pratt (2015), ‘Identity work within and beyond the professions:
toward a theoretical integration and extension’, in A. Desilva and M. Aparicio (eds), International
Handbook of Professional Identities. Rosemead, CA: Scientific and Academic Publishing, pp. 11–37.
Lewis, P. (2013), ‘The search for an authentic entrepreneurial identity: Difference and professionalism
among women business owners’, Gender, Work and Organization, 20(3), 252–266.
Marlow, S. and M. McAdam (2015), ‘Incubation or induction? Gendered identity work in the context of
technology business incubation’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 791–816.
Murnieks, C. and E. Mosakowski (2007), ‘Who am: I? Looking inside the “entrepreneurial identity”’,
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 25(5). Accessed September 14, 2015 at http://digitalknowl
edge.babson.edu/fer/vol27/iss5/5.
Nadin, S. (2007), ‘Entrepreneurial identity in the care sector: navigating the contradictions’, Women in
Navis, C. and M.A. Glynn (2011), ‘Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence
on investor judgments of new venture plausibility’, Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 479–499.
Ollila, S., K. Williams Middleton and A. Donnellon (2012), ‘Entrepreneurial identity construction:
What does existing literature tell us?’, Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Annual
Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
Powell, E.E. and T. Baker (2014), ‘It’s what you make of it: Founder identity and enacting strategic
responses to adversity’, Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1406–1433.
Powell, G.N. and K.A. Eddleston (2008), ‘The paradox of the contented female business owner’, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 24–36.
Powell, G.N. and J.H. Greenhaus (2012), ‘When family considerations influence work decisions:
Decision-making processes’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(3), 322–329.
Pratt, M.G. and A. Rafaeli (1997), ‘Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities’,
Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 862–898.
Pratt, M.G., K.W. Rockmann and J.B. Kaufmann (2006), ‘Constructing professional identity: The role
of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents’,
Rae, D. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurial learning: A practical model from the creative industries’, Education +
training, 46(8/9), 492–500.
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), ‘Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevita-
bility to entrepreneurial contingency’, Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Schein, E. (1990), ‘Organizational culture’, American Psychologist, 45, 109–119.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934) (Reprinted in 1962), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into
Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shepherd, D. and J.M. Haynie (2009), ‘Family business, identity conflict, and an expedited entrepre-
neurial process: A process of resolving identity conflict’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6),
1245–1264.
Snow, D.A. and L. Anderson (1987), ‘Identity work among the homeless: the verbal construction and
avowal of personal identities’, American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1336–1371.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 112 15/12/2017 07:53

Spradley, J.P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stanworth, M.J.K. and J. Curran (1976), ‘Growth and the small firm ‒ an alternative view’, Journal of
Management Studies, 13(2), 95–110.
Stinchcombe, A. (1965), ‘Social structure and organizations’, in J. March (ed.), Handbook of
Organizations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 142–193.
Stryker, S. (1980), Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/
Cummings Publishing Company.
Stryker, S. and R.T. Serpe (1982), ‘Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: Theory and
research example’, in W. Ickes and E.S. Knowles (eds), Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior. New
York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 199–218.
Sveningsson, S. and M. Alvesson (2003), ‘Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmenta-
tion, discourse and identity struggle’, Human Relations, 56(10), 1163–1193.
Tajfel, H. (1978), ‘The achievement of group differentiation’, in H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation between
Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press,
pp. 77–98.
Tajfel, H. (1982a), ‘Instrumentality, identity and social comparisons’, in H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity
and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 483–507.
Tajfel, H. (1982b), ‘Social psychology of intergroup relations’, Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.
Tajfel, H., M.G. Billig, R.P. Bundy and C. Flament (1971), ‘Social categorization and intergroup behav-
iour’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.
Tajfel, H. and J.C. Turner (1979), ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in W.G. Austin and
S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Group Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, pp. 33–47.
Thornton, P.H. (1999), ‘The sociology of entrepreneurship’, Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 19–46.
Van Maanen, J. (1973), ‘Observations on the making of policemen’, Human Organization, 32(4),
407–418.
Van Maanen, J. (1975), ‘Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban
police department’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 207–228.
factor’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 4, 105–129.
Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010), ‘What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of
knowledge-intensive firms’, Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 155–174.
Watson, T.J. (2008), ‘Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and structural circum-
stances’, Organization, 15(1), 121–143.
Watson, T.J. (2009), ‘Entrepreneurial action, identity work and the use of multiple discursive resources
the case of a rapidly changing family business’, International Small Business Journal, 27(3), 251–274.
Weick, K.E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: Random House.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 113 15/12/2017 07:53

6 Feminist entrepreneurial identity:
reproducing gender through founder
decision-making
Catherine Elliott and Barbara Orser
Introduction
Scholars have reported the need to build explanatory theory with respect to the
influence of gender in the venture creation process (Marlow et al., 2009; Henry
et al., 2015; Warren, 2004). Some argue that feminist theory is a robust perspec-
tive from which to examine the experiences of entrepreneurs (Ahl, 2004; Bird
and Brush, 2002; Fischer et al., 1993; Mirchandani, 1999). However, there are few
empirical studies that have explicitly drawn on feminism or feminist experiences
to inform the entrepreneurship literature (Ahl and Marlow, 2012). As such, there
remains a need to further develop theory that is informed through systematic,
empirical research (Orser and Elliott, 2015; Ahl and Marlow, 2012; Ahl, 2004).
In response, this chapter examines how feminist entrepreneurial identity (FEI) is
expressed through founder decision-making. Recommendations for future research
are advanced. The relevance of the study objectives and theoretical underpinnings
are demonstrated in several ways.
First, the chapter contributes to an emerging area of academic inquiry about how
gender is constructed within entrepreneurial identity (Bruni et al., 2004; Down
and Warren, 2008; Eddleston and Powell, 2008; Fenwick and Hutton, 2000;
Warren, 2004). Identity theory explains the ways in which individuals concep-
tualize ‘Who am I?’ within social and institutional settings (Pratt and Foreman,
2000: 18). Given the centrality of founders within the venture creation process,
identity theory is applicable in linking individual (founder or owner) identity and
organizational (the enterprise) identity, a relationship that has been described as
reciprocal (Pratt and Foreman, 2000) and socially constructed (García and Welter,
2011; Fauchart and Gruber, 2011). Identity theory complements the principles of
feminist theory and research, work that strives to ‘understand women in their
social context’ (Bourne, 2007: 121) documenting their lived experiences. Identity
theory responds to criticism of research about women entrepreneurs predicated
on neoliberal economic theory (Ahl, 2004, 2006), theory that emphasizes the value
of pecuniary outcomes without consideration of gender inequalities and alterna-
tive (non-pecuniary) motives for enterprise creation (Warren, 2004). Neoliberal
entrepreneurship theory has also tended to ‘silence’ the feminine within entre-
114
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 114 15/12/2017 07:53

FEMINIST ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITY 115
preneurial identity (Nadin, 2007: 456), viewing the masculine entrepreneur as the
norm against which all entrepreneurial activity is judged (Ahl and Marlow, 2012).
Identity theory responds to the call for dynamic approaches that provide insight
into how gender is produced, and reproduced, rather than what it is (García and
Welter, 2011; Deaux and Major, 1987; Marlow et al., 2009; Orser and Leck, 2010).
Second, while feminist criticism of the entrepreneurship literature has been instru-
mental in highlighting the marginalization of women by mainstream economic and
entrepreneurship research (Walker et al., 2004; Yohn, 2006) and the inequitable
impact of capitalism for women (Mirchandani, 1999; Yohn, 2006), certain tenets
of feminist criticism are dated. For example, scholars of socialist feminism have
typically ignored the significant engagement of women in entrepreneurship and the
associated socio-economic benefits that have been afforded to some through busi-
ness ownership (Orser and Elliott, 2015). The chapter considers how entrepreneur-
ship might inform feminist theory and practice.
Third, documenting feminist values and how ‘being female’ is constructed within
entrepreneurial identity may assist some founders in recognizing and validating
their own ‘identity work’; the personal synergies, tensions and conflicts that they
experience (for example, within themselves and among family, employees, suppli-
ers and clients) (Ahl and Marlow, 2012; García and Welter, 2011). It may also assist
in illuminating those feminine assets or ‘feminine capital’ that contribute in a posi-
tive way to entrepreneurial success (Orser and Elliott, 2015).
The chapter presents findings from a research program that examines feminist
entrepreneurs (FEs) and how their feminist values are expressed through entre-
preneurial action. As the founders engage in entrepreneurial sense-making, they
construct their feminist entrepreneurial identity. In this chapter, we build on pub-
lished findings that have reported on how entrepreneurs express feminist values in
governance structures and relationships (respectively, Orser et al., 2013; Orser and
Elliott, 2015) to examine how feminist entrepreneurial identity (FEI) is constructed
through founder decision-making associated with resource acquisition and market
positioning. A conceptual model that captures the consolidated research findings
is presented.
To do so, this chapter is organized in the following manner. The literature review
opens with a description of definitions and assumptions employed within the study
framework. Identity theory and studies that have empirically examined the associa-
tion among gender, ‘being female’, and entrepreneurial identity are described. We
then present the fieldwork and results. Finally, a synthesis of observations, concep-
tual model, study limitations and conclusions are presented.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 115 15/12/2017 07:53

Literature review
Definitions and assumptions
For the purpose of this chapter, ‘identity’ is defined as how one perceives ‘self’
(Burke, 2006; Pratt and Foreman, 2000). Entrepreneurial identity refers to how
one perceives self within the venture creation process. It is assumed that gender
is a social construction (Ahl, 2004, 2006), and that gender is recognized as a sali-
ent identity category (Burke, 2006; Limerick and O’Leary, 2006; Ridgeway, 2006).
Gender is therefore ‘enacted through the individual’s own process of identity for-
mation, as well as her interaction with the world’ (Welch et al., 2008: 116). In this
research, we are applying a social constructivist lens, which emphasizes the process
of social interaction in all human cognition and knowledge production (Vygotsky,
1978). Following this subjectivist epistemology, all meaning-making activities
(including entrepreneurial actions and identity construction and reconstruction)
are viewed to be inherently socio-cultural, continuous and relational.1
‘Feminism is defined as the recognition of men’s and women’s unequal conditions

and the desire to change this’ (Ahl, 2004: 16). Feminism embraces perceptions
about women’s unique needs, their subordination, differences of power within
social interactions, and the need for strategies to improve the well-being of girls
and women (Gattiker and Larwood, 1986; Nabi, 2001). Feminism focuses on ineq-
uitable power relations that subordinate women’s interests to those of men, as
well as how the social and economic roles of women are defined in relation to
male norms (Ahl, 2004; Frye, 1983; Weedon, 1987). ‘Feminist entrepreneurs’ (FEs)
are defined as ‘change agents who employ entrepreneurship to improve girls’ and
women’s quality of life and well-being’ (Orser and Elliott, 2015: 214).
As noted above, we assume that the construction of entrepreneurial identity is a

social process, and one that is intrinsically gendered (Bruni et al., 2004; de Bruin et
al., 2006; Fenwick and Hutton, 2000; Limerick and O’Leary, 2006; Warren, 2004).
However, unlike previous studies that have assumed that feminist theoretical criti-
cism speaks on behalf of women’s entrepreneurial experiences (Weedon, 1987),
this study examines how feminist entrepreneurial identity is expressed through
entrepreneurial action, and specifically, strategic decision-making. We suggest
that this approach softens the prescriptive academic application of feminist theory
to women’s lived experiences, taking a more grounded approach. To explore the
research question and related definitions and assumptions, the following sec-
tion presents a review of the literature about entrepreneurial identity, gender
and feminism.
Identity theory suggests that identities create ‘sets of meaning’ or ‘standards’ that
link to patterns of behavior within a social environment (Burke, 2006: 82). The con-
struction of identity is purposeful, sometimes contradictory, inherently linked to
organizational identity, and situated in a social context (Pratt and Foreman, 2000;

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 116 15/12/2017 07:53

Priola, 2004; Ridgeway, 2006). Entrepreneurship scholars have suggested that there
are identity connections among the entrepreneur, her idea or opportunity, and the
resulting business (Cardon et al., 2005), including her management style, organi-
zational structure and governance (Orser et al., 2013). For example, ‘when people
are involved in entrepreneurship, they are also involved in identity construction,
where social categories such as gender and ethnicity are implicated’ (Essers and
Benschop, 2009: 406). Entrepreneurial identity, therefore, is dynamic, multilayered
and relational, as individuals make sense of their social and economic environment
and culture (Down and Warren, 2008; Warren, 2004). Focused on the early stages
of enterprise development, Down and Warren (2008) suggest that entrepreneurial
identity is used to establish organizational and self-legitimacy; entrepreneurs are
skilled at managing and manipulating perceptions of identity in order to achieve
desired outcomes. As noted by Fauchart and Gruber (2011: 936), founders’ social
identity affects new firm creation, whereby strategic decisions have important
‘imprinting effects’.
Gender and entrepreneurial identity

Gender is one of multiple influences within the construction of identity (Pratt
and Foreman, 2000). Gender-linked behaviors are flexible and context-dependent
(Deaux and Major, 1987). Gender is reflected in expectations as individuals con-
struct and continually negotiate their own identities. Processes of self-verification
and self-presentation are naturally interwoven; people monitor their behavior
against both internal (private self-identity) and external (public identity) stand-
ards as they strive to attain their interaction goals. ‘Gender related behavior may
be motivated by either self-presentation or self-verification concerns’ (Deaux and
Major, 1987: 371).
A number of studies have sought to examine gender and entrepreneurial identity.

Drawing on adult learning theory, Fenwick and Hutton (2000) describe the emer-
gent nature of entrepreneurial identity, as female business owners ‘craft’ their work
environment. Identity changes as owners produce and clarify knowledge. Tensions
center on issues such as control (the need to relinquish control to others in order to
grow), and the desire to defy traditional gender expectations (the meaning of ‘being
female’, the feminine, work‒family balance, motherhood, and what constitutes a
successful enterprise). Warren (2004: 43) uses life histories to explore the ways
in which women ‘process . . . to becoming an entrepreneur’. For example, women
described the need to legitimize multiple identities including gender, being a pro-
fessional and being an entrepreneur. Some were ambivalent or negative about the
term ‘entrepreneur’, as the construct conflicted with the ability to ‘fit their careers
around their family’ and ‘entrepreneur’ was associated with ‘game playing’ and
‘jumping through hoops’ (Warren, 2004: 43).
The above studies are consistent with reports that describe conflict between ‘being
female’ and one’s entrepreneurial self-image. For example, within the private health-
care sector, Nadin (2007) reports that entrepreneurial identity clashed with other

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 117 15/12/2017 07:53

identities such as being female and a caregiver. Verheul et al. (2005: 511) report
that gender has a direct effect on business owners’ perceptions of entrepreneurial
self-image, such that ‘Women were less likely than men to perceive themselves as
entrepreneurs.’ The authors also observed that women were less likely to attribute
enterprise success to themselves compared to men; and the term ‘entrepreneur’
itself had male connotations for some women. Essers and Benschop (2009: 403)
document similar results, whereby female Muslims experienced conflict among
faith, gender and entrepreneurial identity. As Ahl (2004, 2006) points out, dis-
courses around entrepreneurship and archetypes of the ‘heroic entrepreneur’ are
inherently masculine. The masculine becomes a normative construct against which
all entrepreneurial activity is judged: women are seen as ‘other’, and their activity,
by comparison, needs ‘fixing’ (Ahl and Marlow, 2012: 544). García and Welter
(2011) used an interpretive analysis to study how women entrepreneurs interact
with these normative expectations in the construction and reconstruction of their
gendered identities. They identified a variety of experiences in which respondents
perceived dissonance between the discourse of womanhood and that of entre-
preneurship. Women entrepreneurs were continually ‘doing identity work’ to
negotiate their entrepreneurial identities within a context of conflicting discourses
(womanhood versus entrepreneurship), cultural norms and power structures. To
reconcile such differences, the interviewees used two main types of identity work:
‘doing gender’ (that is, supporting the status quo of gender differences) and ‘redo-
ing gender’ (that is, ‘challenging gender differences’) (García and Welter, 2011:
394). For some, entrepreneurship was a strategic tool used to assist in this ‘work’.
In a related study, Orser et al. (2013: 248) explored the nature of being female and
entrepreneurial. Respondents’ narratives described how women were required to
reconcile opposing identities, as they experienced both negative and positive out-
comes from ‘being female’:
Advantages included the ability to share and connect with other women and an ability
to build relationships and learn through others’ experiences. Being female also helped to
foster relationships with potential customers, as ‘female’ was associated with being trust-
worthy and being able to ‘walk the talk’ . . . ‘negative’ included perceptions about difficult
relationships with male suppliers or partners; old boys’ networks; limited access to capital;
lack of female role models; and self-limiting perceptions about growth (e.g., ‘limits my
ability to obtain financing through conventional methods’, ‘locker room mentality’, ‘lack
of trust in women’, ‘feeling like an ‘outsider’, ‘no sounding board’).
In summary, one’s entrepreneurial identity is a complex product of personal, socio-

cultural and economic influences (Down and Warren, 2008; Essers and Benschop,
2009; Werner, 2008). Gender plays a significant role in how individuals construct
their entrepreneurial identity; and how women, as entrepreneurs, carry out enter-
prising activities. Female entrepreneurs have described multiple, sometimes affirm-
ing, sometimes negative, and frequently conflicting aspects of their entrepreneurial
identity. Shaped by normative expectations, entrepreneurial identity shifts in time
and space.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 118 15/12/2017 07:53

Feminism and entrepreneurial identity

Early scholars who introduced feminist critique into the entrepreneurship literature
(Fischer et al., 1993; Lee-Gosselin and Grise, 1990; Stevenson, 1990; Mirchandani,
1999; Bird and Brush, 2002; Ahl, 2004, 2006) encouraged researchers to examine
the ‘feminine’ within the entrepreneurial content, and to undertake work that legit-
imizes the experiences of female entrepreneurs. A number of themes have followed,
including a critique of the masculine discourse and sexist stereotypes associated
with successful entrepreneurship, masculine power structures and systems, and
evidence of systemic barriers to venture creation and enterprise growth. Studies
also describe gender as an implicit and integral process and structure rather than
merely a biological attribute. For example, Bird and Brush (2002) argue that gender
is inherent within venture creation processes and enterprise structures. They sug-
gest five dimensions that differentiate between the masculine and feminine, includ-
ing conceptions of reality, time, action and interaction, power and ethics. Whereas
the feminine construct of reality, for example, is reflective, iterative and ambivalent,
masculine notions emphasize control and analysis. Whereas feminine values are
responsive to others, conciliatory and open to negotiation, masculine values are
described as aggressive and controlling.
A complementary stream of inquiry is advanced by feminist ethicists who ques-

tion how early management theory has portrayed governance structures. In
response, Machold et al. (2008) present a governance model of venture creation
based on feminine ‘ethics of care’, a model which emphasizes relationships rather
than financial motives for enterprise creation. Governance is described as a web of
relationships that create reciprocity, relationships that lend to empowerment and
emancipation: individuals empower and nurture others, both within and outside
the organization. At a macro level, economists Walker et al. (2004) reconcile ten-
sions between feminist (cooperative) and traditional (competitive) market theories.
Noting that feminists have historically criticized competition, where competition
is perceived as sexist and having detrimental consequences for women, Walker et
al. (2004) recast commercial exchange processes. They argue that rather than being
antagonistic (competitive), markets are socially driven. Rather than being diver-
gent, markets are inherently cooperative: commercial competition is a symbiotic
and interdependent force. At a fundamental level, competition and cooperation are
two necessary components of social organization (Walker et al., 2004: 249): ‘Once
cooperation regarding the rules of the game exists, the game of competition will
foster social wellbeing (and economic prosperity).’ The authors conclude that the
market is not inherently competitive and anti-feminist, as many feminist scholars
have advanced.
To explore such collaborative and competitive relationships, Orser et al. (2013)

described organizational structures employed by self-defined feminist entrepre-
neurs. Feminist values were expressed through the language of engagement, such
as egalitarian, enabling and community-building. Organizational structures and
working environments were described as informal, familial and non-hierarchical.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 119 15/12/2017 07:53

An overarching theme that emerged when describing relationships with external

stakeholders (clients, suppliers and competitors) was cooperative, using words such
as ‘collaborative’, ‘fair’, ‘friendly’, ‘win‒win’, ‘open’ and ‘honest’. Some described
themselves as entrepreneurial missionaries, who perceived their role as affecting
social change through entrepreneurial actions.
These findings are consistent with Fauchart and Gruber’s (2011) research which
explored founder identities and entrepreneurial decision-making in the European
sporting goods sector. In a mixed-gender study of entrepreneurs, they observed
three distinct dimensions of meanings or ‘pure identity types’: Darwinians, com-
munitarians and missionary. The missionary identity is similar to the feminist
entrepreneurial identity described by Orser et al. (2013) and Orser and Elliott
(2015). While founders in the Fauchart and Gruber study did not self-identify as
feminists (and furthermore, no gender influences or biological sex attributes were
reported), both the missionary cohort and Orser et al.’s ‘feminist’ entrepreneurial
cohorts articulated that their ventures affect social change: the founders were
‘doing entrepreneurship’ to ‘pursue their political visions and advance particu-
lar causes, generally of a social or environmental nature’ (Fauchart and Gruber,
2011: 944). Missionary entrepreneurs were making business decisions that were
values-based and ‘exemplary’, to inspire others to use socially responsible prac-
tices. Their decisions were predicated on meanings such as: ‘advancing a cause’,
‘being responsible for contributing to a better world’ and ‘demonstrating that
alternative practices are feasible’ (ibid.: 942). This body of literature leads us to
the research question: how is feminist entrepreneurial identity expressed through
founder decision-making?
Methods
Research approach
Fifteen self-identified ‘feminist entrepreneurs’ were recruited through three
Canadian Women’s Enterprise Centres to participate in this study. All responded
to a call for participation with the following definition of feminist entrepreneur:
‘female entrepreneurs who own and operate firms targeting female clients, with
a double bottom line, one that includes helping women overcome subordination
(e.g., for, by, and with women enterprises)’. The sample included entrepreneurs in
the private (n = 12) and not-for-profit (n = 3) sectors, across a variety of sectors.
Consistent with the profile of Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, all
but one enterprise (a diamond extraction operation) employed fewer than five
employees.2 See Orser et al. (2013) for more details about the recruitment approach
and sampling methods. The sample profile is presented in Table 6.1.
Data collection and analysis

Business owners participated in a telephone interview following a semi-structured
interview protocol. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Verbatim

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 120 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 6.1 Sample profile of feminist entrepreneurs
Participant Sector profile Target market Size and structure Financing
C1 Manufacturing (MFG)/retail clothing Female hockey players 1 owner/operator Self-financed
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 121
C2 Mining/exploration: all female board Investors; resource-based companies 3 staff; ≈50 contractors Public share offering(s)
members
C3 MFG/retail clothing Women in trades ‘Tight’ structure; 2 directors/investors; Self and one equity partner
offshore production
C4 Professional network Women in business ‘Lean and mean’ founder + 1 staff + Self
6 associates + 3 chapters
C5 Career/life coaching Women in business Australia, United Kingdom, Canada; very Self
flat, entrepreneurial structure
C6 MFG/retail clothing Professional women Flat, collaboration, consensus Self
C7 Consultant Women in developing countries Sole proprietor; periodically Self
contracts with associates
C8 Real estate: leased office space for Start-up female entrepreneurs 8 sharing office space: ‘collaborative Self
start-ups individualism’
C9 Social networking Female professional mothers; 30−40 3000 direct members; 6 part-time contact Owner and partner
years staff
C10 Education and training: beauty and Female students at school 7 locations Self (debt); franchise opportunities
aesthetics retail
C11 Social networking Women professionals Founder + 10 staff; national advisory boards Self
C12 Professional service Female entrepreneurs Sole proprietor, contractors as Self

required
C13 Industry association Women in information, 6 office staff, volunteers, active board (35 Membership fees, sponsorships
communications, technology members)
C14 Financial services Women business owners Non-profit: 7 to 8 founders Foundation: investment of approx.
$4 billion
C15 Financial services Women-owned firms with 1 person, 1 partner, contractors and 2 partners; $5 million, all female

revenues of at least $3 million associates (as required) investors with minimum of $2,000
each for 5 years
15/12/2017 07:53
transcripts were analyzed with the aid of a data analysis tool, NVivo8. Following
an interpretive, inductive methodology (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Glaser and
Strauss, 2006), data were coded according to emergent themes and validated by
members of the research team. Participant websites were also reviewed; this pro-
vided additional information about the organization’s mission, vision, products
and/or services, marketing, branding, and so on. The summary results of the analy-
ses are presented and discussed below.
Results
To gain an understanding of how feminist entrepreneurial identity (FEI) was

expressed through founder decision-making, participants were asked a series of
open-ended questions about potential gender influences in venture creation. These
included questions about their perceptions of ‘self’ as a feminist and an entre-
preneur, their feminist values, and how (if at all) their feminist values influenced
decision-making. Four major themes emerged. Feminist entrepreneurial identity
was expressed through founder decisions about acquisition of resources, market
positioning, governance structures and relationships.3
Feminist values and feminist entrepreneurial identity

To explore the participants’ identity as feminist entrepreneurs and how feminist
values were enacted through entrepreneurship, participants were first asked if they
would describe themselves as a ‘feminist’ and how their feminist values (if at all)
had influenced their entrepreneurial decisions. As reported in Orser et al. (2013:
248), ‘Responses were overwhelmingly affirmative, indicating a clear sense of femi-
nist identity and feminist values. This was not surprising given the sample criteria
as self-identified ‘feminists’. The primary themes that emerged were a strong belief
in equality, reducing barriers and limits to women’s advancement (making change),
empowering and supporting others, and following meritocratic principles for suc-
cess. Identity as feminist entrepreneurs (FEs) was further expressed through their
general approach to venture creation, as feminist entrepreneurs ‘in action’. These
values are clearly articulated as FEs described their motives: to serve women’s
needs (‘I am the market’), ‘build community with women like me’, ‘do more with
my life’, ‘enable other women’ and seize upon a unique opportunity to make a dif-
ference. The FEs expressed their desire to make social, personal and/or political
change; and to empower, support or collaborate with other women and girls. For a
more detailed discussion, see Orser et al. (2013).
Resource acquisition
FEI was articulated in decisions about the acquisition of human and financial (start-
up) resources and in securing market intelligence and advice. With respect to the
recruitment of employees and contractors, feminist values were evidenced in selec-
tion criteria. FEs described hiring like-minded feminists who shared their values.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 122 15/12/2017 07:53

In addition, most emphasized the importance of following meritocratic principles

in recruitment and selection: hiring the best person for the job. They also spoke
about creating an inclusive workplace climate and continually trying to support
and empower women within the enterprise. As one participant explained:
It’s what we do. We breathe those values because that’s our mission. So, in this case, my
business is directly focused on feminist values, the right of women to be paid for work of
equal value, the right to advancement, all those things key to feminist ideology.
One respondent explicitly sought to support women who were ‘financially strug-
gling’. Two sought to hire men who ascribed to feminist values. However, as one
FE explained, it was important to ‘screen out’ those who ‘masquerade’ as feminists:
I’m not interested in two types of men who are not feminists. One is those who say that
they are [a feminist] and pretend that they are, and the others who are just outright clear
that they’re not . . . I think that the ones who pretend that they are, are more dangerous
than the ones who are outright that they’re not because at least you know where they’re
coming from and you know where you stand.
In terms of acquiring financial resources for start-up and enterprise growth,

respondents described their decisions in terms of their feminist values. All but one
enterprise was self-financed. Identifying like-minded, feminist investors to finance
growth was a priority, but seen to take considerable time and energy. As one par-
ticipant observed on the difficulty of finding the right investor: ‘there are a lot of dif-
ferent stripes of feminists . . . it’s not a homogeneous group’. Another respondent
who operated in the mining (extraction) sector had successfully raised equity capi-
tal, but not without significant challenges. In this non-traditional market, the very
act of creating the enterprise was an expression of her feminist identity. Capital
was secured almost entirely from female investors. Women populated the board of
directors:
After 10 years, a few of us who are largely A-type personalities, women who have been
successful but always sort of been in the shadows of men, decided we’re going to start our
own company for us. So, one of my co-partners is a lawyer, (was a securities lawyer – she
doesn’t currently practice because she’s involved in public companies) . . . and our board
of directors is all women. So we decided that it was time to create a company where we
owned the lion’s share of the stock and it was based on our structure and our model.
With respect to the acquisition of expert knowledge, only two enterprises reported
having a board of directors or advisors. Again, members were selected based on
feminist values, expertise, and affiliation with other members and actors in the
sector.
Another critical resource for FEs to acquire is reputational capital. ‘While difficult
to measure, reputation is one of the most valuable, intangible assets an enter-
prise possesses. ‘Reputation is a set of beliefs and evaluation about the enterprise

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 123 15/12/2017 07:53

held by an external group of stakeholders such as investors, clients and suppliers’

(Orser and Elliott, 2015: 69). A positive reputation is associated with competitive
advantage: improved access to customers, financing, key markets, cost advantages
and favorable pricing. To build reputation, the FEs sought strategic alliances with
respected, like-minded organizations. They expressed their FEI through decision-
making that was consistent with their values and entrepreneurial motives: part-
nership agreements were predicated on having a shared feminist vision (making
change for women and girls), and feminist values (operating in a manner which
was collaborative, cooperative, demonstrating mutual respect and empowerment).
For example, within this sample group, Mompreneurs, a networking and com-
munication firm, partnered with Parents Canada to promote a shared vision of
parenthood. Women in Communications and Technology (WCT) partnered with
Catalyst (an influential non-profit organization that promotes inclusive work-
places for women), Status of Women Canada and the Canadian Board Diversity
Council. Moxie Trades, a clothing manufacturer targeting women in the trades (for
example, pink work boots), forged strategic relationships with organizations that
support women in the trades (for example, Canadian Association of Women in
Construction, Canadian Construction Women).
Decisions around the acquisition of additional resources to fuel enterprise growth

were judiciously aligned with FEI. Growth and exit strategies reflected conscious
attempts to build or sustain communities of like-minded individuals. This was not
dependent on firm size or sector. For example, two founders of service-based enter-
prises pursued internationalization strategies which reproduced feminist identities
by establishing relationships with feminist owners and operators abroad. They were
selective and opportunistic in finding the right franchisee or partner: those who
shared their individual and corporate feminist identity. Similarly, the founders of
two service-based firms described how they deployed a values-based network strat-
egy for growth, a strategy that enabled the enterprises to remain ‘flat and flexible’,
‘collaborative’ and ‘constructive’. One founder established a network of six chap-
ters, with chapter leaders who shared the founder’s feminist vision. The second
established coaching businesses in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), articu-
lating the decision for a ‘very flat, very entrepreneurial’ structure. This founder
followed a ‘train the trainer’ approach whereby new coaches learned the founder’s
corporate philosophy and principles before being sent abroad as ‘entrepreneurial
missionaries’. This ensured quality control and consistency of (feminist) philosophy
and mission. The founder described the mission as: ‘my passion, my focus, is really
to give women the tools to succeed in business as quickly as possible’.
Market positioning
For many, the founder’s feminist entrepreneurial identity (FEI) was reproduced
through the organization’s brand and market positioning. Being a feminist organi-
zation was the enterprise’s key value proposition, embedded in the firm’s branding
strategy. Two examples follow. The Women’s Executive Network (WXN) positions
itself as a feminist, for-profit firm that empowers and supports women’s leader-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 124 15/12/2017 07:53

ship. The WXN web page articulates the WXN brand, differentiating it from other
women’s networking organizations. The founder pursued an internationalization
strategy predicated on her own FEI. As the web page describes:
At WXN, we inspire smart women to lead. WXN creates and delivers innovative network-
ing, mentoring, professional and personal development to inform, inspire, connect and
recognise our community of more than 22,000 smart women, their male counterparts and
organisations. WXN enables our Partners and Corporate Members to become and to be
recognised as employers of choice and leaders in the advancement of women. Founded in
1997, WXN is Canada’s leading organisation dedicated to the advancement and recogni-
tion of women in management, executive, professional and board roles. In 2008, WXN
launched in Ireland, followed by London, UK in 2015, creating an international commu-
nity of female leaders. (Women’s Executive Network, 2016)
During the study period, the WXN was sold. The news release emphasized that the
new owner shared the founder’s values and commitment to a feminist cause: ‘as a
life-long advocate for diversity and a female CEO [chief executive officer] champi-
oning HR [human resources] excellence in male-dominated industries (manufac-
turing and automotive), Sherri is no stranger to adversity’ (Jeffry, 2016).
In the case of Moxie Trades, a manufacturer of women’s work wear, the founder’s
commitment to support girls and women is expressed through the company’s
brand: the logo, the firm’s messaging, activities highlighted on the website, and the
content of the owner’s blog posts. Her own story is featured, where the founder
expresses her struggles in a male-dominated field, personal attachment to her
product, and how she wants others to ‘find their moxie’. The organization’s brand
is an expression of her FEI: buying work boots is positioned as being more than just
products, as customers buy into self-determination. As stated on the firm’s website:
The Moxie Trades story is about making the best products with the best brand with
the best customer service. Not only do we sell work boots but also we share moxie with
women everywhere. Moxie Trades is not about the work boots, it’s about the women who
wear them. Moxie is the ability to face fear with spirit and courage. Find Your MOXIE . . .
We Dare YOU!
Strategic compromises
As founders negotiated some of their key strategic decisions, several expressed dis-
sonance in how they prefer to operate as FEs, and how they feel that they are forced
to operate in order to achieve their mission and/or attain acceptable margins, to
ensure that the enterprise is financially viable. They felt compelled to compromise.
For instance, two FEs found supplier solutions that were not ‘ideal’ in terms of their
feminist values and identity. When working with Chinese factory owners, one FE
spoke about the need to adjust her expectations regarding equality in the workplace.
Another mentioned having to deal with male buyers who have a ‘locker room men-
tality’ and chauvinist attitudes. Compromises were also described in the o perations

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 125 15/12/2017 07:53

of a nascent women’s healthcare centre. The founder’s vision for a women-focused

centre was mobilized by recruiting an advisory council of like-minded, influential
women leaders and patients. The founder and council legitimized the initiative
through acquisition of a large lead donation from a respected, feminist philan-
thropist. However, having established the centre, operations were turned over to
the larger hospital administration; and this was disappointing for many members
(Orser and Elliott, 2015). Similarly, García and Welter (2011) describe how deal-
ing with macho suppliers, for example, serves to ‘produce gender’ and reinforce
gendered stereotypes rather than ‘reproduce gender’ in new ways that address and
challenge women’s subordination.
Governance structures
Orser et al. (2013) report on how feminist entrepreneurs express their feminist
values and ethics through governance structures. When asked, ‘How would you
describe the organizational and management structure of your business?’, par-
ticipants described structures that are ‘flexible’, have ‘open communication’,
‘collaborative’ (with equal participation of members of the team), ‘informal’ and
‘non-hierarchical (flat) structure and relationships’ (ibid.: 251). The descriptors
aligned with their feminist values of equality, empowerment, mutual respect and
democracy.
Relationships
Similar alignment was evident when participants spoke about their relationships
with employees, suppliers, customers and competitors Orser et al. (2013). Infused
with words like ‘collaborative’, ‘win‒win’, ‘cooperative’, ‘friendly’, ‘open communi-
cations’, ‘constructive’ and ‘respectful’, their narratives suggest that FEs are consist-
ently producing and reproducing their FEI through their social interactions with
others, as they forge relationships; both internal and external. These meaning-
making activities were consistently aligned with their values. See Table 6.2 for
a summary of these findings from Orser et al. (2013) that have been highlighted
above.4
Discussion
This study documents how feminist entrepreneurial identity (FEI) is expressed

through strategic decisions associated with the acquisition of resources, market
positioning, governance and relationship building. Many, but not all, decisions
aligned with founders’ feminist identities, and most respondents were able to con-
duct business in ways that were consistent with feminist values. Strategic decision-
making enabled FEs to ‘redo’ gender by challenging the normative prescriptions of
‘womanhood’. Resource acquisition strategies enabled FEs to grow their enterprises
by establishing alliances with like-minded women, having a preference to hire femi-
nists and partner with feminists and feminist organizations, attracting investment

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 126 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 6.2 Feminist entrepreneurial identity and values
Case Feminist identity Motives Structure and Relationships: Relationships:

governance internal external
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 127
C1 ‘If I see an imbalance somewhere, Could not find equipment for daughter: Collaborative; Good rapport Cooperative,
about something not being fair and ‘My passion is to support females in fluid; community flexible
equal, I’m very verbal and I speak out.’ sports’ oriented
C2 ‘I think we’re all feminists but not in ‘We decided that it was time to create All-female board Lots of commu- Cooperative; easy-
the feminist, crazy feminist mode . . . a company where we owned the lion’s of directors nication going
I think the best person to get the job share of the stock . . . it was based on our
should get the job.’ structure and our model.’
C3 ‘I absolutely feel that [women] are ‘I look to be the one stop destination for ‘Lean’, 2 direc- Cooperative, Cooperative,
under-utilized and not respected in women’s work wear and really promote tors, advisors as friendly, honest; friendly, honest
business as much as they could be.’ women in the trades’ needed feels like home
C4 ‘For some women they need more ‘Offering women a community, a com- Lean Respectful, sup- Team approach;
support in having an equal chance and munity where they could connect.’ portive build alliances
we do go about things differently and
so I think it’s trying to build stronger
woman.’
C5 ‘People should do what they’re good ‘[I’m] very passionate about getting Flat and flexible Creative, entre- Alliances, honest,
at and what they’re naturally suited women to succeed in businesses, not structure; partici- preneurial open communica-
to, regardless of gender; I just firmly giving their power away.’ pative tion
believed that there were no limits for
women.’
C6 ‘I think that women and men should ‘It is really about empowering women, Flat organization; Familial, infor- Win–win, share

be treated equally. And that I believe looking good and feeling good in the collaborative mal but profes- info, cooperative
in merit based promotions.’ bodies we’ve been given’ sional
15/12/2017 07:53
Table 6.2 (continued)
Case Feminist identity Motives Structure and Relationships: Relationships:

governance internal external
C7 ‘A feminist basically is a person who ‘Unless women . . . had real equality in Small; 2 employ- Persistent, polite
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 128
believes in equality of rights for men very practical ways that nations could ees
and women.’ not change’
C8 Post-structural feminist: ‘collabora- ‘So the vision and purpose of my Collaborative Personal, Collaborative,
tive individualism’, ‘I’m open to where business is very much community individualism collaborative sharing
feminism is going and I’m not sure. So development on entrepreneurship
I’m not imposing any type of structure.’ and collaborative individualism in
communities.’
C9 ‘Mild feminist’, ‘there’s still a lot of ‘Our mission, we say, is very simple. It’s Community- Informal, home- Win–win, work
work that needs to be done to have just to connect and inspire women.’ building; loose, based together, nurture
women equal . . .I definitely want flexible structure relationship over
to support the initiatives of women time
and I still want to see a lot of change
happen.’
C10 Stated she was not a feminist but ‘I mean I am always, number one, want- Small company, Professional Professional, fair,
agreed with feminist principles ing to improve the quality of life of professional give the best
defined by the interviewer: ‘In busi- women.’ advice
ness, I’m equal. In personal relation-
ships I become a female, I want to be
respected as one.’
C11 ‘I think a feminist is basically someone ‘My vision was to create a community Lean and entre- Communication, Friendly, share best
who believes in equality. It’s a woman for female professionals across the public, preneurial; small teamwork, shar- practices, learning
who believes that men and women private and non-profit sectors.’ management ing, collabora-

should be treated equally.’ team tive
15/12/2017 07:53
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 129
C12 Agreed with feminist principles defined ‘To provide a voice for small and micro Small consulting Family Only work with
by the interviewer: ‘I don’t like the enterprises and many of those were firm environment people I like;
term’ women.’ kindred spirits
C13 Liberal feminist but prefers the term ‘Our mission is the advancement of Diversity of Relaxed, non- Positive, respectful,
humanist: ‘I prefer humanist . . . where women in the communications industry board leadership; hierarchical, constructive, not
there are specific issues, there’s a very and I mean career advancement.’ non-hierarchical pleasant demanding, focus
important role for feminism, because it on results
is an ongoing issue for women to have
the opportunities that they need . . .
want . . . and frankly, deserve to have.’
C14 ‘I think a feminist is someone who pro- ‘There was a disconnect, a gap in the Small staff Collaborative, Collaborative,
motes women’s opportunity . . . I pro- communication between entrepreneurs win–win, win–win
mote everybody’s opportunity.’ and investors.’ exploration
C15 ‘It means to recognize the full potential ‘We want to be the premiere private Small company Clear, hard- Clear, hard-working
of being a woman and we want to be equity company that helps successful working bring bring out the best
women.’ female entrepreneurs go to their next out the best
level of significant growth.’

15/12/2017 07:53
from like-minded feminists, and seeking guidance and advice, market intelligence,
and referrals through assembly on boards of directors and councils of advisors.
Many advisors shared feminist values. Market positioning was enhanced through
feminist branding, brands predicated on commitment to empower consumers,
members and other women and girls.5
Several FEs articulated the need to compromise their feminist aspirations in order
to deal with masculine ideologies and male-dominated power structures (for exam-
ple, suppliers, manufacturers, senior administrators). The need to ‘redo’ gender
identity in order to grow their enterprise was evidenced in both non-traditional
sectors (for example, mining, construction, manufacturing) and female-dominated
sectors (healthcare, education). These observations are consistent with those
reported by Ahl and Marlow (2012): in order to be ‘credible actors’ in the entre-
preneurial domain, women construct social identities that reflect dominant mas-
culinized norms (as cited in Eriksson-Zetterqvist, 2002). A delicate balancing act,
the process of discarding and reclaiming feminine identity in order to adhere
to masculine norms, is described by an FE in the diamond extraction (mining)
sector:
Many of the women that we work with, the [female] entrepreneurs, don’t self-define as
women. As a matter of fact, they’ve had so many years in the technical fields that being a
woman was not an issue for them. It could be a detriment; sometimes they were excluded
from things.
By minimizing their feminine identity, these FEs attempted to make change by

working harder and being successful. They recognized, however, that their impact
may be limited only to those male colleagues who were open-minded:
OK, I see the way things are, some of them I’m going to be able to change and some
of them I’m not. For many of our women, the way that they chose to change things is
by working harder and being more successful. I think that many times, they don’t even
think about it. They just do it. They won’t allow themselves to think about it during the
process . . . you push through.
Many of the FEs had become extremely adept at reconciling different identities (for
example, entrepreneur, miner, woman, mother, wife, friend, board member). Pratt
and Foreman (2000) suggest that negotiating multiple identities can, for some, be
manageable and enabling. Consciously retaining multiple identities allows indi-
viduals to draw on a range of self-referential frames in order to respond to a variety
of situations. Conversely, multiple identities can produce psychological distress,
conflict and overload. Pratt and Foreman (2000) describe how multiple identities
relate to each other, and how this helps to explain whether individuals experience
positive or negative outcomes. For example, organizational conditions (such as the
support of powerful stakeholders) influence the intensity, legitimacy of and tension
among identities. This was evidenced in the current study. Influential boards of
advisors were seen to enhance the entrepreneur’s legitimacy with other decision-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 130 15/12/2017 07:53

Governance
Relationships
Values Identity
Resource Acquisition
Market Positioning
Figure 6.1 Feminist Entrepreneurial Identity
makers, such as prospective investors. Warren (2004) also observed the important
role of women’s networks in constructing and legitimizing (nascent) female busi-
ness owners’ identities.
The current study findings complement meaning-making activities associated with

the ‘missionary identity’ entrepreneur, as described by Fauchart and Gruber (2011).
Both the missionary and feminist entrepreneurial identity types were shaped by
the founders’ intent to make social and/or political change through venture crea-
tion, via strategic decision-making.6 Fauchart and Gruber (2011) do not report on
gender, nor consider the normative prescriptions of entrepreneurship as masculine
or male. They do, however, acknowledge barriers in ‘redoing’ dominant notions
(and practices) of capitalism, such as conspicuous consumption and environmental
disrespect. As such, we observed multiple points of affiliation between the two
studies.
Figure 6.1 integrates the current findings with published observations about the
interrelationships among feminist values, feminist entrepreneurial identity and
entrepreneurial decision-making (Orser et al., 2013; Orser and Elliott, 2015). This
process model depicts, graphically, how feminist entrepreneurial identity is socially
constructed through entrepreneurial decision-making, in an ongoing, reflexive
manner. The arrows are bi-directional, between ‘identity’ and the four types of
decision-making processes. These signify the ongoing interplay between FEI that
is enacted through decision-making and FEI that is continually reproduced, as FEs
reflect on the outcomes of these decisions and social interactions. While a diagram
does not do justice to the complexity and ‘social embeddedness’ of the venture
creation process – enacted in contexts that are gendered, economic, historical and
cultural –it is useful in collating insights from our larger research program, and
hence for framing future research propositions about the feminist identity con-
struction process.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 131 15/12/2017 07:53

Feminist entrepreneurs articulated values such as a belief in equality, reducing bar-

riers and limits to women’s advancement, making social and political change for
women and girls, empowering and supporting others, and following meritocratic
principles for success. FEs expressed the opportunity to imprint such values as they
create and co-create their ventures. Imprinting was reflected through governance
structures, stakeholder relationships, resource acquisition and market position-
ing. FEs described how their enterprises were non-hierarchical, flexible and col-
laborative. Decentralized, networked structures were utilized and advisory boards
were primarily composed of females and/or like-minded individuals. Internal
relationships with employees were described as cooperative and familial. External
relationships with customers, suppliers and competitors were described as coop-
erative and win-win partnerships. See Table 6.2 and Orser et al. (2013) for further
details.
Through their interactions, the FEs continually engaged in identity work, aligning
their values and attempting to resolve tensions surrounding decisions which did
not fit perceptions of ‘self’. Hence, the model illustrates how decisions are interre-
lated, shifting back and forth. The FEs described how they consciously reflected on
their entrepreneurial identities and ways to ensure that decisions were consistent
with their sense of ‘self’. Several FEs described difficult compromises they made
to acquire resources needed to fuel enterprise growth. FEs were also continually
renegotiating their FEIs within the context of conflicting discourses around wom-
anhood and entrepreneurship; actions that were often situated in masculine hierar-
chy, cultural norms and power structures.
Implications
The findings have implications for a number of stakeholders in the entrepreneur-

ial ecosystem, including mainstream and female-focused small business support
agencies and women’s economic empowerment organizations. For example, the
extent to which small business training and support programs embrace and/or
discourage feminist entrepreneurial endeavors is not yet clear. Given that small
business program mandates typically prioritize revenue growth and employment
creation, curriculum may conflict with feminist entrepreneurs’ identity framework
and ambitions (intentions such as affecting change for women and girls). Research
is required to learn more about the lived experiences of entrepreneurial feminists,
including: the incidence and efficacy of feminist governance practices; the socio-
economic impact of market positioning, including ‘female-owned’ and ‘feminist’
branding; the strengths and limitations of feminist relationships and networking
strategies; protectionist and compromising behaviors; other perceived benefits and
risks (such as backlash) associated with feminist entrepreneurship; and founders’
enterprise support needs. Theory development might focus on explanations about
the similarities and differences between ‘feminine’ (Eddlestone and Powell, 2008)
and ‘feminist’ entrepreneurial identity. The conceptual model serves to frame the
examination of related questions, such as:

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 132 15/12/2017 07:53

● How do FEs negotiate conflicting gendered identities in their strategic

decision-making about governance, relationships, resource acquisition and
market positioning? What are the costs and benefits of such compromises?
● How are feminist identity compromises different (or the same as) those expe-
rienced by missionary, social or other entrepreneurs in their decision-making?
● How can the fiscal and social impacts of entrepreneurial feminism be
measured?
● To what extent is feminist entrepreneurial identity and decision-making
(around governance, strategic relationships, resource acquisition and market
positioning) reflected in (and supported by) mainstream and/or female-
focused small business support services, programs, policy, curriculum and
training?
● In what ways do and can small business support programs assist FEs in
employing entrepreneurship as a strategic tool to create a more democratized
and legitimate market space for all entrepreneurs?
Study limitations
Investigating feminist entrepreneurs ‘doing identity work’ offers the opportunity
to examine further the intersection between gender, identity and entrepreneurial
activity. However, the limitations of the study are notable. First, the sample does
not represent the larger population of female business owners. Second, the poten-
tial bias of retrospective data is acknowledged. Third, cross-sectional data did not
enable the research team to examine the ways in which gender and feminist entre-
preneurial identity change in time, place and context.
Conclusions
Building on identity and feminist theory, this study examined the association among
feminist values, feminist entrepreneurial identity and decision-making. Empirical
observations were based on 15 semi-structured interviews, an interpretive analysis
was conducted and several themes emerged: resource acquisition through alliances
and networking with like-minded partners (feminists), market positioning through
feminist branding, and strategic compromises to reconcile business objectives and
feminist values. Building on previously reported work (Orser et al., 2013), a con-
ceptual model was developed which highlighted the research findings. This chapter
provides new insights into the gendered nature of the venture creation process, and
specifically the association among feminist entrepreneurial identity and founder
decision-making. The work further refines an emerging praxis: entrepreneurial
feminism (Orser and Elliott, 2015). In so doing, it extends the understanding of
how female entrepreneurs negotiate meaning and express feminist values through
entrepreneurial decision-making and action.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 133 15/12/2017 07:53

Notes
1 Given that identity construction is an inherently social endeavor, we do not make distinctions between different
types of identity ‘work’: individual, role or social identity. Similarly, we do not make distinctions between individual
or organizational levels of analysis.
2 Respondents granted permission for publication of identifying information, as per the University of Ottawa
Research Ethics Board protocol.
3 Following Fauchart and Gruber (2011) the first two influences are strategic (acquisition of resources, market
positioning), decisions that have important ‘imprinting’ effects on an emerging enterprise. Both were of particular
interest in the expression of FEI.
4 Table 6.2 includes two columns on the left (feminist identity and entrepreneurial motives) which constitute inter-
related meaning-making structures for FEI. As the FEs pursue entrepreneurial action, they express FEI through
strategic decisions around governance, relationships, resource acquisition and market positioning.
5 Feminist branding appears as a subset of entrepreneurial empowerment marketing. A large-scale example
is Walmart’s ‘Women-Owned’ initiative. Partnering with women’s organizations (for example, WEConnect
International, Women’s Business Enterprise National Council), Walmart has positioned the logo project as an
‘ongoing commitment to empowering women around the world and helping women-owned businesses succeed
and grow’ (Walmart, 2015).
6 The missionary type was among the minority of Fauchart and Gruber’s sample: ‘pure’ missionary entrepreneurs
represented 9 of 49 respondents.
References
Ahl, H. (2004), The Scientific Reproduction of Gender Inequality, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business
School Press.
Ahl, H. (2006), ‘Why research on women needs new directions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
30(5), 595–623.
Ahl, H. and S. Marlow (2012), ‘Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship:
advance debate to escape a dead end?’, Organization, 19(5), 543‒562.
Bourne, K.A. (2007), ‘Encountering one another: feminist relationships in organizational research’,
Organization Management Journal Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 120–133.
Bruni, A., S. Gheradi, and B. Poggi (2004), ‘Entrepreneur-mentality, gender and the study of women
entrepreneurs’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(3), 256–268.
Burke, P. (2006), ‘Identity change’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), 81–96.
Cardon, M., C. Zietsma, P., Saparito, B. Matherne and C. Davis (2005), ‘A tale of passion: new insights
into entrepreneurship from a parenthood metaphor’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 23–45.
de Bruin, A., C. Brush and F. Welter (2006), ‘Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’s
entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 323–339.
Deaux, K. and B. Major (1987), ‘Putting gender into context: an interactive model of gender-behavior’,
Psychological Review, 94(3), 369–389.
Down, S. and L. Warren (2008), ‘Constructing narratives of enterprise: clichés and entrepreneurial
identity’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 14(1), 4–23.
Eddleston, K.A. and G.N. Powell (2008), ‘The role of gender identity in explaining sex differences in busi-
ness owners’ career satisfier preferences’, Journal of Business Venturing, 23(2), 244‒256.
Eriksson-Zetterqvist, U. (2002), ‘Construction of gender in corporations’, in B. Czarniawska and
H. Hopfl (eds), Casting the Other, London: Routledge, pp. 89‒103.
Essers, C. and Y. Benschop (2009), ‘Muslim businesswomen doing boundary work: the nego-
tiation of Islam, gender and ethnicity within entrepreneurial contexts’, Human Relations, 62(3),
403–423.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 134 15/12/2017 07:53

Proceedings, 41st Adult Education Research Conference, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
June.
Fischer, E., A.R. Reuber and L. Dyke (1993), ‘A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex,
gender, and entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151–168.
Frye, M. (1983), The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory, Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.
García, M.D. and F. Welter (2011), ‘Gender identities and practices: Interpreting women entrepreneurs’
narratives’, International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 384‒404.
Gattiker, U.E. and L. Larwood (1986), ‘Subjective career success: a study of managers and support per-
sonnel’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(2), 78–94.
Glaser, B. and A. Strauss (2006), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research,
New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Henry, C., L. Foss and H. Ahl (2015), ‘Gender and entrepreneurship research: a review of methodologies
approaches’, International Small Business Journal, 34(3), 217‒241.
Jeffry, P. (2016), ‘WXN and CBDC acquired by new CEO and Top 100 award winner Sherri Stevens’,
Press release, January.
Lee-Gosselin, H. and J. Grise (1990), ‘Are women owner-managers challenging our entrepreneurship?
An in-depth survey’, Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4/5), 423–433.
Limerick, B. and J. O’Leary (2006), ‘Re-inventing or recycling? Examples of feminist qualitative research
informing the management field’, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 1(2), 98–112.
Machold, S., P. Ahmed and S. Farquhar (2008), ‘Corporate governance and ethics: a feminist perspec-
tive’, Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 665–678.
Marlow, S., C. Henry and S. Carter (2009), ‘Exploring the impact of gender upon women’s business
ownership’, International Small Business Journal, 27(2), 139–148.
Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mirchandani, K. (1999), ‘Feminist insight on gendered work: new directions in research on women and
entrepreneurship, Gender, Work and Organization, 6(4), 224–235.
Nabi, G.R. (2001), ‘The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career success among
men and women’, International Journal of Manpower, 22(5), 457–474.
Nadin, S. (2007), ‘Entrepreneurial identity in the care sector: navigating the contradictions’, Women in
Orser, B. and C. Elliott (2015). Feminine Capital: Unlocking the Power of Women Entrepreneurs, Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Orser, B., C. Elliott and J.D. Leck (2013), ‘Entrepreneurial feminists: perspectives about opportunity
recognition and governance’, Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), 241‒257.
Orser, B. and J. Leck (2010), ‘Physician as feminist entrepreneur: the case study of the Shirley E.
Greenberg Women’s Health Centre’, in C.G. Brush, E.J. Gatewood, A.M. de Bruin and C. Henry (eds),
Women’s Entrepreneurship and Growth Influences: An International Perspective, Cheltenham, UK
and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 284–300.
Pratt, M. and P. Foreman (2000), ‘Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities’,
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18–42.
Priola, V. (2004), ‘Gender and feminine identities: women as managers in a UK academic institution’,
Women in Management Review, 19(8), 421–430.
Ridgeway, C. (2006), ‘Linking social structure and interpersonal behaviour: a theoretical perspective on
cultural schemas and social relations’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), 5–16.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 135 15/12/2017 07:53

Stevenson, L. (1990), ‘Some methodological problems associated with researching women entrepre-
neurs’, Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4/5), 439–446.
Verheul, I., L.M. Uhlaner and A.R. Thurik, (2005), ‘Business accomplishments, gender and entrepre-
neurial self-image’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4), 483–518.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, D., J.W. Dauterive, E. Schultz and W. Block (2004), ‘The feminist competition/cooperation
dichotomy’, Journal of Business Ethics, 55(3), 243–254.
Walmart (2015). ‘Walmart launches “Women Owned” logo in-store & online’, accessed 15 February
2015 at http://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2015/03/11/walmart-launches-women
-owned-logo-in-store-online.
Warren, L. (2004), ‘Negotiating entrepreneurial identity: communities of practice and changing dis-
courses’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 25–35.
Weedon, C. (1987), Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Welch, C.L., D.E. Welch and L. Hewerdine (2008), ‘Gender and export behaviour: evidence from
women-owned enterprises’, Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 113–126.
Werner, A. (2008), ‘The influence of Christian identity of SME owner-managers’ conceptualisations of
business practice’, Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 449–462.
Women’s Executive Network (WXN) (2016), ‘About’, https://www.wxnetwork.com/about/about-wxn/,
accessed 10 February 2016.
Yohn, S.M. (2006), ‘Crippled capitalists: the inscription of economic dependence and the challenge of
female entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century America’, Feminist Economics, 12(1/2), 85–109.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 136 15/12/2017 07:53

7 Identity and identity work in
constructing the woman entrepreneur
Richard T. Harrison and Claire M. Leitch
Introduction
Although the construct of identity has gained common currency in contempo-

rary social science it is only relatively recently that it has come to the attention of
scholars working in entrepreneurship. Much of this research has been empirical,
employing a number of concepts (among them: role identity theory, social identity
theory, structural identity theory, narrative and discourse analysis) to explore its
role and impact (Hoang and Gimeno, 2010; Obschonka et al., 2012; Krueger, 2007;
Cohen and Musson, 2000; Down and Reveley, 2004; Binari, 2012; Anderson and
Warren, 2011; Boje and Smith, 2010; Down, 2006; Fauchart and Gruber, 2011;
Oliver and Vough, 2012; Watson, 2009a; Miller and Le-Breton Miller, 2011).
Specifically, identity research in entrepreneurship has focused on personal identity
as one’s sense of self, with a growing recognition of the ‘looking-glass’ relation
between self-identity and a variety of social identities (Watson, 2009a; Anderson
and Warren, 2001). It also focuses on identity as in some sense the fixed reference
point around which individuals engage in entrepreneurial activities and roles, and
on identity as a covariant of outcomes and processes of interest. This chapter is, in
part, a response to a call for entrepreneurial identity research (Leitch and Harrison,
2016) that recognizes the need for more research on organizational context (stud-
ies of the process of identity formation in a wider range of entrepreneurial and
small and medium-sized enterprise contexts, including discussion of identity and
the family business; Harrison and Leitch, 2016); with a focus on the nature of iden-
tity work in entrepreneurship and the processes by which identities are constructed
and negotiated over time as a tension between individual identity and identity as an
entrepreneur.
‘Identity’ itself is a complex construct with multiple definitions (Abdelal et al.,

2001), and has for the most part been researched from either a social identity
theory (SIT) perspective (Tajfel, 1981) or a (role) identity theory (IT) perspective
(Stryker and Serpe, 1982). Our understanding of identity in this chapter recognizes
that SIT and IT have more commonalities than differences in the analysis of the
multifaceted nature of identities in terms of their bases, processes and outcomes
(Stets and Burke, 2000; Burke and Stets, 2009). Given this, identity can be defined
for our purposes as ‘a dynamic social product of the interaction of the capacities
for memory, consciousness and organised construal with the physical and societal
137
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 137 15/12/2017 07:53

structures and influence processes which constitute the social context . . . identity
resides in psychological processes but is manifested through thought, action and
affect’ (Breakwell, 2010: 63). This reflects Erikson’s (1968: 22) argument that in
identity ‘we deal with a process “located” in the core of the individual and yet also
in the core of his [sic] communal culture . . . identity formation employs a process
of simultaneous reflection and observation’. It also acknowledges more recent pro-
cessual arguments that the identity phenomenon comprises the three processes
of identity formation, identity activation and resultant behavior (Bothma et al.,
2015). As such, identities provide a meaning-making anchor: choices (decisions,
outcomes) are identity-based and identity-congruent (Oyserman et al., 2012).
Identities are, therefore, ‘the traits and characteristics, social relations, roles, and
social groups that define who one is . . . Identities are orienting, they provide a
meaning-making lens and focus one’s attention on some but not other features of
the immediate context’ (Oyserman et al., 2012: 69).
The enactment of an entrepreneurial identity is a complex process of identity work

(Watson, 2009b). Identity, which is concerned with an individual’s attitudes, beliefs
and behaviors, provides entrepreneurs with a source of meaning from which to
operate. However, many entrepreneurs, and especially women entrepreneurs, fail
to see themselves as such, given that the gendering of the dominant entrepre-
neurship discourse assumes a male entrepreneurial identity (Bird and Brush, 2002;
Bruni et al., 2004; Hamilton, 2013a). Current and traditional notions of entre-
preneurship ‘sustain the dominant myth and ideology of Western mentality: that
the male (white) is first among equals’ (Ogbor, 2000: 629). In essence it is ‘more
masculine than feminine, more heroic than cowardly’ (Collins and Moore, 1964: 5).
As masculinity is the normative, this presents a challenge for women entrepreneurs
engaged in identity work, who ‘strive to shape a relatively coherent and distinctive
notion of personal self identity’ (Watson, 2009a: 257) through dialogue between
the inner self and an external discourse reflecting the social domain (Kenny, 2010;
Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). Recently, critiques of entrepreneurial identity
have highlighted the gender-blind assumptions that underpin it (Marlow and
McAdam, 2012, 2015; Ahl and Marlow, 2012; Bruni et al., 2004). This work has
revealed the masculine bias and related stereotypical behaviors and attitudes asso-
ciated with entrepreneurial identity work in which women are considered ‘other’
(Kelan, 2009).
In this chapter we adopt a feminist perspective to address the following question:

what is the nature of the identity work undertaken by women in the processes of
identity formation, identity activation and resultant behavior in an entrepreneurial
context? We do so in the context of an ethnographic case study of a female entre-
preneur involved in the start-up and growth of her family’s business. This extends
research on identity work in entrepreneurship that has started to question the
androcentrism inherent in current notions of the entrepreneurial identity (Marlow
and McAdam, 2015; Díaz García and Welter, 2013). In so doing, we argue that there
is scope to more fully enrich our theoretical understanding of identity and identity
formation, their relationship to entrepreneurial processes, practices and activities,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 138 15/12/2017 07:53

IDENTITY AND IDENTITY WORK IN CONSTRUCTING THE WOMAN ENTREPRENEUR 139
and specifically to the communicative practices that shape gender identity forma-
tion (Duveen and Lloyd, 1990). This entails three shifts of emphasis. First, we focus
on identity as a social as well as a personal construct (Fearon, 1999; Watson, 2009a).
Second, we draw attention to the importance of considering identity as dynamic
and fluid rather than as a (relatively) fixed and unchanging feature. Third, on the
basis of this, we concentrate on the process through which entrepreneurial identi-
ties are formed and shaped. Specifically, we argue that only by understanding the
dynamics of identity formation is it possible to relate identity to entrepreneurial
outcomes. By exploring how a female entrepreneur performs identity work within
different entrepreneurial contexts we provide increased insights into the historical,
social and cultural influences on identity work (Hamilton, 2013a; Bruni et al., 2005).
We also demonstrate how identity is co-constituted over time and in relation to
others, highlighting that is inextricable from context. By taking a feminist perspec-
tive on the identity work performed by the female entrepreneur we shed light on
how she shapes her identity, and how it is shaped to fit with an entrepreneurial
representation.
The chapter is structured as follows. We begin by summarizing the key elements

of contemporary understandings of identity in entrepreneurship, including
recent discussions on gender and identity. We then discuss our ethnographic,
longitudinal research design and data analysis protocols. On the basis of this we
provide a summary of the findings and critically reflect on the implications of
our analysis for a feminist understanding of gender relations, identity work and
entrepreneurial action. The contributions of the chapter are methodological, con-
ceptual and empirical. Methodologically we demonstrate how an ethnographic
approach can allow us to make a contribution to the still relatively sparse litera-
ture of empirical studies addressing identity construction on the personal level in
depth (Svenningsson and Alvesson, 2003). Conceptually, as entrepreneurship is
gendered masculine (Ahl, 2004, 2006) and tends to be viewed as the default option,
this research provides a gendered perspective on identity work (Bruni et al., 2005).
Empirically, we provide greater insights into how gender has shaped a female
entrepreneur’s experiences and ambitions within the context of a family business
in its start-up phase.
Identity
Identity theory
The search for identity is a central symptom of individualism (Ybema et al., 2009:
299). Identity is not something which we can objectify as an observable entity, but
that which we can construct or articulate in an ongoing interaction with our social
environment: ‘that work of art which we want to mould out of the friable stuff of life
is called “identity”’ (Bauman, 2000: 82). In discussions of identity there is a tension
between the image of harmony, logic and consistency, and everyday experience. If
identity is a negotiation between self and society, between what is within us and
what lies outside, it is at the same time both that which is perceived by others and

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 139 15/12/2017 07:53

that which is projected by ourselves (Ybema et al., 2009). However, as Bauman

(2000) points out, this appears to be fixed and solid only when seen from outside,
by others. From the perspective of one’s own biographical, lived experience identity
remains fragile, fluid and vulnerable. Given this, in contemporary management and
organization theory identity is increasingly being seen as friable, fluid, ephemeral
and fragile (Bauman, 2000), and the research focus is shifting from identity per se to
the processes of identity formation (Ybema et al., 2009; Clegg and Baumeler, 2010;
Coupland and Brown, 2012).
Much contemporary research on identity and identity work, particularly in the

European tradition, is informed by the metaphor of social construction (Ainsworth
and Grant, 2012). This focuses on processes and considers not only the ‘what’ but
also the ‘how’ of identity and identity work. In addition, it is predicated on the argu-
ment that discourse is central to the social construction of identity (Clarke et al.,
2012; Ybema et al., 2012; Beech et al., 2012; Mallett and Wapshott, 2012; McInnes
and Corlett, 2012). For Watson (2008), conventional research into identity has
followed a two-step process in which a discourse is identified (for example, of
leadership, of entrepreneurship, of professionalism) and individuals are examined
to determine the extent to which they have taken on a particular identity (that is,
of a leader, an entrepreneur or a professional). Against this, he argues that social
identities are central to the discourses which people reference in their identity work
(Figure 7.1).
Accordingly, within the various discourses of, for instance, enterprise, manage-
ment and leadership, there are one or more social identities of the ‘entrepreneur’,
‘manager’ and ‘leader’. In other words, ‘elements of discourse are personified in the
form of “social-identities” in a way which makes them meaningful, accessible and
appealing or unappealing to the individual, and in a way that the abstractions of a
“discourse” could not’ (Watson, 2008: 129). Given that in liquid modernity there
are multiplicities of diverse, competing and contradictory discursive pressures on
A multiplicity A multiplicity Identity work SELF-

of socially of socially IDENTITY,
available available varying from
DISCOURSES SOCIAL- individual to
including various IDENTITIES individual in
managerial, including various extent to which
leadership, notions of incorporates
business owner, the manager, elements of
entrepreneurial the leader, the managerial/
discourses business owner, leadership/
the entrepreneur business owner,
entrepreneurial
social-identities
Source: Adapted from Watson (2008: 128).
Figure 7.1 The relation between discourses and self-identities

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 140 15/12/2017 07:53

every individual, engagement in identity work is unavoidable. While individuals

themselves can have input into these social identities (represented by the small
arrow in Figure 7.1), what is important as the basis for our analysis is the recog-
nition that the multiplicity of discourses and social identities are incorporated
to varying extents in the development of unique self-identities. This provides the
starting point for the research reported in this chapter: ‘the crux of the matter,
for the researcher, is this: the extent to which people embrace particular social
identities or “personas” as elements of their self-identity is a matter for empirical
investigation’ (Watson, 2008: 129).
Identity and entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial identity is a similarly complex construct with multidisciplinary
roots and an associated range of conceptual meanings and theoretical roles (Powell
and Baker, 2013; Leitch and Harrison, 2016). As our representation of the internali-
zation and incorporation of socially held behavioral expectations, it reflects the past
(what used to be true of one), and influences both the way we feel, think and behave
in the present (what is true of one now) and what we seek in the future (the person
one expects, wishes, feels obligated or fears to become) (Oyserman et al., 2012).
It also represents a frame of reference for reading social situations, behaviors and
actions, signifying who we are in relation to others, and how we differ from them.
If, as Falck et al. (2009) suggest, an individual’s sense of identity is influenced by
considerations of social desirability, and entrepreneurial roles ‘are a set of socially
held behavioural expectations attached to the positions external to an individual’
(Murnieks and Mosakowski, 2007: 2), then entrepreneurial activities are infused
with meaning as a result of the expression of an individual’s identity, and identities
both drive and are driven by entrepreneurial actions. However, entrepreneurs do
not construct their identities alone: identity bridges the individual and the social
and creates a medium through which the entrepreneurial self and the social inter-
act (Ybema et al., 2009; Watson, 2009b). As firm creation is both an individual (or
team) and an inherently social activity, and organizations are social constructions,
the bridging construct of identity is increasingly being applied to exploring and
explaining entrepreneurs’ attempts to understand who they are and are not, and
what they do and do not, at all stages in the entrepreneurial process.
Most contemporary research on identity in entrepreneurship sees it as real, objec-

tive and measurable. The emphasis is primarily on identity as an external represen-
tation, and the analytical frameworks employed concentrate on establishing the
co-variance between it and other phenomena of entrepreneurial interest (Leitch
and Harrison, 2016). This is very much a research program grounded in the princi-
ples and practices of modernity, in which attempts are made to investigate, meas-
ure, analyze, record and classify particular phenomena (Leitch and Harrison, 2016).
However, the construction of a single entrepreneurial identity, whether desirable
or not, is difficult due to the agentic nature of the entrepreneurial process and
absence of normative institutionalized exemplars (Marlow and McAdam, 2015;
Down, 2006), the shifting conceptualizations of the archetypical entrepreneur in

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 141 15/12/2017 07:53

popular discourse (Watson, 2013a) and the evident heterogeneity of entrepreneur-

ial identities (Fauchart and Gruber, 2011; Cardon et al., 2009; Alsos et al., 2016).
Women entrepreneurs and identity

For some actors an important aspect of identity work is the desire for affirmation
as a legitimate member of a particular grouping (Butler, 2004), in this case as an
entrepreneur: the creation of a sense of belongingness reinforces self-confirmation
(Hogg, 2006). However, Hamilton (2013a: 90) warns that ‘we are not free to author
our own identities; we draw on those available to us in order to creatively configure
a sense of self’. Accordingly, feminists have argued that for women entrepreneurs
this can be particularly challenging, especially if they want to achieve visibility and
entrepreneurial legitimacy (Marlow and McAdam, 2015; De Clercq and Voronov,
2009; Stead, 2017). Historically the entrepreneurship literature has assumed that
the process of founding and growing a venture results from the efforts of a lone,
male entrepreneur, resulting in the traditional normative gendered stereotyping
of entrepreneurs of ‘think entrepreneur, think male’, and as a result ignores entre-
preneurship as the enactment of feminist values (Orser et al., 2013; Ogbor, 2000;
Wilson and Tagg, 2010). Despite this, there is dispute regarding the gender-blind
assumptions informing the analysis of entrepreneurial identity. On the one hand,
for some, the ideal entrepreneur reflects the male prototype, drawing on mascu-
line assumptions as generic, which means that normative constructions of female-
ness and femininity are not necessarily aligned with contemporary understandings
(Marlow and McAdam, 2015; Ahl and Marlow, 2012). On the other hand, a growing
body of work studying women entrepreneurs cautions that the feminist argument
that the field is gender-blind is no longer valid (Hamilton, 2013b). Indeed, it could
be argued that focusing on the study of women entrepreneurs from a perspective of
difference from men (the dominant perspective), is gender-blind in itself as it miti-
gates against examining the male norm (Sunderland, 2004; Harrison et al., 2015).
Part of the critique of gender as difference represented as gender-as-variable

research is the perpetuation of oppositional binaries, which assumes homogene-
ity of the sexes, as well as a tendency towards essentialism (Leitch et al., 2017;
Harrison and Mason, 2007). This results from the distinctions that Oakley (1972)
advanced between sex as a biological category (female and male) and gender as
a social construction (feminine and masculine), and the subsequent mapping of
socially ascribed characteristics of femininity and masculinity to a particular sex
so that masculine attributes are associated with the male and accorded greater
respect, legitimacy and authority (Bowden and Mummery, 2009). Such a hierarchi-
cal gender binary ignores the co-constitution of both male and female aspects of
gender in the construction of an entrepreneurial identity. In disregarding the dyna-
mism and fluidity of identity work such a perspective also continues the notion of a
decontextualized static and stable identity. However, identity work is complicated,
constantly shifting and negotiated with others, being constitutive of rather than
external to identity: ‘The inner self is not an autonomously owned space to which
we can attach preferred identities but rather, is embedded within culture and con-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 142 15/12/2017 07:53

text’ (Marlow and McAdam, 2015: 793; Butler, 1993). In other words, constructing
and reconstructing identity occurs in everyday lives and settings. In the research
reported in this chapter we pose the following research question: how and to what
extent is female entrepreneurial identity shaped by historical life-events and their
contemporary embeddedness in and experience of social situations and networks?
Methodology
Fundamental to the research reported in this chapter are three transitions in per-
spective in entrepreneurial identity research (Leitch and Harrison, 2016): first, there
is a move from the static analysis of identity per se to the process of identity con-
struction, in which identity work as the means by which this emerges is important;
second, there is a resultant shift from social identity to the concept of self-identity;
and third, in entrepreneurship, as in organization studies more generally, there is
growing interest in the situational nature of identity construction, which has not
yet been empirically and systematically investigated (Soekijad and Skovgard Smith,
2012). As such, this research responds to Hjorth et al.’s (2008) call for work which
goes beyond the uncreative and decontextualized research currently dominant in
entrepreneurship (see Welter, 2011; Wright et al., 2014), and sees individuals as
creative and emergent beings who continuously exchange with others to shape
their identities and life-orientations (Watson, 2013a). Given that ‘identity issues
call for considerable depth and richness’ (Svenningsson and Alvesson, 2003: 1170),
a single case study research design (Watson, 2008, 2009b; Perren and Ram, 2004;
Svenningsson and Alvesson, 2003) using ethnographic techniques was adopted
which allowed insights, experiences, meanings and interpretations in a particular
context to be uncovered.
Ethnographic case study research

Despite growing interest in management (Cunliffe, 2010; Van Mannen, 1988), to
date there has been relatively little use of ethnographic methods in entrepreneur-
ship (Watson, 2013b). These are particularly relevant for research explicitly focus-
ing on identifying and articulating the entrepreneurial process (Dana and Dana,
2005; Moroz and Hindle, 2012). Specifically, if entrepreneurial action – in this
instance, identity work and the process of identity construction – is viewed as a key
feature of contemporary social organization with its own institutional logic, then
an ethnographic approach, as a distinctive type of research, helps to provide an
illuminating perspective on these issues (Watson, 2012).
There is an emerging research agenda focused on exploring identity work and for-
mation as a fluid, complex, multifaceted and context-specific process in which both
the external (representation of self) and internal (biographical, lived experience)
perspectives are important. Given that gender is a social construction, our choice
of an interpretivist ethnographic research design and methodology was informed
by three specific considerations (Svennigssson and Alvesson, 2003; Watson, 2008).

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 143 15/12/2017 07:53

First, the research focus is on identity work as a process of emergence (Chia and
Holt, 2006) rather than on the static representation of identity. Second, self-identity
is socially constructed and, thus, is not meaningful in isolation from the social
world of other people (Jenkins, 1996; Oyserman et al., 2012). That means that the
identity work individuals engage in is not primarily or exclusively an internal, self-
oriented process. Rather, through talk and action the inwardly directed process of
internal self-reflection and the outwardly oriented process of external engagement
with various social identities are integrated (Watson, 2008: 130). Third, although
there are some empirical studies of the role of context in entrepreneurial identity
formation, in particular (Down and Reveley, 2009; Miller and Le Breton-Miller,
2011), there remains little formal investigation of the situational nature of iden-
tity construction by individuals facing change, where the process of identity work
depends on the situation they are in and on the interests that are at stake in those
specific concrete situations (Soekijad and Skovgard Smith, 2012).
Coupled with a longitudinal research design, observational research provides a

valuable opportunity for the study of identity in progress, avoiding the dangers
of relying on retrospective, (re)constructed accounts and providing a context for
understanding and interpreting interview-based material (Mallett and Wapshott,
2012). We adopted a case study approach (Perren and Ram, 2004) informed by
hermeneutic and phenomenological perspectives (Cope, 2005; Laakkonen, 2012;
Hindle, 2004; Neergaard and Parm Ulhøi, 2007) to allow for a focus on process
and context which are central to the interpretation of identity. We follow Hilliard
(1993) in seeing the case study as a research design that is appropriate for address-
ing particular types of research objectives where the prime interest is on the tempo-
ral unfolding of variables within individual subjects through the collection of direct
observational qualitative data. In applying this we follow Gibbert and Ruigrok
(2010) on strategies to ensure rigor in case study research, which focus primarily on
the detailed reporting of the concrete research actions taken so that the reader may
appreciate the logic of the specific case study (Leitch et al., 2010).
Research context
Our research is nested within a more extensive, longitudinal case study investi-
gation into the process of leader and leadership development in entrepreneurial
ventures, all of which were focused on opportunity recognition, exploitation and
venture growth (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Morris et al., 2015). We followed
leaders from 22 companies drawn from several cohorts of a leadership development
program (Leitch et al., 2012).1 Mary, the subject of this case study, was one of these
owners. When she started the venture with her husband (Sam) and father-in-law
(James) she was 54 years old and had no prior entrepreneurial experience, having
previously worked in a number of shopfloor and office roles in large companies in
the textile and consumer electronics assembly industries. However, when James
indicated that he wished to establish an engineering business in a sector in which
he had over 30 years’ experience, and Sam over 25 years, she was persuaded to join
the venture. Although Mary acknowledges that she knew nothing about founding

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 144 15/12/2017 07:53

a business, having provided the majority of the start-up capital she became a direc-
tor alongside James and Sam. James, as father and founder, was initially managing
director, ostensibly with responsibility for the overall direction and management of
the business. Sam was production manager, and on his father’s retirement became
managing director. At the outset, Mary was focused on managing the administra-
tive functions, though gradually took on the leadership role, albeit not formally
acknowledged.
Data collection
The authors, together with a researcher2 trained in ethnographic field research
methods, collected data over approximately an 18-month period using a combina-
tion of overt observation, conversations, interviews and documentary materials,
and regularly compared field notes and experiences for consistency (see Appendix).
This is consistent with the distinctive nature of ethnographic research, which is
predicated on a commitment to methodological holism (Gellner and Hirsch, 2001)
in which researchers ‘observe closely the actions, meanings, artefacts and outcomes
that constitute the field’ (Watson and Watson, 2012: 685). Given that anything in
the research context is potentially relevant, it is the combination of material from
diverse sources that forms the ‘ethnographic record’ (Kuper, 1994: 17), which is the
basis for deepening our understanding of the aspect of modern life under consid-
eration (Watson and Watson, 2012).
Given the volume of material we are obviously not in a position to provide a com-
prehensive analysis of everything this might tell us about the formation of entre-
preneurial identity. As is common in ethnographic research, we have to exercise
selectivity as researchers in the choice of data to present and the manner in which
it is presented. Our approach to this has been to use the longitudinal single case
study – drawing in particular on the interviews and conversations with Mary,
informed by the relevant portions of the field notes and observational data – to
shine a light on entrepreneurial identity construction.
The interviews were unstructured and open-ended and no specific reference was
made to identity. Our intention was to open the possibility of ‘gaining an insight
into the experiences, concerns, interests, beliefs, values, knowledge and ways of
seeing, thinking and acting’ of the participant (Schostak, 2006: 10). As such, the
focus is on the interview as an interactive process where both the interviewer
and interviewee are co-constructing meaning and interpreting this process (Cassel,
2005; Denzin, 2001). In this respect the approach differs from that of the conven-
tional qualitative interviewer, for whom the semi-structured interview is designed
as a purposive exploration of the phenomenon of interest. All interviews were
recorded and transcribed verbatim and field observations from each session were
also written up to provide a text for analysis. In line with assurances given to partic-
ipants, their names and business identities have been changed to ensure anonymity.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 145 15/12/2017 07:53

Data analysis
The analysis reported here relates specifically to data pertaining to Mary and her
business. Data analysis has been informed by recent discussions of interpretivist
research in entrepreneurship (Leitch et al., 2010; Leitch and Hill, 2015), and fol-
lowed the protocols of the grounded theory framework (Strauss and Corbin, 1998;
Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Specifically, this uses three basic elements: concepts/
codes (basic units of analysis), categories (more abstract than concepts) and
propositions/themes (relationships among categories). Coding was carried out
in three stages: first, open coding, the identification of relevant concepts/codes;
second, axial coding, the refinement of these concepts into categories; and third,
selective coding, the process of relating one category to another to generate themes.
At the open coding stage, familiarity was gained through close reading and re-
reading of the text that supported early coding of the transcriptions. Data were
broken down into codes by asking simple questions, such as ‘Who?’, ‘What?’,
‘When?’, ‘Where?’, ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ These codes were then compared and similar
occurrences ‒ that is, duplication ‒ were placed under the same concept/code, to
provide a list of unique codes for further analysis. Axial coding was conducted to
refine, reclassify and group each concept/code into categories. Finally, selective
coding occurred which consisted of making connections between the different cat-
egories to develop theoretical interpretations. Throughout the analysis, constant
comparison was made between existing data and emerging categories until data
saturation was obtained. In the present study, the case analysis of the emergence of
Mary’s identity, this was not achieved at the end of the data collection process for
the leadership development program and, therefore, it was decided to carry out the
further interviews as specified above after its completion.
While ‘pure’ grounded theory sees conceptual sense-making, that is, theory emerg-
ing from the data (Glaser, 1999), our approach was to work iteratively, switching
back and forth between the inductive and the deductive (Watson, 2012). Thus, the
research process involved ongoing iteration across the data collection, analysis and
interpretation phases. Nevertheless, relying on the coding protocols of grounded
theory allowed the data to be organized and structured ‘according to the issues and
topics identified by participants as being important for the phenomenon of interest’
(Leitch and Hill, 2015: 6). In essence, themes were ‘derived from the concepts and
categories which social actors use to interpret and understand their worlds’ (Jones,
1985: 25).
Findings: the construction of entrepreneurial identity
After open coding of Mary’s data, 51 discrete concepts/codes were identified.

Through axial coding undertaken by two of the researchers these were combined
into six categories, which were checked for coherence and consistency by a third
member of the project research team (Leitch et al., 2010) (Table 7.1). In this section

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 146 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 7.1 Inductive analysis and data coding: the case of Mary
Open coding (concepts/codes) Axial coding (categories)
Knowledge and expertise Knowledge, expertise and

Lack of knowledge experience
Experience
Acquisition of knowledge
Job role and skills
Confidence Personal attributes
Naivety
Self-awareness
Self-confidence
Initiative
Adaptability
Influencing
Differentiating characteristics
Managing change
Fear
Formative years
Personal attributes
Self-reflective
Gender
Delegation
Self-efficacy
Learning dimensions Learning
Training
Leadership development
Peer learning
Learning orientation
Funding Business
Investor relations
Recession and economic climate
Competitors
Customer benefits
Commercial awareness
Overview of business
Change
Survival of business
Serendipity Family business dynamics
Owner manager
Succession planning
Business as child
Maternalistic nurturing
Family dynamics

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 147 15/12/2017 07:53

Open coding (concepts/codes) Axial coding (categories)
Leadership Leadership
Developing awareness of being a business owner
Relationship between leader and business
Role and leadership
Contingency of entrepreneurial leader role
Legitimacy
Partnership roles and mutual dependence
Nature versus nurture (born not made)
Formal title versus role played
Discipline
we present a narrative drawing on each category – knowledge, expertise and expe-

rience; personal attributes; learning; business; family business dynamics and leader-
ship – to demonstrate how Mary’s identity has been constructed (Watson, 2012;
Gartner, 2010).
This narrative is based on Mary’s reflections on, and interpretations of, her evolving
role in the business that allows the identification of dimensions of the construction
of her identity. In presenting this story we continue to exert the selectivity central
to the ethnographic research process and, accordingly, draw on all of the material
available to us to provide a holistic account of Mary’s identity construction (van
Mannen, 1988; Cunliffe, 2010). We do so as a contribution to the still relatively
sparse literature of empirical studies addressing in-depth identity construction on
the personal level (Svenningsson and Alvesson, 2003). As the identities of individu-
als in contemporary organizational contexts are frequently fluid and fragmented,
and that ‘identity lacks sufficient substance and discreteness to be captured in ques-
tionnaires or single interviews and to be measured and counted’ (Svenningsson and
Alvesson, 2003: 1165), our aim was to produce a thick rich case account of identity
construction.
Knowledge, expertise and experience

Mary has been on a journey, from a position where she did not know what she was
doing at the inception of the business, to one where she could describe herself with
some degree of self-confidence as a business owner. She acknowledged that at the
outset of the business the directors collectively faced a steep learning curve. While
James had some management experience, he had no wider commercial and busi-
ness development experience; and Sam’s expertise was restricted to technical and
operational aspects (indeed, initially he worked on the shopfloor). Mary very clearly
articulated how she felt initially:

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 148 15/12/2017 07:53

I had no experience at all, I had absolutely no experience in business or bookkeeping or

anything, I had spent my whole life on a shop-floor . . . [this was] a massive step . . . but
because I put some money in, James made me a director of the company, which again was
a huge, great big step and I felt as if I was totally out of my depth at that point, I didn’t
know what to do.
By the end of the research she was able to reflect on what had changed in her: ‘Belief
in myself. I think I can quite honestly hold my head up now and say I’m a business
woman. I would never have done that before.’
As reflected in the shift embodied in these two quotations, we explore Mary’s jour-
ney and discuss the nature of the identity work in which she engaged in this process
of identity construction.
Personal attributes
Mary’s initial concern about her lack of knowledge, expertise and experience is
associated with her personal attributes and, in particular, the negative dimensions
of lack of confidence, fear and naivety. These, together with the more positive per-
sonal attributes ‒ for example, initiative, adaptability and influencing skills ‒ in turn
underlie the commitment she has shown to learning. This is reflected in a rapid
expansion in her technical knowledge of the business and in her broader under-
standing of its commercial dynamics and competitive context.
Within this there is an increase in her appreciation of the tensions and implications
of being in a family business. A further manifestation of learning as an emergent
category in this narrative is the importance of leadership and leadership develop-
ment, which is also stimulated by both her negative and positive personal attributes
as well as her developing knowledge of the business. Collectively these six catego-
ries interrelate to construct Mary’s identity.
Given that Mary made it clear that establishing this business, becoming an d irector/
owner and playing a significant part in the day-to-day running of the enterprise
was alien to her, it is clear that she perceived that she lacked relevant knowledge,
experience and expertise. This is in the context of a wider absence of significant
managerial and leadership experience in her co-founders. This meant that Mary did
not have access within the business to the sort of coaching and mentoring expertise
that would help her grow into the role of director/owner. The narrative of her iden-
tity construction, therefore, is set within the context of the absence of meaningful
support. Mary is explicit about Sam and James’s limitations, notwithstanding their
knowledge of and experience in the production technology involved:
James was the only one that had any management experience, he had no business experi-
ence, he still doesn’t but he had a bit of management experience, so it was him and I that
did the [initial shopfloor recruitment] interviews and we picked all the wrong people, you
know, we just didn’t have a clue, we sort of went on a wing and prayer.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 149 15/12/2017 07:53

For the first year and a half I would say, Sam worked on the shopfloor, until his back was
that bad that he couldn’t do any more and he had to start on lighter duties.
Mary acknowledges that initially she was not comfortable in this new venture
which is displayed in her frequent allusions to a lack of confidence, fear and con-
cerns about her ability to effectively carry out her role: ‘No, I was frightened. I’m
still the same, it feels that I’ve been frightened all my life and I’m thinking: no, I’m
going to do it now.’
Much of this fear and lack of confidence appears to be situational. In our first
interview with Mary she reflected on her earlier shift from the shopfloor, working
as a machinist in the textile industry, to being an engineer’s assistant in electronics
assembly: ‘I loved that job, it was very interesting. So, I suppose that gave me a wee
bit of confidence in myself that I was capable of doing an awful lot more than what
I had done in the past.’
However, this confidence did not translate into the new venture. Mary did not
identify herself as a director, owner or leader of the company; indeed, she did not
even consider herself capable of being a competent book-keeper. From the outset
the company experienced significant problems. Within the first year James made
a costly error in materials ordering which almost put them out of business. To
address this issue their new investors had to refinance to a larger extent than had
been anticipated, and as a result their ownership share was raised to 50 percent.
Around this time also, James started to indicate that he would like to retire, as it
became increasingly clear that the commitment required to launch and grow a suc-
cessful business far exceeded his expectations. This was compounded by his poor
managerial skills, particularly in supervising the shopfloor workforce. Together
these brought about a crisis in Mary’s mind: ‘we thought, he’s [James] the only one
that’s got any management experience here, what on earth are we going to do? . . .
[so] we started looking into what training we needed to take the company forward
if James left.’
Learning
This suggests that Mary, to a much greater extent than Sam, was developing a
strong sense of what was needed to be done to secure the future of the business.
However, she made it clear that it was only on the suggestion of an external business
development advisor that she decided to attend a development program targeted at
leaders/owners of new and growing businesses. In other words, the opportunity for
learning emerged more as an enforced response to circumstances than as a mani-
festation of a growing awareness of entrepreneurial identity. Indeed, Mary’s initial
reaction reflected both her lack of confidence and her non-articulation of an iden-
tity as a director, owner or leader: ‘When [programme director] was here telling me
about the course, I was very enthusiastic about it and then I got cold feet with the
price of the course and I thought “am I worth spending that kind of money?”’.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 150 15/12/2017 07:53

This relates back to Mary’s discovery that events in her formative years had shaped
her self-awareness. In particular, she recalled a specific incident from her school
years. She tells of how at the age of ten her teacher split the class into two groups:
The grammar3 group who were all her favourites and she wanted to teach them because
she thought that they would go far and . . . the group where she couldn’t be bothered with
the pupils . . . So we were left at one side of the room with a book to read, you know, left
to get on with it ourselves.
The ten-year-old Mary was not happy about this and asked to be moved into the
grammar group, an aspiration that was dashed by her teacher: ‘She went, you must
be joking, she said you think I’m going to waste my time teaching you, she said you
will never amount to anything in your life. And that has stuck with me forever.’
This illustrates the importance and impact of even quite early events in an indi-
vidual’s life history as antecedents to identity construction: while the negative con-
sequences of this stigmatization continue to show in Mary’s lack of confidence, as
in her response to the program director, she recognizes that this drove her, and
continues to drive her, to achieve. In the context of the current narrative her deci-
sion to participate in the development program was Mary’s response to what she
saw as another challenge: ‘We had a bit of a discussion about it and we decided that
yes, I should do it anyway . . . I need to do something to get me to the level I need to
be at. It’s something that needs to be done.’
For Mary this level was to become confident in making decisions. It is not that she
did not make decisions, nor that they were not the correct ones, but that she was
not always assured that they were right because, as she put it on the first day of the
leadership program: ‘I don’t have business experience, I don’t have role models to
learn from, I’ve not been brought up in business, I’ve just been flung in – I need to
know that I’m doing the right things.’
By the end of the first day on the program she had discovered that she was not the
only person who did not have much confidence in their capabilities. More specifi-
cally, she began to appreciate that problem-solving and decision-making abilities
do not come naturally to many people, including those she saw as successful busi-
ness leaders. This prompted a realization that she has natural capabilities to do
these. By the end of the program she was able to reflect more expansively on what
she had learned:
It was finding out that I wasn’t a million miles away from where I needed to be, that I
was instinctively doing the right things. Before that I had been very, very doubtful about
whether I was doing things right or not . . . [Now] I know I’ve got something about me
that a lot of people don’t have. I don’t even think its ambition, so I don’t know what it is.
I call it initiative, I’ve got a lot of initiative, I can go into a situation and I can see what
needs to be done and I can get on with it . . . there’s not an awful lot of people that have
that.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 151 15/12/2017 07:53

For Mary this structured learning and development process played a central role in
the construction of her identity. Not only did it stimulate her to re-evaluate inci-
dents in her formative years and their impact on her sense of self, but it also pro-
vided a framework for conversations with her peers, coaches and program faculty,
which led her to reconsider who she was. Reflecting on the program a year after its
completion, she summarized this change as follows:
I thought I would feel like an interloper when I went there, I was absolutely terrified . . . I
can remember thinking before I went there they’re going to see right through me, they’re
going to know that I am no good at anything and that there’s no way that I am a business
person and I shouldn’t be there.
By the end of the course she had discovered that everybody else had the same kind
of problems as herself, and as a result she reported that not only had her confidence
been built, but that she really felt that she had a right to be there. In other words,
she had arrived at a position where in answer to the question ‘What do you consider
yourself to be?’ she could unequivocally answer, ‘Definitely a business woman’.
Business and family business dynamics

Her articulation of this is couched in her much more highly developed business and
commercial awareness, as well as her recognition that she is increasingly displaying
a number of key leadership behaviors. In terms of business awareness she attributes
the survival of the business through the recession to have been based on the guid-
ance she and Sam have provided: ‘I think if anybody can get themselves through
this [the recession], then they have got the right to call themselves a business
person because it’s taken some very, very hard decisions and some real, real tough
measures to get us to this point.’
Mary has not incorporated a sense of being a leader into her emerging identity, not-
withstanding the fact that she participated in a leadership development program,
which she found to be of enormous benefit. Indeed, it is quite the opposite:
I’m saying I don’t see myself as a leader . . . maybe I’ve lost my definition of what a leader
is . . . because the more I’m talking about it the more I’m thinking I probably make an
awful lot of decisions and not force a lot of things to be done . . . [for example] if we’re
needing to cut costs and things like that, the initial ideas or the initial thing would be for
me to say this is what the state of the company is and we need to do something about it.
In other words, whether in terms of viewing herself as a business owner or leader,

Mary’s constructed identity is partial, fragmentary, in a continuing state of evo-
lution and emergent in the process of conversation, including those with the
researchers. One particular incident in the development of the business crystallizes
this. As noted above, Mary, Sam and James had brought new investors into the
business to fund their planned expansion before the recession. Mary acknowledged
that she learnt a lot from interacting with them. However, when James retired, the

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 152 15/12/2017 07:53

investors sought to move Mary and Sam into new, non-core operational roles and
to bring someone else in to run the company. For Mary this was anathema, and
she presents one of the clearest expressions of her emerging identity as a business
owner, one which drew more on a nurturing familial interpretation than a conven-
tional entrepreneurial one:
This is our baby . . . this is our child, this is for us to nurture and bring it up. I think if
Sam had retired instead of James, I don’t think the business would have survived, if I had
retired and either of them had stayed I don’t think the business would have survived. I
think it needed what happened to happen.
This strengthened her resolve and sense of identity as a legitimate business owner.
Although she did not, and still does not, have the designation of managing direc-
tor (reflecting the primogeniture characteristic in the family business; Hamilton,
2013a), Mary acknowledges that in this instance it was she who drove the negotia-
tions to exit the investors and restore full control of the business to the family.
Leadership and identity

Mary’s story of identity construction is of course an unfinished work-in-progress
which continues beyond the research period reported on here. In presenting our
narrative we have gained an insight into the experiences, concerns, interests, beliefs,
values, knowledge and ways of seeing, thinking and acting of Mary which con-
firms that the process of identity construction is neither complete nor linear. From
the inductive analysis a number of categories have been identified – knowledge,
expertise and experience; personal attributes; learning; business; family business
dynamics; and leadership – that impacted on Mary’s construction of her identity.
These are, of course, not presented as necessarily generalizable to the population
of entrepreneurs/business owners at large but rather offer an indication of the
insights to be gained from ethnographic-type studies such as that reported here. It
is also clear from the narrative that these categories do not exist independently and
do not discretely influence the process of identity construction. In the following
section, therefore, key overarching themes that emerged from the final, selective
coding stage of the analysis are presented.
Discussion: the process of identity construction
From Mary’s story three overarching themes about identity construction in general
emerge, as well as two that are specifically related to gender. While these are at
one level specific to a particular case, the selective coding process allows for the
identification of themes that are of wider applicability to the analysis of the social
process of interest. It is important to note that even though Mary was specifically
asked if she felt being a woman impacted on her experiences of being either an
entrepreneur or leader, she stated that she felt this was irrelevant. Nevertheless,
in the analysis of the themes we draw attention to the role gender plays in the

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 153 15/12/2017 07:53

c onstruction of Mary’s identity as an entrepreneur. In doing this we are looking

at the familiar differently, permitting us to make observations that might not align
with prevailing constructions and conceptualizations of entrepreneurs (Jennings
and Brush, 2013; Hurley, 1999).
Identity representation: the self and the social

First, in discussing entrepreneurial identity there is a disjoint between the generic
socially accepted view and the entrepreneur’s self-image. For Mary this was clearly
and consistently articulated throughout the entire research process. She expressed
a view of entrepreneurs, business owners and leaders that was very much at odds
with her self-perception, to the extent that for much of the time we interacted
with her she saw them as ‘other’ and herself as outwith these sets. In DeRue and
Ashford’s (2010) terms, there is a clear distinction between espoused and ascribed
leadership (or entrepreneurship): in their view, leadership identity is coconstructed
in organizations when individuals claim and grant leader and follower identities in
their social interactions. Through this claiming-granting process, individuals inter-
nalize an identity as leader or follower, and those identities become relationally
recognized through reciprocal role adoption and collectively endorsed within the
organizational context. Our research suggests a refinement to the apparent sym-
metry of this process and questions the de facto automatic or inevitable internaliza-
tion of this identity. Mary increasingly played the role of the entrepreneurial leader
in this venture, and was described by others in these terms – she was granted a
leader/entrepreneur identity – but never herself claimed or espoused this as part of
her own consciously internalized or articulated identity. This reflects a more gen-
eral issue, that frequently a mismatch is evident between the categories researchers
use to represent the lived experiences of the participants in their research, and
those used by the participants themselves. In privileging the former over the latter
in identity research in entrepreneurship there is a danger that as researchers we
lead participants into the articulation of identity descriptors that are not in fact
part of their own cognitive map. What is required, thus, is a deeper awareness
of the ‘native categories’ (Chapman and Buckley, 2002; Harris, 2000), that is, the
fundamental concepts that ‘people use to identify and explain to themselves what
is happening to them’ (Green, 2009: 418). These native categories are sufficiently
elemental to carry cultural weight and sufficiently familiar to be used constantly
and intuitively. The issue here is that the native categories constructed by us in a
research community do not necessarily mesh with those in the society or social
group we seek to research; in other words, they have connotations, nuances and
shades of meaning which are understood in one but not the other, and there are no
obvious interlocutory or translation mechanisms. It is for this reason that we have
sought to demonstrate the relevance of in-depth, ethnographic research to give
voice to participants and to explicate identity construction in their own terms and
categories.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 154 15/12/2017 07:53

Identity construction as an unconscious process

Second, identity work emerges from our analysis as something implicit, a conclu-
sion at odds with the emphasis in much of the contemporary literature that the
construction of identity is deliberately, systematically and explicitly engaged in. At
no point in the research did Mary give any indication that she was purposively seek-
ing to construct a particular identity, and to the extent that she can be construed to
be engaging in identity work through her professional and personal relationships,
conversations and engagements, this is not with a view to the self-consciously
aware creation of a particular identity. For future research on identity in entrepre-
neurship this implies that we need a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic
interrelationships between the discourses of social identity and their appropriation
of these by individuals to themselves. Current research, including that drawn on in
this chapter, assumes that individuals consciously and deliberately identify and take
on elements of desired, perhaps aspirational, social identities that they then use to
represent themselves to the world. The evidence from our research suggests, how-
ever, that this process may not be deliberate, explicit and intentional. As a result
we will need to rethink the manner in which self-identity is constructed by the
individual and socially constructed by the wider community to which they belong.
The influence of life history

Third, the development of entrepreneurial identity is driven at least in part by a
desire for social legitimacy and acceptance, in an ongoing process of discourse
between self and other. For Mary there is a strong connection between key events
in her life history (early school, experience, work history, family relocation) and her
desire to succeed in a business venture in which she had no confidence in her abil-
ity to lead. Through a series of conversations, including those with the leadership
development program team and the research team, she progressively established
herself in her own mind as a legitimate and accepted member of the entrepre-
neurial, owner-manager community, or in Gee’s (2000) terms, affinity grouping.
This is seen, for example, in her acceptance by the end of the research process
that she would find it appropriate and unexceptional to join relevant business
networks (for instance, Chamber of Commerce, Institute of Directors), something
that was alien to her at the outset. For future entrepreneurial identity research this
continuous process of discourse between self and other in identity construction
raises a methodological challenge. The approach adopted in this chapter provides
a depth of analysis not available from more traditional methods. Despite this, it
also emphasizes the need to be aware that the presence of the researcher can influ-
ence what they observe or are told. If, as Watson and Watson (2012) argue, there
is an identity work component to practically every conversation, we see that in the
course of interviews and conversations the participants’ notions of who they are
will be rehearsed and developed in the dialogue of the interview.
The analysis of identity and identity construction we have presented in this chapter
is consistent with Acker’s (1990) model for the study of gendering, which i dentifies

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 155 15/12/2017 07:53

four sets of processes involved in the gendering of organizations: (1) divisions

between women and men, as in the sexual division of labor and economic roles, are
constructed; (2) symbols and imagery that represent, express, justify and maintain
these distinctions are constructed; (3) processes of interaction in the workplace
help to keep men in a dominant position; and (4) women and men adopt internal
mental processes to locate themselves as individuals and lead them to identify and
act in gender-appropriate ways. From a gender perspective a number of elements
are striking about Mary’s observations and revolve around two issues: first, her
attaining credibility and legitimacy as both an entrepreneur and entrepreneurial
leader; and second, her visibility and invisibility in the family-owned venture, which
is within a male-dominated sector.
Attaining and gaining credibility

While not explicitly articulating her need for credibility and acceptance as an entre-
preneur, she explains, in the context of joining a leadership development program,
that she felt like an interloper and not a business person. Clearly, a tension exists
between her evaluation of her capabilities and experiences with her perceptions of
those of her peers, in that she feels significantly different or ‘other’ from and not
similar to the rest of the group, which she seems to view homogeneously (Snihur,
2016; Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010). The particular cohort of the leadership devel-
opment program of which Mary was a participant was male-dominated, indeed she
was one of only two women who initially joined, and the only one to complete it.
This is not necessarily unique as women leaders in entrepreneurial businesses are
generally under-represented, marginalized, often isolated, lacking role models and
with little opportunity to share their experiences (Leitch et al., forthcoming; Stead,
2017). As an ‘intruder’ into a male territory (Gherardi, 1996), Mary was different
from the normative population of the program cohort of male business owners
and leaders, thus making it difficult, initially at least, for normative suggestions of
femininity and femaleness to fit (Marlow and McAdam, 2015). For women, their
gendered characterization and associated gender biases, which tend to be perva-
sive, subtle, deep-rooted and covert, make it harder to feel a sense of belonging
(Kandola, 2009).
Claiming entrepreneurial legitimacy with a desired reference group is made more

challenging for Mary as it stems from a negative position of inadequacy and lack
of confidence, instead of the more positive and deliberate attempt to stand out
through conveying novelty (De Clercq and Voronov, 2009). Throughout Mary’s
story she constantly refers to ‘not being good at anything’. The source of this stems
from her experiences at school where she was not deemed to be sufficiently intel-
ligent to join the top stream or group (once again being deemed ‘other’), reinforced
by subsequent events including the attitudes and behaviors of the investors. Even
though Mary was a participant on a leadership development program she does not
even consider herself to be a leader, which may reflect a domain-specific lack of
confidence, attributable to a clash with the ‘ideal worker’ stereotype, a lack of super-
visory support, and too few role models (Coffman and Neuenfeldt, 2014). However,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 156 15/12/2017 07:53

as she progressed on the program and discovered that the problems she faced and
the solutions she derived were not radically different from those of her peers, it is
evident that Mary’s identification with the group grew, which demonstrates nicely
the self-reinforcing aspect of identity work. Attaining legitimacy not only requires
contextualized recognition and approval for the self as a credible subject within a
particular setting (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001: 546), but also by self-confirmation
leads to an increased sense of belonging (Hogg, 2006).
Women in family businesses: the issue of invisibility

Our understanding of the ways in which women are presented and gain credibility
in family businesses remains limited, arguably as a result of phenomenon of the
‘invisible women’, which can be explained by the dominant patriarchal discourse
and practice in entrepreneurship (Hamilton, 2013b; Patterson et al., 2012). Drawing
on Mulholland’s (1996a, 1996b) notion of ‘entrepreneurial masculinities’, Hamilton
(2013a) demonstrates how patriarchal forces and women’s domestic labor and
feminine ideologies play a fundamental role in the development of particular mas-
culinities. Women’s invisibility is perpetuated due to the inherent patriarchal strat-
egies and practices at play, so even though they play an active part in their venture’s
wealth creation they do not receive the recognition they deserve.
At the outset Mary’s role in the business was as office manager, focused on the
commercial aspects and managing the administrative functions; while James, as
father and founder, was managing director, ostensibly with responsibility for the
overall direction and management of the business; and Sam, as his son, was pro-
duction manager, in charge of the shopfloor. The ways in which these titles were
assigned did not accurately reflect the actual allocation of responsibilities and tasks,
and as the findings highlight, increasingly Mary more explicitly demonstrated lead-
ership capabilities and strategic oversight. While internally Mary’s role was explic-
itly acknowledged by the workforce, the rewards generated by her were subsumed
into Sam’s rewards, via the title of managing director, which he assumed on his
father’s retirement. The title confers a certain status and is associated with particu-
lar behaviors and responsibilities, and thus, from an external perspective at least,
Sam is assumed to be the owner-manager and lead entrepreneur. This potentially
downplays the role carried out in the business by Mary and diminishes our under-
standing of the everyday entrepreneurial practice of women (Hamilton, 2013b).
Even though, to all intents and purposes, Mary is the entrepreneurial leader of the
business, which Sam himself acknowledges, the fact that he succeeded his father
demonstrates the dominance of primogeniture, whereby the eldest son, irrespec-
tive of his skills and capabilities, becomes the business’s natural successor (Hoy and
Sharma, 2006).
Summary
The adoption of an ethnographic approach allowed us to highlight the fluidity
of identity construction arising from, contributing to and being shaped, either

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 157 15/12/2017 07:53

consciously or unconsciously, by social practices at different levels (the family,

the business and society more generally). Our analysis reveals that the construc-
tion of an entrepreneurial identity is dynamic, fluid, and constantly negotiated and
renegotiated within different and constantly changing relationships, expectations
and scenarios. In short, it demonstrates that entrepreneurial identity construction
arises from and is related to entrepreneurial practice. The application of a gender
lens draws attention to the pervasiveness and subtlety of deeply engrained histori-
cal, socio-economic and cultural ideas and practices and their impact in shaping a
female entrepreneur’s experiences and ambitions.
At the outset we represented identity formation in Watson’s (2008) terms as a

process of socially available discourses framing a range of available social iden-
tities that are appropriated through identity work to form self-identity (Figure
7.1). Based on our analysis, and incorporating some elements of work identity
theory (Bothma et al., 2015), we extend this model as the basis for further research
on gender and identity in entrepreneurship (Figure 7.2). First, when considering
individual identity, more research is needed into the foci for identity formation
(Watson’s ‘discourses’). Our research has pointed to the importance of life history
in this, but these foci can be thought of more generally to include: life spheres (the
prominent cultural, political, religious, financial or economic spheres in which
Dynamic identity formation through identity work

Search for legitimacy
DISCOURSE SOCIAL SELF

IDENTITIES IDENTITY
Espoused
unconscious identity
Individual
Identity Behavior outcomes

formation IDENTITY
Identity
process
activation
Cognitive outcomes
Foci of
identity conscious
formation Ascribed
identity
Life spheres
Dynamic identity formation through identity work
Life roles
Work
facets
Figure 7.2 A process model of entrepreneurial identity construction

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 158 15/12/2017 07:53

individuals function, draw significant discourses and discussions as they negotiate

self and social identities); life roles (including career, work, home and family, com-
munity, leisure, study); and work facets (the specific aspects of the work context
that individuals choose to identify with) (Bothma et al., 2015). All three aspects are
inescapably gendered, and future research on the formation of women’s entrepre-
neurial identity could usefully examine the way in which life spheres impact on life
roles and thence shape work facets in the construction of identity. Second, there
is scope for additional research on the identity formation process out of which
identity arises (Watson’s ‘social identities’ and ‘self-identity’ nexus). Specifically,
our research has highlighted the extent to which this process is unconscious: prior
research has for the most part assumed agentic intentionality in the search for
legitimacy, and the unconscious, but no less important, role of life spheres, life
roles and work facets has been relatively neglected. Given the dominant masculin-
ist discourse of entrepreneurship, the extent to which women are shaped by rather
than shaping these discourses remains an important focus for research. Third, and
going beyond Watson’s (2008) model, identities are not just about who we are, but
also about what we do. The malleability, context-sensitivity and dynamic construc-
tion of identity (Oyserman et al., 2012) – the identity activation process – whether
identity is espoused by the self or ascribed by others, is associated with behavioral
and cognitive outcomes which in turn feed back into the identity formation pro-
cess. Our research has shown that the link between identity formation and activa-
tion and (entrepreneurial) outcomes is not clear-cut: unpacking and understanding
this relationship is a major challenge for the wider understanding of women’s
entrepreneurial identity.
Conclusion
Our approach in this chapter has been to locate the interplay between identity,
identity work and gender in the social domain: ‘Theorizing gender exclusively at
the level of the subject risks letting social relations disappear . . . allowing gender
to be seen as located primarily in the individual . . . Gender is not only the psy-
chic ordering of biological difference, it is the social ordering of that difference’
(Marshall, 1994: 112). In so doing we eschew essentialist notions of identity and
view identity construction as an ongoing process that is dynamic and fluid, not
stable or fixed. We follow Bradley (2007: 90) in believing that employment and
family relationships are important locations of the social ordering of gender, not
least when they are bound up in issues of ownership and leadership in the family
business. Accordingly, we bring a feminist perspective to interrogate the data in
terms of both entrepreneurship more broadly and family business more specifi-
cally. Entrepreneurship, specifically business ownership, we see as a manifestation
of the gendered segregation of work (Hakim, 2000) and reflected in the continued
existence of ‘gendered niches’ (Crompton, 1997) which reflect beliefs that women
are more suited for some activities, men for others: androcentrism and the domina-
tion of masculine norms perpetuate the idea that business ownership itself is ‘male’;
but even within the ownership of a business the gendered niches occupied by

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 159 15/12/2017 07:53

women are c ommonly of lower status (‘office manager’) and reward, with accompa-
nying challenges for identity.
The search for identity in the construction of the woman entrepreneur involves
challenging the prevailing discourse of masculinity and ‘fit work’ as represented
in the discourse of entrepreneurship. In so doing, as Mary’s case demonstrates, it
requires confronting the symbols and stereotypes of maleness as reflected in atti-
tudes and patterns of behavior. In this, stepping outside the workplace, for example
by participating in a leadership development program, can act as an ‘identity work
crucible’, helping the woman entrepreneur overcome negative workplace-based
interactions. Thus, it becomes possible to transcend the internalization and accept-
ance of traditional views of gender-appropriateness and begin the process of shap-
ing and accepting an entrepreneurial identity.
Notes
1 All participants were founders, owners or chief executive officers of growth-oriented ventures engaged in a nine-
month executive education program focused on personal leadership assessment and development and business
development and growth. Participants were required to pay at least 50 percent of the costs of the program (the
remainder coming from the regional economic development agency). The authors of this chapter were not involved
in the development and delivery of the program, but did undertake an assessment of its effectiveness (Leitch et al.,
2009).
2 We would like to thank Dr Christel McMullan for her contribution to the data collection for this project.
3 At this time in the United Kingdom there was a process of educational selection at the age of 11: the grammar
school stream, representing about 30 percent of the age cohort, followed an academic curriculum designed to pre-
pare them for university entrance; the remainder followed a more vocational programme aimed at preparing them
for direct entry to the labor market.
References
Abdelal R., Y.M. Herrara, A.I. Johnston and T. Martin (2001), ‘Treating identity as a variable: measur-
ing the content, intensity and contestation of identity’, accessed December 27, 2015 at http://www.
people.fas/harvard.edu/~johnston/identity.pdf.
Acker, J. (1990), ‘Hierarchies, jobs and bodies: a theory of gendered organizations’, Gender and Society,
4, 139‒158.
Ahl, H. (2004), The Scientific Reproduction of Gender Inequality, Abingdon: Marston Book Services.
and Practice, 30, 596‒621.
Ahl, H. and S. Marlow (2012), ‘Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship:
advancing debate to escape a dead end?’, Organization, 19, 543‒562.
Ainsworth, S. and D. Grant (2012), ‘Revitalising scholarship in identity studies’, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 28, 60‒62.
Alsos, G., T. Clausen, U. Hytti and S. Solvoll (2016), ‘Entrepreneurs’ social identity and the preference of
causal and effectual behaviours in start-up processes’, Entrepreneurship and Regional, 28 (3/4), 234‒258.
Anderson, A.R. and L. Warren (2011), ‘The entrepreneur as hero and jester: enacting the entrepreneurial
discourse’, International Small Business Journal, 29, 589‒609.
Bauman, Z. (2000), ‘Liquid Modernity’, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beech, N., C. Gilmore, E. Cochrane and G. Greig (2012), ‘Identity work as a response to tensions: a
re-narration in opera rehearsals’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28, 39‒47.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 160 15/12/2017 07:53

Binari, M. (2012), ‘The emotional embeddedness of corporate entrepreneurship: the case of envy’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 141‒170.
Bird, B. and C.G. Brush (2002), ‘A gendered perspective on organizational creation’, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 26, 41‒65.
Boje, D. and R. Smith (2010), ‘Re-storying and visualising the changing entrepreneurial identities of Bill
Gates and Richard Branson’, Culture and Organization, 16, 307‒331.
Bothma, F.C., S. Lloyd and S. Khapova (2015), ‘Work identity: clarifying the concept’, in P.G.W. Jansen
and G. Roodt (eds), Conceptualising and Measuring Work Identity, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 23‒51.
Bowden, J. and P. Mummery (2009), Understanding Feminism, New York: Accumen Press.
Bradley, H. (2007), Gender, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Breakwell, G.M. (2010), ‘Resisting representations and identity processes’, Papers on Social
Representations 19, 6.1–6.11, http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/psr/PSR2010/19_06Breakwell.pdf, accessed
May 28, 2016.
account of intertwined practices’, Gender, Work and Organisation, 11, 406‒429.
Bruni, A., S. Gherardi and B. Poggio (2005), Gender and Entrepreneurship: An Ethnographic Approach,
London: Routledge.
Burke, P.J. and J.E. Stets (2009), Identity Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butler, J. (1993), Bodies that Matter, New York: Routledge
Butler, J. (2004), Undoing Gender, London: Routledge.
neurial passion’, Academy of Management Review, 34, 511‒532.
Cassell, C. (2005), ‘Creating the interviewer: identity work in the management research process’,
Qualitative Research, 5, 167‒179.
Chapman, M. and P. Buckley (2002), ‘The use of native categories in management research’, British
Journal of Management, 8, 283‒299.
Chia, R. and R. Holt (2006), ‘Strategy as practical coping: a Heideggerian perspective’, Organization
Studies, 27, 635‒655.
Clarke, C., D. Knights and C. Jarvis (2012), ‘A labor of love? Academics in business schools’, Scandinavian
Clegg, S. and C. Baumeler (2010), ‘Essai: From iron cages to liquid modernity in organization analysis’,
Organization Studies, 31, 1713‒1733.
Coffman, J. and B. Neuenfeldt (2014), Everyday Moments of Truth: Frontline Managers are Key to
Women’s Career Aspirations, New York: Bain & Company.
Cohen, L. and G. Musson (2000), ‘Entrepreneurial identities: reflections from two case studies’,
Organization, 7, 31‒48.
Collins, O.F. and D.G. Moore (1964), The Enterprising Man, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Cope, J. (2005), ‘Researching entrepreneurship through phenomenological inquiry’, International Small
Business Journal, 23, 159‒183.
Coupland, C. and A.D. Brown (2012), ‘Identities in action: processes and outcomes’, Scandinavian
Crompton, R. (1997), Women’s Work in Modern Britain, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cunliffe, A. (2010), ‘Retelling tales from the field: in search of organizational ethnography 20 years on’,
Organizational Research Methods, 13, 224‒239.
Dana, L.P. and T.E. Dana (2005), ‘Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship
research’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2, 79‒88.
De Clercq, D. and M. Voronov (2009), ‘Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: entrepre-
neurial legitimacy as habitus’, International Small Business Journal, 7, 395‒419.
Denzin, N.K. (2001), ‘The reflexive interview and a performative social science’, Qualitative Research,
1, 23‒46.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 161 15/12/2017 07:53

DeRue, D.S. and S.J. Ashford (2010), ‘Who will lead and who will follow: a social process of identity
construction in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 35, 627‒647.
Díaz García, C. and F. Welter (2013), ‘Gender identities and practices: interpreting women entrepre-
neurs’ narratives’, International Small Business Journal, 31, 384‒403.
Down, S. (2006), Narratives of Enterprise: Crafting Entrepreneurial Identity in a Small Firm, Cheltenham,
UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Down, S. and J. Reveley (2004), ‘Generational encounters and social formation of entrepreneurial
identity: “young guns” and “old farts”, Organization, 11, 233‒250.
Down, S. and J. Reveley (2009), ‘Between narration and interaction: situating first-line supervisor iden-
tity work’, Human Relations, 62, 379‒401.
Duveen, G. and B. Lloyd (1990), Social Representations and the Development of Knowledge, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Erikson, E.H. (1968), Identity, Youth and Crisis, New York: W.W. Norton.
Falck, O., S. Heblich and E. Ludemann (2009), ‘Identity and entrepreneurship’, CESIFO Working Paper
No. 2661 (Category 4: Labour Markets – May).
identity in entrepreneurship’, Academy of Management Journal, 54, 935‒957.
Fearon, J.D. (1999), ‘What is identity (as we now use the word)?’, www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/papers/
iden1V2, accessed August 23, 2012.
Gartner, W.B. (2010), ENTER: Entrepreneurial Narrative Theory Ethnomethdology and Reflexivity,
Clemson, SC: Clemson University Digital Press.
Gee, P.J. (2000), ‘Identity as an analytic lens for research education’, Review of Research in Education
(2000‒2001)2, 99‒125.
Gellner, D.N. and E. Hirsch (eds) (2001), Inside Organizations: Anthropologists at Work, Oxford: Berg.
Gherardhi, S. (1996), ‘Gendered organizational cultures: narratives of women travellers in a male-world’,
Gender, Work and Organizations, 3, 187‒201.
Gibbert, M. and W. Ruigrok (2010), ‘The “what” and “how” of case study rigor: three strategies based on
published research’, Organizational Research Methods, 13, 710‒737.
Glaser, B. (1999), ‘The future of grounded theory’, Qualitative Health Research, 9, 836‒845.
Glaser, B. and A. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research,
Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Green, W.S (2009), ‘Religion and society in America’, in J. Neusner (ed.), World Religions in America, 4th
edn, Louisville, KN: Westminster John Know Press, pp. 413‒422.
Hakim, C. (2000), Work‒Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hamilton, E. (2013a), Entrepreneurship across Generations: Narrative, Gender and Learning in Family
Business, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hamilton, E. (2013b), ‘The discourse of entrepreneurial masculinities (and femininities)’, Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, 25, 90‒99.
Harris, S. (2000), ‘Reconciling positive and interpretative international management research: a native
category approach’, International Business Review, 9, 755‒770.
Harrison, R.T. and C.M. Leitch (2016), ‘The process of identity construction in family entrepreneurship:
a discursive psychology perspective’, in A. Fayolle, G. Dossena, C. Bettinelli and K. Randerson (eds),
Family Entrepreneurship: Rethinking the Research Agenda, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 118‒133.
Harrison, R.T., C.M. Leitch and M. McAdam (2015), ‘Breaking glass: toward a gendered analysis of
entrepreneurial leadership’, Journal of Small Business Management, 53, 693‒713.
Harrison, R.T. and C. Mason (2007), ‘Does gender matter? Women business angels and the supply of
entrepreneurial finance’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 445‒472.
Hilliard, R.B. (1993), ‘Single-case methodology in psychology in psychotherapy process and outcome
research’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 373‒380.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 162 15/12/2017 07:53

Hindle, K. (2004), ‘Choosing qualitative methods for entrepreneurial cognition: a canonical develop-
ment approach’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 575‒607.
Hjorth, D., C. Jones and W. Gartner (2008), ‘Introduction to “Recreating/recontextualising in entrepre-
neurship”’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24, 81‒84.
Hoang, H. and J. Gimeno (2010), ‘Becoming a founder: how founder role identity affects entrepreneurial
transitions and persistence in founding’, Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 41‒53.
Hogg, M.A. (2006), ‘Social identity theory’, in P.J. Burke (ed.), Contemporary Social Psychological
Theories, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 111‒136.
Hoy, F. and P. Sharma (2006), ‘Navigating the family business education maze’, in P.Z. Poutziouris,
K.Y. Smyrnious and S.B. Klein (eds), Handbook of Research in Family Business, Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 11‒24.
Hurley, A.E. (1999), ‘Incorporating feminist theories into sociological theories of entrepreneurship’,
Women in Management Review, 14, 54‒62.
Ibarra, H. and R. Barbulescu (2010), ‘Identity as narrative: prevalence, effectiveness and consequences of
narrative identity work in macro work role transitions’, Academy of Management Review, 35, 135‒154.
Jenkins, R. (1996), Social Identity, London: Routledge.
Jennings, J. and C. Brush (2013), ‘Research on women entrepreneurs: challenges to (and from?) the
broader entrepreneurship literature?’, Academy of Management Annals, 7, 663‒715.
Jones, S. (1985), ‘The analysis of depth interviews’, in R. Walker (ed.), Applied Qualitative Research,
Aldershot: Gower, pp. 56‒70.
Kandola, B. (2009), The Value of Difference: Eliminating Bias in Organizations, London: Pearn Kandola.
Kelan, E. (2009), Performing Gender at Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kenny, K. (2010), ‘Beyond ourselves: passion and the dark side of identification in an ethical organiza-
tion’, Human Relations, 63, 857‒875.
Krueger, N. (2007), ‘What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January, 123‒138.
Kuper, A. (1994), The Chosen Primate: Human Nature Cultural Diversity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Laakkonen, A. (2012), Construction of the Entrepreneurial Identity in the Family Business Context: A
Cross-Cultural Study, Jyväskylä Studies in Business and Economics 108, Jyväskylä, Finland: University
Library of Jyväskylä.
Leitch, C.M. and R.T. Harrison (2016), Editorial: ‘Identity, identity formation and identity work in
entrepreneurship: conceptual developments and empirical applications’, Entrepreneurship and

Regional Development, 28 (3/4), 177‒190.
Leitch, C.M. and F.M. Hill (2015), ‘The efficacy of the qualitative variant of the critical incident technique
(CIT) in entrepreneurship research’, in H. Neergaard and C. Leitch (eds), Handbook of Qualitative
Research Techniques and Analysis in Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA,
USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 224‒250.
Leitch, C.M., F.M. Hill and R.T. Harrison (2010), ‘The philosophy and practice of interpretivist research
in entrepreneurship: quality, validation and trust’, Organizational Research Methods, 13, 67‒84.
Leitch, C.M., M. McAdam and R.T. Harrison (2017), ‘Identity work and the development of leadership
in an entrepreneurial context: does gender matter?’, in T. Nelson, C. Henry and K. Lewis (eds), The
Routledge Companion to Global Female Entrepreneurship, London: Routledge, pp. 235–252.
Leitch, C.M., C. McMullan and R.T. Harrison (2009), ‘Leadership development in SMEs: An action
learning approach’, Action Learning: Research and Practice on Action Learning and SMEs, 6 (3),
243–264.
Leitch, C.M., C. McMullan and R.T. Harrison (2012), ‘The development of entrepreneurial leadership:
the role of human, social and institutional capital’, British Journal of Management, 24, 347‒366.
Lounsbury, M. and M.A. Glynn (2001), ‘Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy and acquisition of
resources’, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545‒564.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 163 15/12/2017 07:53

Mallett, O. and R. Wapshott (2012), ‘Mediating ambiguity: narrative identity and knowledge workers’,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28, 16‒26.
Marlow, S. and M. McAdam (2012), ‘Analyzing the influence of gender upon high-technology venturing
within the context of business incubation’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36 (4), 655‒676.
Marlow, S. and M. McAdam (2015), ‘Incubation or induction? Gendered identity work in the context of
technology business incubation’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39 (4), 791‒816.
Marshall, B. (1994), Engendering Modernity: Feminism, Social Theory and Social Change, Cambridge:
Polity.
McInnes, P. and S. Corlett (2012), ‘Conversational identity work in everyday interaction’, Scandinavian
Miller, D. and I. Le-Breton Miller (2011), ‘Governance, social identity and entrepreneurial orientation in
closely held public companies’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 1051‒1076.
Moroz, P.W. and K. Hindle (2012), ‘Entrepreneurship as a process: toward harmonizing multiple per-
spectives’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36 (4), 781‒818.
Morris M.H., X. Neumeyer and D.F. Kuratko (2015), ‘A portfolio perspective on entrepreneurship and
economic development’, Small Business Economics, 45, 713–728.
Mulholland, K. (1996a), ‘Gender and property relations within entrepreneurial wealthy families’, Gender,
Work and Organziation, 3, 78‒102.
Mulholland, K. (1996b), ‘Entrepreneurialism, masculinities and the self-made man’, in D.L. Collinson
and J. Hearn (eds), Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities
and Managements, London: SAGE Publications, pp. 123‒149.
Murnieks, C.Y. and E.M. Mosakowski (2007), ‘Who am I? Looking inside the entrepreneurial iden-
tity’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, available at SSRN (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1064901),
downloaded May 9, 2012.
Neergaard, H. and J. Parm Ulhøi (2007), ‘Introduction: Methodological variety in entrepreneur-
ship research’, in H. Neergaard and J. Parm Ulhøi (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research in
Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1‒14.
Oakley, A. (1972), Sex, Gender and Society, London: Temple Smith.
Obschonka, M., G. Maximilian, R.K. Silbereisen and U. Cantor (2012), ‘Social identity and the transition
to entrepreneurship: the role of group identification with workplace peers’, Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 80, 137‒147.
Ogbor, J. (2000), ‘Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurship discourse: ideology critique of entre-
preneurial studies’, Journal of Management Studies, 35, 605‒630.
Oliver, D. and H.C. Vough (2012), ‘Practicing identity: the emergence of organisational identity in start-
up firms’, paper presented at the 2012 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
Orser, B.J., C. Elliott and J.D. Leck (2013), ‘Entrepreneurial feminists: perspectives about opportunity
recognition and governance’, Journal of Business Ethics, 115 (2), 241‒257.
Oyserman D., K. Elmore and G. Smith (2012), ‘Self, self-concept and identity’, in M.R. Leary and
J.P. Tangney (eds), Handbook of Self and Identity, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 69‒104.
Patterson, N., S. Mavin and J. Turner (2012), ‘Envisioning female entrepreneur: leaders anew from a
gender perspective, Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27, 395‒416.
Perren, L. and M. Ram (2004), ‘Case study method in small business and entrepreneurial research’,
International Small Business Journal, 22, 83‒101.
Powell, E.E. and T. Baker (2013), ‘It’s what you make of it: founder identity and enacting strategic
responses to adversity’, Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5), 1406‒1433.
Schostak, J. (2006), Interviewing and Representation in Qualitative Research, Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman (2000), ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy
of Management Review, 25, 217‒226.
Snihur, Y. (2016), ‘Developing optimal distinctiveness: organizational identity processes in new ven-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 164 15/12/2017 07:53

tures engaged in business model innovation’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28 (3/4),
259‒285.
Soekijad, M. and I. Skovgard Smith (2012), ‘Situational identity at work: how professionals strategi-
cally construct and use identity’, paper presented at the 2012 Academy of Management Annual
Conference, Boston, MA.
Stead, V. (2017), ‘Belonging and women entrepreneurs; women’s navigation of gendered assumptions’,
International Small Business Journal, 35 (1), 61‒77.
Stets, J.E. and P.J. Burke (2000), ‘Identity theory and social identity theory’, Social Psychology Quarterly,
63, 224‒237.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stryker, S. and R.T. Serpe (1982), ‘Commitment, identity salience and role behavior’, in W. Ickes and
E.S. Knowles (eds), Personality, Roles and Social Behavior, New York: Springer, pp. 199‒218.
Sunderland, J. (2004), Gendered Discourses, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sveninngsson, S. and M. Alvesson (2003), ‘Managing managerial identities: organizational fragmenta-
tion, discourse and identity struggle’, Human Relations, 56, 1163‒1193.
Tajfel, H. (1981), Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Van Mannen, J. (1988), Tales from the Field, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Watson, T.J. (2008), ‘Managing identity: identity work, personal circumstances and structural circum-
stances’, Organization, 15, 121‒143.
Watson, T.J. (2009a), ‘Entrepreneurial action identity work and the use of multiple discursive resources:
the case of a rapidly changing family business’, International Small Business Journal, 27, 251‒274.
Watson, T.J. (2009b), ‘Narrative, life story and manager identity: a case study in autobiographical iden-
tity work’, Human Relations, 62, 425‒452.
Watson, T. (2012), ‘Making organisational ethnography’, Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 1,
15‒22.
Watson, T. (2013a), ‘Entrepreneurial action and the Euro-American social science tradition: pragma-
tism, realism and looking beyond “the entrepreneur”’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
25 (1/2), 16‒33.
Watson, T. (2013b), ‘Entrepreneurship in action: bringing together the individual, organisational and
institutional dimensions of entrepreneurial action’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25
(5/6), 404‒422.
Watson, T. and D. Watson (2012), ‘Narratives in society, organizations and individual identities: an eth-
nographic study of pubs, identity work and the pursuit of “the real”’, Human Relations, 65, 683‒704.
Welter, F. (2011), ‘Contextualising entrepreneurship: conceptual challenges and ways forward’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (1), 165‒184.
Wilson, F. and S. Tagg (2010), ‘Social constructionism and personal constructionism: getting the business
owner’s view on the role of sex and gender’, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship,
2, 68‒82.
Wright M., J.J. Chrisman, J.H. Chua and L.P. Steier (2014), ‘Family enterprise and context’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (6), 1247‒1260.
Ybema, S., T. Keenoy, C. Oswick, A. Beverungen, N. Ellis and I. Sabelis (2009), ‘Articulating identities’,
Human Relations, 62, 299‒322.
Ybema, S., M. Vroemisse and A. van Marrewijk (2012), ‘Constructing identity by deconstructing
differences: building partnerships cross cultural and hierarchical divides’, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 28, 48‒59.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 165 15/12/2017 07:53

Appendix
Table 7A.1 Data collection process
Activity Location Content and purpose
Overt observation of 7 two-day residential ses- Observation of participants’

sessions on the sions involvement in the program, atti-
leadership development tudes to leadership, self-
program awareness and identity as leaders
Action learning sets 7 half-day in-company Observation of participant inter-
sessions action and discussion in com-
pany-located small group (4–5)
action learning sets
Participant 1:1 semi- At end of each two-day Focus on their personal and
structured interviews session professional/business progress as
(n = 22) the program progressed
Informal discussions with Throughout the program For context and triangulation of
participants (22), observational and interview data
facilitators (3), presenters
(6), program manager (1)
Documents and papers Relating to the background Context-setting, and a guide to
of participants and their interview questions
companies, and to program
design and development
Unstructured open-ended At Mary’s company, six Reflections on her experience of
interviews (2) with Mary months and 12 months the program, exploration of her
after completion of the life history (Marlow and McAdam,
leadership development 2012)
program
Semi-structured interviews At company premises Contextualizing Mary’s leadership
with Mary’s co- development as seen by those she
employees (4) and family works closely with
members (2)
Outcomes:
130 hours of participant observation across 14 program and action learning sessions.
28 conversations with program delivery staff.
Almost 200 pages of field notes and observations.
28 face-to-face interviews (lasting 30 minutes to 3 hours) with Mary, her program cohort
and members of her family and business.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 166 15/12/2017 07:53

PART III
Confidence

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 167 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 168 15/12/2017 07:53

8 Context, cognition and female
entrepreneurial intentions: it is all
about perceived behavioral control
Malin Brännback, Shahrokh Nikou, Alan L. Carsrud and Diana

Hechavarria
Introduction: a brief theoretical review of intentions
The most frequently used theoretical model for studying intentions, and especially
entrepreneurial intentions is based on the ‘theory of planned behavior’ (TPB)
(Ajzen, 1991). This model in turn was derived from the ‘theory of reasoned action’
(TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). While the TPB has proven robust in numerous
studies and contexts, even when researchers took considerable liberties with alter-
ing the variables (Brännback et al., 2007; Krueger et al., 2000), there has been con-
siderable critique with respect to assumed volitional control in particular (Bagozzi
and Warshaw, 1990; Brännback et al., 2007). The original model, the TRA, assumed
that the intentions to act were under volitional control of the actor. As a response
to this critique, the TPB was introduced. This model included perceived behavioral
control (PBC) to accommodate for situations where the intender was potentially
limited in carrying out the intention. PCB is a measure of perceived ease or dif-
ficulty of performing the intended behavior. That is, a measure of the actual control
over the behavioral intention a person has to carry out the behavior when the
opportunity arises. Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) were not content with the TPB
either, and argued that the TPB only applied to partially volitional behavior, and
that before the actual behavior occurred the intention was only a series of attempts
or trials. Hence their introduction of the ‘theory of trying’ (TT).
The concept of perceived behavioral control (PBC) in turn was strongly influenced
by Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). While the concepts are clearly
related, according to Ajzen (2002) they are distinct. Perceived self-efficacy is a per-
son’s subjective belief (not an objective measure) over their capability to carry out a
task. It is a subjective belief of control over behavior, but not over the outcome:
Perceived behavioral control simply denotes subjective degree of control over perfor-
mance of the behavior itself. The distinction here is the same as that between efficacy
expectation (that is, the perceived ability to perform a behavior) and outcome expecta-
tion (that is, the perceived likelihood that performing the behavior will produce a given
outcome (Ajzen, 2002: 668).
169
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 169 15/12/2017 07:53

Ajzen continues to point out that the term really should be ‘perceived control over
performance of behavior’.
If these two constructs are separate, we should be able to find empirical support
for this. The study we report on below is part of a larger set of studies where we
included a variety of cognitive factors impacting entrepreneurial intentions. Here
we are specifically concerned with self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control.
The scales we used for self-efficacy were from Chen et al. (2001) and Liñán and
Chen (2009) for perceived behavioral control. At face value the scales seem almost
identical. The latter includes the word ‘control’ among the items, and our fear was
whether respondents would be sensitive to this. Our concern was that we tend to
use scales and measures that are similar for measuring quite different things. To
be blunt: do we know what we are measuring? It seems that we do. The results
show that there are no convergent validity or reliability issues. In entrepreneurship
research ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘perceived behavioral control’ are sometimes used as
synonyms and interchangeably and sometimes as distinct constructs. We treated
them as separate constructs, and discovered something interesting.
Context and the cognitions and female entrepreneurial intentions
The importance of context in understanding the success and failure of any business
is not new, but this understanding remains incomplete. Context is not only a careful
description of a social setting, but spans everything from spatial to institutional and
even temporal settings. For example, we know from the field of strategy that critical
success factors are firm-specific (context) factors enabling a firm to create a compet-
itive advantage in a market (context) which they are serving. Interestingly, the role of
context in entrepreneurship research has frequently been neglected (Gartner, 1985;
Welter, 2011). But there are instances when context – within entrepreneurship –
becomes everything, and a valid excuse to define and describe that specific type of
entrepreneurship as special, and all phenomena within that particular area as not
general. Therefore, it sometimes seems as if the requirement of generalizability has
to be disregarded, or at least treated differently (Brännback and Carsrud, 2016).
Such an area would be biotechnology, distinguished as a special case of technology
entrepreneurship. Take, for example, two reports written for the Finnish National
Technology Agency (TEKES) in 2001 and 2005, and a book chapter in 2008. These
were titled ‘Finnish Pharma Cluster ‒Vision 2010’ (Brännback et al., 2001) ‘Pharma
development in Finland today and 2015’ (Brännback et al., 2004), and ‘Strategy and
strategic thinking in biotechnology entrepreneurship’ (Carsrud et al., 2008). Another
area is obviously female entrepreneurship, where ‘female’ is not just to signify gender
but also to state differences from male entrepreneurship. Thus, gender can and
should also be seen as a ‘gender context’ that exists in other contexts (Welter, 2011).
To us, social activities occur in multiple contexts, where gender is one such context.
Obviously, we argue that context influences the cognitions and behaviors of both
male and female entrepreneurs, not only in the start-up process but also in sub-

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 170 15/12/2017 07:53

CONTEXT, COGNITION AND FEMALE ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS 171
sequent decisions to grow the venture. Context offers deeper insights into how
individuals interact with situations, and how situations influence individuals, which
allows us to explain seemingly anomalous results (Johns, 2006). Contextual factors
set boundaries for theoretical generalizations, thus indicating how we can improve
the theory lens by contextualizing entrepreneurship theory (Whetten, 1989).
Accordingly, cognitive embeddedness informs us on the ‘ways in which the struc-
tured regularities of mental processes limit the exercise of economic reasoning’
among founders (Zukin and DiMaggio, 1990: 15‒16). Yet, research on the impact of
context on entrepreneurial cognitions and behaviors remains in its infancy (Welter,
2011). Our greatest concern is over the usual assumption that the impact of context
is the same for both men and women, hence gender as such is not recognized as a
context in itself but merely reduced to a control variable. However, there are, as we
know, notable examples in women’s entrepreneurship research that identify con-
textual factors unique to the female founder experience (Brush et al., 2009) and in
ethnic entrepreneurs (Kloosterman et al., 1999). This line of research offers useful
theoretical perspectives by proposing multilayered embeddedness concepts which
recognize the diverse institutional and socio-spatial contexts in which human
agency is embedded.
The reason why context is often ignored is that context is difficult to describe
and explain. As we have shown above, many researchers assume that context is
equal in its impact for all involved (female and male). Clearly, to assume that the
effects of society are the same for women as for men, even at a superficial level, is
naive. We have seen studies on entrepreneurial passion which assumed that all
the entrepreneurs were male, and their investors were male. The context of pas-
sion for male entrepreneurs most likely is very different both physiologically and
cognitively from the context for female entrepreneurs. Perception of an investment
opportunity will differ based on the gender of the investors as well. Thus, differ-
ent contexts could have differential impacts of passion on investment decisions of
investors (Brännback and Carsrud, 2016).
One of the more subtle reasons that context is often ignored is because the empiri-
cal research in entrepreneurship uses statistical analysis and quantitative mod-
eling. While there are certainly valid reasons for this, it does make it hard, if not
impossible, to translate a complex context into a set of easily measured variables
to plug into some structured equation models. Therefore, researchers take the
easy way out by controlling for simple demographic factors such as age, firm size,
industry, income level and marital status. Gender is not always considered as a
factor to control for, but it ought to be. Rarely do you see discussions about reli-
gious beliefs impacting cognitions and behaviors, but obviously they do. It would
help in understanding context to include a short section describing the known
context, and then in the discussion section to take in the implications of context
on the results.
We argue that we need to be researching the impact of context on the entre-

preneurial cognitions of men and women rather than assuming that they are

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 171 15/12/2017 07:53

nimportant, irrelevant, or the same for both genders (Brännback and Carsrud,
u
2016). As we will show here, there are differences in how males and females per-
ceive behavioral control, and we suggest that part of the explanation for this can
be found in contexts and, obviously, cognition – and that it is indeed gendered
too. As Welter (2011: 173) rightly argues, ‘a first challenge in contextualizing
entrepreneurship is to make entrepreneurship theory more context sensitive, that
is, to contextualize theory’. Frequently, context is taken for granted, and its impact
is underappreciated or it is controlled away (Johns, 2006). All said, we propose the
following hypotheses.
One important context which we expect to have an impact on entrepreneurial

behavior is family business background. Much anecdotal evidence suggests that
this impact can be positive and negative. In this study we assume the effect to be
positive. But we also assume that the impact will be gendered; hence the following
hypotheses:
H1: Family business background has a direct positive effect on female entrepre-
neurial intentions.
H1a: Family business background has a direct positive effect on male entrepre-
neurial intentions.
H2: Perceived behavioral control mediates the relationships between family business
background and entrepreneurial intentions for females.
H2a: Perceived behavioral control mediates the relationships between family busi-
ness background and entrepreneurial intentions for males.
H3: Self-efficacy mediates the relationships between family business background and
entrepreneurial intentions for females.
H3a: Self-efficacy mediates the relationships between family business background

and entrepreneurial intentions for males.
Rarely do we see context studied with respect to how context impacts self-efficacy,
perceived behavioral control, social norms, intentions and, much less, the actual
entrepreneurial behaviors of either males or females. Some researchers assume
social norms are contextual factors. Worse yet, they often assume that norms have
equal impact on males and females.
But anyone conversant with social norms knows that there are different norms for
the two genders. For example, in most cultures first-born males inherit the family
firm, while girls are expected to marry and have children rather than run the family
firm (even anno 2016). Likewise, personal attitudes towards entrepreneurship are
not evenly distributed aming males and females, but most researchers ignore this
reality. Others view environmental factors as context, which on the surface may

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 172 15/12/2017 07:53

seem to impact equally on each gender, but women are often the ones who have to
deal with those factors such as gathering firewood or water if in a subsistence exist-
ence (Brännback and Carsrud, 2016).
H4: Social norms have a direct positive effect on female entrepreneurial intentions.
H4a: Social norms have a direct positive effect on male entrepreneurial intentions.
H5: Perceived behavioral control mediates the relationships between social norms
and entrepreneurial intentions for females.
H5a: Perceived behavioral control mediates the relationships between social norms
and entrepreneurial intentions for males.
H6: Self-efficacy mediates the relationships between social norms and entrepreneur-
ial intentions for females.
H6a: Self-efficacy mediates the relationships between social norms and entrepre-
neurial intentions for males.
H7: Personal attitude towards entrepreneurship has a direct positive effect on female
entrepreneurial intentions.
H7a: Personal attitude towards entrepreneurship has a direct positive effect on male
H8: Perceived behavioral control mediates the relationships between personal

attitude towards and entrepreneurial intentions for females.
H8a: Perceived behavioral control mediates the relationships between personal

attitude towards and entrepreneurial intentions for males.
H9: Self-efficacy mediates the relationships between personal attitude towards and
entrepreneurial intentions for females.
H9a: Self-efficacy mediates the relationships between personal attitude towards and
entrepreneurial intentions for males.
Finally, we wanted to distinguish between self-efficacy (SE) and perceived behavio-

ral control (PBC).
H10: Perceived behavioral control has a direct positive effect on female entrepre-
neurial intentions.
H10a: Perceived behavioral control has a direct positive effect on male


GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 173 15/12/2017 07:53

H11: Self-efficacy has a direct positive effect on female entrepreneurial intentions.
H11a: Self-efficacy has a direct positive effect on male entrepreneurial intentions.
For this study we once again used the dominant model of entrepreneurial inten-
tions ‒ the theory of planned behavior ‒ as the theoretical basis (Figure 8.1).
Methods and data

Data collection and instrument
In order to have a comprehensive list of measures and to ensure the reliability of
the measurement, extensive relevant studies from top-ranked entrepreneurship
journals were selected and thorough reviews were performed. In this research, the
sets of survey items for each of the latent constructs are chosen from previously
validated measurement items (Table 8.1). Some of the survey items are slightly
modified to fit the specific context of this research. For instance, to examine the
impact of the family business background and measure its impacts to become an
entrepreneur, we employ established measures from Mathews and Moser (1995),
Schröder et al. (2011) and Zellweger et al. (2011) which have the initial focus on
the impact of the family business background across different cultures and gender
behaviors.
In order to examine the moderating role of self-efficacy and perceived behavioral

control on the intention to become an entrepreneur, we used the survey items
developed by Chen et al. (2001) and Wilson et al. (2007) and for PBC (Liñán and
Chen, 2009). Moreover, the other scales are established in previous research (e.g.,
Kautonen et al., 2010; Liao and Welsch, 2005). All items were measured using
seven-point Likert scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’, or ‘unpleasant’
to ‘pleasant’.
A self-explanatory survey questionnaire was employed and we used a pen and

paper-based questionnaire as an instrument to collect data. In addition to the gen-
eral questions, a number of background (demographic information) questions were
asked in relation to the respondents’ experience working in a business (firm) owned
by a member of family. Compeau et al. (2012) and Lu et al. (2010) state that college
students are the young generation who are most likely to be active in developing
new business ideas. So, a convenience sampling approach was employed to collect
data. We argue that a convenient sample making use of the students for data col-
lection is an appropriate approach when one intends to understand the behavioral
intentions towards a given phenomenon (for example, entrepreneurial intention).
During 2011‒2014 data were collected on various measures.
Subjects were 2282 students participating in a study on the cognitive factors impact-
ing entrepreneurial intentions. They represented urban universities in Canada,
Chile, China, Finland, Germany, Spain, Turkey and the United States of America.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 174 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 175
Family Business
Background
H H2
3 Perceived Behavioural
Control H1
8 H1
0
H
H5 H4 Entrepreneurial
Social Norms
Intention
H6 1
H1
H7
Self-Efficacy
Personal Attitude H9
Figure 8.1 The conceptual model and hypotheses

15/12/2017 07:53
Table 8.1 Question items used in the study
Construct Item/measure Measure

Seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘strongly source
disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’, or 1 = ‘unpleasant’ to
7 = ‘pleasant’.
Family business Does a member of your family own (greater than 5 per- Mathews and
background cent) and operate a business? Moser (1995),
Have you worked in a business owned by a member of Schröder et
your family? al. (2011),
When you graduate, do you intend to work for the family Zellweger et
business? al. (2011)
Perceived To start a firm and keep it working would be easy for me. Liñán and
behavioral I am prepared to start a viable firm. Chen (2009)
control I can control the creation process of a new firm.
I know the necessary practical details to start a firm.
I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project.
If I tried to start a firm, I would have a high probability of
succeeding.
Social norms My family would see it as very positive if I would start my Kautonen et al.
own business. (2010)
My friends would see it as very positive if I would start my
own business.
Self-efficacy I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set Chen et al.
for myself. (2001), Wilson
When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will et al. (2007)
accomplish them.
In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are
important to me.
I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set
my mind.
I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges.
I am confident that I can perform effectively on many
different tasks.
Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well.
Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.
Personal atti- Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than Liñán and
tude disadvantages to me. Chen (2009)
A career as entrepreneur is attractive for me.
I had the opportunity and resources, I’d like to start a firm.
Being an entrepreneur would entail great satisfactions for
me.
Among various options, I would rather be an entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurial I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur. Liñán and
intentions My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur. Chen (2009)

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 176 15/12/2017 07:53

Construct Item/measure Measure

Seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘strongly source
disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’, or 1 = ‘unpleasant’ to
7 = ‘pleasant’.
I will make every effort to start and run my own firm.

I am determined to create a firm in the future.
I have very seriously thought of starting a firm.
I have the firm intention to start a firm some day.
We received 2038 complete questionnaires ‒ 797 females (39.1 percent) and 1241
males (60.9 percent) ‒ which included several well-established and validated scales
including those on self-efficacy, social norms, perceived behavioral control, family
business background, personal attitudes towards entrepreneurship, and entrepre-
neurial intentions. We specifically wanted to understand the role of context of
family business background and social norms on entrepreneurial intentions. We
used personal attitude to assess personally perceived desirability.
The respondent average age was 25 years old. More than 31 percent of the respond-
ents (N = 635) had a job in addition to going to school; 136 respondents (6.7
percent) operated their own businesses at the time of the survey, and 748 (36.7
percent) indicated that they had worked in a business owned by a member of
their family. Of female respondents, 404 (~50 percent) mentioned that a member
of their family owned or operated a business. Interestingly, when asked whether
they had ever worked in a business owned by a family member, only 276 (36 per-
cent) replied in the affirmative. Moreover, when asked to indicate if their inten-
tion after graduation was to become an entrepreneur, 316 (40 percent) responded
in the affirmative. This shows that having the experience of working in a family
business positively influenced their intention to become an entrepreneur after
graduation.
Reliability and validity

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were executed to confirm the meas-
urement validity, and the results show that our measurements are valid (see Table
8.2). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the Promax rotation was employed
in order to build the factor structures. After several iterations of the EFA, the final
output resulted in six factors (see Figure 8.1). We computed a curved estimation
test for all the relationships in the model and found that all relationships are suf-
ficiently linear. This test is necessary in order to make sure that we can use the
covariance-based SEM analysis such as one used, for example, in AMOS. Due to
having more than one independent variable predicating the dependent variable,
we also performed a multicolinearity test to see whether our data are affected by

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 177 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 8.2 Descriptive statistics, convergent validity, internal consistency and reliability
Construct Items Factor Mean Std. dev AVEa SCRb R2 Cronbach’s

loadings a
Family business FB5 0.53 3.49 1.51 0.542 0.752 0.28 0.723
FB5B 0.83 3.37 1.48 0.69
FB5C 0.47 3.38 1.49 0.22
Social norms SN66 0.89 5.01 1.69 0.775 0.873 0.81 0.871
SN67 0.86 5.23 1.53 0.74
Perceived PBC30 0.69 3.76 1.48 0.564 0.855 0.47 0.886
behavioral PBC31 0.76 3.53 1.63 0.65
control PBC32 0.81 3.92 1.54 0.69
PBC33 0.83 3.57 1.62 0.58
PBC34 0.76 3.73 1.61 0.58
PBC35 0.64 4.22 1.55 0.41
Self-efficacy S-EFC88 0.70 5.40 1.21 0.585 0.918 0.49 0.924
S-EFC89 0.77 5.29 1.2 0.60
S-EFC90 0.80 5.57 1.14 0.63
S-EFC91 0.78 5.46 1.26 0.61
S-EFC92 0.82 5.52 1.15 0.67
S-EFC93 0.81 5.55 1.18 0.65
S-EFC94 0.70 5.27 1.23 0.49
S-EFC95 0.73 5.34 1.8 0.53
Personal attitude PA25 0.66 4.95 1.56 0.660 0.906 0.43 0.905
PA26 0.82 5.15 1.62 0.67
PA27 0.81 5.24 1.71 0.66
PA28 0.86 5.18 1.60 0.74
PA29 0.90 4.77 1.78 0.79
Entrepreneurial EIN36 0.73 3.49 1.75 0.741 0.945 0.53 0.942
intentions EIN37 0.84 3.96 1.92 0.71
EIN38 0.84 4.30 1.96 0.70
EIN39 0.93 4.21 1.93 0.88
EIN40 0.88 4.16 2.01 0.78
EIN41 0.64 4.36 2.03 0.84
Notes:
a
Average variance extracted.
b
Scale composite reliability.
multicollinearity. The results show no evidence of multicollinearity. Moreover,

in order to test the path relationships from being affected by common method
bias (CMB), we executed a common method bias test through the common latent
factor (CLF). The CMB test did not show any paths being affected by a common
method bias.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 178 15/12/2017 07:53

IBM AMOS 21 and IBM SPSS 21 software were used to test the reliability and
validity of the measurement model. To examine the reliability of the data, we first
computed the Cronbach’s alpha test. The recommended threshold for Cronbach’s
alpha (α) requires a reliability of 0.6 or higher; in the current measurement model
the Cronbach’s alpha values are all above the recommended values, indicating that
the measures all have acceptable reliability with respect to their respective con-
structs; see Table 8.2.
In the next step we executed the convergent validity and discriminant validity tests
to examine how the establishment of the latent constructs performed within the
conceptual model and the data. Convergent validity indicates the extent to which
each measurement item loads within the corresponding construct. The convergent
validity test shows that the constructs are not affected by this issue. The psycho-
metric properties of the measures are tested through the average variance extracted
(AVE) index (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and the composite reliability (CR) index
(Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998). Both indices are above the recommended values of
0.50 and 0.70, respectively, and thus we did not find any issues regarding to these
tests; see Table 8.3. The values for R-squared, the measure of how close the data are
associated with the regression line, are shown in Table 8.2. The R-squared values
show the percentage of the response variables variations, which are explained by a
linear regression line. Moreover, discriminant validity indicates the extent to which
items within a construct are distinct from other items of those other constructs in
the model. Previous scholars stated that the square roots of the AVE of the con-
struct should be greater than the correlation estimates with the other constructs
(Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998; Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The results show that the square root of AVEs of all constructs are greater than
those of other constructs. Therefore, all correlation values have met the recom-
mended threshold values (see Table 8.3).
Table 8.3 Inter-construct correlations and AVE
CR AVE S-Norms Efficacy Intentions PBC Attitude F-Business
Social norms 0.873 0.775 0.880

Self-efficacy 0.918 0.585 0.354 0.765
Entrepreneurial 0.945 0.741 0.542 0.326 0.861
intentions
Perceived 0.885 0.564 0.397 0.379 0.646 0.751
Behavioral
control
Personal attitude 0.906 0.660 0.545 0.369 0.783 0.542 0.812
Family business 0.752 0.542 0.064 0.130 0.142 0.216 0.166 0.634
background

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 179 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 8.4 Model fit indices
Model fit indices GFI AGFI CFI NFI TLI RMSEA
Cut-off value >0.90 >0.80 >0.90 >0.80 >0.90 <0.080

Obtained value >0.94 >0.92 >0.96 >0.95 >0.96 <0.026
Results and implications
We used the structural equation modelling (SEM) technique to test the research
conceptual model as well as the postulated hypotheses. The results show that
we have obtained a good model fit, χ2 (1104) = 4287.145 and CMIN/DF = 3.883.
The entrepreneurial intentions is explained by a variance of 69 percent, self-
efficacy is explained by variance of 19 percent, and PCB is explained by variance
of 42 percent. The model fit indices show acceptable values and satisfy the cut-
off values, and thus our research model presents a good fit with the data (see
Table 8.4).
Hypotheses testing
The model for the male respondents differs from the female model. Figure 8.2
shows the conceptual model for females and Figure 8.3 for males. Results show that
PBC and SE mediate the relationship between the family business, social norms and
personal attitude to entrepreneurial intentions. However, in the female group SE
did not mediate the relationship between the family business and entrepreneurial
intention, thus H3 is not supported. For the male group this path H3a (β = 0.10,
p < 0.005) is fully mediated by SE. However, with respect to social norms and per-
sonal attitude towards entrepreneurship we found that both factors have a positive
and direct effect on entrepreneurial intentions among female respondents (social
norms H4: β = 0.12, p < 0.001; personal attitude towards entrepreneurship H7: β =
0.54, p < 0.001) as well as male respondents (social norms H4a: β = 0.12, p < 0.001;
personal attitude towards entrepreneurship H7a: β = 0.58, p < 0.001). Thus these
hypotheses are accepted in the model. Results also show that perceived behavioral
control mediates the relationship between social norms and entrepreneurial inten-
tions for both female and male respondents (H5: β = 0.18, p < 0.001; and H5a: β =
0.14, p < 0.001).
We expected to find a positive relationship between the family business back-

ground and entrepreneurial intention, as we argued that this is an important con-
textual factor. However, the analysis findings do not support this assumption, thus
both H1 and H1a are rejected in the model. However, we found a mediating effect
of perceived behavioral control between the family business background and entre-
preneurial intentions for both females and males, thus H2 (β = 0.15, p < 0.001) and
H2a (β = 0.14, p < 0.001) are supported in the model.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 180 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 181
Family Business
Background .15***
ns
Perceived Behavioural
Control (R2 = 42%) ns
* .33
** 8** ***
.18* .4 Entrepreneurial
Social Norms .12***
Intention (R2 = 69%)
.21*
* *
ns
.54***
Self-Efficacy (R2 = 19%)
Personal Attitude 27***
Notes: *** p-value < 0.001, ** p-value < 0.005, * p-value < 0.01.
Figure 8.2 Female respondents

15/12/2017 07:53
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 182
Family Business
Background .1 .14***
0** Perceived Behavioural
Control (R2 = 27%)
ns
.30
** ** ***
.14* 0*
.4 .12*** Entrepreneurial
Social Norms
.21*
* *
ns
.58***
Self-Efficacy (R2 = 18%)
Personal Attitude 22***
Figure 8.3 Male respondents

15/12/2017 07:53
Similarly, we found support for H6 (β = 0.21, p < 0.001) and H6a (β = 0.21, p <
0.001), where we assumed that self-efficacy mediates the relationships between
the social norms and entrepreneurial intentions. Again, there was no difference
between genders. The results show that there is a positive relationship between
the perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurial intentions for female H10
(β = 0.33, p < 0.001) and male H10 (β = 0.30, p < 0.001), but the results do not sup-
port H11 and H11, where we postulated that there is a direct positive relationship
between the self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions.
Thus, we assumed gendered differences to a much larger extent than we actu-

ally found. However, we did find that self-efficacy did not mediate the relation-
ship between family business background and entrepreneurial intentions among
women. This hinted towards a potential distinctiveness between self-efficacy and
perceived behavioral control, as suggested by Ajzen (2002).
Given the theoretical foundation and given the results shown in Figures 8.2 and
8.3, we conducted one additional analysis. We tested whether PCB alone mediates
entrepreneurial intentions when self-efficacy is considered as an independent vari-
able as well. This test was conducted in the female group, and the results are shown
in Figure 8.4.
Results support the significant mediating role of PBC on entrepreneurial inten-

tions. While social norms and personal attitude towards entrepreneurship have
a significant direct impact on intentions, SE and family business background do
not have a direct positive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions. The model
accounts for 42 percent of the variance in PBC, and 69 percent of the variance in
entrepreneurial intentions. By this alteration, we may find an explanation as to why
family business background has no significant relationship with SE as assumed in
H3. This assumption may also hold true for the respondents’ intentions to become
an entrepreneur in the future. In other words, for women, the lack of experience of
working in an environment which is owned by a member of a family does directly
influence the SE of a person, and thereby impacts the entrepreneurial intentions.
However, working in a family business positively impacts both SE and PBC among
males.
Conclusion
The really interesting thing here is that family business does not impact the subjec-
tive belief of women of whether they think they will become entrepreneurs (Figure
8.2), but does indeed impact whether they think they will actually succeed in doing
so. From Figure 8.4 we then find that all four factors ‒ family business, social
norms, personal attitudes and self-efficacy ‒ create a sense of understanding that
it is ‘do-able’ and that the outcome is real. As we know from theory, self-efficacy is
merely a subjective belief in one’s capacity. This belief may be true, or just a fantasy.
Women seem to take their intentions far more seriously. Unless they believe in

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 183 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 184
Family Business
.13
***
.13***
ns
Social Norms .16***
.34*** Entrepreneurial
PBControl (R2 = 42%)
.41***
Personal Attitude
*** .53*** ns
.16
Self-Efficacy
Figure 8.4 Female respondents

15/12/2017 07:53
what they intend to do, and that they believe they will succeed in what they set
out to do, they will most likely not engage in the task. In Figure 8.2 we see that
self-efficacy does not influence entrepreneurial intentions, and family business has
no influence on self-efficacy. Intending to create a venture seems to be a real thing
for women. Ajzen also argued that PBC was a better predictor of subsequent activ-
ity. Our study clearly shows that perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy are
distinct concepts, and we also find that their impact is gendered.
Finally, we feel we must acknowledge that women are generally older than men
when creating their own ventures. While our data contain responses from eight
countries, we have yet to analyze thoroughly how the responses differ across these
countries, as we have some indication that the variation is substantial. We find
initial indications that the factors driving entrepreneurial intentions are very differ-
ent across countries; in some countries there are clear differences between genders;
and in a few countries there are no differences whatsoever. Much to our surprise,
Chile appears to be a country where men and women are alike. In fact, our initial
analysis suggests that in no country are men and women alike. Our study also
shows that while we think we know everything about entrepreneurial intentions,
there is still a need for further studies. However, at this point we would strongly
suggest the use of novel research methods and to strongly challenge the TBP model
with respect to dependent and dependent variables. What is driving what? Do we
have the right research design? Do we have the right measures? Are we asking the
right questions?
References
Ajzen, I. (1991), ‘The theory of planned behavior’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). ‘Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control and the theory of planned
behavior’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665‒683.
Bagozzi, R. and P. Warshaw (1990), ‘Trying to consume’, Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 127‒140.
Bagozzi, R. P. and E.A. Edwards (1998),’Goal setting and goal pursuit in the regulation of body weight’,
Psychology and Health, 13(4), 593–621.
Bandura, A. (1986), ‘The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory’, Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
Brännback, M. and A.L. Carsrud (2016), ‘Understanding entrepreneurial cognitions through the lenses
of context’, in F. Welter and W. Gartner (eds), Future Studies of Context in Entrepreneurship,
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 16–27.
Brännback M., A.L. Carsrud, N. Krueger and J. Elfving (2007), ‘“Trying” to be an entrepreneur’, Babson
College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Madrid, Spain.
Brännback, Malin, Pekka Hyvönen, Hannu Raunio, Maija Renko and Riitta Sutinen (2001), ‘Finnish
Pharma Cluster – Vision 2010’, TEKES Technology Review 112/2001.
Brännback, Malin, Markku Jalkanen, Kalevi Kurkela and Esa Soppi (2004), ‘Securing pharma develop-
ment in Finland today and in 2015’, TEKES Technology Review 163/2004.
Brush, C., A. de Bruin and F. Welter (2009), ‘A gender-aware framework for women’s entrepreneurship’,
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8–24.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 185 15/12/2017 07:53

Campbell, D.T. and D.W. Fiske (1959), ‘Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-
multimethod matrix’, Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
Carsrud, Alan, Malin Brännback and Maija Renko (2008), ‘Strategy and strategic thinking in biotechnol-
ogy entrepreneurship’, in Holger Patzelt and Thomas Brenner (eds), Handbook of Bioentrepreneurship,
Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 83‒99.
Chen, G., S.M. Gully and D. Eden (2001), ‘Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale’, Organizational
Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83.
Compeau, D., B. Marcolin., H. Kelley and C. Higgins (2012), ‘Research commentary-generalizability of
information systems research using student subjects-a reflection on our practices and recommenda-
tions for future research’, Information Systems Research, 23 (4), 1093–1109.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975), ‘Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and
research’, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker (1981), ‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error’, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gartner, W. B. (1985), ‘A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture crea-
tion’, Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706.
Johns, G. (2006), ‘The essential impact of context on organizational behaviour’, Academy of Management
Review, 31(2), 386‒408.
Kautonen, T., S., Luoto and E.T. Tornikoski (2010),’Influence of work history on entrepreneurial inten-
tions in ‘prime age’ and ‘third age’: A preliminary study’, International Small Business Journal, 28(6),
583–601.
Kloosterman, R., J. van der Leun and J. Rath (1999), ‘Mixed embeddedness: (in)formal economic activi-
ties and immigrant businesses in the Netherlands’, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 23(2), 253–277.
Krueger, N., M. Reilly and A. Carsrud (2000), ‘Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal
of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411-432.
Liao, J. and H. Welsch (2005), ‘Roles of social capital in venture creation: Key dimensions and research
implications’, Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 345–362.
Liñán, F. and Y.W. Chen (2009), ‘Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to
measure entrepreneurial intentions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593‒617.
Lu, H.P., J.C.C. Lin., K.L. Hsiao and L.T. Cheng (2010), ‘Information sharing behavior on blogs in Taiwan:
Effects of interactivities and gender differences’ Journal of Information Science, 36(3), 401–416.
Mathews, C. H. and S.B. Moser (1995), ‘Family background and gender: Implications for interest in
small firm ownership’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7(4), 365-378.
Schröder, E., E. Schmitt-Rodermund and N. Arnaud (2011), ‘Career choice intentions of adolescents
with a family business background’, Family Business Review, 24(4), 305–321.
Welter, Friederike (2011), ‘Contextualizing entrepreneurship: conceptual challenges and ways forward’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165‒183.
Whetten, D.A. (2009), ‘An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study
of Chinese organizations’, Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29–55.
Wilson, F., J. Kickul and D. Marlino (2007), ‘Gender, entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, and entrepreneur-
ial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31(3), 387–406.
Zellweger, T., P. Sieger and F. Halter (2011), ‘Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of
students with family business background’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 521–536.
Zukin, S. and P. DiMaggio (1990), ‘Introduction’, in S. Zukin and P. DiMaggio (eds), Structures of
Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–36.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 186 15/12/2017 07:53

9 Motherhood as a springboard for
women’s entrepreneurial action
Magdalena Markowska
Introduction
Motherhood is a life-changing experience for a woman. Some women experi-

ence the transition into motherhood as smooth and enriching, while for others
it is a challenging or even traumatic experience (that is, post-partum depression)
(Jamison Griebenow, 2006; Muzik et al., 2009). Becoming a mother closely impacts
a woman’s identity and often has consequences for her career (Feldman and Bolino,
2000; LaRossa and LaRossa, 1981). The changing perception of self coincides with
the adoption of a mother’s identity and is reflected in changing life goals and values
(Luckman, 2015). After becoming a mother, a woman is likely to focus more on
balancing her family and work life (Walker and Webster, 2007; Mainiero and
Sullivan, 2005), and to develop several skills and competencies, including creativ-
ity and innovativeness, problem-solving, managing resources, communication and
leadership (Ellison, 2005; Grzelakowski, 2005). Simply put, motherhood provides
a woman with a broad array of new – positive and/or negative – experiences, and
human capital that could potentially be used to identify and pursue new career
opportunities.
Given the changes to life goals and values, mothers often see an entrepreneurial
career – a career involving all relevant experiences related to the individual’s
creation of a new economic activity that forms a unique pattern over her lifespan
(Markowska, forthcoming) – as an attractive option (Parker, 2010). For example,
a 2013 study in the United Kingdom (UK) reported that close to 90 percent of
British mothers would like to start their own venture and become a mumpre-
neur (Morrison, 2013). Regardless of whether a woman is pushed or pulled into
entrepreneurship, a mumpreneur is a mother who decides to start her venture
and develops an identity of a mother entrepreneur. Becoming a mumpreneur
allows a woman to create new economic value, often related to the mother’s
role or child-raising, to combine the identity of a mother with the identity of
an entrepreneur, and to balance her family and work (Richomme-Huet et al.,
2013).
Yet, despite increased interest in the phenomenon of mumpreneurship, a deep

understanding of what drives mothers to engage in entrepreneurship is still miss-
ing. For example, while extant research has focused on analyzing the institutional
187
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 187 15/12/2017 07:53

and socio-economic factors influencing mothers’ decisions on whether or not to

engage in entrepreneurship – such as the need for a second income or the flexibility
of working time (Duberley and Carrigan, 2013; Ekinsmyth, 2011, 2013) – the per-
sonal factors, such as entrepreneurial self-efficacy, have not received much atten-
tion. More specifically, self-efficacy – a perceived belief about one’s own capacity to
perform a task successfully – is vital for entrepreneurial action (Chen et al., 1998;
Zhao et al., 2005). Researchers, however, assert that women are less confident and
less self-efficacious than men (Chen et al., 1998), showing a lower willingness to
start a business (Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998), and driven by different motivations
(Carter and Brush, 2004; Manolova et al., 2008). Paradoxically, although women,
especially young ones, are said to have lower initial intentions and lower confi-
dence in engaging in entrepreneurship, more and more women across the globe are
embarking on an entrepreneurial path (De Bruin et al., 2006; García and Welter,
2013; Shelton, 2006). For example, in Sweden in 2010, female entrepreneurs rep-
resented 34 percent of the overall entrepreneurial population; 58 percent of these
were mumpreneurs. The number of female entrepreneurs in the UK increased by
9.6 percent between 2011 and 2013, three times more than among men during the
same period (Morrison, 2013). Also, Schindehutte et al. (2003), analyzing United
States women entrepreneurs, argue that the majority of them are married and most
have children.
Therefore, given the evidence of the rising number of mumpreneurs, two questions
gain particular urgency: (1) Why are women prone to developing into entrepre-
neurs after becoming mothers? (2) Can motherhood be considered a springboard
for women’s entrepreneurial action? In an attempt to answer these two questions,
I use Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory to develop an argument and propose
that the experience of motherhood is likely to act as a springboard that provides a
boost for women’s self-confidence in general, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy in
particular, as well as contributing to increased interest in entrepreneurial action.
More specifically, I argue that motherhood has potential to be a practice and a
resource and a source of very strong maternal identity; taking care of and raising
children provides women with vast and relevant experience that in many ways
resembles entrepreneurial experience, giving women the necessary encouragement
and feedback regarding their capabilities.
Consequently, the chapter makes three contributions. First, it proposes that moth-
erhood is a resource, an identity and a practice. This is achieved by arguing that the
experience of motherhood provides women with the necessary boost of self-efficacy
and self-confidence, and consequently increases their interest and willingness to
engage in entrepreneurship. Also, the adoption of the mother identity contributes
to the perception of motherhood as a valuable resource for an entrepreneurial
action. Second, while it is clear that the context of motherhood differs from that
of starting and running a venture, the nature of many of the tasks is similar, and
hence, mastery experience in one translates into higher perceived self-efficacy in
the other. Finally, I suggest that women entrepreneurs should not be treated as a
homogenous group. The mumpreneurs, and the remaining women entrepreneurs,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 188 15/12/2017 07:53

MOTHERHOOD AS A SPRINGBOARD FOR WOMEN’S ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTION 189
are likely to be driven by different factors, have different motivations and (self-)
beliefs, and have different needs. As such, the chapter contributes to both women’s
entrepreneurship and self-efficacy literature.
The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. I begin by discussing entre-

preneurial self-efficacy and its importance for entrepreneurial action. Next, I elabo-
rate on the experience of motherhood and its impact on women’s self-efficacy. In
the following section, I present the core argument of the chapter, suggesting that
motherhood is a resource, an identity and a practice, and acts as a springboard for
women’s entrepreneurial action; this is juxtaposed with discourses and findings
from extant research. Finally, I discuss the implications of the ideas presented, and
draw conclusions.
The nexus of person and entrepreneurship
Intentionality, goals and foresight drive individuals’ actions (Bandura, 1986; Frese
and Sabini, 1985). More specifically, action is influenced by intentions that are
formed in deep cognitive structures. Intentions are viewed as the strongest predic-
tors of action, because they are formed from an individual’s deep beliefs; that is,
deeply held strong assumptions underpinning an individual’s sense-making and
decision-making (Krueger, 2007; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994).
Acting on beliefs about oneself, one’s own values and desires helps an individual to
express their individuality and give purpose to their life (Bandura, 1999). Perception
of self – or self-identity – and beliefs about action control are key in this pro-
cess (Bandura, 1986, 1999; Skinner et al., 1988). While self-identity directs which
courses of action are deemed attractive, coinciding with the beliefs and values one
holds (Bandura, 1999), the action control beliefs help make sense of whether an
individual is capable and willing to engage in a particular action that they consider
to lead to the desired goal (Skinner et al., 1988). In other words, how one perceives
one’s self influences what one wants to do with one’s life, and how one perceives
one’s own efficacy influences whether one feels in control of performing the action
successfully (Bandura, 1977, 1999).
For example, more and more individuals consider becoming an entrepreneur to

be an attractive career move (Sullivan et al., 2007). While the decision to engage
in an entrepreneurial career may be driven by pull factors (for example, an indi-
vidual identifies an opportunity and engages in entrepreneurship to exploit it),
push factors (which include a lack of other career or income options), a search for
balance in family‒work life, or a need for career stimulation and the possibility
to learn and acquire new business skills and competencies (Brush, 1992; Hughes,
2003; Markowska, forthcoming; Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007); a belief in one’s own
efficacy is also required to perform well in this role. Simply put, if desired and
dared, an entrepreneurial career offers the possibility to express oneself through
entrepreneurship.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 189 15/12/2017 07:53

Perceived self-efficacy in an entrepreneurial task

An entrepreneurial task involves making decisions about creating new economic
value in the face of uncertainty (Davidsson, 2004; McMullen and Shepherd, 2006).
The decisions are related to the entrepreneurship process, and include creating and/
or selecting an opportunity, deciding on the legal status of the venture, gathering
resources, bringing stakeholders on board, and managing the venture – including
time, people, finance, growth and exit strategies (Read and Sarasvathy, 2005). The
entrepreneurial task is inherently complex and requires individuals to create strate-
gies that help deal with these uncertainties and challenges.
Given the inherent uncertainty of the entrepreneurial process (identifying, evaluat-

ing and exploiting an entrepreneurial opportunity), individuals often make judge-
ments about the entrepreneurial task at hand based on their perceived beliefs,
namely, their own capacity to engage in the task and perform it successfully.
Research shows that individuals with high self-belief who engage in an entrepre-
neurial action set more ambitious goals, develop better (business) plans, use feed-
back constructively and persist through setbacks (Bandura, 1989). In other words,
high self-efficacy helps in managing complex behaviors which require numerous
different skills (that is, self-regulatory self-efficacy), such as entrepreneurial tasks
(Bandura, 1989).
Becoming efficacious in making these decisions is pivotal for entrepreneurial suc-

cess. Prior research asserts that previous experience helps to increase self-efficacy
levels. More specifically, in his social cognitive theory, Bandura (1986) identified
four ways to form and adapt the perceptions held about one’s own skill level and
self-efficacy. These are: mastery experience, modelling behavior, social persuasion
and psychological arousal (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1997).
Enactive mastery, often conceptualized as learning by doing, refers to the acquisi-

tion of new skills through the direct experience of the task. According to Bandura
(1977), engaging directly in the experience provides direct feedback on one’s own
capabilities and has the strongest impact on self-efficacy beliefs. While success
(positive experiences) helps to strengthen the beliefs (including their stability and
resilience), repeated failures lower them (Wood and Bandura, 1989). More spe-
cifically, Zhao et al. (2005) found that previous entrepreneurial experience con-
tributes to development of stronger self-efficacy beliefs about entrepreneurship.
Interestingly, the broader the experiences, the stronger the self-efficacy beliefs
become (Krueger, 1993). Enactive mastery, however, is a gendered phenomenon,
and research shows that women are less likely than men to have direct experience
of entrepreneurship (Dempsey and Jennings, 2014).
Vicarious modelling, on the other hand, presumes that new skills and perceptions
are acquired through indirect experience; that is to say, through the observation of
others engaging in the task. For example, Davidsson and Honig (2003) found that
being exposed to entrepreneurial family members results in individuals forming

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 190 15/12/2017 07:53

higher perceptions of their own capacity to deal with similar entrepreneurial tasks.
Also, Zellweger et al. (2011) found that coming from a family business background
had a positive effect on individuals’ efficacy in pursuing an entrepreneurial career.
Similarly, Greene et al. (2013) found that the example of mothers has a strong
impact on the career decisions of their daughters. The impact of modelling on the
strengthening of self-efficacy depends on the subject’s similarity to the person being
observed (the model); the more similar they are, the more impactful the behavior.
Social persuasion helps to strengthen self-efficacy beliefs as a result of being influ-

enced by others. This provides additional external motivation and feedback that
others believe in one’s skills and capabilities (Bandura, 1977). However, the feed-
back needs to be realistic; otherwise the result is failure and a lowering of self-
efficacy beliefs. Women are more likely to receive negative feedback about their
performance, and as a result are not very likely to strengthen their self-efficacy
through social persuasion (Dempsey and Jennings, 2014). Women are also more
dependent on hearing feedback; often they need the approval of others to engage in
action and to perform.
Finally, psychological states, including mood, are likely to influence how individu-
als think and feel about their capabilities and skills. As argued by Bandura (1986), it
is not the kind and extent of emotions and moods, but rather how these emotions
are interpreted, that influences whether self-efficacy beliefs will change or not.
Research shows that women have neither a strong positive nor a strong negative
affect with respect to entrepreneurship (Dempsey and Jennings, 2014). In other
words, women are less emotional, and less afraid of the possibility of an entrepre-
neurial career.
Furthermore, differences in self-efficacy stem not only from the source (that is,
how they were acquired), but also occur in terms of scope, level of specificity and
strength (Bandura, 1977, 1986). The scope of self-efficacy describes the breadth of
beliefs, from broad generic beliefs to the domain, or even task-specific. For exam-
ple, individuals may feel very confident in general, but not very efficacious when
engaging in entrepreneurship (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994). The level of specificity
depends on the complexity of performance criteria, how detailed those are. Finally,
the strength of self-efficacy beliefs influences whether individuals perceive them as
strong or weak. This research area observes the most differences between men and
women entrepreneurs. For instance, research has found that young women (pre-
dominantly MBA students) do not believe in their own capacities, especially those
related to entrepreneurship; they focus on what they lack in terms of the requisite
skills and abilities, and as a consequence, often limit or lower their career aspira-
tions, even though objectively they possess the same capabilities as men (Wilson
et al., 2007). Similarly, research comparing the pre-entrepreneurship skills and
knowledge of women and men found that women reported a higher perceived lack
of competencies and greater need for training than men, even though the evalua-
tors assessed that the skills and competencies of women were higher than those of
men (Jones and Tullous, 2002).

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 191 15/12/2017 07:53

Consequently, although much is known about self-efficacy in general, we still do

not know much about self-efficacy among mumpreneurs. In particular, the major-
ity of research looking at gender differences uses samples of students or young
adolescents, but research based on samples of women who are active entrepreneurs
is lacking.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and women

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a domain efficacy defined as an individual’s confi-
dence in their ability to successfully perform entrepreneurial roles and tasks (Chen
et al., 1998; De Noble et al., 1999; McGee et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2005). Researchers
have attempted to operationalize the concept and agreed that entrepreneurial self-
efficacy is a multidimensional construct (McGee et al., 2009). For example, in an
attempt to understand perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy among young people,
Wilson et al. (2007) approached entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a more generic way.
Their measures involved perceptions of being able to solve problems, managing
money, being creative, getting people to agree with you, being a leader and making
decisions. More generally, McGee et al. (2009) relate self-efficacy to the different
phases of entrepreneurship, while Chen et al. (1998) and De Noble et al. (1999)
focus more on self-efficacy related to entrepreneurial tasks. In none of the cases has
it been analyzed in detail how the self-efficacy of men and women differs across the
individual tasks or phases.
Research asserts that self-efficacy is a great predictor of behavior ‘because it refers

to cognitive evaluations of personal capabilities in reference to the specific task of
entrepreneurship . . . [being] both individual and contextual’ (Chen et al., 1998:
312). However, research has also found that there is a difference in how men and
women appraise their capabilities (Wilson et al., 2007). More specifically, women
view their capabilities more critically, and consequently make a lower evaluation of
their perceived level of self-efficacy. The reasons for such appraisal may be in the
stereotypical masculine characteristics and behaviors ascribed to entrepreneurship:
risk-taking, competitiveness, aggressiveness and economic rationality; the typical
feminine characteristics are perceived as lacking, and do not conform to this norm
(Ahl, 2007; Marlow and McAdam, 2013).
Perceiving lower levels of self-efficacy, young women form lower intentions to

engage in entrepreneurship (Eddleston et al., 2006; Kickul et al., 2004). Bandura
(1992) and Wilson et al. (2007) argue that to increase entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
relevant mastery experiences are crucial. Women who have gained relevant mas-
tery experience, even if in unrelated domains, are likely to start feeling more self-
efficacious. Hence, newly acquired experience can lead to transformation of the low
intentions into strong intentions and action. Consequently, this learning process –
acquisition of relevant direct and indirect experience – is likely to be the reason for
the rise of women’s entrepreneurship.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 192 15/12/2017 07:53

Motherhood as a springboard for entrepreneurial action
Motherhood has been situated at the center of women’s entrepreneurship (Brush

et al., 2009), with more and more researchers beginning to see the role identity
of a mother as a possible resource, and motherhood not necessarily as a con-
straint or obstacle (Eddleston and Powell, 2012; Ekinsmyth, 2011, 2013; Leung,
2011). Women are able to use the normative gender role ascribed them to create
entrepreneurial opportunities (Brush, 1992; DeTienne and Chandler, 2007), and
design them to reflect their values and norms (Leung and Uy, 2010). Similarly,
the experience of motherhood provides women with new experiences and allows
them to grow new competencies which are likely to offer positive feedback to their
perceived self-efficacy.
Motherhood is a life-changing experience for a woman, one that closely impacts

her everyday practices, responsibilities, needs and desires, and her identity. Some
women feel overwhelmed by the situation. In fact, becoming a mother often
changes diametrically how women perceive their role as an individual. Often, after
becoming a mother, a woman re-evaluates her life plans and values (Luckman,
2015). Even though the woman quickly needs to get into a mother’s role and begin
to nurture her baby, she needs time to establish for herself what kind of mother and
what kind of woman she wants to be; what kind of mother’s identity she will craft
(Thornton, 2014).
Consequently, motherhood can be experienced differently. Some will experience

it as an enriching, positive happening in their lives; others will see it as a burden
and an obstacle or even threat to their life plans. Yet, women who consider moth-
erhood a positive experience will treat it as a resource, an identity or a practice (see
Figure 9.1). Experiencing motherhood as a resource allows women to acquire new
skills and subsequently use them; even if motherhood may contribute to physical
exhaustion, it adds to the perception of self as resourceful and capable, feeding
back on the mother’s confidence and self-efficacy. The gender identity and the
mother’s identity can also be considered a resource to rely on. Motherhood as
an identity has the potential to fill the mother with a new meaning of who she is
and what it means to her, but at times it may also limit the options that she would
consider attractive. The new mother’s identity comes with new values and new
aspirations, and makes a woman re-evaluate her choices and her actions. Finally,
motherhood as a practice reflects the everyday activities, the nurturing practices
she uses to raise her child, to teach the child how to build relationships and thrive
in society.
Motherhood as a resource
Motherhood is being considered more and more as a resource (Ellison, 2005;
Leung, 2011). In the past, motherhood often led women to stay at home, or for
those vocationally active was considered as an obstacle to furthering their careers
(Heilman, 2012; Heilman and Okimoto, 2008; Jean and Forbes, 2012). Such a

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 193 15/12/2017 07:53

EXPERIENCE OF
MOTHERHOOD
A RESOURCE AN IDENTITY A PRACTICE
The experience of The experience of The experience of

motherhood results in motherhood results in the motherhood can be seen as a
mothers acquiring a broad adoption of the mother’s practice of nurturing a child,
array of skills and identity. This identity that is providing care and
competencies, for example provides women with new affection, building
foresight, creativity, aspirations and values; also relationships with the
leadership, networking, an additional set of norms environment and guiding
resourcefulness, etc. and behaviors. development.
Figure 9.1 The dimensions of the experience of motherhood
view e mphasized the assumed blurriness of a woman’s brain during the time of
pregnancy and maternity, which was considered rather detrimental to performance
outcomes. Additionally, becoming a mother was often considered to decrease a
woman’s commitment to work, and subsequently women were made to pay the
penalty for motherhood (Benard and Correll, 2010; Glauber, 2007).
Extant research on motherhood as a positive experience focuses on two different

aspects: first, gender role identity as a resource (Leung, 2011); and second, the
extraordinary neuroplasticity of the mother’s brain, and her subsequent potential
and capacity for learning (Ellison, 2005). While the gender identity stream focuses
on the benefits of adopting an additional identity as a mother, the neuroscience
neuroplasticity stream of research emphasizes the enhanced capacity of the brain,
given the incredible neuroplasticity that is produced by the experience of mother-
hood. It is argued that this new capacity (human capital) translates into, and thus
can be taken advantage of in, the different life dimensions (Kim et al., 2010; Pitts-
Taylor, 2010).
It has been argued that motherhood can actually boost women’s brainpower
(through biological and social processes), provided that it is experienced with eager-
ness and enthusiasm (Thornton, 2014). In her essay, Thornton (2014: 273) argues
that the ‘mommy economicus’ (the term she adopted from Bourdieu) is ‘agile,
flexible, and adept at directly leveraging the customary practices of m otherhood –
including caring for both her home and her children – for corporate profit and
personal empowerment’. This means that the increased brain capacity becomes
a valuable resource that can be used to create economic value, but also leads to
changes in perceptions and beliefs about what a woman is capable of. Simply put,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 194 15/12/2017 07:53

the changes in the brain resulting from the motherhood experience can lead to
changes in self-efficacy beliefs.
More generally, the experience of motherhood as a resource provides women with

a rich abundance of experiences and possibilities for competence and capability
development. Raising a child requires from a mother the ability to multitask and to
be creative. The latter refers to creativity in both solving resource constraints and
coming up with new innovative and interesting ways to occupy their children (such
as games, activities, and so on). In bringing up their children, women develop the
capacity to arrive at new solutions, new combinations or new applications of dif-
ferent tools and resources. Similarly, working on budget, individuals learn how to
access resources they do not currently possess, creating things from the materials
at hand, and become resourceful when means are lacking. In addition, they also
learn how to manage time and people, as well as to lead others: their children.
Simply put, motherhood provides women with various resources, including both
the more tangible ones (such as skills and competencies) and the intangible ones
(for example, increased self-efficacy levels).
Motherhood as identity
Motherhood is accompanied by changes in a woman’s family and work life and in
her sense of identity (Innamorati, Sarracino and Dazzi, 2010). Becoming a mother
is important for most women, and the majority actively engage in crafting such an
identity. This comes with a number of expectations regarding a woman’s behavior,
both internally and externally, which is driven by the social context. This is why
many women often face contradictory or incongruent societal expectations about
their roles as a woman, a mother and an individual when they construct their iden-
tity (Douglas and Michaels, 2004).
Although being a good mother is paramount to the majority of women, how women
choose to enact their identity differs a lot, and depends on whether they have a choice
or are forced by situational circumstances (that is, single mother, unexpected moth-
erhood, and so on). For example, a ‘choosing’ mother decides whether she wants a
career, children or both, based on what fits her best and what coincides with her
values (Sandberg, 2013); the ‘have it all’ mother does not want to choose and engages
in both (Ekinsmyth, 2013). There are of course also mothers who have no other choice
than to engage in both work and the rearing of children. Among those mothers who
have a choice, some women choose to reject the identity of a ‘stay-at-home mother’ in
order not to be considered boring and uninteresting (Ekinsmyth, 2011). Many of those
women take the first step into entrepreneurship and ‘explicitly seek to merge crea-
tively the “specialties of mothering with those of business practice” in order to accom-
modate and prioritize the former’ (Ekinsmyth, 2011: 105). Simply put, women engage
in crafting the identity of a mother that best fits their expectations, values and needs.
The women who choose the entrepreneurship path begin to craft their identity as
a mumpreneur, combining entrepreneurship and family (Duberley and Carrigan,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 195 15/12/2017 07:53

2013; Ekinsmyth, 2013). Mother entrepreneurs combine and use two identities
to craft the desired image of themselves, often building the idea and concept of
their venture within their identity and values as a mother. Interestingly, being a
mumpreneur offers women the possibility to combine the feminine characteristics
common for a mother with those masculine ones which are considered essential for
business, including independence, aggressiveness, risk-taking, autonomy and cour-
age (Gupta et al., 2009). This means that motherhood as identity can help a woman
to craft a desired image and identity, help her focus on the important values and
needs, and subsequently shape her behavior as a mumpreneur. Hence, motherhood
as identity is about self-identification and self-definition as a person.
Motherhood as practice
Motherhood is about action and practice (Ellison, 2005). It is similar to entrepre-
neurship, because it is not about who you are and what characteristics you have,
but rather about what you do (Gartner, 1988). Practicing nurturing a child offers
women feedback on their capabilities and offers them the possibility to engage in
action and to test different approaches. As argued by Ellison (2005), exposure to a
new experience – here, motherhood – results in changes in behavior, and women
becoming better at what they do. More specifically, she says: ‘not only is the brain
altered with new experiences but . . . positive, emotionally charged and challenging
experience can improve and help preserve its functioning’ (ibid.: 29). Engaging in
the practice of nurturing a child provides women with experiences that can help
them to grow and feel more efficacious.
Motherhood becomes an entrepreneurial practice. Ellison (2005) argues that moth-

erhood bestows upon women an entrepreneurial drive and can help them to build
new capacity. She argues that the direct experience of motherhood has stronger
effects on motivation, risk-taking, skill acquisition and competencies such as cre-
ativity and/or multitasking than formal education. Motherhood seen from this
perspective is about self-improvement, self-actualization and self-benefit. It is a
practice.
The resemblance between motherhood and entrepreneurship

There is a visible resemblance between the experience of motherhood and entre-
preneurship. More specifically, both experiences are deeply connected to identity,
both provide individuals with human capital (experience, knowledge and skills),
and uncertainty is inherent in both. (See Table 9.1 for comparison of motherhood
and entrepreneurship.)
Engaging in the mother’s role both results in the crafting of a strong mothering
identity and develops numerous competencies and skills. It also provides women
with positive reinforcement and the conviction that if they are able to perform this
role well and execute the role tasks successfully, they may also be capable of starting
up and growing a company. As shown above, many of the skills required for raising

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 196 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 9.1 The relevance of experiences acquired during motherhood for entrepreneurship
Experience Dimensions Motherhood Entrepreneurship
As a Skills and Creativity in finding new Creativity in creating and/

resource competencies games and ability to create or identifying new means–
and develop new games, ends combinations; ability to
toys, etc.; problem-solving; develop new products/services;
managing resources, including problem identification and
bootstrapping and budget for solution – opportunity identi-
after-school activities; com- fication; managing people and
munication skills; ability to resources; bootstrapping; sales
convince, etc. and communication skills, etc.
Network Creating network of mothers Creating or joining existing net-
to help each other and make work to get access to informa-
more effective use of time and tion, customers and suppliers,
resources – for example, pool- to share resources.
ing picking up and dropping
off children from day care or
school; bringing them to free-
time activities, etc.
Identity Mother’s identity and even Mother’s identity, normative
normative gender identity gender identity or professional
could be considered a source identity could be considered
of new and/or additional a source of new values and
values and guiding principles ideas for identifying problems
on how to nurture own child. and coming up with new solu-
tions, including entrepreneurial
opportunities.
As an Identification Typically, the mother’s iden- Entrepreneurial identity can
identity process and tity is a very strong and posi- be singular or multiple; its sali-
adoption of tive identity – could be seen as ence depends on the level of
identity both role and social identity. identification with the role and
Identification with the role the salience of other identities,
usually occurs very rapidly. including the professional one.
It could be both role and social
identity.
New values, With the adoption of the iden- With the adoption of the iden-
aspirations tity, new values and norms tity, new values and norms
of behavior are likely to gain of behavior are likely to gain
importance, such as flexible importance, such as acting
working time, time for family, true to oneself, constantly
etc. looking for new opportunities
to emerge and possibilities to
exploit them.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 197 15/12/2017 07:53

Experience Dimensions Motherhood Entrepreneurship
Possible role Adopting a mother’s identity Adopting an entrepreneur’s

conflict may lead to a conflict with, for identity may lead to a conflict
example, professional identity. with, for example, professional
Resolving the conflict is impor- identity. Resolving the conflict
tant for achieving perceived is important for successful pur-
success. suit of the opportunity.
As a Nurturing To nurture means to take care To nurture means to take
practice of, to protect, to provide nutri- care of, to protect, to provide
tion, to encourage, to love, to resources, to encourage, to
help develop. develop a venture.
Uncertainty Raising a child involves uncer- Uncertainty is inherent when
tainty of how the child will undertaking an entrepreneurial
respond, how the environment action.
may respond.
Relationship Learning to build relation- Relationships are important for
building ships with others is pivotal entrepreneurial action: they
for a healthy social life. help get access to information
Relationships help people learn and resources, and help
across the world, to get access create lasting relationships
to and/or ideas about new with stakeholders, which may
possibilities, bond and com- contribute to identifying new
municate with others. opportunities.
a child – which include, but are not limited to, multitasking, creativity, managing
and/or operating on a budget, scheduling, time management and problem s olving –
resemble the skills required when starting and running an entrepreneurial venture
(McGee et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2007).
Having developed various skills while bringing up a child and being exposed to
various unexpected situations, mothers are more prepared to deal with and accept
the uncertainty of an entrepreneurial action. They have learned that it is possible to
acquire new competencies through direct experience. Often they have created new
products, arrived at new solutions to problems encountered on the way, and had
ideas about what else they could do to solve their own and others’ problems. Many
women create their own networks of mothers to help each other when needed
by making better and more efficient use of time and resources. For example, it is
common for mothers to share picking up and dropping off their children at school
with other mothers to save time and increase their own flexibility.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 198 15/12/2017 07:53

Mumpreneurship: a response to mothers’ increased self-efficacy

beliefs
The increasing levels of confidence and entrepreneurial self-efficacy in particular

are likely to attract more women to entrepreneurship, providing them with feed-
back about their capability. As discussed above, the importance of self-efficacy
stems from the direct relationship with the intention to engage in a behavior (Boyd
and Vozikis, 1994; Wood and Bandura, 1989) and its impact on career decision-
making (Lent and Hackett, 1987). High self-efficacy not only increases persever-
ance in the face of obstacles, but also encourages individuals to choose challenging
activities and approach new situations as learning experiences (Bandura, 1986,
1997). Entering an entrepreneurial path may be one of the attractive and challeng-
ing activities.
Relevant mastery experiences are pivotal for increasing domain self-efficacy

(Bandura, 1992). The experience of performing well as a mother and managing the
many facets of the ‘job’ provides positive reinforcement and feedback for women’s
self-efficacy beliefs. Despite considerable physical exhaustion, being emotionally
vested in raising their children, many women begin to believe that they are capable
of doing this well and that they have the skills and competence to manage and
accomplish multiple different tasks related to their dependants (Teti and Gelfand,
1991). Krueger (2007) argues that it is the conscious and emotionally charged prac-
ticing of new skills that helps to change perceptions and deeply held assumptions,
as well as strengthening self-efficacy beliefs. So that even women who begin to
doubt their ability to do anything right due to their exhaustion will realize their
potential, once they recover. Furthermore, it is not only the self-efficacy beliefs, but
also those regarding different means‒ends combinations and access to resources
(resourcefulness) which are improved. More specifically, the need to entertain chil-
dren often results in increased levels of creativity, innovativeness and development
of new products and services. Similarly, for those having limited resources, parents
often need to bootstrap and engage in sharing or exchange to be able to arrive at
the desired and/or required supplies. Again, as a result, mothers begin to think in a
different, often entrepreneurial way about resources and access to them. This expe-
rience provides women with positive feedback about their role performance, and
therefore strengthens their self-efficacy and self-confidence as a mother. While this
may not necessarily transfer into entrepreneurship, it provides the needed evidence
and increases the awareness of resources and competencies that the mother pos-
sesses. To sum up, motherhood potentially provides women with experiences that
increase their self-efficacy as mothers.
Consequently, I argue that the reason why more and more women are engaging in
entrepreneurship after becoming a mother stems from the increased level of self-
efficacy and the positive feedback they receive on their capabilities and capacities
as mothers (Suzuki, 2010). The direct experience and/or vicarious observation of
managing a budget or time, of making others follow your leadership, provides the
necessary social persuasion for women and gives them the required affirmation

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 199 15/12/2017 07:53

about the level and strength of their capability, concurrently strengthening their
self-efficacy. Also, acquiring the identity of a mumpreneur – that is, combining
the role identity of a mother with that of an entrepreneur – potentially changes
how women think and feel about their own capabilities as entrepreneur. As argued
above, the competencies of a mother show many similarities to those of entrepre-
neurs; therefore, it may be that once women realize this and start believing in their
capabilities as mothers, they may begin to consider an entrepreneurial career as
both possible and attractive for themselves.
Discussion
The basic premise of this chapter is that motherhood is a resource and can act as
a springboard for women’s entrepreneurial action. While extant research focuses
on and argues that motherhood often forces mothers to start ventures in order
to balance their work with family life, or the need for a double income in the
family (Duberley and Carrigan, 2013; Ekinsmyth, 2011; Jean and Forbes, 2012),
this chapter highlights the positive effect that motherhood can have on women’s
self-efficacy, and consequently on their intention and willingness to engage in an
entrepreneurship endeavor.
In answering the two research questions, the chapter has built on Albert Bandura’s
(1986) social cognitive theory to theorize that the nature of a mother’s experi-
ence of child-rearing resembles in many ways the experience of starting and run-
ning a venture. More specifically, it has been argued that both ‘projects’ – child
and venture – require the capability of arriving at new ideas and new opportuni-
ties, being innovative, taking risks, being a leader, and managing time, people and
budgets. Women may acquire these capabilities as a direct experience of being a
mother, and through feedback and encouragement on how well they perform in the
mother’s role (Bandura, 1977). The realization that competencies developed when
raising a child can successfully be used in a context of entrepreneurship provides a
boost to women’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Consequently, this chapter argues
that this insight is the reason why more and more women decide to enter into
entrepreneurship after becoming mothers. These women have strengthened their
self-efficacy and become convinced that they possess the required competencies to
succeed in entrepreneurial endeavors.
Motherhood as a resource, an identity and a practice

This chapter argues that motherhood is experienced by women as a resource, a
practice and an identity, all of which are important for attracting more women
into entrepreneurship. Their increased perception of their own self-efficacy stems
from their experience as mothers. Such a view adds to the extant literature that
focuses primarily on the possibility of drawing on a mother’s gender role identity
when creating the concept of the venture and implementing the idea (Leung,
2011). In that sense, this chapter argues that motherhood, with its child-rearing

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 200 15/12/2017 07:53

experience, can be transferred and made use of in other, not directly related,
domains of life, such as entrepreneurship. Consequently, this chapter contributes
to social cognitive theory by suggesting that a direct experience in one context can
be translated into a direct experience in another if the content and nature of the
experiences are similar. For example, managing a budget for a household is similar
to managing a budget for a venture. Furthermore, learning to be a leader, and get-
ting your child to participate in different activities and/or chores, is in some sense
similar to getting stakeholders on board a new venture. In doing so, the chapter
details that direct experience can be considered not only as domain-specific, but
can be transferred when the nature and content of the experiences, skills and
capabilities are similar.
Self-efficacy comparisons between men and women

Extant research asserts that there are gender differences between men and women
with regard to entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions (Carter
and Brush, 2004; Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Wilson et al., 2007). For example,
when comparing male and female MBA students, it was found that women are
more dependent on perceived self-belief than men, and female students are less
inclined to consider an entrepreneurial career as an attractive option if they con-
sider themselves as lacking sufficient skills and competencies (Betz and Hackett,
1981; Hackett and Betz, 1981; Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Lent and Hackett,
1987). However, no gender effects were found among active entrepreneurs (Wilson
et al., 2007). This suggests that a substantial change in women’s self-efficacy can
be observed, such that women entrepreneurs have higher entrepreneurial self-
efficacy than those women who are not entrepreneurs (Chen et al., 1998). Chen
and colleagues suggest that the reason for the increased levels of entrepreneurial
self-efficacy among the active women entrepreneurs might be a result of acquired
experience over time. While extant research asserts that women are less likely to
engage in an entrepreneurial action, this chapter suggests that motherhood could
provide women with the experience relevant for entrepreneurship. As such, the
increased entrepreneurial efficacy could stem from the direct experience of a simi-
lar content-wise task, although from a different domain; in this case, motherhood.
Such an assumption concurs with Bandura (1992), who suggests that additional
mastery experiences help to reduce gender differences.
Furthermore, authors have examined whether high self-efficacy levels in women

precede or result from entrepreneurial experience. This chapter proposes that self-
efficacy related to an entrepreneurial action among active mother entrepreneurs
precedes actual entrepreneurial experience. The experience of motherhood can be
transferable to the entrepreneurship context, leading to an increase in entrepre-
neurial self-efficacy. In other words, entrepreneurial self-efficacy will be built upon
the experience of similar tasks learned in a different context (here, motherhood).
Hence, this chapter helps to explain the variation within the differing levels of self-
efficacy among young not-yet-entrepreneurs and active mother entrepreneurs by
suggesting the particular role of the experience of raising a child in this process.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 201 15/12/2017 07:53

This proposition has important implications for women’s entrepreneurship. As

noticed by Wilson et al. (2007), self-efficacy is more important for female stu-
dents than for male students, because women consider an entrepreneurial career
as attractive and worth pursuing only when they perceive that their abilities to per-
form such activities successfully are sufficient (Betz and Hackett, 1981). It appears
that many female students do not consider experiences gained throughout a course
on entrepreneurship to be real. However, the experience of motherhood is very
real. Hence, for those who are already mothers, building on their experience and
the acquired skills appears to be a valid and effective way to help strengthen their
self-efficacy levels. Shinnar et al. (2014) note that attempts to increase self-efficacy
are important, in particular for producing innovation and staying creative through-
out the cumbersome innovation process. This is why positively influencing self-
efficacy through the use of adequate examples and tools, ones which women can
relate to, is a key task for entrepreneurship education.
There are two other important implications for the argument developed in this
chapter. First, motherhood is a source of rich experiences and skills, and e ducators –
especially those in the vocational training centers – should build more on these
experiences when educating women (mothers) about their potential entrepreneur-
ship careers. On the one hand, making the mumpreneurs and/or potential mum-
preneurs reflect on their competencies as mothers may help them to draw a parallel
between raising a child and starting a venture. On the other hand, educators should
help women entrepreneurs realize their full entrepreneurial potential by strength-
ening their self-efficacy and making them aware that building their venture on
their identity can help them to increase their self-efficacy. The more salient the
role of identity, the more the woman will be invested in performing the skills and
competencies needed, and hence strengthen her belief in her capabilities. In other
words, designing tools for women requires an additional focus on providing women
with direct experience and strengthening their self-efficacy by awakening their
awareness of the competencies they already possess. Furthermore, the specificity
of the mumpreneurs requires that the educational offer is contextualized to their
needs and their expectations. Second, while it is recognized that there are differ-
ences between men and women in their confidence levels and their motivation, this
chapter suggests that neither women entrepreneurs nor mothers are a homogene-
ous group; their motivations, beliefs and needs differ, and require further clustering
in order to provide effective policy tools for the respective clusters (for example,
opportunity mumpreneurs, necessity mumpreneurs and childless women entre-
preneurs). Simply said, taking into consideration the different needs and beliefs
of the different subgroups of women entrepreneurs would help to create more
effective policy tools.
Conclusions
This chapter has dealt with two important questions related to the emerging phe-
nomenon of mumpreneurship: why women who are mothers are more prone to

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 202 15/12/2017 07:53

becoming entrepreneurs, and whether motherhood can be considered a springboard

for such entrepreneurial action. The argument developed in this chapter proposes
that the experience of motherhood both helps mothers to acquire new competen-
cies which are highly useful in the context of entrepreneurship, and provides a posi-
tive boost to their self-efficacy and self-confidence. Consequently, this chapter notes
that motherhood is to be seen as a resource, an identity, a practice and a springboard
for women’s growing self-efficacy to engage in an entrepreneurial action. Further,
the increased perception of self-efficacy is the reason for the growing number of
mothers deciding to embark upon the entrepreneurship career path. Finally, this
chapter highlights that women entrepreneurs are not a homogeneous group, which
has implications for entrepreneurial education and policy-making alike.
References
Ahl, H. (2007), ‘Sex business in the toy store: a narrative analysis of a teaching case’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 22(5), 673–693.
Bandura, A. (1977), ‘Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behaviour change’, Psychological Review,
84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1982), ‘Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency’, American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989), ‘Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy’, Developmental
Psychology, 25(5), 729–735.
Bandura, A. (1992), ‘Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism’, in R. Schwartzer
(ed.), Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action, Washington, DC: Hemisphere, pp. 3–38.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1999), ‘A social cognitive theory of personality’, in L. Pervin and O. John (eds), Handbook of
Personality, 2nd edn, New York: Guilford Publications, pp. 154–196.
Benard, S. and S.J. Correll (2010), ‘Normative discrimination and the motherhood penalty’, Gender and
Society, 24(5), 616–646.
Betz, N.E. and G. Hackett (1981), ‘The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to per-
ceived career options in college women and men’, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399–410.
Boyd, N. and G. Vozikis (1994), ‘The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial
intentions and actions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(4), 63–77.
Brush, C.G. (1992), ‘Research on women business owners: past trends, a new perspective and future
directions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 6–30.
Brush, C., de Bruin, A. and F. Welter (2009), ‘A gender-aware framework for women’s entrepreneur-
ship’, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8–24.
Carter, N.M. and C.G. Brush (2004), ‘Gender’, in W.B.S. Gartner, G. Kelly, Nancy M. Carter and Paul D.
Reynolds (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurial Dynamics: The Process of Business Creation, Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 12–25.
Chen, C., P. Greene and A. Crick (1998), ‘Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs
from managers?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295–316.
Davidsson, P. (2004), Researching Entrepreneurship, New York: Springer.
Davidsson, P. and B. Honig (2003), ‘The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs’,
Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301–331.
De Bruin, A., C.G. Brush and F. Welter (2006), ‘Introduction to the special issue: towards building cumu-
lative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 585–592.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 203 15/12/2017 07:53

Dempsey, D. and J. Jennings (2014), ‘Gender and entrepreneurial self-efficacy: a learning perspective’,
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 28–49.
De Noble, A., D. Jung and S. Ehrlich (1999), ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the development of a meas-
ure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action’, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research
Conference (BCERC) proceedings, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson
College, pp. 73‒87.
DeTienne, D. and G. Chandler (2007), ‘The role of human capital and gender in opportunity identifica-
tion’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 365–386.
Douglas, S. and M. Michaels (2004), The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How It Has
Undermined Women, New York: Free Press.
Duberley, J. and M. Carrigan (2013), ‘The career identities of “mumpreneurs”: women’s experiences of
combining enterprise and motherhood’, International Small Business Journal, 31(6), 629–651.
Eddleston, K. and G. Powell (2012), ‘Nurturing entrepreneurs’ work‒family balance: a gendered per-
spective’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 513–541.
Eddleston, K., J. Veiga and G. Powell (2006), ‘Explaining sex differences in managerial career satisfier
preferences: the role of gender self-schema’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 437–445.
Ekinsmyth, C. (2011), ‘Challenging the boundaries of entrepreneurship: the spatialities and practices of
UK “mumpreneurs”’, Geoforum, 42(1), 104–114.
Ekinsmyth, C. (2013), ‘Managing the business of everyday life: the roles of space and place in “mumpre-
neurship”’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and& Research, 19(5), 525–546.
Ellison, K. (2005), The Mommy Brain: How Motherhood Makes us Smarter, New York: Basic Books.
Feldman, D. and M. Bolino (2000), ‘Career patterns of the self-employed: career motivations and career
outcomes’, Journal of Small Business Management, July, 53–67.
Frese, M. and J. Sabini (1985), Goal-directed Behavior: The Concept of Action in Psychology, Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
García, M.-C.D. and F. Welter (2013), ‘Gender identities and practices: interpreting women entrepre-
Gartner, W. (1988), ‘“Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question’, American Journal of Small
Business, 12(4), 11–32.
Glauber, R. (2007), ‘Marriage and the motherhood wage penalty among African Americans, Hispanics,
and Whites’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(4), 951–61.
Greene, F.J., L. Han and S. Marlow (2013), ‘Like mother, like daughter? Analyzing maternal influences
upon women’s entrepreneurial propensity’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 687–711.
Grzelakowski, M. (2005), Mother Leads Best: 50 Women who are Changing the Way Organizations
Define Leadership, Chicago, IL: Dearnborn.
Gupta, V.K., D.B. Turban, S.A. Wasti and A. Sikdar (2009), ‘The role of gender stereotypes in percep-
tions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 33(2), 397–417.
Hackett, G. and N.E. Betz (1981), ‘A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women’, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 18(3), 326–339.
Heilman, M.E. (2012), ‘Gender stereotypes and workplace bias’, Research in Organizational Behavior,
32, 113–135.
Heilman, M.E. and T.G. Okimoto (2008), ‘Motherhood: a potential source of bias in employment deci-
sions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 189–198.
Hughes, K.D. (2003), ‘Pushed or pulled? Women’s entry into self-employment and small business own-
ership’, Gender, Work and Organization, 10(4), 433–454.
Innamorati, M., D. Sarracino, and N. Dazzi (2010), ‘Motherhood constellation and representational
change in pregnancy’, Infant Mental Health Journal, 31(4), 379–396.
Jamison Griebenow, J. (2006), ‘Healing the trauma: entering motherhood with posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD)’, Midwifery Today, 80, 28–31.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 204 15/12/2017 07:53

Jean, M. and C.S. Forbes (2012), ‘An exploration of the motivations and expectation gaps of mompre-
neurs’, Journal of Business Diversity, 12(2), 112–130.
Jones, K. and R. Tullous (2002), ‘Behaviors of pre-venture entrepreneurs and perceptions of their
financial needs’, Journal of Small Business Management, 40(3), 233–248.
Kickul, J., F. Wilson and D. Marlino (2004, January), ‘Are misalignments of perceptions and self-efficacy
causing gender gaps in entrepreneurial intentions among our nations’ teens?’, presented at USASBE
Annual Conference, Dallas, TX.
Kim, P., J. Leckman, L. Mayes, R. Feldman, X. Wang and J. Swain (2010), ‘The plasticity of human mater-
nal brain: longitudinal changes in brain anatomy during the early postpartum period’, Behavioral
Neuroscience, 124(5), 695–700.
Kourilsky, M.L. and W.B. Walstad (1998), ‘Entrepreneurship and female youth: knowledge, attitudes,
gender differences, and educational practices’, Journal of Business Venturing, 13(1), 77–88.
Krueger, N. (1993), ‘The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasi-
bility and desirability’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21.
Krueger, N. (2007), ‘What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking’,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 123–138.
Krueger, N. and D. Brazeal (1994), ‘Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs’,
LaRossa, R. and M. LaRossa (1981), Transition to Parenthood: How Infants Change Families, Beverly
Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lent, R.W. and G. Hackett (1987), ‘Career self-efficacy: empirical status and future directions’, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 30(3), 347–382.
Leung, A. (2011), ‘Motherhood and entrepreneurship: gender role identity as a resource’, International
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 254–264.
Leung, A. and M. Uy (2010), ‘Entrepreneurs’ life-role values and work‒family management strategies:
the enactment of person‒venture fit’, Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference,
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Luckman, S. (2015), ‘Women’s micro-entrepreneurial homeworking’, Australian Feminist Studies,
30(84), 146–160.
Mainiero, L. and S. Sullivan (2005), ‘Kaleidoscope careers: an alternate explanation for the “opt-out”
revolution’, Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 106–123.
Manolova, T., C. Brush and L. Edelman (2008), ‘What do women entrepreneurs want?’, Strategic
Change, 17, 69–82.
Markowska, M. (forthcoming), ‘An entrepreneurial career as a response to seeking a career challenge:
the case of gourmet chefs’, in S. Sullivan and S.G. Baugh (eds), Seeking Challenge: Research in Careers,
Vol. 4, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Marlow, S. and M. McAdam (2013), ‘Gender and entrepreneurship: advancing debate and challenging
myths; exploring the mystery of the under‐performing female entrepreneur’, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 19(1), 114–124.
McGee, J.E., M. Peterson, S.L. Mueller and J.M. Sequeira (2009), ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: refining
McMullen, J.S. and D.A. Shepherd (2006), ‘Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the
theory of the entrepreneur’, Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
Morrison, S. (2013), ‘Mums do the business: the number of female entrepreneurs who juggle work and
looking after their children is growing fast’, Independent, September 29.
Muzik, M., H. Cameron, A. Fezzey and K. Rosenblum (2009), ‘Motherhood in the face of trauma: PTSD
in the childbearing year’, Zero to Three, May, 28‒33.
Parker, B. (2010), ‘A conceptual framework for developing the female entrepreneurship literature’,
Journal of Research on Women and Gender, 1, 169‒190.
Pitts-Taylor, V. (2010), ‘The plastic brain: neoliberalism and the neuronal self’, Health, 14(6), 635–652

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 205 15/12/2017 07:53

Read, S. and S. Sarasvathy (2005), ‘Knowing what to do and doing what you know: effectuation as a form
of entrepreneurial expertise’, Journal of Private Equity, 9(1), 45–62.
Richomme-Huet, K., V. Vial and A. d’Andria (2013), ‘Mumpreneurship: a new concept for an old phe-
nomenon?’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 19(2), 251–275.
Sandberg, S. (2013), Lean In, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Schindehutte, M., M. Morris and C. Brennan (2003), ‘Entrepreneurs and motherhood: impacts on
their children in South Africa and the United States’, Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1),
94–107.
Schjoedt, L. and K. Shaver (2007), ‘Deciding on an entrepreneurial career: a test of the pull and push
hypotheses using the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics data’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31(5), 733–752.
Shelton, L. (2006), ‘Women entrepreneurs, work–family conflict and venture performance: new insights
into the work family interface’, Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 285–297.
Shinnar, R.S., D.K. Hsu and B.C. Powell (2014), ‘Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender:
assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally’, International Journal of
Management Education, 12(3), 561–570.
Skinner, E.A., M. Chapman and P. Baltes (1988), ‘Control, means-ends, and agency beliefs: a new con-
ceptualization and its measurement during childhood’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54(1), 117–133.
Sullivan, S., M. Forret, L. Mainiero and S. Terjesen (2007), ‘What motivates entrepreneurs? An explora-
tory study of the Kaleidoscope Career Model and Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Applied Management
and Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 4–19.
Suzuki, S. (2010), ‘The effects of marital support, social network support, and parenting stress on
parenting: self-efficacy among mothers of young children in Japan’, Journal of Early Childhood
Research, 8, 40–66.
Teti, D., and D. Gelfand (1991), ‘Behavioral competence among mothers of infants in the first year: the
mediational role of maternal self-efficacy’, Child Development, 62, 918–929.
Thornton, D. (2014), ‘Transformations of the ideal mother: the story of mommy economicus and her
amazing brain’, Women’s Studies in Communication, 37(3), 271–291.
Walker, E. and B. Webster (2007), ‘Gender, age and self‐employment: some things change, some stay the
same’, Women in Management Review, 22(2), 122–135.
Wilson, F., J. Kickul and D. Marlino (2007), ‘Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneur-
ial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31(3), 387–406.
Wood, R.E. and A. Bandura (1989), ‘Impact of conception of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and
complex decision making’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407–415.
Zellweger, T., P. Sieger and F. Halter (2011), ‘Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of
students with family business background’, Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 521–536.
Zhao, H., S.E. Seibert and G.E. Hills (2005), ‘The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 206 15/12/2017 07:53

10 Kickstart or jumpstart? Understanding
women entrepreneurs’ crowdfunding
performance
Smita Srivastava, Pyayt P. Oo, Arvin Sahaym and Thomas H. Allison*
Introduction
We have just about seven years of experience now in crowdfunding [in the United
States], including equity and debt, and about four years in the United Kingdom. And we
have, by some estimates, $33 billion worth of funding across equity, debt, and rewards
crowdfunding.
(Jason Best, Principal of Crowdfund Capital Advisors, CCA, 2016, quoted in Assenova et
al., 2016)
Female-owned businesses and their survival prospects have been a topic of discus-
sion for a considerable number of researchers (Jennings and Brush, 2013; Justo et
al., 2015; Klapper and Parker, 2011). Prior research has identified several possibili-
ties for the disproportionate failure of female-founded ventures: lack of access to
financial resources (for example, funding) (Fairlie and Robb, 2009), prior manage-
rial and employment experience (Boden and Nucci, 2000; DeTienne and Chandler,
2007), founding strategy (Carter et al., 1997) and entrepreneurial confidence (that
is, self-efficacy) (Bandura, 1997; Wilson et al., 2007). While it is possible that lack
of prior managerial and employment experience can be compensated by train-
ing, confidence and financial resources have fewer obvious solutions (Honig, 1998;
Wilson et al., 2007). The recent revolution in funding new ventures embodied by
crowdfunding is one potential remedy. In this chapter, we focus on how confidence
plays a role in fundraising attempts by women entrepreneurs on a crowdfunding
platform.
A broad consensus has emerged among researchers and practitioners that crowd-

funding has already established itself as an important method for raising capital
(Assenova et al., 2016; Oo and Allison, 2015). Crowdfunding involves nascent
entrepreneurs making public calls for funding via the Internet, and potential capi-
tal providers evaluating those calls and making decisions for financing their pro-
jects (Belleflamme et al., 2014; Bruton et al., 2015). Crowdfunding entrepreneurs
typically campaign for their projects and make ‘an open call, mostly through the
Internet, for providing financial resources either in the form of a donation or
207
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 207 15/12/2017 07:53

in exchange for the future product or some form of reward’ (Belleflamme et al.,
2014).
Colombo et al. (2015) note that prior research has mostly discussed the nature,
characteristics and success factors of crowdfunding. For example, scholars have
tried to discern this phenomenon from other lending mechanisms such as online
charity donations, peer-to-peer lending and microlending (Afuah and Tucci, 2012;
Hildebrand et al., 2016; Zhang and Liu, 2012). As with microlending, a particular
appeal of crowdfunding is the access to capital it provides women seeking to start
or grow a venture (Bruton et al., 2011; Marom et al., 2014). As such, a growing set of
research is examining how women-led crowdfunding projects perform (Greenberg
and Mollick, 2017; Marom et al., 2014).
As with crowdfunding research in general, much of this early research on women-

led crowdfunding projects has been descriptive. Thus, there is an opportunity to
draw from theories previously applied to entrepreneurial resource acquisition
research in order to close the gap between what we know about the determinants of
women’s crowdfunding outcomes, and what we need to know about this phenom-
enon. To do this, we explore how a project creator’s gender, her entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and prior experience influence her crowdfunding performance. This
question is particularly deserving of a focused inquiry, since about 40 percent of
firms in the United States are founded by women but only 6 percent of the women
founders get funding from investors (Greenberg and Mollick, 2017). Interestingly,
about 44 percent of the crowdfunders are women (Marom et al., 2014).
We address these issues through an examination of a sample of 197 woman-led

projects on the Kickstarter platform. Kickstarter, a rewards-based crowdfund-
ing platform, is the world’s largest with more than 100,000 ventures successfully
funded and more than US$2.2 billion in deal-flow. Our results support our theory
(Figure 10.1) that the entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion and
prior experience of women entrepreneurs are associated with their projects’ crowd-
funding performance. This chapter makes the following three key contributions to
the theory and practice. First, we contribute to theory-building on crowdfunding
by highlighting psychosocial factors that could influence women entrepreneurs’
crowdfunding success. Second, this is one of the first studies to discuss the role of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy in crowdfunding performance. Third, for practition-
ers, our results suggest that crowdfunding is a promising source of capital for
women entrepreneurs as the likelihood of success is relatively higher, compared
to seeking funds from traditional sources of funding, such as venture capitalists
(VCs).

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 208 15/12/2017 07:53

UNDERSTANDING WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS’ CROWDFUNDING PERFORMANCE 209
Entrepreneurial
Self-Efficacy
Entrepreneurial Crowdfunding
Passion Performance
Prior Industry
Experience
Figure 10.1 Theoretical model on performance of women entrepreneurs in crowdfunding

platform
Theoretical background and hypotheses

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and crowdfunding performance
McGee et al. (2009: 965) define entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) as a construct
‘that measures a person’s belief in their ability to successfully launch an entrepre-
neurial venture’. In our context, entrepreneurial self-efficacy reflects a woman pro-
ject creator’s self-confidence in searching for product ideas, planning for market,
motivating stakeholders, and managing human as well as financial resources.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy influences the level of interest in founding a venture
which is a challenging goal in itself, persistence toward the achievement of this
goal, and recovering quickly from failure over the course of venture (Bandura, 1997;
Chen et al., 1998; McGee et al., 2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy also determines
levels of commitment, in terms of time and resources, needed for the search of
novel opportunities (Cassar and Friedman, 2009).
Prior research has shown that traditional financers ‒ that is, angels, VCs and
financial institutions ‒ make their funding decisions based on a venture’s ideas
and opportunities, founder and team characteristics, market conditions, venture
resource endowments, and their intuition (Chen et al., 2009; Robinson, 1988).
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy not only reflects self-belief and confidence but also
helps in the improvisation of ideas and strategies that influence venture perfor-
mance (Hmieleski and Corbett, 2008). As such, there is ample reason to expect
entrepreneurial self-efficacy to influence fundraising outcomes. Some research has
reported that women have lower levels of self-efficacy (Gatewood et al., 1995). This
makes examining women crowdfunders’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy even more
important since, though there is a theoretical basis for expecting an effect, it is
unknown whether a women-only study context will yield results at variance with
established theory.
Displays of higher levels of self-efficacy send positive signals of confidence, self-

belief, persistence and potential for future performance (Gatewood et al., 1995;
Hmieleski and Baron, 2008). Because the behavioral characteristics of belief,

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 209 15/12/2017 07:53

confidence and commitment have a bearing on the effective management of a

project and ultimately the project’s success (Gatewood et al., 1995; Hmieleski and
Baron, 2008; Hmieleski and Corbett, 2008), we argue that higher levels of displayed
entrepreneurial self-efficacy will lead potential funders to be more likely to provide
capital. Formally:
Hypothesis 1: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy of women entrepreneurs is positively asso-

ciated with their crowdfunding performance.
Entrepreneurial passion and crowdfunding performance

Entrepreneurial passion reflects ‘consciously accessible intense positive feelings
experienced by engagement in entrepreneurial activities associated with roles that
are meaningful and salient to the self-identity of the entrepreneur’ (Cardon et
al., 2009: 517). On a platform like Kickstarter, crowdfunding entrepreneurial nar-
ratives will be embedded with information about passion (Allison et al., 2013).
Passion about the crowdfunding project is reflected through explicit and implicit
cues including facial expressions, vocal intonation, gestures and animated body
language (Cardon et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2009).
Prior research has shown that lenders such as venture capitalists often base a part
of their funding decision on the technical, personal and interpersonal characteris-
tics of the entrepreneur. Passion is one of key attributes they look for (Cardon et
al., 2009; Chen et al., 2009). A key reason is that passionate entrepreneurs are more
committed, better prepared and more knowledgeable about their projects (Chen
et al., 2009). They are strongly inclined toward the activities they like and find
important, and will invest their time and energy to make these activities successful
(Vallerand et al., 2003). Entrepreneurs who are passionate about their project signal
that they are intensely committed to their project; that they are motivated to build
the venture (Chen et al., 2009). For these reasons, prior work has associated passion
with overall performance (Cardon et al., 2009; Lerner et al., 1997). We extend this
logic and propose that the same effects will also impact fundraising performance on
crowdfunding platforms:
Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneurial passion of women entrepreneurs is positively associ-

ated with their crowdfunding performance.
Prior industry experience and crowdfunding performance

Next, we discuss the role of women entrepreneurs’ prior industry experience on
crowdfunding performance. Prior industry experience provides entrepreneurs with
a better understanding of the key constituents and stakeholders in the product
market (for example, competitors, active investors, potential employees, suppliers,
and so on) which helps them not only in their pitching for the projects but also
in their project’s long-term success (Dobrev and Barnett, 2005; Shane and Stuart,
2002). Indeed, prior industry experience is built on hands-on practical training

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 210 15/12/2017 07:53

and first-hand learning about the technology, stakeholders and product market
(Davidsson and Honig, 2003). Delmar and Shane (2006) note that:
much of the relevant knowledge about creating a new company is learned by doing . . .
experience provides tacit knowledge of organizing routines and skills that have already
been learned from their prior activities, and which can be transferred to the new
venture . . . it provides tacit knowledge about how to run a new firm that has been learned
from prior mistakes [and] previously encountered the problems. (ibid.: 222)
We believe that women entrepreneurs’ prior industry experience will help them in
identifying both core and peripheral needs of customers. This will lead to discover-
ing associated opportunities (Kotha and George, 2012).
Although findings are robust about entrepreneurs’ prior industry experience and
investment from formal sources, research has yet to examine the role of prior indus-
try experience in the context of women entrepreneurs’ crowdfunding performance.
Prior research has demonstrated that traditional investors such as VCs use prior
industry experience as a key consideration in their funding decisions (Franke et
al., 2008). We build on the findings that ventures founded by entrepreneurs with
prior industry experience are more likely to secure VC funding as they show higher
growth rate and overall performance (Rauch et al., 2005; Shane and Stuart, 2002).
We believe that potential backers’ decision-making behavior will parallel that of tra-
ditional investors. We expect that crowdfunding backers will also react positively to
prior industry experience, as it is associated with knowledge, capabilities, legitimacy,
access to social networks and higher venture quality. As such, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 3: Prior experience of women entrepreneurs in related industry is posi-

tively associated with their crowdfunding performance.
Method
Sample and data collection
We drew our sample from Kickstarter, the largest crowdfunding site in the world.
We selected a random sample of female-led projects from three categories: gaming,
technology and product design. These industry categories were chosen because
most projects in these categories are similar to traditional new ventures (Mollick
and Kuppuswamy, 2014). There were two additional sampling criteria. First, we
only included crowdfunding projects on behalf of individual entrepreneurs, rather
than organizations. Second, we only included projects which had videos in which
the entrepreneur was clearly shown. These criteria allow us to develop a sample
of only woman-led crowdfunding projects, while also providing the data neces-
sary to code entrepreneurial passion. The final sample consisted of 197 women-led
crowdfunding projects.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 211 15/12/2017 07:53

Among the three product categories, 108 projects (54 percent) were from prod-
uct design, 51 (20 percent) were from gaming, and 38 (26 percent) were from
technology. The campaigns occurred during the period 2009‒2013. The projects
requested a mean funding amount of US$21,576. The overall success rate is 78
percent, which is relatively high compared to the Kickstarter average reported by
Mollick (2014): 48 percent. This higher average success rate likely reflects the posi-
tive effect on crowdfunding performance of having a video (Mollick, 2014), and the
higher chance of succeeding in crowdfunding that women have compared to men
(Marom et al., 2015).
Measures
Following prior studies (Colombo et al., 2015; Mollick, 2014), we measured crowd-
funding performance dichotomously. If a campaign meets or exceeds its goal, it is
coded 1, and 0 otherwise. Our study includes three independent variables: entre-
preneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion and prior industry experience. We
adapted McGee et al.’s (2009) established entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale. Each
item was coded on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = ‘low confidence’ to
5 = ‘high confidence’). Where necessary, scales were modified to fit the crowd-
funding context (Chen et al., 1998; McGee et al., 2009). The last two items of the
existing ten-item scale for entrepreneurial self-efficacy were not applicable in our
crowdfunding context; as a result, we dropped these items. Given this change, we
then checked construct validity. First, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis
with 50 projects. The results supported a one-factor solution: all eight items (items
are shown in Table 10A.1) had loadings greater than 0.60 on the factor. Internal
consistency was also achieved with α = 0.85. Second, once all data were collected,
we performed confirmatory factor analysis. The analysis indicated that we have a
sufficient overall fit for the one-factor model (χ² = 24.46, df = 14, p = 0.04, CFI =
0.97, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.04).
For entrepreneurial passion, we adopted the established measure developed by

Chen et al. (2009). Items are shown in Table 10A.2. High internal consistency was
achieved (α = 0.88). Consistent with Chen et al., we used a five-point Likert scale
(ranging from 1 = ‘never’ to 5 = ‘very frequently’). Prior industry experience was
dummy coded as 1 if an entrepreneur mentioned that she had prior related indus-
try experience, and 0 otherwise. Coding was performed by two independent coders
for the first 50 projects. After 50 projects were coded, interrater agreement was
evaluated. Reliabilities were high (that is, r > 0.8). Due to the high interrater reli-
ability, the remaining 147 projects were rated by a single coder (Cuddy et al., 2015).
To minimize alternative explanations, we included a broad set of controls. First,

prior crowdfunding experience on Kickstarter was controlled for (dummy coded),
under the assumption that experience may lead to a better campaign. Second,
because a team of entrepreneurs may have more resources than a sole entrepreneur
(Mosakowski, 1998), we controlled for whether the venture was launched by an
individual or a team (dummy coded, team = 1, 0 otherwise). Third, consistent with

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 212 15/12/2017 07:53

prior findings showing that internal social capital has an effect on the outcome
of the campaign (Colombo et al., 2015), we controlled for internal social capital.
Fourth, because some projects were featured as ‘staff picks’, which might give such
projects greater exposure, we controlled for whether a given project had this desig-
nation (dummy coded, featured on Kickstarter = 1, 0 otherwise). Fifth, since media
coverage can be a signal of quality, can bring more attention and can provide legiti-
macy (Deephouse, 2000), we controlled for this by examining whether a campaign
had such coverage, as reflected on their crowdfunding page (dummy coded, media
coverage = 1, 0 otherwise). Sixth and finally, consistent with prior studies (Mollick,
2014), we controlled for the duration and funding goal (log transformation) of each
campaign.
Results
Table 10.1 shows means, standard deviations and a correlation matrix for the vari-
ables included in the statistical models. We checked for multicollinearity with vari-
ance inflation factors (VIFs). The results indicated that the maximum value is 1.46
and the mean value is 1.18. Both are within accepted limits. Table 10.2 presents our
logistic regression models. Model 1 is limited to controls, Model 2 adds all predic-
tors. In Hypothesis 1, we predicted that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is positively
related to crowdfunding performance. Consistent with our theory, we found that
the coefficient estimate is positive and statistically significant (β = 1.029; p = 0.004).
Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that high entrepreneurial
passion is positively related to crowdfunding performance. We also find support
for this hypothesis (β = 0.853; p = 0.027). Finally, Hypothesis 3 predicted that prior
industry experience helps women entrepreneurs in succeeding with their cam-
paigns. This, too, was supported (β = 1.123; p = 0.046).
Discussion
This chapter builds a theoretical framework for predicting women entrepre-

neurs’ crowdfunding performance. Given that women entrepreneurs are playing
an important role in the economy, and 40 percent of entrepreneurial firms are
founded by women, this issue also has immense practical implications. Our anal-
ysis with 197 female-led projects on Kickstarter from three industry categories
(product design, gaming and technology) reveal that entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
entrepreneurial passion and prior industry experience of women entrepreneurs are
positively related to crowdfunding performance. Our results are consistent with
our developed hypotheses. Our study provides support for the idea that women
entrepreneurs with high entrepreneurial self-efficacy engender more support from
potential backers through their strong self-belief and ability to tackle difficult tasks,
resulting in a successful crowdfunding performance. Their entrepreneurial passion
appears to serve as an indicator of greater preparedness and commitment, which in
turn will lead the backers to believe in their venture ideas.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 213 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 10.1 Descriptive statistics and correlationsa
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 214
Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Dependent variable
1. Crowdfunding Performance 0.78 0.41
Control variables
2. Prior Crowdfunding Experience 0.12 0.43 0.12
3. Individual/Team 0.36 0.49 0.13 −0.05
4. Internal Social Capital 2.93 4.54 0.21 0.12 −0.08
5. Featured on Kickstarter 0.23 0.42 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.18
6. Media Coverage 0.07 0.26 0.10 −0.03 0.08 0.15 0.08
7. Duration of Campaign 36.40 13.84 −0.19 −0.09 −0.05 −0.08 −0.04 −0.01
8. Goal of Campaign (Logged) 8.90 1.38 −0.35 −0.09 0.09 −0.02 −0.05 0.24 0.17
Independent variables
9. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy 3.38 0.88 0.23 0.02 0.24 0.05 0.18 0.19 −0.08 0.31
10. Entrepreneurial Passion 3.34 0.74 0.28 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.08 −0.05 0.08 0.42
11. Prior Industry Experience 2.67 30.96 0.04 −0.02 0.10 −0.01 0.13 −0.02 −0.03 0.04 0.07 −0.02
a
Note: N = 197. Correlations with absolute greater than 0.16 are significant at p < 0.05.

15/12/2017 07:53
Table 10.2 Regression analysis for campaign result
Variables Model 1 Model 2
Control Variables
Prior Crowdfunding Experience 1.334 0.640
Individual/Team 1.452*** 1.012*
Internal Social Capital 0.307*** 0.332***
Featured on Kickstarter 3.875*** 3.350**
Media Coverage 2.523** 2.488*
Duration of Campaign −0.025 −0.024
Goal of Campaign (Logged) −1.005*** −1.453***
Industry Dummies
Independent Variables
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy 1.029***
Entrepreneurial Passion 0.853**
Prior Industry Experience 1.123**
N 197 197
Chi-square 82.909 105.688
Notes:
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1
Industry controls (dummy variables) included in analysis but not reported.
While our study makes some important contributions, it is also important to be

mindful of the trade-offs we made in order to achieve these findings. In order
to maximize the similarity of crowdfunding projects to traditional ventures, we
limited our sampling frame to those categories previously established to be most
reflective of such ventures. However, future research might take a broader view of
crowdfunding projects in order to better understand the crowdfunding phenom-
enon overall. Further, we measured entrepreneurial passion manifested through
facial expressions, body movement, tone of voice and other non-verbal cues which
may overlap with impression management cues (Baron, 1989). While there is good
evidence for this type of espoused passion measure, psychometric measures of pas-
sion might provide further confidence in our findings.
Given the nearly equal representation of women entrepreneurs on crowdfunding

platforms, this study suggests some directions for future research. For example,
future studies can develop a deeper understanding of factors that may moderate
the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy, passion and crowdfunding
performance of women entrepreneurs. On the other hand, it would be interesting
to explore whether female backers are more prone to fund women entrepreneurs
due to their social identification with ‘women’ (Brown, 2000), or whether male
backers are coming forward to back women entrepreneurs. Since crowdfunding
could be women entrepreneurs’ most promising source of early-stage funding, it

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 215 15/12/2017 07:53

is important to better understand the overall role of narratives in helping entre-

preneurs to establish a relationship with backers. Future research could do this by
conducting a content analysis of the narratives used on crowdfunding platforms.
For example, it would be interesting to examine the extent to which social identity
espoused by crowdfunders impacts crowdfunding performance.
Conclusion
We began this study motivated by a belief in the importance of women entrepre-

neurs, and with the desire to better understand the interaction between confidence
and passion in influencing fundraising performance. Given that crowdfunding is
a promising avenue for many women entrepreneurs to access needed financial
resources, our results contribute to both the theory and practice by showing that
high levels of self-efficacy (confidence) and passion among women entrepreneurs
result in better fundraising outcomes through crowdfunding. In this chapter, we
begin to connect the dots between women entrepreneurs and access to resources
via crowdfunding. We provide an initial look at factors influencing the crowdfund-
ing performance of women entrepreneurs. We provide a broader understanding
of entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial self-efficacy by examining their
effect in the novel resource acquisition context of crowdfunding. Overall, this work
is another step towards understanding how to increase the survival rate of the
women-led ventures through innovative venture funding.
Note
* All authors contributed equally.
References
Afuah, A. and C.L. Tucci (2012), ‘Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search’, Academy of
Allison, T.H., A.F. McKenny and J.C. Short (2013), ‘The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on micro-
lending investment: an examination of the warm-glow effect’, Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6),
690–707.
Assenova, V., J. Best, M. Cagney, et al. (2016), ‘The present and future of crowdfunding’, California
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York: Freeman.
Baron, R.A. (1989), ‘Impression management by applicants during employment interviews: the “too
much of a good thing” effect’ in R.W. Eder and G.R. Ferris (eds), The Employment Interview: Theory,
research, and practice, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications: pp. 204–215.
Belleflamme, P., T. Lambert and A. Schwienbacher (2014), ‘Crowdfunding: tapping the right crowd’,
Boden, R.J. and A.R. Nucci (2000), ‘On the survival prospects of men’s and women’s new business
ventures’, Journal of Business Venturing, 15(4), 347–362.
Brown, R. (2000), ‘Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges’,
European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778.
Bruton, G., S. Khavul, D. Siegel and M.Wright (2015), ‘New financial alternatives in seeding

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 216 15/12/2017 07:53

entrepreneurship: microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations’, Entrepreneurship

Bruton, G.D., S. Khavul and H. Chavez (2011), ‘Microlending in emerging economies: building a new
line of inquiry from the ground up’, Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 718–739.
neurial passion’, Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532.
Carter, N.M., M. Williams and P.D. Reynolds (1997), ‘Discontinuance among new firms in retail: the
influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender’, Journal of Business Venturing, 12(2), 125–145.
Cassar, G. and H. Friedman (2009), ‘Does self-efficacy affect entrepreneurial investment?’, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 241–260.
Chen, X.-P., X. Yao and S. Kotha (2009), ‘Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan
presentations: a persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions’, Academy of

Management Journal, 52(1), 199–214.
Colombo, M.G., C. Franzoni and C. Rossi-Lamastra (2015), ‘Internal social capital and the attraction of
early contributions in crowdfunding’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 75–100.
Cuddy, A.J., C.A. Wilmuth, A.J. Yap and D.R. Carney (2015), ‘Preparatory power posing affects nonver-
bal presence and job interview performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1286.
Davidsson, P. and B. Honig (2003), ‘The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs’,
Deephouse, D.L. (2000), ‘Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of mass communica-
tion and resource-based theories’, Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112.
Delmar, F. and S. Shane (2006), ‘Does experience matter? The effect of founding team experience on the
survival and sales of newly founded ventures’, Strategic Organization, 4(3), 215–247.
DeTienne, D.R. and G.N. Chandler (2007), ‘The role of gender in opportunity identification’,
Dobrev, S.D. and W.P. Barnett (2005), ‘Organizational roles and transition to entrepreneurship’,
Fairlie, R.W. and A.M. Robb (2009), ‘Gender differences in business performance: evidence from the
Characteristics of Business Owners survey’, Small Business Economics, 33(4), 375–395.
Franke, N., M. Gruber, D. Harhoff and J. Henkel (2008), ‘Venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up
teams: trade-offs, knock-out criteria, and the impact of VC experience’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 32(3), 459–483.
Gatewood, E.J., K.G. Shaver and W.B. Gartner (1995), ‘A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influ-
encing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation’, Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5),
371–391.
Greenberg, J. and E.R. Mollick (2017), ‘Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female
founders’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 341–374.
Hildebrand, T., M. Puri and J. Rocholl (2016), ‘Adverse incentives in crowdfunding’, Management
Science, 63(3), 587–608.
Hmieleski, K.M. and R.A. Baron (2008), ‘When does entrepreneurial self-efficacy enhance versus reduce
firm performance?’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 57–72.
Hmieleski, K.M. and A.C. Corbett (2008), ‘The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behav-
ior with entrepreneurial self-efficacy on new venture performance and entrepreneur work satisfac-
tion’, Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 482–496.
Honig, B. (1998), ‘What determines success? Examining the human, financial, and social capital of
Jamaican microentrepreneurs’, Journal of Business Venturing, 13(5), 371–394.
Jennings, J.E. and C.G. Brush (2013), ‘Research on women entrepreneurs: challenges to (and from) the

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 217 15/12/2017 07:53

Justo, R., D.R. DeTienne and P. Sieger (2015), ‘Failure or voluntary exit? Reassessing the female under-
performance hypothesis’, Journal of Business Venturing, 30(6), 775–792.
Klapper, L.F. and S.C. Parker (2011), ‘Gender and the business environment for new firm creation’,
World Bank Research Observer, 26(2), 237–257.
Kotha, R. and G. George (2012), ‘Friends, family, or fools: entrepreneur experience and its implications
for equity distribution and resource mobilization’, Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 525–543.
Lerner, M., C. Brush and R. Hisrich (1997), ‘Israeli women entrepreneurs: an examination of factors
affecting performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 315–339.
Marom, D., A. Robb and O. Sade (2014), ‘Gender dynamics in crowdfunding (Kickstarter): evidence
on entrepreneurs, investors, deals and taste based discrimination’, Investors, Deals and Taste Based
Discrimination (October 10).
Marom, D., A. Robb, and O. Sade (2015), ‘Gender dynamics in crowdfunding (Kickstarter): evidence
on entrepreneurs, investors, deals and taste-based discrimination’, Investors, Deals and Taste-Based
Discrimination (December 6).
McGee, J.E., M. Peterson, S.L. Mueller and J.M. Sequeira (2009), ‘Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: refining
Mollick, E. (2014), ‘The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study’, Journal of Business Venturing,
29(1), 1–16.
Mollick, E. and V. Kuppuswamy (2014), ‘After the campaign: outcomes of crowdfunding’, UNC Kenan-
Flagler Research Paper No. 2376997, accessed January 9, 2014 at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2376997.
Mosakowski, E. (1998), ‘Entrepreneurial resources, organizational choices, and competitive outcomes’,
Organization Science, 9(6), 625–643.
Oo, P.P. and T.H. Allison (2015), ‘Crowdfunding an entrepreneurial career: the role of prior paid employ-
ment in crowdfunding’, paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, August 7–11,
Vancouver.
Rauch, A., M. Frese and A. Utsch (2005), ‘Effects of human capital and long-term human resources
development and utilization on employment growth of small-scale businesses: a causal analysis’,
Robinson, R.B. (1988). ‘Emerging strategies in the venture capital industry’, Journal of Business
Venturing, 2(1), 53–77.
Shane, S. and T. Stuart (2002), ‘Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-
ups’, Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.
Vallerand, R.J., C. Blanchard, G.A. Mageau, et al. (2003), ‘Les passions de l’âme: on obsessive and harmo-
nious passion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756–767.
Wilson, F., J. Kickul and D. Marlino (2007), ‘Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneur-
ial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education1’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31(3), 387–406.
Zhang, J. and P. Liu (2012), ‘Rational herding in microloan markets’, Management Science, 58(5),
892–912.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 218 15/12/2017 07:53

Appendix
Table 10A.1 Entrepreneurial self-efficacy rating scale
Items Scale*
Searching
How much confidence does the speaker have in her ability to come up with a new 12345
idea for a product or service?
How much confidence does the speaker have in her ability to design a product or 12345
service that will satisfy customer needs and wants?
Planning
How much confidence does the speaker have in her ability to estimate customer 12345
demand for a new product or service?
How much confidence does the speaker have in her ability to determine a 12345
competitive price for a new product or service?
How much confidence does the speaker have in her ability to estimate the amount 12345
of start-up funds and working capital necessary to start the business?
How much confidence does the speaker have in her ability to design an effective 12345
marketing/advertising campaign for a new product or service
Marshaling
How much confidence does the speaker have in her ability to get others to identify 12345
with and believe in the vision and plans for a new business?
How much confidence does the speaker have in her ability to clearly and concisely 12345
explain verbally/in writing the business idea in everyday terms?
Note: * 1 = low confidence, 2 = moderate confidence, 3 = uncertain, 4 = much confidence, 5 = high

confidence.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 219 15/12/2017 07:53

Table 10A.2 Entrepreneurial passion rating scale
Items Scale*
The presenter(s) had energetic body movements. 12345

The presenter(s) had rich body language 12345
The presenter(s) showed animated facial expression 12345
The presenter(s) used a lot of gestures 12345
The presenter’s face lit up when he/she talked 12345
The presenter(s) talked with varied tone and pitch 12345
Note: * 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = frequently, 5 = very frequently.

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 220 15/12/2017 07:53

Index
Ahl, H. 106, 118, 130 cognitions, context and 170–71

Alvesson, M. 98 common latent factor (CLF) 178
Ashford, S.J. 154 common method bias (CMB) 178
aspirations community-based enterprise (CBE) 13, 73–6
identity and 7–8 composite reliability (CR) index 179
and women’s entrepreneurial identity 12–13 confidence
aspiring poor 72 identity and 9–10
average variance extracted (AVE) index 179 and women’s entrepreneurial identity 15–16
confirmatory factor analyses 177
Baker, T. 95, 96 context, and entrepreneurial cognitions 170–74
Bandura, A. 9, 10, 15, 169, 188, 190–92, 200, 201 convergent validity 179
behavior credibility 156
identity and 8–9 CR index see composite reliability (CR) index
and women’s entrepreneurial identity 14–16 Cronbach’s alpha test 179
Bem, S. 47 crowdfunding 207–8, 215–16
Benschop, Y. 118 performance 209–11
Big Sisters 35 measure 212–13
Bird, B. 119 prior industry experience and 210–11
BoP strategy 76 Curran, J. 4, 95
Brush, C. 47, 101, 119
building self-confidence 38–9 data analysis, in entrepreneurship 146
business 152–3 data collection, ethnographic field research 145
business success, intrinsic and extrinsic values Davidsson, P. 190
46–8 DeRue, D.S. 154
discriminant validity test 179
Cardador, M.T. 97 Down, S. 117
Chile
entrepreneurial ecosystem in 41 EFA see exploratory factor analyses (EFA)
entrepreneurial identity 27–8 Elsbach, K.D. 99
female founders empowerment 71
attitudes 33 entrepreneur, definition of 67
building self-confidence 38–9 entrepreneurial cognitions, context and 170–71
as element of differentiation 33–4 entrepreneurial ecosystems, policy implications
no professional networks 34–5 for
small teams 35–7 advanced stages of 41–2
struggles and challenges 41 early stages of 41
team building 40 entrepreneurial identity 27–8, 93–4, 116–17,
in technology industry 28–9 138
trust-based teams 37–8 among women 28
Chile Global Angels 41 assumptions 116
CLF see common latent factor (CLF) attaining and gaining credibility 156–7
CMB see common method bias (CMB) challenges 107–8
221
GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 221 15/12/2017 07:53

comparing careers of professionals and FEI see feminist entrepreneurial identity (FEI)
entrepreneurs 100–103 female entrepreneurial intentions 170–74
construction of 103–5, 146–8 female founders
business and family business dynamics attitudes 33
152–3 building self-confidence 38–9
knowledge, expertise and experience 148–9 as element of differentiation 33–4
leadership and identity 153 no appropriate role models 34
learning 150–52 no professional networks 34–5
personal attributes 149–50 small teams 35–7
process of 153–7 struggles and challenges 41
as unconscious process 155 team building 40
data analysis 146 in technology industry 28–9
data collection, ethnographic field research 145 trust-based teams 37–8
definitions of 94–8, 116 female techpreneurs, identity of 39–41
development of 155–6 feminism
ethnographic case study research 143–4 definitions of 116
feature of 106 and entrepreneurial identity 119–20
feminism and 119–20 feminist entrepreneurial identity (FEI)
gender and 117–18 feminist values and 122, 127–9
and identity work 98–100 governance 119, 126
overview of existing literature 94–8 implications 132–3
self and the social 154 limitations 133
study 106–7 market positioning 124–6, 130
typology of 8 resource acquisition 122–3
women’s invisibility in family businesses 157 strategic compromises 125–6
entrepreneurial intentions 180, 183 feminist entrepreneurs (FEs)
entrepreneurial passion 171, 210, 212 data collection and analysis 120–21
entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) 209–10, 212 definitions of 116
in men and women 201–2 research approach 120
and women 192 strategic decision making 126, 131
entrepreneurship Fenwick, T. 117
different forms of 68–9 FEs see feminist entrepreneurs (FEs)
ethnographic methods in 143–4 Finnish National Technology Agency (TEKES)
and identity 141–2 170
nexus of person and 189 Foreman, P. 130
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and women 192
perceived self-efficacy in 190–92 García, M.-C.D. 118
poverty, purpose of 72–4 Gartner, W.B. 106
entrepreneurs’ perceptions of success 48–50 GEM survey see Global Entrepreneurship
ESE see entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) Monitor (GEM) survey
Essers, C. 118 gender 48–50, 60, 171
ethnic entrepreneurship, and social networks 77 discrimination 33, 51, 58
ethnographic case study research 143–4 effect 56, 57
experience 148–9 and entrepreneurial identity 117–18
expertise 148–9 moderating effect of 50–51
exploratory factor analyses (EFA) 177 gender-stereotypic values 48
extreme poverty 67, 70 Girls in Tech 34, 35
extrinsic dimension of success 46–8, 52, 57 glass ceiling 49, 58
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey
family business dynamics 152–3 51–3
‘family of existential motives’ 8 Glynn, M.A. 95
Fauchart, E. 96, 117, 120, 131 governance 119

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 222 15/12/2017 07:53

INDEX 223
grounded theory 146 missionary entrepreneurs 120

Greene, P. 27, 191 moderate poverty 71
Gruber, M. 96, 114, 120, 131 see also extreme poverty
Gujarat 77 Morris, M.H. 28
motherhood
Hamilton, E. 107, 142, 157 as springboard for entrepreneurial action
high self-efficacy 199 as identity 195–7, 200–201
Honig, B. 190 as practice 196, 197, 200–201
Hutton, S. 117 resemblance between entrepreneurship and
196–8
identity as resource 193–5, 197, 200–201
and aspirations 7–8 motherhood effect 50–51
and behavior 8–9 mumpreneurship 187–8
and confidence 9–10 response to mothers’ increased self-efficacy
construction and durability 3–4 beliefs 199–200
entrepreneurial see entrepreneurial identity
and entrepreneurship 141–2 Nadin, S. 28, 95, 117
formation 158–9 Navis, C. 95
leadership and 153 normative entrepreneur 99
women entrepreneurs and 142–3
women’s see women’s entrepreneurial identity Orser, B. 114–20,124, 126, 131–33, 142
identity motives 99 optimal distinctiveness theory 39
identity theory (IT) 3, 137, 139–41
independence dimension of success 48, 52, 57, 58 parenthood 48–50
India effect 49, 56, 57
poverty 77 PBC see perceived behavioral control (PBC)
women 78 perceived behavioral control (PBC) 169–70, 172,
Institutional Review Board (IRB) 80 180, 183
intentions, theoretical review 169–70 distinguish between self-efficacy and
intrinsic dimension of success 46–8, 52, 53, 55–7, 173–4
59 role of 174
invisible women 157 perceived self-efficacy, in entrepreneurship
IRB see Institutional Review Board (IRB) 190–92
Ireland, R.D. 96 perceptions of success, entrepreneurs’ 48–50
IT see identity theory (IT) personal attitude 180, 183
personal attributes 2, 3, 149–50
Kašperová, E. 95, 107 personal identity 2
Kitching, J. 95, 107 Pihkala, T. 94, 95, 97
knowledge 148–9 positive reputation 124
Krueger, N. 199 poverty
definitions of 70
Laakkonen, A. 95 end of, solution
leadership, and identity 153 empowerment 71
leadership development 144–5 poverty alleviation as consumption 72
learning 150–52 framework for 70–71
livelihood entrepreneur 67 from ground up 67–70
characteristics of 82 India 77
creation 74–6 purpose of entrepreneurship 72–4
poverty 70–76 poverty alleviation 70, 71
as consumption 72
Marlow, S. 99, 100, 130 from ground up 72
McAdam, M. 99, 100 Powell, E.E. 95, 96

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 223 15/12/2017 07:53

Prahalad, C.K. 72 SUP see Start-Up Chile acceleration program

Pratt, M. 130 (SUP)
Pratt, M.G. 97 Sveningsson, S. 98
prior industry experience 210–12
purchasing power parity 70 team building, female founders 40
tech ventures founders 33
relative poverty 71 TEKES see Finnish National Technology Agency
reputation 123–4 (TEKES)
research context 144–5 theory of planned behavior (TPB) 169
role-based identities 3 theory of reasoned action (TRA) 169
role salience 49 theory of trying (TT) 169
Thornton, D. 194
Sarasvathy, S.D. 96 ‘train the trainer’ approach 124
self-efficacy 10–11, 170, 172–4, 180, 183 trust-based teams, female founders 37–8
beliefs 191, 199–200
in men and women 201–2 United Nations High Commission on Human
role of 174 Rights (UNHCHR) 70
and women 192
Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) 70, variance inflation factor (VIF) 54–5, 213
76, 78–81, 83 Vesalainen, J. 94, 95, 97
self-identity 139–41, 189 VIF see variance inflation factor (VIF)
SEWA see Self-Employed Women’s Association
(SEWA) Warren, L. 117, 131
social capital 76 Watson, T.J. 95, 158
social desirability bias 60 Webb, J.W. 96
social entrepreneurship 75 Welter, F. 118
social identity 139–41 Women 2.0 34
social identity theory (SIT) 2–3, 10, 45, 101–2, Women in Communications and Technology
137 (WCT) 124
entrepreneurs’ perceptions of success women in family businesses 157
48–50 women’s entrepreneurial identity 10–12, 142–3
Stanworth, M.J.K. 4, 95 and aspirations 12–13
Start-Up Chile acceleration program (SUP) and behavior 14–16
29 and confidence 15–16
analysis 31 Women’s Executive Network (WXN) 124–5
female participation 31–2 women’s invisibility 157
procedure 30–31 Women Tech Founders 34
sample design 29–30 Women Who Code 34–5
structural equation modelling (SEM) technique Women Who Tech 34
180 WXN see Women’s Executive Network (WXN)

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 224 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 225 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 226 15/12/2017 07:53

Greene 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greene 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Greene 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the research agenda?

What is the purpose of the research agenda?

What topics does the research agenda cover?

What topics does the research agenda cover?

A Research Agenda for Women and Entrepreneurship

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 1 15/12/2017 07:53

Titles in the series include:

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 2 15/12/2017 07:53

Elgar Research Agendas

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 3 15/12/2017 07:53

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

A catalogue record for this book

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017950449

This book is available electronically in the

ISBN 978 1 78536 536 2 (cased)

Typeset by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 4 15/12/2017 07:53

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 5 15/12/2017 07:53

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 6 15/12/2017 07:53

1 Introduction: the ABCs of women’s entrepreneurial identity –

2 Developing entrepreneurial identity among start-ups’ female founders

PART II BEHAVIORS

5 On becoming an entrepreneur: unpacking entrepreneurial identity 93

PART III CONFIDENCE

8 Context, cognition and female entrepreneurial intentions: it is all about

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 7 15/12/2017 07:53

9 Motherhood as a springboard for women’s entrepreneurial action 187

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 8 15/12/2017 07:53

Thomas H. Allison is Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Carson

Malin Brännback, DSc, BSc (Pharm) is Dean and Professor of International

Candida G. Brush is the Vice Provost of Global Entrepreneurial Leadership

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 9 15/12/2017 07:53

Eliana Crosina is a doctoral candidate in the Management and Organization

Cristina Cruz (PhD, University Carlos III, Madrid, Spain) is Entrepreneurship

Julio O. De Castro (PhD, University of South Carolina, USA) is Professor of

Catherine Elliott is a Professor at the University of Ottawa’s Telfer School of

Patricia G. Greene is the Paul T. Babson Chair in Entrepreneurial Studies at

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 10 15/12/2017 07:53

Richard T. Harrison is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation and

Diana Hechavarria is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Muma

Rachida Justo is an Associate Professor Entrepreneurship at IE Business School,

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 11 15/12/2017 07:53

Katherina Kuschel, PhD in social psychology from Universitat Autònoma

Juan-Pablo Labra is a civil industrial engineer from Catholic University of Chile,

Claire M. Leitch (DPhil) holds the Chair in Entrepreneurial Leadership at

Magdalena Markowska is Assistant Professor at Jönköping International Business

Shahrokh Nikou is a Docent of Business Administration, especially in information

Patricia G. Greene and Candida G. Brush - 9781785365362

GREENE_9781785365362_t.indd 12 15/12/2017 07:53

economy and entrepreneurship. He has published more than 40 articles in journals

1 Introduction: the ABCs of women’s entrepreneurial identity –

2 Developing entrepreneurial identity among start-ups’ female founders

5 On becoming an entrepreneur: unpacking entrepreneurial identity 93

8 Context, cognition and female entrepreneurial intentions: it is all about

9 Motherhood as a springboard for women’s entrepreneurial action 187