SWP 5187
FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS - ARE THEY
REALLY ANY DIFFERENT?
SUE BIRLEY
Philip and Pauline Harris Professor of Entrepreneurship
Cranfield School of Management
Cranfield Institute of Technology
Cranfield
Bedford MK43 OAL
United Kingdom
(Tel: 0234-751122)
(Fax: 0234 751806)
Forthcoming in Journal of Small Business Management
School Working Paper 5/87
Copyright: Birley, 1988
FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS- ARE THEY REALLY ANY DIFFERENT?
ABSTRACT
female
literature
on
recent
discusses
This
pap==
order
to
discover
evidence
as
to
any
entrepreneurs
in
differences
from
the
data
available
regarding
significant
The paper concludes
that
the major
male entrepreneurs.
a natural
is
in
the
market-entry
choices
made,
difference
of their
differing
nature
the
considering
phenomenon
backgrounds.
******************
Philip
and Pauline Harris Professor
of
Professor
Sue Birley,
is Director
of Research at the Cranfield
Entrepreneurship,
the Cranfield
School of Management, UK, as well as heading
She is a member of
Entrepreneurship
Research Centre (CERC).
including
the
Board of several
journals,
the Editorial
Small
the International
Management Journal,
Strategic
She is
Business Journal and the European Management Journal.
also Chairman of a venture capital
consultancy
company in the
City of London.
FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS- ARE THEY REALLY ANY DIFFERENT?
The
past
ten years
attention
The
paid
sector
design
has
to the
is
for
seen that,
Government
Department
the Department
sectors
of
now
example,
Trade
ethnic
for
for
minorities
segmentation
history
of
and for
the market
of research
male
estimates
founded
which
entrepreneurs.
indicate
that
in the United
a number of recent
female
entrepreneurs
which
have
convenience
for
been
studies
was
however,
consider
there
managers,
often
samples which may, indeed,
are
for
growth
in the
been based
upon a
almost
however,
entirely
recent
of the new firms
owned by women, [l]
[Z].
all
specifically
This rapid
have observed,
are
recently
to
for
has drawn evidence
are
Kingdom the
alone,
the unemployed,
is limited
conducted
are
urged
BY contrast,
more than one third
States
So important
Increasingly,
sector
women.
firm.
the
programmes
has,
small
the
in
Industry
are
in
factor
Enterprise.
the education
students,
to the
in the United
and
population
In
and
shift
a significant
"Start-Your-Own-Business"
designed
from
as
of
re-named
self-employment.
remarkable
economic recovery.
for
the
a
entrepreneur
now viewed
of strategies
they now
seen
yet,
as
the data regarding
Moreover,
based
the studies
upon
small,
have had a significant
3
influence
upon the nature
Throughout
cultures,
history,
and according
is gradually
full-time
into
of
dish-washers
part
changing
the technology
into
the labour
the
question
-
upon
changes
entrepreneurs?
the nature
men
market.
It
what is
the effect
the
nature
has brought
are taking
Are
they,
is important,
a
indeed,
a
such
as
more active
of children;
more housewives
therefore,
of these
the
of
and into
education,
products
forcing
increase,
of these
More women
home and the rearing
of the
is on the
have always
revolution
household
micro-waves;
in the running
and divorce
and higher
time-saving
and
society
in Western economies.
further
employment;
multitude
to the norms of particular
However,
different.
are continuing
[3].
of men and women in
the roles
been significantly
roles
of the results
back
to ask
environmental
supply
female
of
significantly
different
from men?
This paper
starts
business,
its
suppliers,
The
bankers
influence
develop
describes
a
three
the premise
and advisors
by Cooper
for
is
"set
[5] to
entrepreneurial
the initial
theory
that
relationships
trading
model suggested
which
to
from
female
the nature
customers,
with
at the
analyse
start"
the
decision
entrepreneurs.
of any
The
[43.
factors
is used
model
broad groups:
a. "Antecedent
Influences"
include
those
aspects
of the
entrepeneur's
background
motivations,
They
perceptions,
include
education,
and previous
immediately
include
the
prior
skills
and
with
which
18small
family
career
experiences.
the
describes
start-up.
Relevant
knowledge
location,
acquired,
fellow
gains
settinglV.
motivations
and
or to leave
the organisation
worked
factors
the type of
experience
triggers
- the
of
and the extent
Beyond these,
the particular
of
the degree
founders,
entrepreneur
business
the nature
entrepreneur
geographic
possible
influences,
which the
to
the specific
contact
to
for
his
and knowledge.
factors,
Organisation"
organisation
affect
and skills
genetic
b. The "Incubator
the
which
of
a
there are
to stay with
push versus
pull
factors.
C.
"Environmental
Factors"
and
incubator
to
his
important
setting
entrepreneur
here
conditions,
but
the
supporting
which
to flourish.
general
of venture
entrepreneurs,
services.
provide
the
prevailing
an
individual
factors
economic
the accessibility
capital,
and
individual
Important
more specifically
and availability
successful
to the
organisation
within
is able
include
external
the
role
models of
availabilty
of
5
ANTECEDENTINFLUENCES
It
Motivations:
is
clear
entrepreneurs
are similar
counterparts.
Thus,
Goffee
supervision,
(in the
incubator
identities
has
seem that
money,
that
support
the wish
[8] notes
that
when traditional
conducted
no
significant
and locus
one
note
El-Namaki
differ
from their
apparent
with
an
trait
lack
of
employee
[ll],
and Popay
[13]
labour
force
the
in
have been
regarding
aggression,
provides
note
United
that
self-employment
Kingdom
l
only
women
Despite
women are
money",
in 1979,
only
non-western
[lOI
of
"the
is
and
few
"pin
Beyer and
factor,
counterparts"
or through
Rimmer
tests
leadership
conclude
they
self-confidence,
work which merely
Chaganti
Gerritson,
important
of an
Indeed,
emerged
Nevertheless,
would
the need for
persistence,
on which western
male
It
goal-orientation,
further
which
self-confidence,
well-validated
[9].
[7].
differences
non-conformity,
of control
imposed
the seizing
personality
autonomy,
motivation,
independence,
male
of
and
male counterparts
roles
comparable.
in the literature.
independent,
to be
as their
achievement
directly
have the same motivations
by
occupations,
domestic
rejecting
of
male
identified
of
- are
female
to their
low paid
constraint
organisation)
little
that
motivations
- avoiding
and the
females
opportunity
four
three
fourth,
the
Further,
literature
many respects
in
of the
and Scase [6],
escaping
from the
whether
[12]
this
satisfied
it
be as
for,
8% of the
consisted
of
as
male
sole
.
6
providers
Family
for
the archetypal
Backaround:
the background
Whilst
of their
substantially
similarity
in
[14],
and general
level
Moss and Saunders
[15]
with
than
the men.
caution
since
in enterprise
females
of male
that
marriage
female
for
and
creating
the
after
Regarding
age, Birley,
However,
that
enterprise
further
differentiating
results
the sample was both small
which had
regarding
roughly
owners
that
family
between males and
marital
similar
status.
proportions
were married,
'@the apparent
divorced
support
for
among women is an alternative
is
males in Watkins
a
function
sample constructional.
Cromie
businesses
in their
these
the entrepreneur's
reports
Scase
entrepreneurs,
However,
that
upon
self-employment
to
occupation
from a population
or to dependence upon
approaches
fathers
any differences
he concludes
Goffee
data
training.
identifies
and female
notion
of their
Most of the literature
Curran
or separated,
and
drawn solely
concentrates
Thus, whilst
position,
that
women were
found the women entrepreneurs
participated
which
examination
of education.
being
background
conclude
58 men and 43
closer
and biased,
Influences:
and Watkins
sample of
sibling
be younger
must be treated
Marital
Watkins
different,
shows
sample to
family.
[16]
of
In
detected
between married
examination
factor
was not,
non-random
study
different
and single
of the data,
in
to
and Watkins,
the
his
the
of
34
reasons
women.
he concluded
fact,
marriage
itself
but
rather
the
self-employment
mothers,
opportunity
for
lifestyle
which
combined
comments that
Yhis
female
both
executives
who
39%) f and the women in this
study
number of
women in
management, Vinnicombe
contrast
to
concludes
that
these
"starting
their
with
at home are the kinds
(only
types
types
them to
and
Catalysts
explain
the
rigidity"
part-time,
strategies
of
fall
in
She'
colleagues.
male
working
of coping
mothers
found
[I81
"organisational
own business,
who
of whom as many as 74% are
differing
which women encounter
a
between the
choose to be
Traditionalist
their
by Hertz
disparity
of Visionaries
the categories
in
of the personality
Further,
into
is underlined
a
employment
and
domestic
in her study
mothers".
mainly
required
the great
explains
For
[17].
afforded
flexibility
the
This point
[18].
children
entrepreneurship
or
greater
responsibilities
of
pos.session
problems
and that
and staying
women managers are
adopting".
THE INCUBATOR ORGANISATION
In
study
his
organisation
as
for
underlying
the
nature
However,
immediate
Whilst
entrepreneur.
narrow
the
this
of
the
the
nature
previous
definition
that
previous
entrepreneurial
of
the
skills
the
incubator
employer
of
the
would appear to be too
economic conditions
the current
assumption
Cooper saw
ventures,
new
of
experience
choice
and
trends,
will
still
and knowledge
the
influence
pertains.
of
the
8
unemployed,
different
from
his mid 30s.
gain
their
those
is
this
often
experience
taking
at face
The
of prior
emolovment
which
incubator
process,
but rather
Taking
same entry
important
this
their
education,
experience,
for
example,
it
is clear
Rubery
is
as
not the type
ingredient
in the
whatever
found that
enter
sectors
opportunities"
whilst
not been employed
had
housewives,
its
"women make the
open to
age, economic and family
and career
[19]
classification
that
all
the term
of women's work
exnerience,
i.e.
sample had
been
many employed,
and
its
most women
of
therefore,
prior
background,
Hertz
value
quite
own business,
for
is an important
as men -
them given
in their
be
the male in
that
the value
issue,
view,
choices
notes
Garnsey,
re-assess
unskilled.
nature.
for
begs the definition
Craig,
of the need to
may
observed
Stevenson
also
Indeed,
to avoid
housewife
not even the case
but it
l~managerial~~.
and
the
traditionally
managerial
males,
cautioned
or
Thus, although
first
not only
skilled
student
the
status,
[ZO].
Thus,
many of the women in her
in the traditional
nevertheless
sense,
81% had
but
"relevant
experience".
It
that
follows
many
traditionally
from the above
argument
that
women enter
those
markets
male dominated"
and, most commonly,
is
seen
Kingdom,
on both
statistics
retailing
sides
in
[21]
[22].
of
the
the
1987
-
it
is not surprising
which
are
the service
This
Atlantic.
industry
is a pattern
In
"not
which
the
United
Employment Gazette
r231,
whilst
that
not
directed
towards
solely
self-employed,
the
show
1.
Females account
2.
Total
for
45% of the employed population.
female employemnt
3. Part-time
female
is growing.
employment
is 42% of
all
female
employment.
4. 65.7% of female
distribution,
other
and
health,
education,
catering,
hotels,
is in retail
employment
services.
In the USA, the 1986 State
businesses
women-owned
male-owned
of
were
and notes that
1. Increased
growing
the reasons
[24]
much
and in the "traditional
businesses
and service",
Small Business
found that
faster
than
areas of retail
are threefold
-
of women in the labour
participation
force
in general
2. Increased
3. Flexible
In
of firms
working
hours.
95.9% of
Canada,
entered
trend
either
females
the service
to contract
starting
or retail
out services.
businesses
industries
in
1985
[25].
ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS
It
is clear
from the
literature
that
the motivation
to start
a new
firm,
idea,
the
the
development
take many years
to incubator.
fact
and
that
the supply
quantity,
but
national
level,
norms of
behaviour,
and
role
Laura
to
entrepreneurial
behaviour.
suggests
that
important
finally
fact
the
that
in
to move
employee base,
Within
throught
contribute
to
entrepreneurs
society's
and at work.
is also
the
part
reduced
can
of the
their
security,
has
- that
of
own firm.
factors
which
of
female
supply
roles,
who
no longer
of a general
female
an
Thus, the mere
of long-term
in
and are
study
Cooper
of people
levels
of their
t6
this,
environmental
to male and
In their
significant
new form of security
increase
are subtle
attitudes
a
general
an
beyond
all
publicised
attitudes
substantially
the ownership
the
made
of
Branson of
the much
self-employment.
as a source
firm
Richard
the number
have
influence
availability
economic climate
management at
many have sought
this,
However,
into
firms
that
look to the large
self-reliance
and advice,
have
determining
many large
meant that
assistance
national
prevailing
factor
decide
shaping
On a
acceptable
and
management buy-out
contributions
factors.
the
Ashley,
a fixed
clearly
Moreover,
or
the
of
for
is
culture,
models such as Ted Turner,
Atlantic
success
national
to this
is not
relationships
attitudes.
attractive
of
family
individual
Virgin
role
product
The corollary
by external
new networks
traditional
an associated
of entrepreneurs
can be influenced
the
of
both
entrepreneurial
change in
at home
role
of
.
developing
women in
identified
the following
industry
El-Namaki
countries,
seven barriers
and
Gerritson..[26].
to women's entry
'
into
and entrepreneurship:
1. Behavioural
barriers
low self-confidence,
-
negative
self-image.
2. Education
barriers
training
opportunities.
-
barriers
3. Occupational
skill
admission
-
and progression,
and
confinement,
traditional
constraints.
-
barriers
4. Role
performance
visibility,
status,
minority
pressures.
- discriminatory
5. Legal barriers
6. Infrastructural
laws.
- access to credit,
barriers
support,
information.
7. Societal
and
cultural
- hostile
values and
role
conflicting
structure,
family
attitudes,
barriers
demands.
that
They conclude
that
circle:
or no education
conditions
->
daughters
However,
whilst
most Western
these
Countries,
->
no
needed
conditions
recent
supports
position
chance
to
help
certainly
evidence
the view
constituting
formidable,
-> no work in the formal
income
->
evidence
"secondary
low
sector
existing
are
barriers
these
never-ending
the
a
of women -> little
sector
of
--> informal
improving
in the
life
house..."
have prevailed
in the United
in
Kindom
12
and
the
United
Positive
role
States
paints
models,
positive
increased
travel,
are
supportive
environment,
all
factors
women considering
the
begin
In
to gather
their
of
in
unique
remains
as to
any
serious
sex.
particular
difficulties
of
by
without
business
plan.
reports
capital
quite
in their
"Pink
Pages".
the
to
female
women
an idea into
this
is
a
as they
study
firmly
for
often
the
that
State
female
from that
more heavily
or
of
is supported
owners
is
because of a
as
a problem
difficult
the
entrepreneurs'
of men, although
to
particular
Small Business
upon personal
by
some did report
quoted
of
in
any obstacles
loans
and
knowledge
firm
of 300 female
Although
of
women did not
conclusion
entrepreneurs,
Indeed,
more years
or service
problems,
also
detailed
or
found that
in qualifying
was no different
to depend
one
a retail
formative
male
validate
of
[28]
collateral,
encountered
whilst
they encounter
with
This general
and Saunders
in the
lack
more
whether
to translate
and Reece [27]
registered
seem
question
which
a
of
the number of
condusive
the operating
to their
Bradley
in
more
20 females
the USA, Pellegrino
experience
to
However,
ability
nature
resources.
study
experience
to an increase
environment
in the
increased
changing
may be
from men in their
picture.
contribute
self-employment.
entrepreneurship,
business,
and the
which
and
environment
differ
more optimistic
discrimination,
media coverage
education
general
a
access
[291
to
women did
savings.
Hertz
13
underlines
this
point
in her comparative
and which she
discrimination,
business
Indeed
plans.
founder
that
and investors
bankers
women of
although
the
evidence
correlation
the American
performance
On
the
of
person,
Whilst
available,
points
to a strong
the particular
network
of
and sales
Council
they
of
motivations
being
it
discrimination
not to
women entrepreneurs.
be a
of
of
the
is interesting
to
from
being
them a positive
supported
serious
By contrast,
absorbing
and thus
their
necessary
far
- a better
at
drive
that,
is
considered
opinions,
many
and
a woman gave
conclusion
better
studies
reflect
felt
This
and
by
personal
skills
and
for
any
note that
40%
discriminated
advantage
Gumpert who
obstacle
the only
are
results
than men
self-reported
hunger
respondents
be better
comparative
Moreover,
entrepreneur.
Hertz'
confident,
these are
characteristics,
men.
for
data on the use
60% of her respondents
more
by any
against,
of
networks
States
discrimination,
not validated
of her
is little
in
succeed women had to
stress.
the view
uncompromising
assistance
interesting.
business
reports
Women's Economic Development
issue
to
financial
[31].
particularly
that
there
between involvement
and
of Goodspeed Systems Inc.
the United
from
no real
are "equally
various
of British
was because of.sound
[30]
and president
Beyond this,
men and women".
found
concludes
Gumpert
Helen Charov,
of
who
women entrepreneurs
American
study
study
for
over
found
high-tech
which found
14
significant
which
problems
took
as
for women is
its
l~subordinationl~,
theme
that
the
and her responses
of Goffee
and Scase
assumption
of
women's
to it.
CONCLUSION
This
paper
is
based
motivations,
family
experience
factors
(as
distinct
the
choice
which the business
evidence
that
individual
education,
both to
of
the decision
market,
operated.
male entrepreneurs.
and
and the
work
are all
to start
environment
a
within
However, most of the empirical
theory
is based have been studies
The aim of this
paper was to explore
of
the
of female entrepreneurs.
Almost
all
the
descriptive
some
comparisons
executives
minority
[33]
easily
available
subtle
factors
experiences"
From the
studies
of their
entrepreneurs,
that
premise
from employment experience)
upon which this
situation
the
background,
which contribute
business,
with
upon
basic
of
backgrounds
entrepreneurs
female entrepreneurs
and male
[32],
and female
However, background
and observable,
"different
and often
cultural
are
and characteristics
between female entrepreneurs
respectively.
of
female
ignores
data is
the more
conditioning
and
[34].
evidence
whilst
presented,
Cooper's
model
this
holds,
paper
proposes
the particular
the theory
factors
15
contribute
which
to
the
supply
of
SITUATIONALLY and CULTURALLY bound,
that
any
differences
entrepreneurs
and it
between
men
their
position
also
in this
is
and
are
sense
women are
to
be
observed.
For any "minority"
group,
factor
significant
role
determining
in
Until
activity.
entrepreneurial
and women to be that
of wife
they take employment,
this
that
roles
the
different
from
the
prior
and
basic
for
commercial
within
the
and
of
confident
It
is
clear
about
even should
in addition
to
therefore,
were
whereas women often
(the Home) for
organisation
they
lacked
many of
which
were associated
credibility
base,
men and of
As
owned
economic transformations.
11".
major
with
many failed
gate.
business
range of economic
the
entrepreneurs
Moreover,
this
Western economies.
number of small
always
experience,
Without
role
to
is not surprising,
networks
to reach the starting
attitudes
Indeed,
of female
of men.
"managerial"
employment.
However,
It
upon the incubator
drew heavily
ideas
was almost
choices
those
be a
recently,
very
and mother.
as home-maker.
market-entry
their
will
most Western economies by both men
of women was seen in
their
in society
women is
changing
McDermott notes
by women reflects
than at any time
that
women are beginning
own
skills,
to
exploding
both
crossed
Women have
barriers
their
"the
since
build
rapidly
a
social
wider
World War
to feel
more
their
own
.
16
commercial
networks,
suppliers,
and bank-managers,
lltraditionalVl
paper that
to establish
businesses.
the growth
reflection
of
between the
Therefore,
if
entrepreneurs
changing
their
the
in the
situation,
male colleagues.
is
the
society,
sexes of
proposition
theory
future
and move
rather
skills
than
or
holds,
the
will
continue
even more
customers,
successful,
women-owned businesses
a changing
difference
with
and to start
It
of
credibility
albeit
of
is
this
but one
any inherent
of motivations.
profile
of
to match
closely
to
women
their
that
of
.
17
“\
REFERENCES
1.
The Second
"Women Entrepreneurs:
G.Gregg,
Across the Board (January 1985) pp 11-18
Generation"
2.
Female Entrepreneur:
"The
and
D.Watkins,
J.Watkins
Choice - Some
of Business
and Determinants
Background
British
Data" International
Small Business Journal ~01.2,
no.4 (Summer 1984) pp 21-31
of
"Against all Odds: The Entrepreneurship
L.A.Stevenson,
Women" Journal of Small Business Manaaement ~01.24, no.4,
(October 1986) pp 30-36
3.
"Bolton Fifteen Years On: A Review and Analysis
J.Curran,
in Britain
1971-1986~~ Paper
of Small
Business Research
presented to the Ninth UK National Small Firms Policv and
Research Conference (Gleneagles 1986)
4.
S.Birley,
Business
5.
A.C.Cooper, "Strategic
Lana Ranae
Business"
39-45
Management: New Ventures and Small
no.5 (1981) pp
Planninq
~01.14,
6.
R.Goffee and R.Scase,
Female Entreoreneurs
1985)
Women in Charae: The Exoeriences of
(George Allen and Unwin,
London
7.
C.Beyer
J.C.M.Gerritson,
Entrepreneurship
Revisited:
RVB Research Paper vol.VII,
L.Hertz,
"New Ventures and Employment Growth"
Venturinq vol.2 (1987) pp 155-165
The Business
Journal
of
"Female
and M.S.S.El-Namaki,
The Trait Approach DisputedI'
no.1 (March 1987)
Amazons (Deutsch,
London 1986)
Women-Owned Enterprises"
no.4
~01.24,
Manaaement
8.
"Management in
R.Chaganti,
Small Business
Journal
of
(October 1986) pp 18-29
9.
"Male and Female Entrepreneurial
and E.Young,
H.Welsch
Characteristics
and Behaviours:
A Profile
of Similarities
Journal
International
Small Business
and Differences"
vo1.2, no.4 (Summer 1984) pp 11-20
"A Comparison
of Selected
J.F.DeCarlo
and P.R.Lyons,
and non-Minority
of Minority
Characteristics
Personal
Business
Small
Journal
of
Entrepreneurs"
Female
Manasement ~01.17, no.4 (1979) pp 22-29
see also
F.T.Waddell,
"Factors
affecting
Choice,
Satisfaction
and
=k.
\
18
Success in the Female Self-Employed"
Behaviour vol.23
(1983) pp 294-304
10. M.C.Berry,
"Targetting
More Aid to
Venture (May 1980) pp 49-52
11. G.Joseph, Women at Work: The British
Allen,
Oxford 1983)
Journal
of Vocation
Women Entrepreneurs"
Exoerience
(Philip
12. C.E.Scott,
IWhy More Women are Becoming EntrepreneursI'
Journal
of
Small Business
Manaaement
~0.24,
no.4,
(October 1986) pp 37-44
13. L.Rimmer and J.Popay,
Gazette (June 1982)
"The Family
at WorkI
Emnlovment
14. D.D.Bowen and R.D.Hisrich,
"The Female Entrepreneur:
A
Career
Development
Perspective"
Academv of Manaaement
Review ~01.11, no.2 (April 1986) pp 393-407
15. S.Birley,
C.Moss and P.Saunders,
"The Differences
between
Small Firms
started
by
Male and
Female
Entrepreneurs
who
attended
Small
Business
Courses"
Entrepreneurship
Research (Babson, MA 1986)
16. S.Cromie,
"Towards a Typology of Female Entrepreneurs"
Paper presented to the Ninth UK National
Small Firms
POliCv and Research Conference (Gleneagles 1986)
see also
R.D.Hisrich
C.Brush
and
"The
Woman Entrepreneur:
Management Skills
and Business Problems@@Journal of Small
Business Manasement ~01.22, no.1, (January 1984) pp 30-37
17. K.McDermott,
& B Renorts
"The '80's
(July/August
Decade of Women Entrepreneurs"
1985) pp 14-16, 34
18. S.Vinnicombe,
"Drawing
out the Differences
and Female Working
Styles"
Forthcoming
Manaaement review (Spring 1987)
p
between Male
in Women in
of this
issue,
For a discussion
see Longstreth
M.
Stafford
K and Mauldin T "Self-Employed
Women and their
Families:
Time Use and Socio-Economic
Characteristics"
Journal of Small Business Manasement (July 1987) pp 30-37
19. C.Craig, E.Garnsey and J.Rubery,
"Payment Structures
and Small Firms: Women's Employment in Segmented Labour
Markets" Denartment
of Emolovment Research
Paner no.48,
(1984)
20. R.Chaganti,
"Management in
Journal
of
Small Business
(October 1986) pp 18-29
Women-Owned Enterprises"
Manaoement
~01.24,
no.4
19
21. D.D.Bowen and R.D.Hisrich,
"The Female Entrepreneur:
A
Career Development
Perspective"
Academy of Manaaement
Review ~01.11, no.2 (April
1986) pp 393-407
22. C.E.Scott,
'Why More Women are Becoming Entrepreneurs"
~0.24,
Journal
of
Small Business
Manacement
no.4,
(October 1986) pp 37-44
23. Emnlovment Gazette
(January
1987)
24. The State
of Small Business:
A Report of the President
United
States
Government
Printing
Office,
(The
Washington, 1986)
25. The State
of Small
Business:
Ontario
(Ontario
Business
in
Toronto 1986)
Annual Report on Small
Government Bookstore,
26. M.S.S.El-Namaki
and J.C.M.Gerritson,
"The Entrepreneurial
Countries:
Entry
and
Role of
Women in Developing
Barriers"
RVB Research Paoer vol.VII,
no.1
Performance
(March 1987)
27. E.T.Pellegrino
and B.L.Reece,
"Perceived Formative
and
Operational
Problems Encountered
by Female Entrepreneurs
and Service
Firmsll Journal of Small Business
in Retail
Manasement ~01.20, no.2 (April
1982) pp 15-24
28. D.B.Bradley
and H.L.Saunders,
Entrepreneurial
Development"
Business
Institute
Directors
February 1987)
"Problems
Women Face in
Proceedinas
of
Small
Association
(San Antonio,
29. The State
A Report of the President
of Small Business:
Office,
(The
United
States
Government
Printing
Washington, 1986)
30. D.E.Gumpert
Opportunities"
for
High-Tech
"Wanted: Women Entrepreneurs
Workins Woman (December 1985) pp 37-39
Mean
"New Women Entrepreneurs
31. R.N.Carter,
Review of Business no.1 (Winter 1980) pp 9-10
33. D.L.Sexton
and
C.A.Kent,
"Female
A Preliminary
Comparison"
Entrepreneurs:
Research (Babson MA, 1981) pp 40-55
Business"
and
Executives
EntreoreneurshiD
34. N.R.Smith,
G.McCain and A.Warren, "Women Entrepreneurs
Ideal
A Comparison of Constructed
Really are Different:
EntreDreneUrShiD
Types of Male and Female Entrepreneurs"
Research (Babson MA, 1982) pp 68-77