Description
The SCALES-paper series is an electronic working paper series of EIM Business and Policy Research.
1
SCALES-paper N200312
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS,
GENDER AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
SELF-IMAGE
Ingrid Verheul
Lorraine Uhlaner
Roy Thurik
Zoetermeer, October, 2003
2
address:
mail address:
telephone:
telefax:
website:
Italiëlaan 33
P.O. Box 7001
2701 AA Zoetermeer
+ 31 79 341 36 34
+ 31 79 341 50 24
www.eim.nl
The responsibility for the contents of this report lies with EIM. Quoting numbers or text in papers, essays
and books is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned. No part of this publication may be
copied and/or published in any form or by any means, or stored in a retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of EIM.
EIM does not accept responsibility for printing errors and/or other imperfections.
The SCALES-paper series is an electronic working paper series of EIM Business and Policy Research. The
SCALES-initiative (Scientific Analysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs) is part of the ‘SMEs and Entrepre-
neurship’ programme, financed by the Netherlands’ Ministry of Economic Affairs. Complete information
on this programme can be found at www.eim.nl/smes-and-entrepreneurship
The papers in the SCALES-series report on ongoing research at EIM. The information in the papers may
be (1) background material to regular EIM Research Reports, (2) papers presented at international aca-
demic conferences, (3) submissions under review at academic journals. The papers are directed at a
research-oriented audience and intended to share knowledge and promote discussion on topics in the
academic fields of small business economics and entrepreneurship research.
3
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, GENDER
AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-IMAGE
Ingrid Verheul, Lorraine Uhlaner and Roy Thurik
Centre for Advanced Small Business Economics (CASBEC) and European Family Business
Institute (EFBI), Rotterdam School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box
1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands,
tel. +31 10 4081398, fax. +31 10 4089146
and
EIM Business and Policy Research, P.O. Box 7001, 2701 AA Zoetermeer, the Netherlands,
tel. +31 79 3413634
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The present study is based on a scale of entrepreneurial activity proposed by Karl H. Vesper at
the USASBE conference, San Diego, California, January 1999. The authors would like to
thank Karl Vesper, Siah Hwee Ang, Charles Baden-Fuller, Maryse Brand, Hans Bruining,
Martin Carree, Per Davidsson, Dylan Jones-Evans, Marco van Gelderen, Antti Haahti, the
editor of this journal and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier
version. Ingrid Verheul acknowledges financial support of the Fund Schiedam Vlaardingen
e.o. and the Trust Fund Rotterdam. Lorraine Uhlaner acknowledges financial support of Aren-
thals Grant Thornton accountants and advisors, Fortis Bank, and MeesPierson Bank. Earlier
versions of the present paper have been read at the ERIM conference "New Organizational
Forms", Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands, November 2001; the RENT XV
Conference, Turku, Finland, November 2001; the SBEDC conference, Nottingham, United
Kingdom, April 2002; the Babson BKERC conference, Boulder, Colorado, June 2002; and the
ICSB world conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 2002.
4
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, GENDER AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-
IMAGE
ABSTRACT
Drawing on Bem’s psychological theory of self-perception, this paper presents and tests a
model that examines the impact of business accomplishments and gender on entrepreneurial
self-image and explores the definition of entrepreneurship according to Vesper’s Entrepreneu-
rial Typology. Regression techniques are used to identify those business accomplishments that
university alumni associate with self-perceptions of entrepreneurship. Experience as a small
business person (founding, running, and/or owning a small business) most clearly predicts en-
trepreneurial self-image. Results also support predictions of both direct and indirect effects of
gender as well as direct effects of education and business degree. Results of a separate expert
panel study are used to rank business accomplishments according to degree of entrepreneur-
ship. Results of both studies reveal stark contrasts in the implied definition of entrepreneur-
ship between entrepreneurship experts (academic and practitioner alike) and the general busi-
ness community (as represented by the alumni). This raises questions about the meaning of
the term “entrepreneurship”, what the word “entrepreneur”, in particular, conveys to the gen-
eral public, and the implications for practice and future research.
5
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, GENDER AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-
IMAGE
INTRODUCTION
The present paper is motivated in part by the following question: “What is an entrepreneur?”.
This seemingly simple question, which is likely to be asked numerous times to most of our
readers in the course of their professional work, continues to spark debate and disagreement
within the scholarly community. The present paper is neither intended nor is likely to end that
debate. However, it does attempt to provide new insights about the way in which the term
“entrepreneur” is perceived by members of the general business community (i.e., business
people) and how this perception compares to that of entrepreneurship specialists (i.e., academ-
ics, policy makers or other professionals active in the field of entrepreneurship). The out-
comes of our research are not meant necessarily to be used to further define the scholarly do-
main of entrepreneurship, i.e., what entrepreneurship researchers should study in order to gain
knowledge about this phenomenon (see Davidsson, 2003). However, our results may help to
clarify what the general business community and perhaps society-at-large, may be thinking
about when we use the term “entrepreneur”, thus expediting communication between scholars
and those groups
1
.
To further our understanding of the popular view of the concept of “entrepreneur”, the pri-
mary research question of this paper is as follows: “Do certain characteristics of individuals
influence their entrepreneurial self-image, i.e., the extent to which they perceive themselves
to be entrepreneurs?” The primary set of characteristics, the respondent’s business accom-
plishments, is derived from a typology of entrepreneurial activities proposed by Vesper (Ves-
per, 1999). Though grounded in social-psychological research, unique to this study is the fo-
cus of the direct influence of business behaviors on entrepreneurial self-perceptions, as well as
the influence of gender on those self-perceptions.
In order to validate the set of business accomplishments used in our study to represent activi-
ties with entrepreneurial potential, we include an expert panel study to supplement the review
of the entrepreneurship behavior literature. Although one can argue that there is a two-way
relationship between business accomplishments and entrepreneurial self-image, the focus in
6
the present paper is on the influence of behavior on entrepreneurial self-image. From a theo-
retical perspective, our study is a new application of well-established psychological theories
linking behavior and perception (James, 1890, 1950; Bem, 1972; Bandura, 1977, 1986).
Moreover, to our knowledge, this is the first time that Vesper’s (1999) entrepreneurial typol-
ogy is tested and used in empirical research.
Gender is a second individual characteristic used to predict entrepreneurial self-image. At the
macro level, female and male entrepreneurs appear to differ with respect to the type of entre-
preneurial activity they engage in and the way in which they manage this activity (Verheul
and Thurik, 2001; U.S. Small Business Administration, 1995; OECD, 1998; Carter et al,
1997; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Fischer et al., 1993). In addition, the management literature
indicates that, as compared to men, women tend to underrate their own performance (Wohlers
and London, 1989; Lindeman et al., 1995). Accordingly, we expect to find an indirect effect
of gender (through entrepreneurial activity) on entrepreneurial self-image, as well as a direct
gender effect (controlling for entrepreneurial activity). Several control variables, including
age, education level and business education, are also examined for possible effects on entre-
preneurial self-image.
Structure of the Paper
The paper is structured as follows. First, we introduce the concept of (entrepreneurial) self-
perception and its relationship to business behaviors. Within this section, we elaborate on the
theories linking behavior and self-perception. Second, we provide an overview of business
accomplishments or behaviors that are classified as entrepreneurial in the literature, including
a discussion of Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typology. Using Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typol-
ogy, we propose a ranking of business accomplishments according to the degree of entrepre-
neurship based on the extant literature. Subsequently, we review the literature regarding the
relationship between gender and entrepreneurship, including business behaviors as well as
entrepreneurial self-image. On the basis of the theoretical discussion, we introduce a model
and hypotheses for explaining entrepreneurial self-perception from activity and gender.
In the following section we discuss the methodology and results for validating the proposed
ranking of business accomplishments according to degree of entrepreneurship, based on the
views of 162 respondents in an expert panel survey. Next, we present the methodology and
1
Some researchers may wish to further consider these multiple perspectives in light of the scientific paradigm of
realism; i.e. the view that even though there is a “real” world to discover, it can only be comprehended imper-
fectly via investigation and triangulation from different viewpoints or data sources (Healy and Perry, 2000).
7
results for testing the model and hypotheses with an exploratory study, based on a non-
random data sample of 207 alumni of a large Midwestern U.S. university. Final sections pre-
sent discussion of the results, directions for future research and conclusions.
BUSINESS BEHAVIORS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-PERCEPTION
This paper draws upon the world of self-concept. According to William James (1890, 1950),
the ‘empirical self’’, consisting of a material, social and spiritual component, is the key to un-
derstanding the experience of individuals
2
. In the present paper it is argued that people come
to know themselves by drawing information from their own behavior.
According to social learning theory, Bandura (1977, 1986) argues that there is triadic recipro-
cal causation among behavior, cognitive and other personal factors and the environment. This
means that on the one hand the environment and the perception of both this environment and
self by an individual can influence the individual's behavior. On the other hand, the behavior
of an individual influences the environment as well as the way in which he or she perceives of
him- or herself and the environment
3
. In addition to Bandura, in the psychology literature
Bem (1972) provides evidence of behavioral influences on self-perception. More specifically,
Bem’s self-perception theory states that: “individuals come to ‘know’ their own attitudes,
emotions and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own
overt behavior and / or the circumstances in which this behavior occurs” (Bem, 1972, p. 5).
The relationship between entrepreneurial activity and perception has been studied mainly
from the viewpoint that perception influences entrepreneurial activity (Boyd and Vozikis,
1994; Scherer et al., 1990 and 1989; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Krueger, 1993; Chen et al.,
1998). These studies focus upon and refer to the concept of self-efficacy as the perceived per-
sonal ability to perform a given task. In that context it has been suggested that individuals
make career choices based upon their perception of and the associated fit with a certain pro-
fession (Fagenson and Marcus, 1991). Chen et al. (1998, p. 297) argue that “ ... they assess
their personal capabilities against the requirements of different occupations”. The choice to
engage in entrepreneurial activity is thus interpreted as dependent upon whether individuals
can identify with the characteristics and behaviors that are associated with entrepreneurship.
2
See Smith (1992) for a detailed discussion of William James's theory of self.
3
"This reciprocality does not mean that the different influences are of equal strength" (Wood and Bandura, 1989,
p. 362).
8
In the present study we take the opposite perspective and explain entrepreneurial self-
perception by way of prior business accomplishments (which may vary in the degree to which
they are perceived as being entrepreneurial by different individuals). Though Bem’s self-
perception theory has been used extensively in other types of research applications
4
within the
field of entrepreneurship relatively few empirical studies have focused upon explaining entre-
preneurial self-perception from behavior. However, van Gelderen (2000) provides some evi-
dence to support the claim that entrepreneurial behavior influences self-perception. His study
investigates what people consider entrepreneurial about their behavior.
DEFINITIONS AND TYPOLOGIES OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIORS
Definitions of entrepreneurship vary widely (Hébert and Link, 1989; Van Praag, 1999; Lump-
kin and Dess, 1996). Kaufmann and Dant (1998) identify the following three classes of defini-
tions: (1) those based on traits or qualities; (2) those based on the role or function of the entre-
preneur in the economic process; and (3) those based on the behavior or activities of entrepre-
neurs. For the purpose of our paper we take a behavioral approach to studying entrepreneur-
ship, consistent with the mainstream scholarly perspective (Gartner, 1990).
Entrepreneurial Behavior or Activities
A wide range of business behaviors has variously been classified in the literature as “entre-
preneurial”, including starting a business (i.e., new venture creation), innovation, business
ownership, business growth and size achievement, and managing a large business. In this sec-
tion we will make a distinction between these different types of entrepreneurial activity.
Early on in the development of the field of entrepreneurship, many scholars propagated the
view that new venture creation is at the heart of entrepreneurship (Chandler, 1990; Gartner,
1990, 1989, 1985; Low and MacMillan, 1988; McClelland, 1961; Schumpeter, 1934; Vesper,
1980). Two problems that arise with this view is that not all new ventures pursue growth
(Carland et al., 1984; Dunkelberg and Cooper, 1982) or innovation (Hornaday, 1992, Schum-
peter, 1934), although these two issues are considered by many as added essential components
of entrepreneurial behavior.
4
Self-perception theory has been applied extensively to social scientific research since the mid 1970’s but pri-
marily to empirical research in applied social psychology (Dolinski, 2000; Uranowitz, 1975; Weiner, 1974) and
clinical psychology (Robak, 2001; Schnall, Abrahamson and Laird, 2002; Haemmerlie and Montgomery, 1987).
It has been compared and contrasted with cognitive dissonance theory to explain human attitudes (Weiner,
1974). Self-perception theory has been applied not only to physical but also cognitive behaviors on self-
perception (see Damrad-Frye and Laird, 1989). Studies generally confirm predictions derived from the theory.
9
Building on the concept of “newness”, but recognizing the need to view entrepreneurial be-
havior more broadly, Gartner et al. (1989) argue that most studies of new venture creation
tend to ignore that there are other ways to achieve business ownership than through starting a
new business from scratch, for instance through the acquisition of an established business.
Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986) also distinguish between different paths to business owner-
ship, including starting a new business, purchasing or inheriting a business and being pro-
moted or brought in by existing owners. Building on these notions, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
argue that "the essential act of entrepreneurship is new entry" (p.136), defining new entry as
"entering new or established markets with new or existing goods or services". This can be
achieved "by starting a business, through an existing business or internal corporate venturing"
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, p. 136). Implicit in this definition of new entry is the notion that
entrepreneurship can exist within large businesses. This type of entrepreneurship is often re-
ferred to as corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship where new ideas and responsibili-
ties are implemented in existing, large businesses (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Stopford and
Baden-Fuller, 1994; and Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). In this respect "entrepreneurial activi-
ties in existing, large firms often take place by mimicking smallness" and "entrepreneurship
occurs irrespective of firm size" (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999, p. 33). Other researchers even
argue that managing a business is an entrepreneurial activity. According to McClelland (1965)
managers can display entrepreneurial behavior in their wage jobs by taking responsibility for
their actions and decisions and creatively solve problems. Moreover, Brandstätter (1997)
stresses that entrepreneurial behavior is important in all leading positions within the higher
level of organizations.
Vesper's Entrepreneurial Typology
In his keynote address at the 1999 Conference of the United States Association for Small
Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE), Karl Vesper proposes an entrepreneurial typol-
ogy, embracing a broad range of these themes in entrepreneurial behavior (Vesper, 1999). See
Table 1. Vesper does not try to rank these activities, but instead acknowledges that different
types of entrepreneurial activity exist side by side (see also Cunningham and Lischeron,
1991). Vesper argues that researchers should adopt a view that separately identifies different
types of entrepreneurs rather than solving the conundrum: “What is an entrepreneur”?
More recently, it has been applied to research in marketing and consumer behavior research (Forehand, 1998;
Laverie et al., 2002) .
10
____________________
Table 1 here
____________________
Degree of Entrepreneurship
Although Vesper does not put forward a ranking of the proposed activities, it is plausible that
the different types of entrepreneurial activity are perceived to involve a different ‘degree of
entrepreneurship’, a concept first proposed by Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986). In particular,
different activities may vary in degree of entrepreneurship depending upon underlying re-
quirements or characteristics, such as opportunity perception (Kirzner, 1979), imagination
(Shackle, 1979), creativity (Torrance, 1967), innovation (Schumpeter, 1934), risk-taking
(Knight, 1921; Cantillon, 193; Hull et al, 1980; Sexton and Bowman, 1985, 1986; Stewart et
al., 1999; Begley, 1995; Stewart and Roth, 2001)
5
, locus of control (Perry et al., 1986; Rotter,
1966), need for achievement (McClelland, 1961; Perry et al., 1986), need for autonomy, ini-
tiative and persistence.
Of the underlying characteristics, Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986) single out opportunity per-
ception, risk-taking and innovation (as a creative process) as most relevant. The selection of
these three characteristics is consistent with results in Gartner’s (1990) study of the percep-
tions of the concept of entrepreneurship by experts
6
. For these reasons, we have selected risk-
taking, innovation and opportunity perception as initial indicators for degree of entrepreneur-
ship. In the remainder of this section we successively review the way in which these three
characteristics relate to several of the activities listed in Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typology
and the other activities we included from the literature. At the end of this section, we present a
summary table providing an initial rank ordering according to our interpretation of the litera-
ture.
Founding a firm from “scratch”
New venture creation, i.e., founding a firm from scratch (without any past history or linkage
to a parent company), is often viewed as involving the highest degree of entrepreneurship.
Founding a firm involves both the processes of perceiving an opportunity and acting upon the
5
Note however that other research on risk-taking has posits that risk-taking propensity is not a distinctive fea-
ture of entrepreneurship. See, for instance, the work by Brockhaus (Brockhaus and Nord, 1979; Brockhaus,
1980; Brockhaus et al., 1986).
6
In particular, six of the twelve items most highly correlated with the first factor, “The Entrepreneur”, represent-
ing 17.4 percent of the variance in the analysis, mention risk. The second factor relates to and is labeled “Innova-
11
perceived opportunity (Kirzner, 1979). It involves innovation because something is created
where nothing existed previously and resources are combined in a new way (Cooper and
Dunkelberg, 1986). According to Carland et al. (1984) an entrepreneurial venture is in princi-
ple characterized by innovative practices
7
. In addition, the founder is willing to personally ab-
sorb the risks involved in starting a new business (Cooper and Dunkelberg, 1986). Several
scholars further argue that founders show higher risk-taking than non-founders (Begley, 1995;
Begley and Boyd, 1987 and Hull et al., 1980).
Based on the rather large variance among start-ups in the degree to which they have innova-
tive versus imitative strategies (Samuelsson, 2001; Aldrich, 1999), one could argue that since
many start-ups are imitative in nature, those should be excluded from the notion of entrepre-
neurship or at least viewed as a separate category. However, Davidsson (2003) formulates the
argument for viewing imitative entry as ‘new’. He notes that such entry drives the market
process by giving consumers additional choices and challenging incumbent firms to change
their behavior in response to new competition. In addition, he points out that no entrant is a
perfect copy or ‘clone’ of an existing actor (Davidsson, 2003). In this sense, we use innova-
tiveness not exclusively to refer to new products, but also to new markets and added value in
the marketplace represented by the new firm.
Franchise start-up
A franchise start-up can be seen as an alternative to founding an independent firm (Kaufmann,
1999; Williams, 1998). Shane and Hoy (1996) refer to franchising as a form of cooperative
entrepreneurship. Starting a franchise business can be considered less entrepreneurial than
founding a firm from ‘scratch’ because it involves less innovation. Although a franchisee runs
the risk of introducing the franchisor's concept into new markets, the potential for innovation
is limited since maintenance of the franchisor's concept is important (Kaufman and Dant,
1998). Moreover, starting a franchise business also involves less opportunity perception and
risk taking because the market concept has already been developed and tested, albeit not nec-
essarily in the particular market where the entrepreneur is planning to start the franchise busi-
ness.
tion”, while the two highest correlated items within the third factor, “Organization Creation”, mention opportu-
nity recognition.
7
Based on Kirchoff’s (1994) Dynamic Capitalism Typology it can be argued that some innovations are success-
ful and lead to growth and others are not. This indicates that even when innovation takes place, differences may
exist in degree of entrepreneurship based on their contribution to firm growth.
12
Acquisition
Purchasing an existing business was considered only a “slightly important” attribute in Gart-
ner’s study of expert definitions (Gartner, 1990). This may reflect a shift in the literature of
the past few decades towards viewing entrepreneurship as creating market impact or societal
value rather than as owning and running one’s own firm.
8
However, as a potential entrepre-
neurial activity, it is listed specifically in Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typology and has been
included in various entrepreneurship research studies. Acquiring a business can be viewed as
entrepreneurial since the purchase of an established business is preceded by opportunity per-
ception. Although the acquirer is not involved in the founding of the business and the risk of
start-up is circumvented, risk-taking is involved as the business is operated at the purchaser's
own cost and risk. However, there may be relatively little need for innovation since the busi-
ness is already established and resources have already been put to use. The extent to which the
acquirer is innovative depends upon his or her plans to implement changes, and to pursue
growth strategies, e.g., through entering new markets and/or developing new products (Coo-
per and Dunkelberg, 1986). On the other hand, the purchase may be inspired by an innovative
idea the purchaser wants to implement to add value to the existing business. Because the pur-
chaser of a business can develop and implement his/her own ideas, the acquisition of an estab-
lished business may be more entrepreneurial than the purchase of a franchise where innova-
tion tends to be more limited.
Acquisition may involve a healthy or a declining firm. When purchasing a declining firm with
the intent of saving it, the acquirer faces even more challenges because the liabilities of the
declining firm have to be translated or rendered into opportunities. On the other hand, a failing
business can also be saved from within the firm, for instance by a manager, in which case risk
takes on another form, not relating to a loss of ownership.
Intrapreneurship / Corporate entrepreneurship
Like business founders, intrapreneurs can be considered entrepreneurial because they intro-
duce something new, albeit within a large business and its boundaries. Intrapreneurship differs
from other forms of entrepreneurship with respect to the context in which the entrepreneurial
act takes place. Like managers, intrapreneurs act on behalf of an existing organization instead
of for their own account (Carrier, 1996). Because entrepreneurial ideas are implemented
within the context of an existing organization, the ultimate risk is born by the owner of the
8
Per Daviddson, personal communication, 2003.
13
business instead of the initiator of the corporate venture. Risk is manifested by the probability
of failure of the independent business unit and, accordingly, closure (Cunningham and
Lischeron, 1991). In addition, an intrapreneur may risk the loss of his or her job or career dis-
ruption. Finally, alertness to opportunities is of similar importance for individual entrepre-
neurship and corporate entrepreneurship (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991). Innovation
within a firm does not necessarily take the form of creating a new business unit (i.e., intrapre-
neurship). It can also express itself in other ways, for instance, as adjustments to products and
processes that do not require setting up a new unit. The innovator takes on other challenges
than the intrapreneur, being more directly involved in the inventory and innovation process.
For the organization it is important to see and acknowledge the value of adopting new ways to
organize and combine resources. Because innovation largely disrupts the existing organiza-
tional structure (i.e., rules, norms and procedures), there is a need for innovation champions,
i.e., organization members who risk their own position to ensure the innovation’s success
(Schön, 1963; Burgelman, 1983; Shane, 1994). According to Howell and Higgins (1990)
champions show higher risk-taking and innovativeness than non-champions within an organi-
zation. The degree of risk-taking and innovativeness is likely to be dependent upon the activi-
ties of the champion. Shane (1994) and Venkataraman et al. (1992) distinguish between dif-
ferent championing activities and roles
9
.
Management of small vs. large firms
It may be argued that there are differences in the degree of entrepreneurship between manag-
ers of different businesses. Someone managing a small business beyond the start-up phase
faces different risks, i.e., challenges, as compared to someone managing a large business or
someone managing a high-growth business. The different phases of the business involve dif-
ferent activities and different challenges, i.e., risks (Churchill and Lewis, 1983; Greiner, 1972;
Garnsey, 1998). Based on the characteristics of opportunity perception, risk-taking and inno-
vation one may propose that managers of small, young and high-growth firms are perceived
as more entrepreneurial than those of established large firms.
9
Shane (1994) argues that champions provide people with autonomy from organizational norms and rules; build
coalitions to support the innovation with managers from different functional areas; build a decision-making
mechanism that includes all organization members; use informal means to persuade people to support the
innovation and protect the innovation teams from interference by the organizational hierarchy. Venkataraman et
al. (1992) distinguish between different types of champions, including champions of ideas, resource champions,
champions of opportunistic behavior and champions of incorporation.
14
Ownership vs. management
Finally, several scholars have made a distinction between business owners and corporate
managers (Carland and Carland, 1992; Smith et al., 1988). Owners are believed to show
higher risk-taking than managers because their range of possibilities is larger and more uncer-
tain (Bearse, 1982) and an owner has the ultimate responsibility for decisions (Gasse, 1982).
Brandstätter (1997) argues that whether someone is seen as an entrepreneur is determined first
by ownership, then by decision-making power and leadership functions and finally by the size
of the company
10
. Hence, ownership is seen as more entrepreneurial than management, irre-
spective of firm size or characteristics.
Tentative rankings based on the literature
On the basis of the underlying entrepreneurial characteristics risk-taking, innovation and op-
portunity perception, we have made a first attempt to rank business accomplishments accord-
ing to the degree of entrepreneurship involved. In addition to the business accomplishments
previously mentioned, we include the category ‘service provider’ (e.g., accountant, banker,
lawyer), as a sort of anchor, i.e., providing services to the business sector would least likely to
be viewed as entrepreneurial, either by the general public or by entrepreneurship scholars. We
also include family business as a type of business accomplishment, for exploratory reasons,
even though there is little evidence in the literature to suggest that working in a family firm is
more or less entrepreneurial than being involved in a non-family firm.
The results of the ranking are presented in Table 2. The ranking is done as follows. For three
characteristics (opportunity perception, risk-taking and innovation) we discriminate between
four levels (low, medium, medium-high, high). We assign the values 1 through 4 to these lev-
els, respectively. The score of the business accomplishments equals the sum of these values.
This leads to the ranking of business accomplishments as more or less entrepreneurial in Ta-
ble 2. This ranking is based on our interpretation of the characteristics of the different entre-
preneurial activities mentioned in the literature. On the basis of the previous discussion and
Table 2 it can be argued that founding a firm from scratch involves the highest degree of en-
trepreneurship, followed by innovating behavior, intrapreneurship and managing a high-
growth business (tied to the third place), acquisition, starting a franchise business and manag-
ing a small business (tied to the fifth place), saving a failing business, supporting an innova-
10
Based on a study of IMAS (Institut für Markt und Socialanalyzen), focusing on the perception of the Austrian
population of what constitutes an entrepreneur in 1976 and 1986.
15
tor, and, finally, managing a large business and providing services to an entrepreneur (tied to
the tenth and last place).
Since ownership can involve a start-up, acquisition or franchise, it is difficult to determine the
level of innovation involved. Accordingly, it is also difficult to rank the level of opportunity
perception required. Hence, although ownership is included in the table, its ranking is left in-
determinate. The ranking for family business is also left indeterminate as there is much varia-
tion between family businesses, their degree of entrepreneurship depending, for instance,
upon the size and phase of the business and innovative capacity and ability.
_______________________
Table 2 about here
_______________________
GENDER AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
In addition to business accomplishments, this paper explores the impact of gender on entre-
preneurial self-image. This section summarizes past work on gender and entrepreneurship,
including research on women in business, as well as research linking gender and self-
perception in the business context.
Women in Business
Statistics regarding the participation of women in entrepreneurship have to be interpreted with
caution. It has been argued that female start-up rates exceed those of men
11
. However, some
of this increase is due to an overall increase of women in the labor market in most of the de-
veloped countries, including the United States. Despite the reported increase in female start-
up rates, women still constitute a minority of the total number of self-employed people, ac-
counting for 25 to 35 percent of total business ownership in many Western countries (Carter,
2000)
12
. Reynolds et al. (2002) report that throughout the 37 countries participating in the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor men were 50 percent more likely to be involved in entrepre-
neurial activity than women
13
. Also in terms of proportion of the workforce, women constitute
a minority. For instance, in the UK approximately 15 percent of the working male population
11
See Center for Women’s Business Research (www.womensbusinessresearch.org) and Carter (2000).
12
For the United States, see US Small Business Administration (1995) and NFWBO (1996).
13
In the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor entrepreneurial activity includes nascent entrepreneurs (starting or
operating a business no older than three months) and new businesses (in existence for less than 3.5 years). See
Reynolds et al., 2002, p. 38.
16
is self-employed, versus about 9 percent of the working female population (Carter, 2000).
Moreover, women-owned businesses underperform in a number of areas relative to men-
owned firms. Women-owned firms tend to engage in relatively underperforming sectors, such
as retailing and services (U.S. Small Business Administration, 1995; OECD, 1998; Van Uxem
and Bais, 1996), are smaller in size (Carter et al., 1997; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Fischer et
al., 1993; Verheul and Thurik, 2001), exhibit lower growth levels (Fischer et al., 1993; Hul-
shoff et al., 2001), have a higher rate of discontinuing, and lower profits (Carter et al., 1997).
Several reasons have been proposed to explain the performance differences between male and
female-owned firms, including the level of relevant business experience (Cliff, 1998, Cromie
and Birley, 1992; Watkins and Watkins, 1983; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Fischer, et al.,
1993; Verheul and Thurik, 2001), the proportion of total workweek committed to the business
(Brush, 1992; Goffee and Scase, 1985; and Stigter, 1999), the propensity to take risks (Ver-
heul and Thurik, 2001; Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990; Masters and Meier, 1988), age of
the firm and the number of days a business operated (Watson, 2002), as well as the industry
women are involved in (Watson, 2002; Verheul and Thurik, 2001). Others refer to differences
in values across gender, positing that women value quality and other goals not directly related
to growth and economic performance (Brush, 1992; Du Rietz and Henrekson, 2000; Kalleberg
and Leicht, 1991; Rosa et al., 1996; Verheul and Thurik, 2001; Verheul et al., 2002).
Because the economic criteria of size and growth are often used as measures of success (Cliff,
1998; Buttner and Moore, 1997), and growth-orientation is considered an important entrepre-
neurial characteristic (Dunkelberg and Cooper, 1982), women may rate themselves as less en-
trepreneurial than men based on these objective differences, i.e., because they tend to manage
small and low-growth businesses.
Gender and Self-Perceptions in Business and Entrepreneurship
Past research on gender differences in self-perception has mainly focused on managerial self-
perception. In general, these studies indicate that women tend to underrate their skills or per-
formance as compared to men (Wohlers and London, 1989; Lindeman et al., 1995). This un-
derrating has been attributed to the fact that women often do not take credit for success, at-
tributing success to external sources or luck rather than to effort or ability (Rosenthal et al.,
1996; Parsons et al., 1982; LaNoue and Curtis, 1985). Moreover, Rosenthal et al. (1996) argue
it may be ‘proper female modesty’ accounting for the underrating by female managers.
17
Beyer (1990, 1998) and Beyer and Bowden (1997) argue that when (managerial) tasks and
roles are perceived as more masculine than feminine, women are more likely than men to un-
derestimate their competencies in these areas. Along these lines, several studies show that
managers are perceived to have characteristics more commonly associated with men than with
women (Schein, 1973 and 1975; Powell and Butterfield, 1979 and 1989). Within the area of
entrepreneurship, Fagenson and Marcus (1991) find that women assign more weight to mas-
culine attributes in the profile of a successful entrepreneur. A more recent study by Powell et
al. (2002) finds that, although managerial stereotypes place less emphasis on masculine char-
acteristics than earlier studies suggest, a good manager is still perceived to be predominantly
masculine by both women and men. Hence, in spite of changes in the role of women in the US
and internationally over the past several decades, we may still find entrepreneurship to be as-
sociated with masculine characteristics, such as autonomy, perseverance, high energy levels,
self-confidence and decisiveness (Chaganti, 1986; Hisrich and Brush, 1983), likely to nega-
tively affect the entrepreneurial self-image of women.
MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
We propose a model including the independent influence of both gender and business accom-
plishments on entrepreneurial self-image as well as the combined effect of gender and busi-
ness accomplishments, i.e., the indirect effect of gender through accomplishments. The model
is presented in Figure 1.
______________________
Figure 1 about here
_______________________
Based on this model we test the following hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 represents the impact of
certain business accomplishments on entrepreneurial self-image (arrow 2 in Figure 1). Hy-
pothesis 1 is exploratory in nature as we make no a priori predictions about the effect of spe-
cific activities on entrepreneurial self-image, nor do we predict their respective weights. How-
ever, we would expect that those business accomplishments more clearly linked to entrepre-
neurship in the literature and/or more highly ranked by our panel of experts may have a higher
influence on entrepreneurial self-image than those that are less highly ranked (See Tables 2
and 3).
18
Hypothesis 1: People with certain business accomplishments (e.g., the activities as pro-
posed by Vesper)
14
will report a higher entrepreneurial self-image than
those without such accomplishments.
We further argue that gender can have both a direct and an indirect effect on entrepreneurial
self-image. The indirect effect refers to differences between men and women with respect to
business accomplishments that lead, in turn, to differences in their entrepreneurial self-image
(arrow 1 and 2 in Figure 1), whereas the direct effect refers to gender differences in self- im-
age that can not be attributed to differences in business accomplishments (arrow 3 in Figure
1). The direct effect is the effect of gender on entrepreneurial self-image when controlling for
the effects of business accomplishments. The model builds on previous research efforts dis-
tinguishing between direct and indirect gender effects in other areas of entrepreneurial behav-
ior, such as financing (Verheul and Thurik, 2001).
As discussed earlier in the paper, women tend to underrate their skills or performance as com-
pared to men. They often do not take credit for success and attribute it to external factors or
luck. Moreover, when tasks and roles are perceived as more masculine than feminine, women
are more likely to underestimate their competencies in these areas. Irrespective of how it is
measured, entrepreneurship is often perceived of as more masculine than feminine, so that
women may be expected to perceive of themselves less as entrepreneurs. However, past re-
search also shows that women are less likely to own and run a business than men. Moreover,
as they tend to focus on quality (Chaganti and Parasuraman, 1996; Brush, 1992), women are
expected to be involved less often in managing a high-growth or large business. This leads to
the formulation of Hypothesis 2a, representing the direct effect of gender on entrepreneurial
self-perception (see arrow 3 in Figure 1) and Hypothesis 2b, predicting an indirect effect of
gender on entrepreneurial self-image (see arrow 1 and 2 combined in Figure 1), with business
accomplishments posited as (partially) mediating that effect. To summarize, we can state Hy-
potheses 2a and 2b as follows:
Hypothesis 2a: Women have a lower entrepreneurial self-image than men, controlling for
their particular business accomplishments (the direct effect).
Hypothesis 2b: Women have a lower entrepreneurial self-image than men due to differ-
ences in particular business accomplishments (the indirect effect). That
14
In addition to the entrepreneurial activities of Vesper's typology in Table 1, in the empirical analysis we in-
clude additional activities (i.e., Owner, Service Provider and Family Business) to create a better insight into the
influence of activity on entrepreneurial self-perception (see Table 3).
19
is, business accomplishments partially mediate the relationship between
gender and entrepreneurial self-image.
RANKING ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIORS ACCORDING TO AN EXPERT
PANEL
Method
To validate the earlier proposed (literature) ranking of business accomplishments we make
use of an expert panel, including 216 respondents, each of whom were asked to give their
opinion about the same list of business accomplishments used in the rest of the study (see Ap-
pendix)
15
. In particular, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each of these
activities is an example of entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial behavior according to the fol-
lowing scale: (1) definitely; (2) probably; (3) maybe; (4) don’t think so; (5) no; and (6) don’t
know
16
. Respondents were considered ‘experts’, and were included in the study, if they had
been working either as an academic or practitioner in the field of entrepreneurship for at least
one year
17
. Of the 216 respondents, 162 were included as experts in the study
18
.
Results of the Expert Panel Study
Expert panel scores for each of the activities are displayed in Table 3. The ranking of the ac-
tivities according to the experts appears fairly similar to the ranking based on the literature.
Starting a business from scratch (i.e., Founder) is considered, by far, most entrepreneurial,
followed by Intrapreneur, someone doing new things not involving a business (unit) (i.e., In-
novator), managing a high-growth business (i.e., Take-Off Artist), starting a franchise business
(i.e., Franchisee) and running a small business beyond start-up (i.e., Runner). The only rank-
15
Questionnaires were distributed to international experts on six different occasions: (1) Research in Entrepre-
neurship and Government Policy (Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School), Leuven, 27 August 2002 (29 re-
spondents), (2) the 29
th
International Small Business Congress (RAI International Congress and Exhibition Cen-
tre), Amsterdam, 27-30 October 2002 (33 respondents), (3) the opening of the Rotterdam Incubation Centre
Area010 (World Trade Centre Rotterdam), 5 November 2002 (43 respondents), (4) the 25
th
ISBA National Small
Firms Policy and Research Conference (Brighton Business School), Brighton 13-15 November 2002 (25 respon-
dents), (5) the RENT XVI (Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business) Conference (Universitat
Autonoma de Barcelona), Barcelona, 21-22 November 2002 (64 respondents) and (6) the UKBI 4
th
National In-
cubation Conference, Edinburgh, 25-26 November 2002 (22 respondents).
16
The answer: (6) “don’t know” was coded missing.
17
Practitioners include the following: government officials or policy makers, consultants or service providers
(e.g., bankers, accountants, or lawyers). Academics include researchers and/or instructors at the university level,
excluding students. In an additional analysis, academics and practitioners were separated into two subsamples
but the rank orderings remained essentially the same. Hence, the combined means are reported here.
20
ing that is out of order, when comparing our proposed ranking (in Table 2) and that of the ex-
pert panel, is that of Acquirer (which in the expert panel has a ranking of ‘8’ as compared with
a tie for 7th place based on the literature review).
In reviewing the distribution of responses, about 10 percent of the respondents consider Ser-
vice Provider an entrepreneur, and Family Business receives a higher rating than Champion,
Owner, or Industry Captain, which have been variously argued in the literature as having en-
trepreneurial elements. All of the business accomplishment items were given a rating of either
‘1’ or ‘2’ (indicating that a respondent considers the behavior either ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’
to be an example of entrepreneurial behavior) by at least 19 percent of the respondents in the
expert panel. Based on these results, we decided to include all business accomplishments in
further exploratory analyses based on the alumni panel dataset, even though some have a rela-
tively low rating.
_____________________
Table 3 about here
______________________
TESTING THE PROPOSED MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Method
Data source and sample characteristics
To test the relationships between gender, business accomplishments and entrepreneurial self-
perception, about 2000 questionnaires were sent to various subsamples of alumni at a large
Midwestern public university in the United States: 512 to MBA graduates (72 or 14% of
which responded); 1200 to alumni identified as either a president or CEO in the Dun and
Bradstreet database (118 or 10% of which responded); and 283 to recent graduates who had
enrolled in an entrepreneurship course while at college (17 or 9% of which responded). Of
these questionnaires 331 were returned to sender, and 212 responded, of which five were un-
usable due to incomplete information. The sample is non-random but still useful from an ex-
ploratory standpoint. Of the total sample, 148 were male and 59 were female.
Sample selection was hampered by the fact that in spite of the university’s age (about 150
18
The distribution of the 162 respondents is as follows: 18 (Area010 in WTC, Rotterdam), 23 (Vlerick Leuven
Gent Management School, Leuven), 28 (ISBC, Amsterdam), 56 (RENT XVI, Barcelona), 21 (ISBA, Brighton)
21
years old), as with many public universities of its type, the university kept incomplete infor-
mation of its alumni. It had only recently set up an alumni office to track graduates. Selected
sub-samples were chosen to increase the likelihood that alumni would indeed be business
founders and owners. The research team sent a cover letter, with an enclosed stamped return
envelope, explaining that the Business Faculty of the university was interested in gathering
additional information about the activities of its alumni. Although alumni were asked to com-
plete the questionnaire regardless of whether or not they are a business owner, the letter also
indicated that the purpose of the project was indeed to identify alumni who had either started
or run their own companies and also to identify alumni who might be eligible for recognition
for their entrepreneurial achievements by the university.
The relatively low response rate for the overall population may be explained by several fac-
tors. First, due to the specific topic of the survey, and especially since few questionnaires were
returned incomplete, there is the likelihood of a self-selection bias where only those re-
sponded who were actually involved in the entrepreneurship or business activities as indicated
in the questionnaire
19
. In hindsight, the content of the cover letter – which was constructed not
only for research but also non-research purposes – as well as the content of the survey itself –
a two-page survey, which in addition to background questions (name, address, educational
history, gender and age) was primarily aimed at identifying business accomplishments –
likely skewed the response rate toward those individuals who already perceived themselves as
entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, the responses, especially concerning the dependent variable,
were of sufficient range (with a standard deviation of 1.57) to warrant further analysis (see
Table 5).
The low response rate may be further explained by the fact that letters were sent out to com-
pany addresses instead of to individuals and it was a one-time mailing with no announcement
or follow-up. Finally, the relatively low response rate, especially for the sub-sample of recent
graduates, may be attributed to the mobility of recent graduates, resulting in letters arriving at
the wrong address.
The sample mainly consists of high-educated individuals, probably resulting in an education
bias. Approximately 50 percent of the respondents hold a Masters degree, and 43 percent hold
and 16 (UKBI, Edinburgh).
19
This is supported by the fact that about 60 percent of the respondents reported having founded their own firms,
which is higher than expected in the general population. For instance, Delmar and Davidsson (2000), referring to
a US sample from Reynolds (1997), indicate that 37.5 percent of the US respondents reported to be involved in
any start-up or small business experience. The actual percentage of people having founded a business in this
sample is likely to be even smaller.
22
a Bachelors diploma. Of the people with a university degree (either Bachelors or Masters) ap-
proximately 60 percent reported having specialized in business.
Finally, when compared to other available entrepreneurship data, it seems that our sample is
characterized by a relatively high average age. While in our study the average age is 50 years,
Evans and Leighton (1989a) report an average age of an entrepreneur of 40 years. Moreover,
Storey (1994) reports that people typically start a business between 25 and 40 years old. This
is confirmed by Reynolds et al. (1999) arguing that countries with more individuals in the age
class of 25 to 44 years, are characterized by higher start-up rates
20
. However, in our study,
most of the respondents (approximately 50 percent) fall in the age category of 46 to 55 years
old (see Table 5). This relatively high age of the respondents in the sample may be related to
the self-selection bias alluded to earlier. That is, because respondents were asked to indicate
their business accomplishments (see Appendix), this may have influenced the age distribution
in the sample since younger people would be less likely to have accomplishments to report,
and, accordingly, be more hesitant to fill in and return the survey. In summary, given the non-
randomness of the sample, and the response bias regarding age, education and location, con-
clusions drawn from this study should be viewed as exploratory in nature.
Description of Variables
The Appendix to the present paper summarizes the way in which dependent, independent and
control variables are measured.
Business accomplishments
The classification of business accomplishments is based on the entrepreneurial typology as
proposed by Vesper (1999). See Table 1. The following business accomplishments: Founder,
Acquirer, Runner, Take-Off Artist, Turnaround Artist, Intrapreneur, Innovator, Industry Cap-
tain and Champion, are drawn directly from Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typology. Three addi-
tional business accomplishments (i.e., Owner, Service Provider and Family Business) are in-
cluded in the analysis to create more insight into the impact of the different business accom-
plishments on Entrepreneurial Self-Image. We also added the distinction between starting a
new business from scratch (i.e., Founder) versus starting a franchise business (i.e., Franchi-
see).
20
It should be born in mind that Storey (1994) and Reynolds et al. (1999) make use of start-up samples, where
individuals are likely to be younger.
23
Gender
Gender was measured using a single self-report item on the questionnaire.
Control variables
According to human capital theorists (see Becker, 1964) knowledge increases the cognitive
ability of an individual, resulting in more efficient and effective behavior. Davidsson and
Honig (2003) suggest that individuals with higher levels of human capital are more self-
confident. Although human capital has been studied in the context of entrepreneurial behavior
and success (Evans and Leighton, 1989b; Bellu et al., 1990; Bates, 1995; Gimeno et al., 1997;
Manolova et al., 2002), it has not been investigated in the context of (entrepreneurial) self-
perception. People with higher levels of human capital may be expected to have a more de-
veloped self-perception, being aware of their own capabilities. A distinction can be made be-
tween different types of knowledge – tacit versus explicit (Polyani, 1966) – and, accordingly,
between different types of learning or education. Davidsson and Honig (2003) refer to formal
(e.g., university education), informal (e.g., work experience) and non-formal education (e.g.,
specific training).
In the present study we include the following human capital factors: education level, business
degree (whether at the bachelors or masters level), and introduction course (i.e., whether or
not the respondent had taken an introductory course in entrepreneurship while at the univer-
sity). In addition, we include age of the respondent as a control variable. Since experience
tends to increase with age, we want to separate these two effects.
Data Analysis
In an effort to reduce the number of business accomplishment items to meaningful scales, we
first perform a factor analysis with the alumni dataset, using Principal Components Analysis
and a Varimax rotated solution to identify independent factors.
The relationship between business accomplishments and entrepreneurial self-image, repre-
sented by Hypothesis 1 (arrow 2 in Figure 1), is tested with Pearson product-moment correla-
tion coefficients and is investigated in the regression analyses. Hypothesis 2a (representing
the direct gender effect) and Hypothesis 2b (representing the indirect gender effect) are tested
through a series of linear regressions introducing the explanatory variables (gender, business
accomplishments and controls) in blocks, comparing their respective contributions.
One can test for the mediating effect of variable, m (=business accomplishments), by demon-
24
strating that the relation between proposed antecedent, x (=gender), and consequence, y
(=self-image), vanishes if m is included in the model (James and Brett, 1984). There are two
accepted protocols proposed in the literature for testing for mediating effects. In either ap-
proach, one must test first that the relationships between x and y, x and m, and m and y are all
significant in bivariate tests of correlation. In the next step, according to the James and Brett
(1984), first testing the model y=f(m) and then the model y=f(m,x), m can be seen as com-
pletely mediating the relationship between x and y if the added effect of x (tested by the sig-
nificance of the R-squared change when x is added last) should be not significant in the linear
regression. A second approach, outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), and used, for instance
by Nerkar, McGrath and MacMillan (1996), proposes to compare the results of Model 1,
where y=f(x), with those of Model 2, where y=f(x,m). In this latter method, to support the in-
ference that m completely mediates the effect of x on y, the unstandardized coefficient B
x
should be significant in Model 1 but not significant in Model 2. Further, the unstandardized
coefficient B
m
in Model 2 should be significant. Both protocols are reported and compared in
the current study (see Table 6).
Throughout the paper we worked with both one- and two-tailed hypotheses. As critical values
of the one-tailed test procedures always exceed that of the two-tailed test procedures, we leave
out the one-tailed results for ease of presentation. Also, the present study is exploratory in na-
ture, and although we hypothesize a particular direction in some cases, we do not rule out the
possibility that effects can be in either direction.
RESULTS
Factor Analysis and Scale Formation for Business Accomplishments
Table 4 presents a seven-factor solution for the different business accomplishment items in-
cluded in the questionnaire. Although the Eigenvalues for factors 6 and 7 are relatively low
(0.92 and 0.79, respectively), seven factors are specified to have a better view of the inde-
pendence of several of the business accomplishments, providing support for the decision to
separately include these accomplishments in further analyses. Including the most important
items (with factor loadings ? 0.60), Cronbach’s Alpha amounts to 0.64, 0.52 and 0.51 for fac-
tors 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Although these reliabilities are not particularly high, Factors 1
and 2, in particular, appear fairly reasonable to interpret on the basis of their content. Factors 4
to 7 are made up of one item only. Although Acquirer and Turnaround Artist load on the same
25
factor (Factor 3), they are included separately in the analyses because of a low face validity
for the factor: acquiring a business does not necessarily imply that the purchased firm is in
distress and needs to be ‘saved’. Also, someone saving a failing business is not necessarily a
business owner, but can be a manager.
______________________
Table 4 here
______________________
Eight business accomplishment variables are identified for further analyses: Small Business
Person (consisting of Founder, Runner and Owner), ‘Corporate’ Entrepreneur (consisting of
Intrapreneur, Innovator and Champion), Acquirer, Turnaround Artist, Franchisee, Industry
Captain, Service Provider, and Family Business. The business accomplishment, Take-Off Art-
ist, is omitted from further analyses because it did not clearly load on any of the seven factors
specified.
Descriptive and Bivariate Statistics
Table 5 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients between the major
variables in this study.
_______________________
Table 5 about here
_______________________
Test for H1: Relationships between Business Accomplishments and Entrepreneurial
Self-Image
H1 is tested first by examining the relationships between each of the business accomplish-
ments and Entrepreneurial Self-Image. Though no predictions are made a priori, reviewing the
bivariate correlation statistics presented in Table 5 provides support for the relationship be-
tween Entrepreneurial Self-Image and three of the business accomplishment variables, includ-
ing Small Business Person (r=0.56, p
The SCALES-paper series is an electronic working paper series of EIM Business and Policy Research.
1
SCALES-paper N200312
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS,
GENDER AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
SELF-IMAGE
Ingrid Verheul
Lorraine Uhlaner
Roy Thurik
Zoetermeer, October, 2003
2
address:
mail address:
telephone:
telefax:
website:
Italiëlaan 33
P.O. Box 7001
2701 AA Zoetermeer
+ 31 79 341 36 34
+ 31 79 341 50 24
www.eim.nl
The responsibility for the contents of this report lies with EIM. Quoting numbers or text in papers, essays
and books is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned. No part of this publication may be
copied and/or published in any form or by any means, or stored in a retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of EIM.
EIM does not accept responsibility for printing errors and/or other imperfections.
The SCALES-paper series is an electronic working paper series of EIM Business and Policy Research. The
SCALES-initiative (Scientific Analysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs) is part of the ‘SMEs and Entrepre-
neurship’ programme, financed by the Netherlands’ Ministry of Economic Affairs. Complete information
on this programme can be found at www.eim.nl/smes-and-entrepreneurship
The papers in the SCALES-series report on ongoing research at EIM. The information in the papers may
be (1) background material to regular EIM Research Reports, (2) papers presented at international aca-
demic conferences, (3) submissions under review at academic journals. The papers are directed at a
research-oriented audience and intended to share knowledge and promote discussion on topics in the
academic fields of small business economics and entrepreneurship research.
3
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, GENDER
AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-IMAGE
Ingrid Verheul, Lorraine Uhlaner and Roy Thurik
Centre for Advanced Small Business Economics (CASBEC) and European Family Business
Institute (EFBI), Rotterdam School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box
1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands,
tel. +31 10 4081398, fax. +31 10 4089146
and
EIM Business and Policy Research, P.O. Box 7001, 2701 AA Zoetermeer, the Netherlands,
tel. +31 79 3413634
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The present study is based on a scale of entrepreneurial activity proposed by Karl H. Vesper at
the USASBE conference, San Diego, California, January 1999. The authors would like to
thank Karl Vesper, Siah Hwee Ang, Charles Baden-Fuller, Maryse Brand, Hans Bruining,
Martin Carree, Per Davidsson, Dylan Jones-Evans, Marco van Gelderen, Antti Haahti, the
editor of this journal and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier
version. Ingrid Verheul acknowledges financial support of the Fund Schiedam Vlaardingen
e.o. and the Trust Fund Rotterdam. Lorraine Uhlaner acknowledges financial support of Aren-
thals Grant Thornton accountants and advisors, Fortis Bank, and MeesPierson Bank. Earlier
versions of the present paper have been read at the ERIM conference "New Organizational
Forms", Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands, November 2001; the RENT XV
Conference, Turku, Finland, November 2001; the SBEDC conference, Nottingham, United
Kingdom, April 2002; the Babson BKERC conference, Boulder, Colorado, June 2002; and the
ICSB world conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 2002.
4
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, GENDER AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-
IMAGE
ABSTRACT
Drawing on Bem’s psychological theory of self-perception, this paper presents and tests a
model that examines the impact of business accomplishments and gender on entrepreneurial
self-image and explores the definition of entrepreneurship according to Vesper’s Entrepreneu-
rial Typology. Regression techniques are used to identify those business accomplishments that
university alumni associate with self-perceptions of entrepreneurship. Experience as a small
business person (founding, running, and/or owning a small business) most clearly predicts en-
trepreneurial self-image. Results also support predictions of both direct and indirect effects of
gender as well as direct effects of education and business degree. Results of a separate expert
panel study are used to rank business accomplishments according to degree of entrepreneur-
ship. Results of both studies reveal stark contrasts in the implied definition of entrepreneur-
ship between entrepreneurship experts (academic and practitioner alike) and the general busi-
ness community (as represented by the alumni). This raises questions about the meaning of
the term “entrepreneurship”, what the word “entrepreneur”, in particular, conveys to the gen-
eral public, and the implications for practice and future research.
5
BUSINESS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, GENDER AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-
IMAGE
INTRODUCTION
The present paper is motivated in part by the following question: “What is an entrepreneur?”.
This seemingly simple question, which is likely to be asked numerous times to most of our
readers in the course of their professional work, continues to spark debate and disagreement
within the scholarly community. The present paper is neither intended nor is likely to end that
debate. However, it does attempt to provide new insights about the way in which the term
“entrepreneur” is perceived by members of the general business community (i.e., business
people) and how this perception compares to that of entrepreneurship specialists (i.e., academ-
ics, policy makers or other professionals active in the field of entrepreneurship). The out-
comes of our research are not meant necessarily to be used to further define the scholarly do-
main of entrepreneurship, i.e., what entrepreneurship researchers should study in order to gain
knowledge about this phenomenon (see Davidsson, 2003). However, our results may help to
clarify what the general business community and perhaps society-at-large, may be thinking
about when we use the term “entrepreneur”, thus expediting communication between scholars
and those groups
1
.
To further our understanding of the popular view of the concept of “entrepreneur”, the pri-
mary research question of this paper is as follows: “Do certain characteristics of individuals
influence their entrepreneurial self-image, i.e., the extent to which they perceive themselves
to be entrepreneurs?” The primary set of characteristics, the respondent’s business accom-
plishments, is derived from a typology of entrepreneurial activities proposed by Vesper (Ves-
per, 1999). Though grounded in social-psychological research, unique to this study is the fo-
cus of the direct influence of business behaviors on entrepreneurial self-perceptions, as well as
the influence of gender on those self-perceptions.
In order to validate the set of business accomplishments used in our study to represent activi-
ties with entrepreneurial potential, we include an expert panel study to supplement the review
of the entrepreneurship behavior literature. Although one can argue that there is a two-way
relationship between business accomplishments and entrepreneurial self-image, the focus in
6
the present paper is on the influence of behavior on entrepreneurial self-image. From a theo-
retical perspective, our study is a new application of well-established psychological theories
linking behavior and perception (James, 1890, 1950; Bem, 1972; Bandura, 1977, 1986).
Moreover, to our knowledge, this is the first time that Vesper’s (1999) entrepreneurial typol-
ogy is tested and used in empirical research.
Gender is a second individual characteristic used to predict entrepreneurial self-image. At the
macro level, female and male entrepreneurs appear to differ with respect to the type of entre-
preneurial activity they engage in and the way in which they manage this activity (Verheul
and Thurik, 2001; U.S. Small Business Administration, 1995; OECD, 1998; Carter et al,
1997; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Fischer et al., 1993). In addition, the management literature
indicates that, as compared to men, women tend to underrate their own performance (Wohlers
and London, 1989; Lindeman et al., 1995). Accordingly, we expect to find an indirect effect
of gender (through entrepreneurial activity) on entrepreneurial self-image, as well as a direct
gender effect (controlling for entrepreneurial activity). Several control variables, including
age, education level and business education, are also examined for possible effects on entre-
preneurial self-image.
Structure of the Paper
The paper is structured as follows. First, we introduce the concept of (entrepreneurial) self-
perception and its relationship to business behaviors. Within this section, we elaborate on the
theories linking behavior and self-perception. Second, we provide an overview of business
accomplishments or behaviors that are classified as entrepreneurial in the literature, including
a discussion of Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typology. Using Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typol-
ogy, we propose a ranking of business accomplishments according to the degree of entrepre-
neurship based on the extant literature. Subsequently, we review the literature regarding the
relationship between gender and entrepreneurship, including business behaviors as well as
entrepreneurial self-image. On the basis of the theoretical discussion, we introduce a model
and hypotheses for explaining entrepreneurial self-perception from activity and gender.
In the following section we discuss the methodology and results for validating the proposed
ranking of business accomplishments according to degree of entrepreneurship, based on the
views of 162 respondents in an expert panel survey. Next, we present the methodology and
1
Some researchers may wish to further consider these multiple perspectives in light of the scientific paradigm of
realism; i.e. the view that even though there is a “real” world to discover, it can only be comprehended imper-
fectly via investigation and triangulation from different viewpoints or data sources (Healy and Perry, 2000).
7
results for testing the model and hypotheses with an exploratory study, based on a non-
random data sample of 207 alumni of a large Midwestern U.S. university. Final sections pre-
sent discussion of the results, directions for future research and conclusions.
BUSINESS BEHAVIORS AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SELF-PERCEPTION
This paper draws upon the world of self-concept. According to William James (1890, 1950),
the ‘empirical self’’, consisting of a material, social and spiritual component, is the key to un-
derstanding the experience of individuals
2
. In the present paper it is argued that people come
to know themselves by drawing information from their own behavior.
According to social learning theory, Bandura (1977, 1986) argues that there is triadic recipro-
cal causation among behavior, cognitive and other personal factors and the environment. This
means that on the one hand the environment and the perception of both this environment and
self by an individual can influence the individual's behavior. On the other hand, the behavior
of an individual influences the environment as well as the way in which he or she perceives of
him- or herself and the environment
3
. In addition to Bandura, in the psychology literature
Bem (1972) provides evidence of behavioral influences on self-perception. More specifically,
Bem’s self-perception theory states that: “individuals come to ‘know’ their own attitudes,
emotions and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own
overt behavior and / or the circumstances in which this behavior occurs” (Bem, 1972, p. 5).
The relationship between entrepreneurial activity and perception has been studied mainly
from the viewpoint that perception influences entrepreneurial activity (Boyd and Vozikis,
1994; Scherer et al., 1990 and 1989; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Krueger, 1993; Chen et al.,
1998). These studies focus upon and refer to the concept of self-efficacy as the perceived per-
sonal ability to perform a given task. In that context it has been suggested that individuals
make career choices based upon their perception of and the associated fit with a certain pro-
fession (Fagenson and Marcus, 1991). Chen et al. (1998, p. 297) argue that “ ... they assess
their personal capabilities against the requirements of different occupations”. The choice to
engage in entrepreneurial activity is thus interpreted as dependent upon whether individuals
can identify with the characteristics and behaviors that are associated with entrepreneurship.
2
See Smith (1992) for a detailed discussion of William James's theory of self.
3
"This reciprocality does not mean that the different influences are of equal strength" (Wood and Bandura, 1989,
p. 362).
8
In the present study we take the opposite perspective and explain entrepreneurial self-
perception by way of prior business accomplishments (which may vary in the degree to which
they are perceived as being entrepreneurial by different individuals). Though Bem’s self-
perception theory has been used extensively in other types of research applications
4
within the
field of entrepreneurship relatively few empirical studies have focused upon explaining entre-
preneurial self-perception from behavior. However, van Gelderen (2000) provides some evi-
dence to support the claim that entrepreneurial behavior influences self-perception. His study
investigates what people consider entrepreneurial about their behavior.
DEFINITIONS AND TYPOLOGIES OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIORS
Definitions of entrepreneurship vary widely (Hébert and Link, 1989; Van Praag, 1999; Lump-
kin and Dess, 1996). Kaufmann and Dant (1998) identify the following three classes of defini-
tions: (1) those based on traits or qualities; (2) those based on the role or function of the entre-
preneur in the economic process; and (3) those based on the behavior or activities of entrepre-
neurs. For the purpose of our paper we take a behavioral approach to studying entrepreneur-
ship, consistent with the mainstream scholarly perspective (Gartner, 1990).
Entrepreneurial Behavior or Activities
A wide range of business behaviors has variously been classified in the literature as “entre-
preneurial”, including starting a business (i.e., new venture creation), innovation, business
ownership, business growth and size achievement, and managing a large business. In this sec-
tion we will make a distinction between these different types of entrepreneurial activity.
Early on in the development of the field of entrepreneurship, many scholars propagated the
view that new venture creation is at the heart of entrepreneurship (Chandler, 1990; Gartner,
1990, 1989, 1985; Low and MacMillan, 1988; McClelland, 1961; Schumpeter, 1934; Vesper,
1980). Two problems that arise with this view is that not all new ventures pursue growth
(Carland et al., 1984; Dunkelberg and Cooper, 1982) or innovation (Hornaday, 1992, Schum-
peter, 1934), although these two issues are considered by many as added essential components
of entrepreneurial behavior.
4
Self-perception theory has been applied extensively to social scientific research since the mid 1970’s but pri-
marily to empirical research in applied social psychology (Dolinski, 2000; Uranowitz, 1975; Weiner, 1974) and
clinical psychology (Robak, 2001; Schnall, Abrahamson and Laird, 2002; Haemmerlie and Montgomery, 1987).
It has been compared and contrasted with cognitive dissonance theory to explain human attitudes (Weiner,
1974). Self-perception theory has been applied not only to physical but also cognitive behaviors on self-
perception (see Damrad-Frye and Laird, 1989). Studies generally confirm predictions derived from the theory.
9
Building on the concept of “newness”, but recognizing the need to view entrepreneurial be-
havior more broadly, Gartner et al. (1989) argue that most studies of new venture creation
tend to ignore that there are other ways to achieve business ownership than through starting a
new business from scratch, for instance through the acquisition of an established business.
Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986) also distinguish between different paths to business owner-
ship, including starting a new business, purchasing or inheriting a business and being pro-
moted or brought in by existing owners. Building on these notions, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
argue that "the essential act of entrepreneurship is new entry" (p.136), defining new entry as
"entering new or established markets with new or existing goods or services". This can be
achieved "by starting a business, through an existing business or internal corporate venturing"
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, p. 136). Implicit in this definition of new entry is the notion that
entrepreneurship can exist within large businesses. This type of entrepreneurship is often re-
ferred to as corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship where new ideas and responsibili-
ties are implemented in existing, large businesses (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999; Stopford and
Baden-Fuller, 1994; and Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). In this respect "entrepreneurial activi-
ties in existing, large firms often take place by mimicking smallness" and "entrepreneurship
occurs irrespective of firm size" (Wennekers and Thurik, 1999, p. 33). Other researchers even
argue that managing a business is an entrepreneurial activity. According to McClelland (1965)
managers can display entrepreneurial behavior in their wage jobs by taking responsibility for
their actions and decisions and creatively solve problems. Moreover, Brandstätter (1997)
stresses that entrepreneurial behavior is important in all leading positions within the higher
level of organizations.
Vesper's Entrepreneurial Typology
In his keynote address at the 1999 Conference of the United States Association for Small
Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE), Karl Vesper proposes an entrepreneurial typol-
ogy, embracing a broad range of these themes in entrepreneurial behavior (Vesper, 1999). See
Table 1. Vesper does not try to rank these activities, but instead acknowledges that different
types of entrepreneurial activity exist side by side (see also Cunningham and Lischeron,
1991). Vesper argues that researchers should adopt a view that separately identifies different
types of entrepreneurs rather than solving the conundrum: “What is an entrepreneur”?
More recently, it has been applied to research in marketing and consumer behavior research (Forehand, 1998;
Laverie et al., 2002) .
10
____________________
Table 1 here
____________________
Degree of Entrepreneurship
Although Vesper does not put forward a ranking of the proposed activities, it is plausible that
the different types of entrepreneurial activity are perceived to involve a different ‘degree of
entrepreneurship’, a concept first proposed by Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986). In particular,
different activities may vary in degree of entrepreneurship depending upon underlying re-
quirements or characteristics, such as opportunity perception (Kirzner, 1979), imagination
(Shackle, 1979), creativity (Torrance, 1967), innovation (Schumpeter, 1934), risk-taking
(Knight, 1921; Cantillon, 193; Hull et al, 1980; Sexton and Bowman, 1985, 1986; Stewart et
al., 1999; Begley, 1995; Stewart and Roth, 2001)
5
, locus of control (Perry et al., 1986; Rotter,
1966), need for achievement (McClelland, 1961; Perry et al., 1986), need for autonomy, ini-
tiative and persistence.
Of the underlying characteristics, Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986) single out opportunity per-
ception, risk-taking and innovation (as a creative process) as most relevant. The selection of
these three characteristics is consistent with results in Gartner’s (1990) study of the percep-
tions of the concept of entrepreneurship by experts
6
. For these reasons, we have selected risk-
taking, innovation and opportunity perception as initial indicators for degree of entrepreneur-
ship. In the remainder of this section we successively review the way in which these three
characteristics relate to several of the activities listed in Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typology
and the other activities we included from the literature. At the end of this section, we present a
summary table providing an initial rank ordering according to our interpretation of the litera-
ture.
Founding a firm from “scratch”
New venture creation, i.e., founding a firm from scratch (without any past history or linkage
to a parent company), is often viewed as involving the highest degree of entrepreneurship.
Founding a firm involves both the processes of perceiving an opportunity and acting upon the
5
Note however that other research on risk-taking has posits that risk-taking propensity is not a distinctive fea-
ture of entrepreneurship. See, for instance, the work by Brockhaus (Brockhaus and Nord, 1979; Brockhaus,
1980; Brockhaus et al., 1986).
6
In particular, six of the twelve items most highly correlated with the first factor, “The Entrepreneur”, represent-
ing 17.4 percent of the variance in the analysis, mention risk. The second factor relates to and is labeled “Innova-
11
perceived opportunity (Kirzner, 1979). It involves innovation because something is created
where nothing existed previously and resources are combined in a new way (Cooper and
Dunkelberg, 1986). According to Carland et al. (1984) an entrepreneurial venture is in princi-
ple characterized by innovative practices
7
. In addition, the founder is willing to personally ab-
sorb the risks involved in starting a new business (Cooper and Dunkelberg, 1986). Several
scholars further argue that founders show higher risk-taking than non-founders (Begley, 1995;
Begley and Boyd, 1987 and Hull et al., 1980).
Based on the rather large variance among start-ups in the degree to which they have innova-
tive versus imitative strategies (Samuelsson, 2001; Aldrich, 1999), one could argue that since
many start-ups are imitative in nature, those should be excluded from the notion of entrepre-
neurship or at least viewed as a separate category. However, Davidsson (2003) formulates the
argument for viewing imitative entry as ‘new’. He notes that such entry drives the market
process by giving consumers additional choices and challenging incumbent firms to change
their behavior in response to new competition. In addition, he points out that no entrant is a
perfect copy or ‘clone’ of an existing actor (Davidsson, 2003). In this sense, we use innova-
tiveness not exclusively to refer to new products, but also to new markets and added value in
the marketplace represented by the new firm.
Franchise start-up
A franchise start-up can be seen as an alternative to founding an independent firm (Kaufmann,
1999; Williams, 1998). Shane and Hoy (1996) refer to franchising as a form of cooperative
entrepreneurship. Starting a franchise business can be considered less entrepreneurial than
founding a firm from ‘scratch’ because it involves less innovation. Although a franchisee runs
the risk of introducing the franchisor's concept into new markets, the potential for innovation
is limited since maintenance of the franchisor's concept is important (Kaufman and Dant,
1998). Moreover, starting a franchise business also involves less opportunity perception and
risk taking because the market concept has already been developed and tested, albeit not nec-
essarily in the particular market where the entrepreneur is planning to start the franchise busi-
ness.
tion”, while the two highest correlated items within the third factor, “Organization Creation”, mention opportu-
nity recognition.
7
Based on Kirchoff’s (1994) Dynamic Capitalism Typology it can be argued that some innovations are success-
ful and lead to growth and others are not. This indicates that even when innovation takes place, differences may
exist in degree of entrepreneurship based on their contribution to firm growth.
12
Acquisition
Purchasing an existing business was considered only a “slightly important” attribute in Gart-
ner’s study of expert definitions (Gartner, 1990). This may reflect a shift in the literature of
the past few decades towards viewing entrepreneurship as creating market impact or societal
value rather than as owning and running one’s own firm.
8
However, as a potential entrepre-
neurial activity, it is listed specifically in Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typology and has been
included in various entrepreneurship research studies. Acquiring a business can be viewed as
entrepreneurial since the purchase of an established business is preceded by opportunity per-
ception. Although the acquirer is not involved in the founding of the business and the risk of
start-up is circumvented, risk-taking is involved as the business is operated at the purchaser's
own cost and risk. However, there may be relatively little need for innovation since the busi-
ness is already established and resources have already been put to use. The extent to which the
acquirer is innovative depends upon his or her plans to implement changes, and to pursue
growth strategies, e.g., through entering new markets and/or developing new products (Coo-
per and Dunkelberg, 1986). On the other hand, the purchase may be inspired by an innovative
idea the purchaser wants to implement to add value to the existing business. Because the pur-
chaser of a business can develop and implement his/her own ideas, the acquisition of an estab-
lished business may be more entrepreneurial than the purchase of a franchise where innova-
tion tends to be more limited.
Acquisition may involve a healthy or a declining firm. When purchasing a declining firm with
the intent of saving it, the acquirer faces even more challenges because the liabilities of the
declining firm have to be translated or rendered into opportunities. On the other hand, a failing
business can also be saved from within the firm, for instance by a manager, in which case risk
takes on another form, not relating to a loss of ownership.
Intrapreneurship / Corporate entrepreneurship
Like business founders, intrapreneurs can be considered entrepreneurial because they intro-
duce something new, albeit within a large business and its boundaries. Intrapreneurship differs
from other forms of entrepreneurship with respect to the context in which the entrepreneurial
act takes place. Like managers, intrapreneurs act on behalf of an existing organization instead
of for their own account (Carrier, 1996). Because entrepreneurial ideas are implemented
within the context of an existing organization, the ultimate risk is born by the owner of the
8
Per Daviddson, personal communication, 2003.
13
business instead of the initiator of the corporate venture. Risk is manifested by the probability
of failure of the independent business unit and, accordingly, closure (Cunningham and
Lischeron, 1991). In addition, an intrapreneur may risk the loss of his or her job or career dis-
ruption. Finally, alertness to opportunities is of similar importance for individual entrepre-
neurship and corporate entrepreneurship (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991). Innovation
within a firm does not necessarily take the form of creating a new business unit (i.e., intrapre-
neurship). It can also express itself in other ways, for instance, as adjustments to products and
processes that do not require setting up a new unit. The innovator takes on other challenges
than the intrapreneur, being more directly involved in the inventory and innovation process.
For the organization it is important to see and acknowledge the value of adopting new ways to
organize and combine resources. Because innovation largely disrupts the existing organiza-
tional structure (i.e., rules, norms and procedures), there is a need for innovation champions,
i.e., organization members who risk their own position to ensure the innovation’s success
(Schön, 1963; Burgelman, 1983; Shane, 1994). According to Howell and Higgins (1990)
champions show higher risk-taking and innovativeness than non-champions within an organi-
zation. The degree of risk-taking and innovativeness is likely to be dependent upon the activi-
ties of the champion. Shane (1994) and Venkataraman et al. (1992) distinguish between dif-
ferent championing activities and roles
9
.
Management of small vs. large firms
It may be argued that there are differences in the degree of entrepreneurship between manag-
ers of different businesses. Someone managing a small business beyond the start-up phase
faces different risks, i.e., challenges, as compared to someone managing a large business or
someone managing a high-growth business. The different phases of the business involve dif-
ferent activities and different challenges, i.e., risks (Churchill and Lewis, 1983; Greiner, 1972;
Garnsey, 1998). Based on the characteristics of opportunity perception, risk-taking and inno-
vation one may propose that managers of small, young and high-growth firms are perceived
as more entrepreneurial than those of established large firms.
9
Shane (1994) argues that champions provide people with autonomy from organizational norms and rules; build
coalitions to support the innovation with managers from different functional areas; build a decision-making
mechanism that includes all organization members; use informal means to persuade people to support the
innovation and protect the innovation teams from interference by the organizational hierarchy. Venkataraman et
al. (1992) distinguish between different types of champions, including champions of ideas, resource champions,
champions of opportunistic behavior and champions of incorporation.
14
Ownership vs. management
Finally, several scholars have made a distinction between business owners and corporate
managers (Carland and Carland, 1992; Smith et al., 1988). Owners are believed to show
higher risk-taking than managers because their range of possibilities is larger and more uncer-
tain (Bearse, 1982) and an owner has the ultimate responsibility for decisions (Gasse, 1982).
Brandstätter (1997) argues that whether someone is seen as an entrepreneur is determined first
by ownership, then by decision-making power and leadership functions and finally by the size
of the company
10
. Hence, ownership is seen as more entrepreneurial than management, irre-
spective of firm size or characteristics.
Tentative rankings based on the literature
On the basis of the underlying entrepreneurial characteristics risk-taking, innovation and op-
portunity perception, we have made a first attempt to rank business accomplishments accord-
ing to the degree of entrepreneurship involved. In addition to the business accomplishments
previously mentioned, we include the category ‘service provider’ (e.g., accountant, banker,
lawyer), as a sort of anchor, i.e., providing services to the business sector would least likely to
be viewed as entrepreneurial, either by the general public or by entrepreneurship scholars. We
also include family business as a type of business accomplishment, for exploratory reasons,
even though there is little evidence in the literature to suggest that working in a family firm is
more or less entrepreneurial than being involved in a non-family firm.
The results of the ranking are presented in Table 2. The ranking is done as follows. For three
characteristics (opportunity perception, risk-taking and innovation) we discriminate between
four levels (low, medium, medium-high, high). We assign the values 1 through 4 to these lev-
els, respectively. The score of the business accomplishments equals the sum of these values.
This leads to the ranking of business accomplishments as more or less entrepreneurial in Ta-
ble 2. This ranking is based on our interpretation of the characteristics of the different entre-
preneurial activities mentioned in the literature. On the basis of the previous discussion and
Table 2 it can be argued that founding a firm from scratch involves the highest degree of en-
trepreneurship, followed by innovating behavior, intrapreneurship and managing a high-
growth business (tied to the third place), acquisition, starting a franchise business and manag-
ing a small business (tied to the fifth place), saving a failing business, supporting an innova-
10
Based on a study of IMAS (Institut für Markt und Socialanalyzen), focusing on the perception of the Austrian
population of what constitutes an entrepreneur in 1976 and 1986.
15
tor, and, finally, managing a large business and providing services to an entrepreneur (tied to
the tenth and last place).
Since ownership can involve a start-up, acquisition or franchise, it is difficult to determine the
level of innovation involved. Accordingly, it is also difficult to rank the level of opportunity
perception required. Hence, although ownership is included in the table, its ranking is left in-
determinate. The ranking for family business is also left indeterminate as there is much varia-
tion between family businesses, their degree of entrepreneurship depending, for instance,
upon the size and phase of the business and innovative capacity and ability.
_______________________
Table 2 about here
_______________________
GENDER AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
In addition to business accomplishments, this paper explores the impact of gender on entre-
preneurial self-image. This section summarizes past work on gender and entrepreneurship,
including research on women in business, as well as research linking gender and self-
perception in the business context.
Women in Business
Statistics regarding the participation of women in entrepreneurship have to be interpreted with
caution. It has been argued that female start-up rates exceed those of men
11
. However, some
of this increase is due to an overall increase of women in the labor market in most of the de-
veloped countries, including the United States. Despite the reported increase in female start-
up rates, women still constitute a minority of the total number of self-employed people, ac-
counting for 25 to 35 percent of total business ownership in many Western countries (Carter,
2000)
12
. Reynolds et al. (2002) report that throughout the 37 countries participating in the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor men were 50 percent more likely to be involved in entrepre-
neurial activity than women
13
. Also in terms of proportion of the workforce, women constitute
a minority. For instance, in the UK approximately 15 percent of the working male population
11
See Center for Women’s Business Research (www.womensbusinessresearch.org) and Carter (2000).
12
For the United States, see US Small Business Administration (1995) and NFWBO (1996).
13
In the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor entrepreneurial activity includes nascent entrepreneurs (starting or
operating a business no older than three months) and new businesses (in existence for less than 3.5 years). See
Reynolds et al., 2002, p. 38.
16
is self-employed, versus about 9 percent of the working female population (Carter, 2000).
Moreover, women-owned businesses underperform in a number of areas relative to men-
owned firms. Women-owned firms tend to engage in relatively underperforming sectors, such
as retailing and services (U.S. Small Business Administration, 1995; OECD, 1998; Van Uxem
and Bais, 1996), are smaller in size (Carter et al., 1997; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Fischer et
al., 1993; Verheul and Thurik, 2001), exhibit lower growth levels (Fischer et al., 1993; Hul-
shoff et al., 2001), have a higher rate of discontinuing, and lower profits (Carter et al., 1997).
Several reasons have been proposed to explain the performance differences between male and
female-owned firms, including the level of relevant business experience (Cliff, 1998, Cromie
and Birley, 1992; Watkins and Watkins, 1983; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Fischer, et al.,
1993; Verheul and Thurik, 2001), the proportion of total workweek committed to the business
(Brush, 1992; Goffee and Scase, 1985; and Stigter, 1999), the propensity to take risks (Ver-
heul and Thurik, 2001; Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990; Masters and Meier, 1988), age of
the firm and the number of days a business operated (Watson, 2002), as well as the industry
women are involved in (Watson, 2002; Verheul and Thurik, 2001). Others refer to differences
in values across gender, positing that women value quality and other goals not directly related
to growth and economic performance (Brush, 1992; Du Rietz and Henrekson, 2000; Kalleberg
and Leicht, 1991; Rosa et al., 1996; Verheul and Thurik, 2001; Verheul et al., 2002).
Because the economic criteria of size and growth are often used as measures of success (Cliff,
1998; Buttner and Moore, 1997), and growth-orientation is considered an important entrepre-
neurial characteristic (Dunkelberg and Cooper, 1982), women may rate themselves as less en-
trepreneurial than men based on these objective differences, i.e., because they tend to manage
small and low-growth businesses.
Gender and Self-Perceptions in Business and Entrepreneurship
Past research on gender differences in self-perception has mainly focused on managerial self-
perception. In general, these studies indicate that women tend to underrate their skills or per-
formance as compared to men (Wohlers and London, 1989; Lindeman et al., 1995). This un-
derrating has been attributed to the fact that women often do not take credit for success, at-
tributing success to external sources or luck rather than to effort or ability (Rosenthal et al.,
1996; Parsons et al., 1982; LaNoue and Curtis, 1985). Moreover, Rosenthal et al. (1996) argue
it may be ‘proper female modesty’ accounting for the underrating by female managers.
17
Beyer (1990, 1998) and Beyer and Bowden (1997) argue that when (managerial) tasks and
roles are perceived as more masculine than feminine, women are more likely than men to un-
derestimate their competencies in these areas. Along these lines, several studies show that
managers are perceived to have characteristics more commonly associated with men than with
women (Schein, 1973 and 1975; Powell and Butterfield, 1979 and 1989). Within the area of
entrepreneurship, Fagenson and Marcus (1991) find that women assign more weight to mas-
culine attributes in the profile of a successful entrepreneur. A more recent study by Powell et
al. (2002) finds that, although managerial stereotypes place less emphasis on masculine char-
acteristics than earlier studies suggest, a good manager is still perceived to be predominantly
masculine by both women and men. Hence, in spite of changes in the role of women in the US
and internationally over the past several decades, we may still find entrepreneurship to be as-
sociated with masculine characteristics, such as autonomy, perseverance, high energy levels,
self-confidence and decisiveness (Chaganti, 1986; Hisrich and Brush, 1983), likely to nega-
tively affect the entrepreneurial self-image of women.
MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
We propose a model including the independent influence of both gender and business accom-
plishments on entrepreneurial self-image as well as the combined effect of gender and busi-
ness accomplishments, i.e., the indirect effect of gender through accomplishments. The model
is presented in Figure 1.
______________________
Figure 1 about here
_______________________
Based on this model we test the following hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 represents the impact of
certain business accomplishments on entrepreneurial self-image (arrow 2 in Figure 1). Hy-
pothesis 1 is exploratory in nature as we make no a priori predictions about the effect of spe-
cific activities on entrepreneurial self-image, nor do we predict their respective weights. How-
ever, we would expect that those business accomplishments more clearly linked to entrepre-
neurship in the literature and/or more highly ranked by our panel of experts may have a higher
influence on entrepreneurial self-image than those that are less highly ranked (See Tables 2
and 3).
18
Hypothesis 1: People with certain business accomplishments (e.g., the activities as pro-
posed by Vesper)
14
will report a higher entrepreneurial self-image than
those without such accomplishments.
We further argue that gender can have both a direct and an indirect effect on entrepreneurial
self-image. The indirect effect refers to differences between men and women with respect to
business accomplishments that lead, in turn, to differences in their entrepreneurial self-image
(arrow 1 and 2 in Figure 1), whereas the direct effect refers to gender differences in self- im-
age that can not be attributed to differences in business accomplishments (arrow 3 in Figure
1). The direct effect is the effect of gender on entrepreneurial self-image when controlling for
the effects of business accomplishments. The model builds on previous research efforts dis-
tinguishing between direct and indirect gender effects in other areas of entrepreneurial behav-
ior, such as financing (Verheul and Thurik, 2001).
As discussed earlier in the paper, women tend to underrate their skills or performance as com-
pared to men. They often do not take credit for success and attribute it to external factors or
luck. Moreover, when tasks and roles are perceived as more masculine than feminine, women
are more likely to underestimate their competencies in these areas. Irrespective of how it is
measured, entrepreneurship is often perceived of as more masculine than feminine, so that
women may be expected to perceive of themselves less as entrepreneurs. However, past re-
search also shows that women are less likely to own and run a business than men. Moreover,
as they tend to focus on quality (Chaganti and Parasuraman, 1996; Brush, 1992), women are
expected to be involved less often in managing a high-growth or large business. This leads to
the formulation of Hypothesis 2a, representing the direct effect of gender on entrepreneurial
self-perception (see arrow 3 in Figure 1) and Hypothesis 2b, predicting an indirect effect of
gender on entrepreneurial self-image (see arrow 1 and 2 combined in Figure 1), with business
accomplishments posited as (partially) mediating that effect. To summarize, we can state Hy-
potheses 2a and 2b as follows:
Hypothesis 2a: Women have a lower entrepreneurial self-image than men, controlling for
their particular business accomplishments (the direct effect).
Hypothesis 2b: Women have a lower entrepreneurial self-image than men due to differ-
ences in particular business accomplishments (the indirect effect). That
14
In addition to the entrepreneurial activities of Vesper's typology in Table 1, in the empirical analysis we in-
clude additional activities (i.e., Owner, Service Provider and Family Business) to create a better insight into the
influence of activity on entrepreneurial self-perception (see Table 3).
19
is, business accomplishments partially mediate the relationship between
gender and entrepreneurial self-image.
RANKING ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIORS ACCORDING TO AN EXPERT
PANEL
Method
To validate the earlier proposed (literature) ranking of business accomplishments we make
use of an expert panel, including 216 respondents, each of whom were asked to give their
opinion about the same list of business accomplishments used in the rest of the study (see Ap-
pendix)
15
. In particular, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each of these
activities is an example of entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial behavior according to the fol-
lowing scale: (1) definitely; (2) probably; (3) maybe; (4) don’t think so; (5) no; and (6) don’t
know
16
. Respondents were considered ‘experts’, and were included in the study, if they had
been working either as an academic or practitioner in the field of entrepreneurship for at least
one year
17
. Of the 216 respondents, 162 were included as experts in the study
18
.
Results of the Expert Panel Study
Expert panel scores for each of the activities are displayed in Table 3. The ranking of the ac-
tivities according to the experts appears fairly similar to the ranking based on the literature.
Starting a business from scratch (i.e., Founder) is considered, by far, most entrepreneurial,
followed by Intrapreneur, someone doing new things not involving a business (unit) (i.e., In-
novator), managing a high-growth business (i.e., Take-Off Artist), starting a franchise business
(i.e., Franchisee) and running a small business beyond start-up (i.e., Runner). The only rank-
15
Questionnaires were distributed to international experts on six different occasions: (1) Research in Entrepre-
neurship and Government Policy (Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School), Leuven, 27 August 2002 (29 re-
spondents), (2) the 29
th
International Small Business Congress (RAI International Congress and Exhibition Cen-
tre), Amsterdam, 27-30 October 2002 (33 respondents), (3) the opening of the Rotterdam Incubation Centre
Area010 (World Trade Centre Rotterdam), 5 November 2002 (43 respondents), (4) the 25
th
ISBA National Small
Firms Policy and Research Conference (Brighton Business School), Brighton 13-15 November 2002 (25 respon-
dents), (5) the RENT XVI (Research in Entrepreneurship and Small Business) Conference (Universitat
Autonoma de Barcelona), Barcelona, 21-22 November 2002 (64 respondents) and (6) the UKBI 4
th
National In-
cubation Conference, Edinburgh, 25-26 November 2002 (22 respondents).
16
The answer: (6) “don’t know” was coded missing.
17
Practitioners include the following: government officials or policy makers, consultants or service providers
(e.g., bankers, accountants, or lawyers). Academics include researchers and/or instructors at the university level,
excluding students. In an additional analysis, academics and practitioners were separated into two subsamples
but the rank orderings remained essentially the same. Hence, the combined means are reported here.
20
ing that is out of order, when comparing our proposed ranking (in Table 2) and that of the ex-
pert panel, is that of Acquirer (which in the expert panel has a ranking of ‘8’ as compared with
a tie for 7th place based on the literature review).
In reviewing the distribution of responses, about 10 percent of the respondents consider Ser-
vice Provider an entrepreneur, and Family Business receives a higher rating than Champion,
Owner, or Industry Captain, which have been variously argued in the literature as having en-
trepreneurial elements. All of the business accomplishment items were given a rating of either
‘1’ or ‘2’ (indicating that a respondent considers the behavior either ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’
to be an example of entrepreneurial behavior) by at least 19 percent of the respondents in the
expert panel. Based on these results, we decided to include all business accomplishments in
further exploratory analyses based on the alumni panel dataset, even though some have a rela-
tively low rating.
_____________________
Table 3 about here
______________________
TESTING THE PROPOSED MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Method
Data source and sample characteristics
To test the relationships between gender, business accomplishments and entrepreneurial self-
perception, about 2000 questionnaires were sent to various subsamples of alumni at a large
Midwestern public university in the United States: 512 to MBA graduates (72 or 14% of
which responded); 1200 to alumni identified as either a president or CEO in the Dun and
Bradstreet database (118 or 10% of which responded); and 283 to recent graduates who had
enrolled in an entrepreneurship course while at college (17 or 9% of which responded). Of
these questionnaires 331 were returned to sender, and 212 responded, of which five were un-
usable due to incomplete information. The sample is non-random but still useful from an ex-
ploratory standpoint. Of the total sample, 148 were male and 59 were female.
Sample selection was hampered by the fact that in spite of the university’s age (about 150
18
The distribution of the 162 respondents is as follows: 18 (Area010 in WTC, Rotterdam), 23 (Vlerick Leuven
Gent Management School, Leuven), 28 (ISBC, Amsterdam), 56 (RENT XVI, Barcelona), 21 (ISBA, Brighton)
21
years old), as with many public universities of its type, the university kept incomplete infor-
mation of its alumni. It had only recently set up an alumni office to track graduates. Selected
sub-samples were chosen to increase the likelihood that alumni would indeed be business
founders and owners. The research team sent a cover letter, with an enclosed stamped return
envelope, explaining that the Business Faculty of the university was interested in gathering
additional information about the activities of its alumni. Although alumni were asked to com-
plete the questionnaire regardless of whether or not they are a business owner, the letter also
indicated that the purpose of the project was indeed to identify alumni who had either started
or run their own companies and also to identify alumni who might be eligible for recognition
for their entrepreneurial achievements by the university.
The relatively low response rate for the overall population may be explained by several fac-
tors. First, due to the specific topic of the survey, and especially since few questionnaires were
returned incomplete, there is the likelihood of a self-selection bias where only those re-
sponded who were actually involved in the entrepreneurship or business activities as indicated
in the questionnaire
19
. In hindsight, the content of the cover letter – which was constructed not
only for research but also non-research purposes – as well as the content of the survey itself –
a two-page survey, which in addition to background questions (name, address, educational
history, gender and age) was primarily aimed at identifying business accomplishments –
likely skewed the response rate toward those individuals who already perceived themselves as
entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, the responses, especially concerning the dependent variable,
were of sufficient range (with a standard deviation of 1.57) to warrant further analysis (see
Table 5).
The low response rate may be further explained by the fact that letters were sent out to com-
pany addresses instead of to individuals and it was a one-time mailing with no announcement
or follow-up. Finally, the relatively low response rate, especially for the sub-sample of recent
graduates, may be attributed to the mobility of recent graduates, resulting in letters arriving at
the wrong address.
The sample mainly consists of high-educated individuals, probably resulting in an education
bias. Approximately 50 percent of the respondents hold a Masters degree, and 43 percent hold
and 16 (UKBI, Edinburgh).
19
This is supported by the fact that about 60 percent of the respondents reported having founded their own firms,
which is higher than expected in the general population. For instance, Delmar and Davidsson (2000), referring to
a US sample from Reynolds (1997), indicate that 37.5 percent of the US respondents reported to be involved in
any start-up or small business experience. The actual percentage of people having founded a business in this
sample is likely to be even smaller.
22
a Bachelors diploma. Of the people with a university degree (either Bachelors or Masters) ap-
proximately 60 percent reported having specialized in business.
Finally, when compared to other available entrepreneurship data, it seems that our sample is
characterized by a relatively high average age. While in our study the average age is 50 years,
Evans and Leighton (1989a) report an average age of an entrepreneur of 40 years. Moreover,
Storey (1994) reports that people typically start a business between 25 and 40 years old. This
is confirmed by Reynolds et al. (1999) arguing that countries with more individuals in the age
class of 25 to 44 years, are characterized by higher start-up rates
20
. However, in our study,
most of the respondents (approximately 50 percent) fall in the age category of 46 to 55 years
old (see Table 5). This relatively high age of the respondents in the sample may be related to
the self-selection bias alluded to earlier. That is, because respondents were asked to indicate
their business accomplishments (see Appendix), this may have influenced the age distribution
in the sample since younger people would be less likely to have accomplishments to report,
and, accordingly, be more hesitant to fill in and return the survey. In summary, given the non-
randomness of the sample, and the response bias regarding age, education and location, con-
clusions drawn from this study should be viewed as exploratory in nature.
Description of Variables
The Appendix to the present paper summarizes the way in which dependent, independent and
control variables are measured.
Business accomplishments
The classification of business accomplishments is based on the entrepreneurial typology as
proposed by Vesper (1999). See Table 1. The following business accomplishments: Founder,
Acquirer, Runner, Take-Off Artist, Turnaround Artist, Intrapreneur, Innovator, Industry Cap-
tain and Champion, are drawn directly from Vesper’s Entrepreneurial Typology. Three addi-
tional business accomplishments (i.e., Owner, Service Provider and Family Business) are in-
cluded in the analysis to create more insight into the impact of the different business accom-
plishments on Entrepreneurial Self-Image. We also added the distinction between starting a
new business from scratch (i.e., Founder) versus starting a franchise business (i.e., Franchi-
see).
20
It should be born in mind that Storey (1994) and Reynolds et al. (1999) make use of start-up samples, where
individuals are likely to be younger.
23
Gender
Gender was measured using a single self-report item on the questionnaire.
Control variables
According to human capital theorists (see Becker, 1964) knowledge increases the cognitive
ability of an individual, resulting in more efficient and effective behavior. Davidsson and
Honig (2003) suggest that individuals with higher levels of human capital are more self-
confident. Although human capital has been studied in the context of entrepreneurial behavior
and success (Evans and Leighton, 1989b; Bellu et al., 1990; Bates, 1995; Gimeno et al., 1997;
Manolova et al., 2002), it has not been investigated in the context of (entrepreneurial) self-
perception. People with higher levels of human capital may be expected to have a more de-
veloped self-perception, being aware of their own capabilities. A distinction can be made be-
tween different types of knowledge – tacit versus explicit (Polyani, 1966) – and, accordingly,
between different types of learning or education. Davidsson and Honig (2003) refer to formal
(e.g., university education), informal (e.g., work experience) and non-formal education (e.g.,
specific training).
In the present study we include the following human capital factors: education level, business
degree (whether at the bachelors or masters level), and introduction course (i.e., whether or
not the respondent had taken an introductory course in entrepreneurship while at the univer-
sity). In addition, we include age of the respondent as a control variable. Since experience
tends to increase with age, we want to separate these two effects.
Data Analysis
In an effort to reduce the number of business accomplishment items to meaningful scales, we
first perform a factor analysis with the alumni dataset, using Principal Components Analysis
and a Varimax rotated solution to identify independent factors.
The relationship between business accomplishments and entrepreneurial self-image, repre-
sented by Hypothesis 1 (arrow 2 in Figure 1), is tested with Pearson product-moment correla-
tion coefficients and is investigated in the regression analyses. Hypothesis 2a (representing
the direct gender effect) and Hypothesis 2b (representing the indirect gender effect) are tested
through a series of linear regressions introducing the explanatory variables (gender, business
accomplishments and controls) in blocks, comparing their respective contributions.
One can test for the mediating effect of variable, m (=business accomplishments), by demon-
24
strating that the relation between proposed antecedent, x (=gender), and consequence, y
(=self-image), vanishes if m is included in the model (James and Brett, 1984). There are two
accepted protocols proposed in the literature for testing for mediating effects. In either ap-
proach, one must test first that the relationships between x and y, x and m, and m and y are all
significant in bivariate tests of correlation. In the next step, according to the James and Brett
(1984), first testing the model y=f(m) and then the model y=f(m,x), m can be seen as com-
pletely mediating the relationship between x and y if the added effect of x (tested by the sig-
nificance of the R-squared change when x is added last) should be not significant in the linear
regression. A second approach, outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), and used, for instance
by Nerkar, McGrath and MacMillan (1996), proposes to compare the results of Model 1,
where y=f(x), with those of Model 2, where y=f(x,m). In this latter method, to support the in-
ference that m completely mediates the effect of x on y, the unstandardized coefficient B
x
should be significant in Model 1 but not significant in Model 2. Further, the unstandardized
coefficient B
m
in Model 2 should be significant. Both protocols are reported and compared in
the current study (see Table 6).
Throughout the paper we worked with both one- and two-tailed hypotheses. As critical values
of the one-tailed test procedures always exceed that of the two-tailed test procedures, we leave
out the one-tailed results for ease of presentation. Also, the present study is exploratory in na-
ture, and although we hypothesize a particular direction in some cases, we do not rule out the
possibility that effects can be in either direction.
RESULTS
Factor Analysis and Scale Formation for Business Accomplishments
Table 4 presents a seven-factor solution for the different business accomplishment items in-
cluded in the questionnaire. Although the Eigenvalues for factors 6 and 7 are relatively low
(0.92 and 0.79, respectively), seven factors are specified to have a better view of the inde-
pendence of several of the business accomplishments, providing support for the decision to
separately include these accomplishments in further analyses. Including the most important
items (with factor loadings ? 0.60), Cronbach’s Alpha amounts to 0.64, 0.52 and 0.51 for fac-
tors 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Although these reliabilities are not particularly high, Factors 1
and 2, in particular, appear fairly reasonable to interpret on the basis of their content. Factors 4
to 7 are made up of one item only. Although Acquirer and Turnaround Artist load on the same
25
factor (Factor 3), they are included separately in the analyses because of a low face validity
for the factor: acquiring a business does not necessarily imply that the purchased firm is in
distress and needs to be ‘saved’. Also, someone saving a failing business is not necessarily a
business owner, but can be a manager.
______________________
Table 4 here
______________________
Eight business accomplishment variables are identified for further analyses: Small Business
Person (consisting of Founder, Runner and Owner), ‘Corporate’ Entrepreneur (consisting of
Intrapreneur, Innovator and Champion), Acquirer, Turnaround Artist, Franchisee, Industry
Captain, Service Provider, and Family Business. The business accomplishment, Take-Off Art-
ist, is omitted from further analyses because it did not clearly load on any of the seven factors
specified.
Descriptive and Bivariate Statistics
Table 5 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients between the major
variables in this study.
_______________________
Table 5 about here
_______________________
Test for H1: Relationships between Business Accomplishments and Entrepreneurial
Self-Image
H1 is tested first by examining the relationships between each of the business accomplish-
ments and Entrepreneurial Self-Image. Though no predictions are made a priori, reviewing the
bivariate correlation statistics presented in Table 5 provides support for the relationship be-
tween Entrepreneurial Self-Image and three of the business accomplishment variables, includ-
ing Small Business Person (r=0.56, p