International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0553-0

BThink entrepreneur - think male^: a task and relationship

scale to measure gender stereotypes in entrepreneurship

Ana Laguía 1 & Cristina García-Ael 1 & Dominika Wach 2 & Juan A. Moriano 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Building on the think manager – think male paradigm, this study tested the psycho-
metric properties of an BEntrepreneurial Task and Relationship^ (ETR) scale to assess
gender stereotypes in entrepreneurship. The sample was composed of 1056 non-
entrepreneurs and 178 entrepreneurs. Non-entrepreneurs rated the characteristics of:
1) a successful entrepreneur (n = 348); 2) a successful female entrepreneur (n = 360);
and 3) a successful male entrepreneur (n = 348). Entrepreneurs rated to what extent
they ascribe themselves entrepreneurial characteristics. Results revealed psychometric
adequacy of a two-dimensional 13-item ETR scale to be invariant across different study
conditions, non-entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs, as well as male and female partici-
pants. As with management, entrepreneurship is perceived as strongly associated with
task orientation. The think entrepreneur – think male paradigm applies to entrepreneur-
ship, highlighting the need for more awareness of gender stereotypes in that context.
Implications of our study can be derived on entrepreneurship education and towards
policy makers and media to promote a non-stereotyped image of entrepreneurship and
foster this career option, particularly among women.

Keywords Entrepreneurship . Gender . Stereotypes . Female entrepreneurs

* Ana Laguía
aglaguia@psi.uned.es

Cristina García-Ael
cgarciaael@psi.uned.es

Dominika Wach
dominika.wach@tu-dresden.de
Juan A. Moriano
jamoriano@psi.uned.es

1
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad
Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), C/ Juan del Rosal 10, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Technische
Universität Dresden, Zellescher Weg 17, 01069 Dresden, Germany
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Introduction

The rate of entrepreneurial activity in women is lower than the rate in men across most
countries worldwide. Out of 64 economies analysed in the last Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor report (GEM 2017), only in three (Indonesia, Brazil and Malaysia) women
reported equal or higher entrepreneurship rates than men. While in the factor-driven
economies (e.g., Latin America and the Caribbean) the average female rates are the
highest, in the innovation-driven economies such as Europe, female engagement in
early-stage entrepreneurial activity and gender parity are particularly low (only six
women involved in early-stage entrepreneurship for every ten-male entrepreneurs).
Entrepreneurship has been proposed to be one possible career path that alleviates
problems women face in the traditional workplace; for instance, work-family conflict,
barriers to their advancement based on stereotypical beliefs, negatively skewed perfor-
mance evaluations when compared to men, glass ceiling, poorer chances of being
promoted than their male counterparts, penalization for their success by being disliked
and interpersonally derogated, backlash against successful women or less available
opportunities for mentorship and networking within organizations compared to men
(Heilman and Chen 2003). Indeed, women are more likely to start businesses triggered
by necessity (no other options for work) rather than pursuing an opportunity as a basis
for their entrepreneurial motivation (Singer et al. 2018; van der Zwan et al. 2016). Even
though entrepreneurship holds promise for better career opportunities for women than
wage employment, it still does not protect women from stereotyping, particularly at the
very beginning (Brush et al. 2018b; Heilman and Chen 2003). With respect to
entrepreneurship ecosystem factors, women are at a disadvantage in comparison with
men. In this regard, women do not have equal access to resources, participation,
networks of growth capital finance, support or chances of a successful outcome
(Brush et al. 2018a). Although women entrepreneurs have made some progress in
attracting venture capital over the past decade, a significant gender gap still exists
(Brush et al. 2018b). Moreover, network connectivity and social capital distribution
differ significantly between male and female entrepreneurs (Neumeyer et al. 2018); for
instance, female entrepreneurs show higher scores of bridging social capital in lifestyle
and survival venture networks whereas male entrepreneurs exhibit higher scores in
aggressive- and managed-growth networks.
Psychosocial and organizational research has revealed the impact of gender
stereotypes (socially consensual beliefs about typical traits of women and men) on
evaluations about professional men and women (Broverman et al. 1972). Specifical-
ly, many scholars argue that the typical characteristics of women (feminine) and men
(masculine), as well as their traditional roles (men as providers vs. women as
homemakers) spill over into the workplace, leading to discrimination against women
in leadership positions (Eagly 1987) or in entrepreneurship (e.g., Bigelow et al. 2014;
Brush et al. 2018b). For decades, research on gender and leadership has shown that
the persistent link between successful managerial stereotypes and masculine traits or
the task-oriented leadership style (Bthink manager – think male^ stereotype, Schein
1973) has a negative impact on perception and evaluation of women leaders. As with
research in managerial jobs, entrepreneur’s activities have also been traditionally
associated to masculine traits (Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ paradigm, e.g., de
Pillis and Meilich 2006; Gupta et al. 2009) or to the directive leadership style (Gupta
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

et al. 2014). In fact, research on this perspective has shown that gender stereotypes
have a negative impact on women’s intention to bind their professional career to
entrepreneurship (Gupta et al. 2008, 2009). Gender stereotypes may also explain a
lower percentage of women than men to believe themselves to have the required
knowledge and skills to start a business (Allen et al. 2007) as well as may affect
decision-making of suppliers, clients and other members of entrepreneurs’ networks
(de Pillis and Meilich 2006; Heilman and Chen 2003) or make financing and growing
women’s businesses more difficult (Alsos et al. 2006; Gatewood et al. 2009).
To better understand the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ paradigm, reliable
measures of gender stereotypes are needed. Most measuring instruments used in the
studies of the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ paradigm have focused on a combi-
nation of feminine and masculine characteristics to demonstrate the effect of gender
stereotypes in entrepreneurship (de Pillis and Meilich 2006; Gupta et al. 2009; Hancock
et al. 2014). Nevertheless, personality traits can be seen as irrelevant and the feminine
characteristics do not well describe entrepreneurs (Ahl 2006). In our view, existing
instruments addressing the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ paradigm disregard
entrepreneurs’ specific competencies encompassing a set of skills and abilities neces-
sary to create and manage a new business (Man et al. 2008; Mitchelmore and Rowley
2013). Therefore, the main purpose of the current study is to introduce task and
relationship orientation into entrepreneurship to better capture the Bthink entrepreneur
– think male^ paradigm. The BEntrepreneurial Task and Relationship^ (ETR) scale we
propose and validate in two Spanish samples is aimed to measure gender stereotypes
within entrepreneurship. The ETR scale is derived from a task and relationship
orientation scale to measure gender stereotypes within the Bthink manager – think
male^ framework (García-Ael et al. 2013). We test the factor validity and reliability of
the ETR scale in a sample including men and women non-entrepreneurs across three
different conditions (a successful entrepreneur, a successful female entrepreneur and a
successful male entrepreneur)1 as well as in a sample of entrepreneurs.

Think manager – think male

Since the 1970s, the Bthink manager – think male^ paradigm dominates the research on
gender-typed perceptions of the managerial role (Schein 1973). Research on this
perspective has consistently proved that characteristics, attitudes and temperaments of
successful middle managers are more commonly ascribed to men in general than to
women (Schein 1973, 1975) in countries as different as U.S., Japan, China or European
countries (Schein et al. 1996; Schein and Mueller 1992).
The Bthink manager – think male^ phenomenon has been proposed to foster bias
against women in different career moments: managerial selection, placement, promo-
tion and training decisions and sex role stereotyping is considered a major psycholog-
ical barrier to the advancement of women (Schein 2001). Since the 1970s, diverse
instruments were developed to measure stereotypical attitudes towards professional
women. Nevertheless, the scale developed by Schein (Schein Descriptive Index, SDI;

1
We focused on these three conditions following previous research on leadership context (e.g., Heilman et al.
1989; Sczesny et al. 2004) and entrepreneurial context (e.g., de Pillis and Meilich 2006).
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Schein 1973) marked the Bthink manager – think male^ stereotype by showing that
men and women (managers) associate the stereotype of a successful manager to male
characteristics. A decade later, two important findings have taken place within this
framework. First, it was found that female managers and female students perceive
women and men to possess similarly characteristics required of successful management
while male managers and male students maintain the same perspective that was found
in the first studies in the 1970s (Schein 2001; Brenner et al. 1989; Deal and Stevenson
1998; Booysen and Nkomo 2006). Second, when explicit statement of success was
provided (successful men/women managers vs. men/women managers), the perceived
dissimilarity between men and women as managers diminished (Heilman et al. 1989).
Since then and up to today, studies testing the Bthink manager – think male^
paradigm have been carried out with different samples (e.g., university students, real
leaders). These studies focused typically either on 1) successful men and women
managers or 2) men and women managers in general. Within the first research line,
gender stereotypes are linked to the requirements for success in executive positions
(e.g., Booysen and Nkomo 2010). The second research line focalizes on gender and
leadership style examining whether women and men leaders are perceived to show a
more task-oriented or relationship-oriented leadership (Sczesny 2003; García-Ael et al.
2012, 2013; Sczesny et al. 2004).
Results of both lines of research showed that the stereotype of a successful leader is
associated to a larger extent to male traits (e.g., Heilman et al. 1989) and the task-
oriented leadership style (e.g., Sczesny 2003) than to female characteristics and the
relationship-oriented leadership style. Likewise, the Bthink manager – think male^
stereotype is more exacerbated when men leaders are described, especially by male
evaluators. Women leaders, however, are perceived in a more androgynous way
(combination of male and female traits) mainly on behalf of women evaluators (see
meta-analysis, Koenig et al. 2011).

Think entrepreneur – think male

The Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ paradigm suggests that the typical entrepreneur
is stronger associated to masculine characteristics (e.g., ambitious, self-confident) than
to feminine ones (e.g., kind, sensible) (Hancock et al. 2014). The majority of studies
conducted on this perspective have revealed that entrepreneurs are characterised by
masculine attributes such as willing to take risks, competitive or strong need of
achievement (Marlow 2002; Ahl 2006; Gupta et al. 2009), whereas some feminine
traits are not mentioned at all (e.g., shy) (Gupta and Fernández 2009).
As with the Bthink manager – think male^ paradigm, perceptions about entrepre-
neurs are often influenced by gender, such that male and female entrepreneurs are
perceived to be significantly different in how they manage and grow their new
businesses (Marlow and McAdam 2012). For example, female entrepreneurs are said
to be more focused on developing relationships (Daniel 2004). However, traits as
assertiveness or decisiveness are also perceived as positive attributes for female
entrepreneurs (Baron et al. 2001), even though they are not viewed as typical for
women (Prentice and Carranza 2002). On the other hand, women have been found to
perceive the successful entrepreneur in a different way than men do. For instance,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Gupta et al. (2009) reported women are significantly more likely to link feminine
characteristics with entrepreneurial traits than men. Women also seem to evaluate female
entrepreneurs more positively than male entrepreneurs, ascribing them greater self-
control and higher ambition as compared to gender-unspecified entrepreneurs (de Pillis
and Meilich 2006). Notably, stereotypical feminine characteristics such as Bhelpful^,
Baware of feelings of others^ or Bunderstanding^ are also perceived to be typical of
entrepreneurs; however, this is seen to a lesser degree (Gupta and Fernández 2009).
In the last decades, researchers have begun to analyse to what extent leadership
styles in entrepreneurship vary across genders. Research evidence suggests female
entrepreneurs are more likely to make use of a feminine and participative leadership
style and tend to delegate more tasks than male entrepreneurs (Verheul and Thurik
2001; Minniti 2009). Remarkably, female entrepreneurs are perceived as more effective
when they use a directive leadership style, associated with dominance and assertiveness
(Snavely and McNeill 2008), than a participative one, whereas leadership style seems
to have no effect on attitudes towards male entrepreneurs (Gupta et al. 2014).

Present research

Our study focuses on validating the ETR scale to measure the Bthink entrepreneur
– think male^ paradigm, which comprises two dimensions, task and relationship
orientation, as opposed to general personality traits of masculine/feminine stereo-
types (e.g., Gupta et al. 2009). While general personality traits can be seen as
irrelevant or even misleading in the fields of leadership (e.g., Sczesny 2003) and
entrepreneurship (e.g., Rauch and Frese 2007), the feminine personal characteris-
tics do not well describe entrepreneurs, or even they are just the opposite of the
entrepreneurship domain (Ahl 2006).
In comparison with the Bthink manager – think male^ paradigm (Sczesny 2003;
García-Ael et al. 2013), which has been extensively studied in the leadership domain,
research on gender stereotypes within entrepreneurship is still scarce. With the aim to
improve the understanding of the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ phenomenon, we
adapt the scale developed by García-Ael et al. (2013) to measure task and relationship
orientation in leadership into the field of entrepreneurship. The fields of entrepreneur-
ship and leadership theoretically converge in several areas, although entrepreneurship is
a younger field that might benefit from leadership research (Cogliser and Brigham
2004; Vecchio 2003). For example, entrepreneurs take advantage of opportunities and
convince others about the feasibility, strength and value of their business ideas. These
attempts to influence can be assigned equally to any manager in established organiza-
tions. However, contrary to management involving largely routine administration (e.g.,
decision making and control of others), entrepreneurship illustrates the perception and
exploitation of new opportunities in the realm of business (Hartman 1959). Further-
more, in comparison with managers, (solo)entrepreneurs must play multiple roles in a
business, including management (general manager, sales manager and so on), market-
ing, planning or leadership (Onstenk 2003; Fuller-Love 2006). As these fields present
similarities and dissimilarities, our aim is to analyse the adaptation of a scale from the
Bthink manager – think male^ paradigm into the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^
phenomenon.
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

In order to validate our adaptation of the ETR scale, we first analyse its
psychometric properties and its invariance across different study conditions,
non-entrepreneur and entrepreneur samples, as well as male and female partici-
pants. Drawing on the validated scale, we expect to test the following hypotheses
based on the revision of the literature:

Hypothesis 1a: Non-entrepreneurs will consider task orientation as more charac-

teristic of successful entrepreneurship than relationship orientation.
Hypothesis 1b: Entrepreneurs will perceive themselves as more task-oriented than
relationship-oriented.
Hypothesis 2a: Non-entrepreneurs will consider successful male entrepreneurs and
successful entrepreneurs as more task-oriented than successful female
entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 2b: Male entrepreneurs will perceive themselves as more task-oriented
than female entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 3a: Non-entrepreneurs will consider successful female entrepreneurs as
more relationship-oriented than successful male entrepreneurs and successful
entrepreneurs.
Hypothesis 3b: Female entrepreneurs will perceive themselves as more
relationship-oriented than male entrepreneurs.

In sum, our aim is to adapt and validate a task and relationship orientation scale to
measure gender stereotypes from the Bthink manager – think male^ framework
into the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ perspective in two samples (non-
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs). In so doing, we identify the most relevant items
for entrepreneurship and avoid long traits inventories. This study is carried out in
Spain, where the rate of entrepreneurial activity in women (TEA = 5.8% in 2017)
is lower than the rate in men (TEA = 6.8%) (Peña et al. 2018), as occurs in most
countries (GEM 2017). Although this gap has decreased since 2013, women keep
scoring lower than men in perceptions related to becoming an entrepreneur (e.g.,
capability perceptions), while they score higher than men regarding inhibitors to
entrepreneurship (e.g., fear of failure). Most of the studies conducted in the
Spanish context have focused on factors related to entrepreneurial intentions
(Liñán et al. 2011; Moriano et al. 2012), and less attention has been paid so far
to gender and entrepreneurship (Hancock et al. 2014).

Method

Procedure and participants

Data were collected in 2016 and 2017 in Spain. All study participants filled out an online
questionnaire, which guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. Questionnaire completion
took approximately 17 min. We received 1804 questionnaires, although 12% indicated
they decline to participate or abandoned. We discarded questionnaires where relevant
demographic data were missing (i.e., sex, age, employment status) and questionnaires with
missing data in the 25-item ETR scale.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

The final sample consisted of 1056 Spanish participants who were not entre-
preneurs at the moment of completing the questionnaire and 178 entrepreneurs
(solo or with partners). Non-entrepreneurs were on average 34.80 years old (SD = 10.07),
55.7% were women and 68.1% had university degrees (20.2% were still students). The
group of entrepreneurs was slightly older (M = 40.54, SD = 9.74), better educated
(75% with a university degree) and comprised significantly fewer women (39.9%) and
student participants (11.2%). Most participants were from Madrid (25.1% of non-
entrepreneurs and 21.3% of entrepreneurs), and other main cities (e.g., Barcelona,
Zaragoza, Valencia and Seville, 30.1% of non-entrepreneurs and 29.8% of entrepreneurs).

Measures

We developed the ETR scale based on the scale of García-Ael et al. (2013) to measure
task- and relationship-oriented leadership styles. The original scale is composed of one
task-oriented factor including 14 items (e.g., Bcompetent^, Bself-confident^, Bable to
work in teams^) and one relationship-oriented factor containing 11 items (e.g., Bable to
motivate others^, Bunderstanding^, Bsincere^). We only changed one item: we replaced
the characteristic Bsensitive to the needs of co-workers^ by one referring to Bcustomers’
needs^, which better fit entrepreneurship.
The answering format was a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all
typical) to 5 (Very typical); this was the same as the original scale. Three versions of the
questionnaire matched the three conditions. The instruction was formulated as follows:
To what extent do you consider that these characteristics and behaviours are typical of
successful entrepreneurs / successful female entrepreneurs / successful male entrepre-
neurs? In the successful entrepreneur condition, we omitted information about the
sex of the entrepreneur. The non-entrepreneur participants were randomly assigned to
one of the three conditions, i.e., successful entrepreneur (n = 348, 55.7% female
participants), successful female entrepreneur (n = 360, 58.9% female participants) and
successful male entrepreneur (n = 348, 55.7% female participants). We found no
significant differences among these conditions regarding participants’ age, F (2,
1053) = 1.210, p = .298; sex, χ2 (2, N = 1056) = 2.859, p = .239; and education (no
university, university degree, master/PhD), χ2 (4, N = 1056) = 3.496, p = .478.
Participants who are entrepreneurs were instructed to report how characteristics
included in the ETR scale were typical of themselves.

Data analyses

Descriptive statistics were performed with the program SPSS 19 (see Table 3). Prior to
testing our hypotheses (H1a to H3b), we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses, as well as multigroup invariance tests to explore the equivalence of the ETR
scale in different conditions. An exploratory factor analysis was performed using the
FACTOR software (Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando 2006). Two ETR scale dimensions
were extracted using the polychoric correlations matrix, parallel analysis method and
robust unweighted least squares with the oblique promin rotation.
To test the hypothesised two-factor underlying structure of the ETR scale, we
conducted invariance analyses using AMOS 22 program and maximum likelihood
estimation. Given the sensitivity of the chi-square statistic to the sample size, we
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

considered a combination of adjustment indices to evaluate the model fit such as the
index RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Aproximation), the relative adjustment
index CFI (Comparative Fit Index) and the AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index). A
good fit would have values close to .95 for CFI and .90 for AGFI (the perfect fit would
be indicated by the value 1), and .05 for RMSEA (values around .08 represent a
reasonable error of approximation to the population, values above .10 are indicative of
an inadequate approximation) (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Browne and Cudeck 1993).
Together with these indices, we considered the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
for model comparisons, so that the most adequate model is considered to be the one
with the lowest value in this parameter.
To examine scale invariance, we employed multigroup analyses; here we calculated
configural, metric and scalar invariance for the three questionnaire conditions (success-
ful entrepreneur / successful female entrepreneur / successful male entrepreneur). We
also tested invariance of the ETR scale across participants’ sex (female vs. male
participants). First, we examined the configural invariance model by estimating the
same model in all groups without cross-groups constraints. Then, we tested metric
invariance i.e., that each of the items saturates in an equivalent way in the same factor
in all groups, restricting that the factor loading of each item is equivalent in all the
groups. Finally, scalar invariance was calculated by constraining equivalent intercepts.
In case full invariance is not achieved, partial invariance can be still tested by freeing
some parameters (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998); when at least two items per
factor exhibit metric and scalar invariance, comparisons of means across groups can
then be conducted. The comparison among models is based on changes in the indices
CFI and RMSEA. A change of ≥ − .010 in CFI supplemented by a change of ≥ .015 in
RMSEA would indicate noninvariance (Chen 2007).

Results

Factor structure of the ETR scale

Item characteristics

All 25 items of the ETR scale showed acceptable values for asymmetry and kurtosis for
the overall sample. Only three items showed values slightly over 1 for the entrepreneurs’
sample: Bsensitive to the needs of their clients^, Bsincere^ and Bready to work overtime^.
The item Bambitious^ showed a slight departure from normality in the conditions
successful entrepreneur and successful male entrepreneur. Most of the task-oriented
characteristics (stereotypically masculine) received the highest assessments (e.g., Bself-
confidence^, Bmake decisions easily^ or Bready to work overtime^), while most of the
relationship-oriented characteristics (stereotypically feminine) exhibited the lowest as-
sessments (e.g., Blets their feelings run away with them^ or Baggressive^- reversed item).

Exploratory factor analysis

We selected the non-entrepreneur sample to conduct exploratory factor analysis. The

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test value was .91, which indicated the matrix was well suited to
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

factor analysis. The Bartlett test of sphericity, χ2 (300) = 9406.5, p < .001, supported the
model was significant (Table 1).
All items loaded on the factors proposed in the original leadership scale
provided by García-Ael et al. (2013) with exception of the items Bable to work
in teams^ and Bable to delegate^ (superscript a in Table 1). We excluded four items
from subsequent analyses (superscript b in Table 1): two items (Blets their feelings
run away with them^ and Bintelligent^) which did not achieve the recommended
cut-off value of .40 and two further items (Bambitious^ and Btry to impose their
ideas^) that showed cross-loadings.

Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis of the ETR scale

Relationship-Orientation Task-Orientation

Make decisions easily .78

Self-confident .71
Negotiation skills .70
Able to cope with stress .69
Adaptable .67
Ready to take risks .66
Assertive (firm and energetic) .65
Deep knowledge of their work .62
Ambitiousb −.53 .62
Efficient .62
Competent in their work .60
Ready to work overtime .59
Intelligentb .38
Understanding .86
Sincere .82
Share their knowledge .69
Able to motivate their employees .52
Agreeable .51
Individualistic −.50
Aggressive −.48
Able to work in teamsa .48
Able to delegatea .47
Try to impose their own ideas on othersb −.46 .31
Sensitive to the needs of their clients .44
Lets their feelings run away with themb .38

Variance explained 30.07% 15.90%

Correlation between factors .33

N = 1056. Values under .30 are omitted. Final ETR scale items are marked in bold
a Items loading on the opposite factor than proposed by García-Ael et al. (2013)
b Items deleted from the ETR scale
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Confirmatory factor analyses

Using the remaining 21 items, we tested several alternative models within the non-
entrepreneur sample, regardless of the three different questionnaire conditions
(Table 2). We first tested the hypothesised two-factor model of the ETR scale
(Model 1), followed by an alternative unifactorial model (Model 2) in which all
items loaded on one latent factor. The model fit was much better for Model 1
(CFI = .83, AGFI = .84, RMSEA = .08, AIC = 1589.43) than for Model 2 (CFI = .61,
AGFI = .61, RMSEA = .12, AIC = 3242.83). In Model 1, both CFI and AGFI values
were higher, while RMSEA and AIC values were lower, thus showing better adjustment.
To further increase the model fit to the data, we excluded the items Bindividualistic^ and
Baggressive^ presenting low factor loadings, as well as three items related to working in
groups (Bable to work in teams^, Bable to delegate^ and Bable to motivate their
employees^) from the relationship factor (see refined Model 3, CFI = .91, AGFI = .89,
RMSEA = .07, AIC = 737.11). We considered these three items to be less appropriate to
entrepreneurship, since in the early stages it is usually one person (solo entrepreneur) or
a small group of people who create and manage a company. Finally, to keep balance in
the number of items assigned into task and relationship factors, we deleted three items
from the task orientation dimension: Bdeep knowledge of their work^, Bcompetent in
their work^ and Befficient^ (Model 4). These items demonstrated low mean values
indicating their minor relevancy in entrepreneurial contexts. Conducted adjustments
considerably increased the fit of the final Model 4 (CFI = .94, AGFI = .93, RMSEA = .07,
AIC = 409.66). Thus, this 13-item model (Model 4; task orientation: Bmake decisions
easily^, Bself-confident^, Bnegotiation skills^, Bable to cope with stress^, Badaptable^,
Bready to take risks^, Bassertive^ and Bready to work overtime^; relationship orientation:
Bunderstanding^, Bsincere^, Bshare their knowledge^, Bagreeable^ and Bsensitive to the
needs of their clients^) is used for subsequent analyses (final ETR scale items are also
marked in bold in Table 1).

ETR scale reliability and validity

Reliability of task and relationship dimensions of the ETR scale was considered
satisfactory in all three conditions, for male and female participants as well as for the
group of entrepreneurs (Table 3). Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency ranged from
.73 to .85, composite reliability from .83 to .89. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
values either exceeded the recommended value of .50 (Hair et al. 2006) or were close to
that value (over .40). Both factors, task orientation and relationship orientation, corre-
lated positively and significantly ranging from .24 to .34 and correlations were lower
than the square root of the AVE, thus confirming discriminant validity between these
two ETR scale dimensions (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Invariance of the ETR scale across different questionnaire conditions

To test the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ paradigm within the conditions successful
entrepreneur, successful female entrepreneur and successful male entrepreneur, we first
examined the goodness of the model fit (final Model 4, Table 2) separately for each
condition. As presented in Table 3, in all three conditions, the CFI, AGFI and RMSEA
Table 2 Comparisons among alternative models

χ2 p Δχ2 df CFI AGFI RMSEA AIC ΔAIC Model comparison

Model 1: Bifactorial model 1503.43 < .001 – 188 .83 .84 .08 1589.43 – –
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Model 2: Alternative unifactorial model 3158.83 < .001 1655.40 189 .61 .61 .12 3242.83 1653.40 Model 2 - Model 1
Model 3: Bifactorial model (five items deleted from relationship factor) 671.11 < .001 −832.32 103 .91 .89 .07 737.11 −852.32 Model 3 - Model 1
Model 4: Final model (re-specified bifactorial model with 13 items) 355.66 < .001 −315.45 64 .94 .93 .07 409.66 −327.45 Model 4 - Model 3

N = 1056
Table 3 Comparisons among conditions, reliability and correlations (based on re-specified bifactorial model with 13 items, Model 4, Table 2)

χ 2/df p CFI AGFI RMSEA Factor Cronbach’s alpha Composite AVE Mean SD Pearson correlation
reliability

Successful entrepreneur condition 1 2.36 < .001 .93 .90 .06 Task .78 .84 .40 4.29 0.42 .34***
Relationship .80 .87 .57 3.35 0.68
Successful female entrepreneur condition 2 2.20 < .001 .96 .92 .06 Task .85 .89 .50 4.20 0.52 .31***
Relationship .83 .88 59 3.66 0.67
Successful male entrepreneur condition 3 2.77 < .001 .92 .89 .07 Task .82 .86 .44 4.26 0.46 .26***
Relationship .79 .85 .54 3.16 0.67
Male participants 3.15 < .001 .92 .91 .07 Task .80 .86 .43 4.19 0.47 .24***
Relationship .80 .86 .56 3.33 0.68
Female participants 3.63 < .001 .94 .92 .07 Task .83 .87 .47 4.29 0.47 .28***
Relationship .84 .88 .61 3.44 0.72
Self-assessment entrepreneurs 1.83 < .001 .91 .91 .07 Task .79 .85 .42 3.98 0.56 .31***
Relationship .73 .83 .49 4.28 0.52

n successful entrepreneur = 348. n successful female entrepreneur = 360. n successful male entrepreneur = 348. n male participants = 468. n female participants = 588. n entrepreneurs = 178
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

are acceptable to satisfactory: successful entrepreneur (CFI = .93, AGFI = .90,

RMSEA = .06), successful female entrepreneur (CFI = .96, AGFI = .92, RMSEA = .06)
and successful male entrepreneur (CFI = .92, AGFI = .89, RMSEA = .07).
Further, we aimed to establish the configural, metric and scalar invariance of the
ETR scale across different conditions (Table 4). To obtain the configural invariance we
estimated factor loadings unrestricted among the three groups (i.e., conditions). This
model shows satisfactory CFI and RMSEA (Model A: CFI = .936, RMSEA = .037). In
the next step, we tested the metric invariance of the ETR scale by restricting the factor
loadings to be equivalent among the three groups. Constraining factor loadings of the
items to be equal across the groups shows no significant deterioration of the model fit
(Model B: ΔCFI = .000, ΔRMSEA = −.002). We also tested scalar invariance by
assuming all intercepts to be equal (Model C: ΔCFI = −.036, ΔRMSEA = .006). As
Model C significantly deteriorated, full scalar invariance cannot be assumed across
conditions in this sample. However, partial scalar invariance was obtained by freeing
intercepts (Model D: ΔCFI = −.010, ΔRMSEA = .002), such that at least two items per
dimension exhibited scalar invariance.

Invariance of the ETR scale across participants’ sex and ETR scale adequacy
within entrepreneurs’ sample

The two-factor ETR scale structure fits well both male (CFI = .92, AGFI = .91,
RMSEA = .07) and female (CFI = .94, AGFI = .92, RMSEA = .07) participants
(Table 3). The invariance across the female and male participants was empirically
supported (Table 5). The fit indices of the three increasingly restrictive models, i.e., the
unconstrained configural model (Model E: CFI = .933, RMSEA = .048), the metric
invariance model (Model F: ΔCFI = .000, ΔRMSEA = −.003) and the scalar invari-
ance model (Model G: ΔCFI = −.005, ΔRMSEA = .000) were satisfactory; no signif-
icant deterioration of the model was observed.
Moreover, the two-factor model reasonably fit the group of entrepreneurs (CFI = .91,
AGFI = .91, RMSEA = .07), who self-assessed on the ETR scale (see Table 3, last row).

Hypotheses testing

Successful entrepreneurship was perceived by non-entrepreneurs as more task-oriented

(stereotypically masculine, M = 4.25, SD = 0.47) than relationship-oriented (stereo-
typically feminine, M = 3.39, SD = 0.70), tpaired (1055) = 37.872, p < .001, thus
supporting Hypothesis 1a. To the contrary, our sample of entrepreneurs self-
perceived themselves as more relationship-oriented (M = 4.28, SD = 0.52) than
task-oriented (M = 3.98, SD = 0.56), tpaired (177) = 6.269, p < .001 (Table 3, H1b
rejected).
To test Hypothesis 2a, we conducted a 3 (condition - successful entrepreneurs’ sex:
in general, female or male) × 2 (participant’s sex: female vs. male) univariate analysis
of variance (ANOVA) on task orientation for the non-entrepreneurs sample. Bonferroni
tests were applied to analyse multiple comparisons. Results showed a main effect of
condition, F(2, 1050) = 5.23, p = .01, ηp2 = .01, such that successful entrepreneurs were
perceived to exhibit a higher task orientation (M = 4.29, SD = 0.42) than successful
female entrepreneurs (M = 4.20, SD = 0.52, p = .01); there was no significant difference
Table 4 Testing invariance among the conditions successful entrepreneur, successful female entrepreneur and successful male entrepreneur (based on re-specified bifactorial model
with 13 items, Model 4, Table 2)

χ2 df p CFI RMSEA Model comparison Δχ2 p ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

Model A: Configural invariance 468.696 192 < .001 .936 .037 – – – – –

Model B: Metric invariance 491.778 214 < .001 .936 .035 Model B - Model A 23.082 .397 .000 −.002
Model C: Scalar invariance 673.431 240 < .001 .900 .041 Model C - Model B 181.652 < .001 −.036 .006
Model D: 544.084 222 < .001 .926 .037 Model D - Model B 52.305 < .001 −.010 .002
Partial scalar invariance

n successful entrepreneur = 348. n successful female entrepreneur = 360. n successful male entrepreneur = 348
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
Table 5 Testing invariance between female and male study participants (based on re-specified bifactorial model with 13 items, Model 4, Table 2)

χ2 df p CFI RMSEA Model comparison Δχ2 p ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Model E: Configural invariance 433.752 128 < .001 .933 .048 – – – – –

Model F: Metric invariance 442.042 139 < .001 .933 .045 Model F - Model E 8.290 .687 .000 −.003
Model G: Scalar invariance 476.482 152 < .001 .928 .045 Model G - Model F 34.440 .001 −.005 .000
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

between these conditions and successful male entrepreneurs (M = 4.26, SD = 0.46) (p =

1.00 and p = .60, respectively). A main effect of participants’ sex was found, F(1,
1050) = 13.60, p < .001, ηp2 = .01, such that female participants (M = 4.29, SD = 0.47)
ascribed more task orientation to the entrepreneurs than male participants (M = 4.19,
SD = 0.47). The interaction effect was significant as well, F(2, 1050) = 4.75, p = .01,
ηp2 = .01, such that male participants considered task orientation to be less
pronounced in successful female entrepreneurs (M = 4.06, SD = 0.52) than in
successful entrepreneurs (M = 4.26, SD = 0.43, p = .001) or successful male
entrepreneurs (M = 4.24, SD = 0.43, p = .002). On the contrary, female
participants did not exhibit differences across conditions. Taken together, these
results partially support H2a. Regarding the entrepreneurs sample, both female
and male participants perceived themselves similarly in task orientation
(Mfemales = 3.94, Mmales = 4.00), t(176) = .66, p = .51, thus not supporting Hypothesis 2b.
Similarly, a 3 (condition - successful entrepreneurs’ sex: in general, female or male)
× 2 (participant’s sex: female vs. male) ANOVA was conducted on the relationship
orientation for the non-entrepreneurs sample, using Bonferroni tests to analyse multiple
comparisons. Results showed a main effect of condition, F(2, 1050) = 45.89, p < .001,
ηp2 = .08, such that successful female entrepreneurs were perceived to have higher
relationship orientation (M = 3.66, SD = 0.67) than successful entrepreneurs (M = 3.35,
SD = 0.68, p < .001) and successful male entrepreneurs (M = 3.16, SD = 0.68, p < .001),
which gives support to Hypothesis 3a. Moreover, successful entrepreneurs were also
perceived to be more relationship-oriented than successful male entrepreneurs
(p = .002). A main effect of participants’ sex was also found, F(1, 1050) = 4.85,
p = .03, ηp2 = .004, such that female participants (M = 3.44, SD = 0.72) ascribed more
relationship orientation to the entrepreneurs than male participants did (M = 3.33, SD =
0.68). Additionally, the interaction between entrepreneurs’ sex and participants’ sex
was significant, F(2, 1050) = 8.81, p < .001, ηp2 = .02, such that female participants
considered relationship orientation being more characteristic for successful female
entrepreneurs (M = 3.76, SD = 0.70) than for successful entrepreneurs (M = 3.43,
SD = 0.64, p < .001) or successful male entrepreneurs (M = 3.09, SD = 0.65, p < .001).
Notably, the difference between successful entrepreneurs and successful male
entrepreneurs was also significant (p < .001). In a similar vein, male participants
considered successful female entrepreneurs (M = 3.52, SD = 0.61) to exhibit higher
relationship orientation than successful entrepreneurs (M = 3.25, SD = 0.71,
p = .001) and successful male entrepreneurs (M = 3.24, SD = 0.69, p = .001).
With respect to entrepreneurs, females self-assessed higher in relationship orien-
tation (M = 4.43, SD = 0.42) than males (M = 4.17, SD = 0.56), t(176) = −3.38,
p = .001, confirming Hypothesis 3b.

Discussion

Our study adapts and validates an BEntrepreneurial Task and Relationship^ (ETR) scale
to measure gender stereotypes in the context of entrepreneurship. This is highly
relevant to better understand and potentially approach the gender gap and gender
stereotypes in this domain. Our new ETR scale comprises the two-dimensional lead-
ership styles scale introduced by García-Ael et al. (2013) to capture the Bthink manager
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

– think male^ paradigm. In the current study, we test the Bthink entrepreneur – think
male^ paradigm, which proposes characteristics, attitudes and temperaments of suc-
cessful entrepreneurs to be more commonly ascribed to men than to women.
Overall, our results drawing on a Spanish sample composed of 1056 non-
entrepreneurs and 178 entrepreneurs show the 13-item ETR scale possesses satisfactory
factor validity as well as internal consistency reliability. This qualifies the ETR scale to
be applicable in entrepreneurial context. The obtained results based on exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses yield support for the ETR scale to be composed of two
underlying factors, that is, task and relationship orientation. The first factor (task
orientation) reflects traits and behaviours such as self-confidence and risk-taking,
stereotypically masculine. The second factor (relationship orientation) encompasses
traits and behaviours such as agreeableness and knowledge-sharing, stereotypically
feminine. Our multi-group analyses proved the ETR scale to be fully configural and
metric-invariant and partially scalar-invariant across three study conditions (i.e., suc-
cessful entrepreneur / successful female entrepreneur / successful male entrepreneur) as
well as fully invariant across male and female study participants. The ETR scale seems
also applicable for entrepreneurs’ self-evaluations; however, the adjustment was poorer
in this sample than in the sample of non-entrepreneurs. We believe our ETR scale
adequately measures gender stereotypes as proposed in the Bthink entrepreneur – think
male^ paradigm. Therefore, the ETR scale might be utilised to compare mean values on
the dimensions of task and relationship orientation across different groups and gender.
Consistent with our Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ approach and previous
literature, our results suggest that entrepreneurship is perceived by non-entrepreneurs
as stronger associated with task orientation (Bird and Brush 2002; Marlow 2002; Baron
et al. 2001) than with relationship orientation, supporting Hypothesis 1a. Most of the
task-oriented characteristics from the ETR scale received higher assessments (e.g.,
Bself-confidence^) than those relationship-oriented (e.g., Bunderstanding^). That con-
curs with Sczesny et al. (2004) who find executives-in-general are more often attributed
with task-oriented traits than with person-oriented traits. Interestingly, our sample of
entrepreneurs self-perceived themselves as more relationship- than task-oriented (H1b
rejected). In the field of leadership (Cuadrado 2004), both leaders and subordinates self-
perceive themselves to possess more expressive traits (stereotypically feminine) than
instrumental traits (stereotypically masculine). The possession of task- and relationship-
oriented attributes in the field of leadership (Schyns and Sczesny 2010) is also highly
correlated (r = .51, p < .01), as well as the importance attained to both types of attributes
(r = .51, p < .01). Our result in the field of entrepreneurship supports the importance of
considering both dimensions.
Non-entrepreneurs in our sample considered successful male entrepreneurs as more
task-oriented than successful female entrepreneurs, although successful entrepreneurs
did not differ from the other conditions, thus partially supporting Hypothesis 2a.
Further, male participants considered successful female entrepreneurs to be less task-
oriented than successful entrepreneurs and successful male entrepreneurs. Such results
illustrate gender stereotypes to exist in the context of entrepreneurship. Contrary to our
expectations and to the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ paradigm, male entrepreneurs
in our study did not self-perceive themselves as more task-oriented than female
entrepreneurs (H2b rejected). This harmonises with self-reports of male and female
leaders regarding their instrumental traits (Cuadrado 2004). Non-entrepreneurs, both
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

male and female participants, considered successful female entrepreneurs as more

relationship-oriented than successful male entrepreneurs and successful entrepreneurs
(supporting H3a). Female entrepreneurs did also perceive themselves as more
relationship-oriented than male entrepreneurs (H3b).

Implications

The ETR scale we validated might potentially be used by future studies interested in
deepening the knowledge of how the perception of entrepreneurs’ task and relationship
orientation affects decisions on career pathways. Gender plays a relevant role in
entrepreneurial intention (Díaz-García and Jiménez-Moreno 2010) as well as in entre-
preneurial orientation (Lim and Envick 2013). Thus, utilising our ETR scale and
informing students who are potential entrepreneurs about task and relationship orien-
tation as essential for entrepreneurship might likely increase their entrepreneurial
intentions. While potential entrepreneurs who see themselves higher in masculinity
place greater importance on status-based career satisfiers associated with business
ownership, individuals higher in femininity are more likely to value socioemotional
career satisfiers such as employee and customer relationships (Eddleston and Powell
2008). According to the lack of fit model in work settings (Heilman 2001), stereotyped
views of what women are like (prescriptive component of stereotypes) and the male sex
typing of roles and positions combine to elicit gender bias; in the field of entrepreneur-
ship, we consider this gender bias can influence financiers and other evaluators,
decreasing the chance of women to receive support to start a new business. For
instance, governmental venture capitalists make differences in funding distributions
between female and male entrepreneurs disadvantaging female entrepreneurs
(Malmström et al. 2017). Our study contributes here by highlighting that both task
and relationship dimensions are associated with entrepreneurship; particularly,
entrepreneurs consider the relationship component to be of utmost importance.
This way our results challenge the dominance of masculine models presented in
media and entrepreneurship education (Achtenhagen and Welter 2011; Ahl 2006;
Hamilton 2013).
In line with gender stereotypes, our relatively young participants (M = 34.80 years
old, 37.8% under 30) consistently perceived higher task orientation than relationship
orientation in the three conditions (successful entrepreneur / successful female entre-
preneur / successful male entrepreneur). To encourage participants high in relationship
orientation to pursue a career as entrepreneurs, and to prevent undermining female
entrepreneurs, we suggest utilising our ETR scale for reflecting and challenging own
gender stereotypes and beliefs. Entrepreneurs in our sample are somehow experts and
other participants are laypeople. It proves how important is to include both groups to
get a better understanding. It also gives first evidence that stereotypes and entrepre-
neurial reality differ.
Finally, as entrepreneurs are likely to manifest both masculine and feminine attri-
butes (Bird and Brush 2002) training should focus on the development of skills and
abilities that are not only predominantly masculine. Our ETR scale may allow to
measure the effects of interventions aimed at building a more gender neutral and
unbiased view on entrepreneurship. As entrepreneurship education is one of the key
instruments related to entrepreneurial intention (Liñán et al. 2011), promoting more
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

balanced models starting early in the formal education may foster entrepreneurial
actions and benefit both female and male entrepreneurs.

Limitations and future research

Our study suffers from several limitations, of which some might stimulate future
research. First, our study participants were randomly assigned to one of the three
conditions and we did not control for social desirability of their evaluations. As
participants considered task orientation to be more relevant in all conditions,
social desirability bias seems unlikely. To rule out that bias, particularly within
participants in the entrepreneurs sample, future studies should control for socially
desirable responding. Additionally, accounting for business sector, business size
and financial performance is highly recommendable while studying entrepreneurs’
self-evaluations of their task and relationship orientation. For instance, in some
sectors, task orientation might be particularly important and linked to success.
More generally, future studies should aim to replicate our results in larger and
more representative entrepreneurs samples.
Second limitation is monocultural character of our study. Although, we extend
previous research by including non-students from non-US context, cross-cultural
replication of the structure of the ETR scale is highly advisable. Particularly, we expect
differences in factor loadings and mean scores of task and relationship dimensions
when comparing our sample with gender egalitarian participants from Nordic cultural
cluster (House et al. 2004). Alike contextual variation of the Bthink manager – think
male^ phenomenon in management (Ryan et al. 2011), we expect context variables,
such as occupational setting of social or immigrant entrepreneurship, to affect the
Bthink entrepreneur – think male^ paradigm.
Third, since the entrepreneur stereotype is male, in the condition where the sex of the
entrepreneur is not specified, participants might tend to assume the entrepreneur to be a
man (de Pillis and Meilich 2006). In accordance with gender stereotypes and based on
availability heuristic, respondents’ perception might be affected even when recalling a
successful female entrepreneur. In this regard, future research might benefit from testing
whether both female and male participants assigned to the successful entrepreneurs
condition tend to recall a male entrepreneur; and whether the proportion of female
participants assigned to the successful female entrepreneurs condition who recall a female
entrepreneur is greater than the proportion of male participants (in the same condition).
As exposure to women in leadership positions can temporarily undermine
women’s automatic gender stereotypic beliefs (Dasgupta and Asgari 2004), we
posit that thinking about successful female entrepreneurs will also influence
female participants’ views on entrepreneurship by inhibiting the stereotype threat
that implies being a member of a negatively stereotyped group (Davies et al.
2005). Being confronted with successful female entrepreneurs via positive role
models presented in media and within education may enable women to perceive
better fit between their personalities and entrepreneurial career, increasing their
intentions to become entrepreneurs. This is particularly important as entrepreneur-
ial skills perceptions have a very significant effect over personal attraction,
subjective norms and perceived behavioral control which, in turn, influence
entrepreneurial intention (Liñán 2008). People who perceive they fit the
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

entrepreneur stereotype might become more confident they will make a good
entrepreneur and show higher intention to become entrepreneurs.
Results from distinct studies are not conclusive about the influence of biological sex
on entrepreneurial intentions, finding, only on occasions, significant differences be-
tween women and men. Incorporating gender perspective as a social construction in the
entrepreneurial context, as our research does, might help to better understand the
differences in entrepreneurial intentions between female and male participants. Taking
into account that entrepreneurship is associated to a greater extent with task compe-
tencies (stereotypically masculine) than relationship competencies (stereotypically
feminine), we consider that the availability of an adequate scale such as our ETR scale
allows researchers to explore how self-perception of task and relationship orientation
influence entrepreneurial intentions.
Unfortunately, our study does not offer any insights into differences between
entrepreneurial intention in women and men. Future studies should also address the
question whether female participants assigned to the successful female entrepreneurs
condition (in comparison to successful entrepreneurs or successful male entrepreneurs)
will present more positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship, more supporting subjec-
tive norms and higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Ajzen 1991). Particularly, entre-
preneurial self-efficacy is key for promoting entrepreneurship (Spagnoli et al. 2015)
and it may be influenced by gender or gender-orientation (e.g., Mueller and Conway
Dato-on 2013; Spagnoli et al. 2015). Future studies may also want to clarify if female
participants assigned to the successful female entrepreneurs condition (versus success-
ful entrepreneurs or successful male entrepreneurs) present a higher opportunity
motivation as opposed to necessity motivation characteristic for women in general
(Singer et al. 2018; van der Zwan et al. 2016).
We see the availability of the ETR scale as a first step to continue working on the
research line presented above. Unlike other studies (de Pillis and Meilich 2006;
Gupta and Fernández 2009) measuring the Bthink entrepreneur – think male^
paradigm via general inventories (e.g., assessment on characteristics such as
Bvulgar^ or Bneat^), our ETR scale focuses on aspects proximal to entrepreneurship
and captures items that are specific to the creation and management of a new
company. Those items that were either not specific to entrepreneurship, or applica-
ble to only limited number of entrepreneurs (e.g., Bability to motivate their
employees^ or Bability to work in teams^), were deleted from the original 25-item
leadership-oriented scale. Thus, the reduced scale obtained from the exploratory
and confirmatory analyses is, on the one hand, a shorter and more easily applicable
scale, and on the other, it is better suited to the target population.

Acknowledgments AL holds a predoctoral fellowship from Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

(UNED, FPI program) since January 2017.

Data availability The datasets collected and/or analysed during the current study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure of potential conflict of interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

References

Achtenhagen, L., & Welter, F. (2011). ‘Surfing on the ironing board’ – the representation of women’s
entrepreneurship in German newspapers. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(9–10), 763–
786. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2010.520338.
Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 30(5), 595–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00138.x.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Allen, I. E., Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2006 Report on women
in entrepreneurship. http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-
research/gem/Documents/gem-2006-women-entrepreneurship-report.pdf. Accessed Sept 2017.
Alsos, G. A., Isaksen, E. J., & Ljunggren, E. (2006). New venture financing and subsequent business growth
in men-and women-led businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 667–686. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00141.x.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327.
Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., & Hirsa, A. (2001). Perceptions of women and men as entrepreneurs: evidence
of attributional augmenting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 923–929. https://doi.org/10.1037
/0021-9010.86.5.923.
Bigelow, L., Lundmark, L., Parks, J. M., & Wuebker, R. (2014). Skirting the issues: experimental evidence of
gender bias in IPO prospectus evaluations. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1732–1759. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206312441624.
Bird, B., & Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 26(3), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870202600303.
Booysen, L., & Nkomo, S. (2006). Think manager – Think (fe)male: a south African perspective. The
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 1(2), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-
1882/CGP/v01i02/52429.
Booysen, L., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics: the case
of South Africa. Gender in Management: An International Journal of Business and Management, 25(4),
285–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011048164.
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and
requisite management characteristics revisited. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 662–669.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256439.
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-Role
stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1972.tb00018.x.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.
Brush, C., Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T., & Welter, F. (2018a). A gendered look at entrepreneurship
ecosystems. Small Business Economics, [Advance online publication], https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
018-9992-9.
Brush, C., Greene, P., Balachandra, L., & Davis, A. (2018b). The gender gap in venture capital- progress,
problems, and perspectives. Venture Capital, 20(2), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13691066.2017.1349266.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004). The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: mutual lessons
to be learned. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 771–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.004.
Cuadrado, I. (2004). Valores y rasgos estereotípicos de género de mujeres líderes. Psicothema, 16(2),
270–275.
Daniel, T. A. (2004). The exodus of women from the corporate workplace to self-owned businesses.
Employment Relations Today, 30(4), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.10108.
Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its
effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
40(5), 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.00.
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: identity safety moderates the effects of
stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2),
276–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.276.
de Pillis, E., & Meilich, O. (2006). Think entrepreneur, think male? Business students’ assumptions about a
hypothetical entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4, 3–18.
Deal, J. J., & Stevenson, M. A. (1998). Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s: plus ça
change... Sex Roles, 38(3/4), 287–300, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018741318216.
Díaz-García, M. C., & Jiménez-Moreno, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention: the role of gender. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-008-0103-2.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42(7), 756–757. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.7.755.
Eddleston, K. A., & Powell, G. N. (2008). The role of gender identity in explaining sex differences in business
owners’ career satisfier preferences. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.jbusvent.2006.11.002.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fuller-Love, N. (2006). Management development in small firms. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 8(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00125.x.
García-Ael, C., Cuadrado, I., & Molero, F. (2012). Think-manager–Think-male vs. Teoría del Rol Social:
¿Cómo percibimos a hombres y mujeres en el mundo laboral? Estudios de Psicología, 33(3), 347–357.
https://doi.org/10.1174/021093912803758183.
García-Ael, C., Cuadrado, I., & Molero, F. (2013). Think manager - think male in adolescents and its relation
to sexism and emotions in leadership. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, Published online, https://doi.
org/10.1017/sjp.2013.88.
Gatewood, E. J., Brush, C. G., Carter, N. M., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2009). Diana: A symbol of women
entrepreneurs’ hunt for knowledge, money, and the rewards of entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 32(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9152-8.
GEM (2017). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Global report 2016/2017. http://www.gemconsortium.
org/report. Accessed Oct 2017.
Gupta, V. K., & Fernández, C. (2009). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in characteristics attributed to
entrepreneurs: a three-nation study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15(3), 304–318.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051808326036.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., & Bhawe, N. M. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1053–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037
/0021-9010.93.5.1053.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of
entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2),
397–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00296.x.
Gupta, V. K., Javadian, G., & Jalili, N. (2014). Role of entrepreneur gender and management style in
influencing perceptions and behaviors of new recruits: evidence from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-014-0120-x.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th
ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hamilton, E. (2013). The discourse of entrepreneurial masculinities (and femininities). Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 25(1–2), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.746879.
Hancock, C., Pérez-Quintana, A., & Hormiga, E. (2014). Stereotypical notions of the entrepreneur: an analysis
from a perspective of gender. Journal of Promotion Management, 20(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10496491.2014.869100.
Hartman, H. (1959). Managers and entrepreneurs: a useful distinction? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(4),
429–451.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the
organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a solution: the allure of self-employment for women
and minorities. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822
(03)00021-4.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current
characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 935–942.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.935.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. California: Sage.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A
meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0023557.
Lim, S., & Envick, B. R. (2013). Gender and entrepreneurial orientation: a multi-country study. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(3), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-011-0183-2.
Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: how do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-008-0093-0.
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial
intention levels: a role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2),
195–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z.
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: a computer program to fit the exploratory factor
analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192753.
Malmström, M., Johansson, J., & Wincent, J. (2017). Gender stereotypes and venture support decisions: how
governmental venture capitalists socially construct entrepreneurs’ potential. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 41, 833–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12275.
Man, T. W. Y., Lau, T., & Snape, E. (2008). Entrepreneurial competencies and the performance of small and
medium enterprises: an investigation through a framework of competitiveness. Journal of Small Business
& Entrepreneurship, 21(3), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2008.10593424.
Marlow, S. (2002). Women and self-employment: a part of or apart from theoretical construct? The
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.5367
/000000002101299088.
Marlow, S., & McAdam, M. (2012). Analyzing the influence of gender upon high-technology venturing
within the context of business incubation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 655–676.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00431.x.
Minniti, M. (2009). Gender issues in entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 5(7–
8), 469–621. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000021.
Mitchelmore, S., & Rowley, J. (2013). Entrepreneurial competencies of women entrepreneurs pursuing
business growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(1), 125–142. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14626001311298448.
Moriano, J. A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., & Zarafshani, K. (2012). A cross-cultural approach
to understanding entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career Development, 39(2), 162–185. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894845310384481.
Mueller, S. L., & Conway Dato-on, M. (2013). A cross cultural study of gender-role orientation and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-011-0187-y.
Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., Caetano, A., & Kalbfleisch, P. (2018). Entrepreneurship ecosystems and women
entrepreneurs: a social capital and network approach. Small Business Economics, [Advance online
publication], https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9996-5.
Onstenk, J. (2003). Entrepreneurship and vocational education. European Educational Research Journal,
2(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2003.2.1.12.
Peña, I., Guerrero, M., González-Pernía, J. L., & Montero, J. (2018). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:
Informe GEM España 2017–2018. http://www.gem-spain.com/. Accessed May 2018.
Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and
don’t have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4),
269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a meta-analysis on
the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13594320701595438.
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis – think female: glass cliffs
and contextual variation in the think manager – think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,
470–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/e633962013-515.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037128.
Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management character-
istics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 340–344. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0076637.
 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of
Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00235.
Schein, V. E., & Mueller, R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: a cross
cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(5), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1002
/job.4030130502.
Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager - think male: a global phenomenon?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199601)17
:1<33::AID-JOB778>3.0.CO;2-F.
Schyns, B., & Sczesny, S. (2010). Leadership attributes valence in self-concept and occupational self-efficacy.
Career Development International, 15(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011020907.
Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think manager – think male
stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025112204526.
Sczesny, S., Bosak, J., Neff, D., & Schyns, B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership
traits: a cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51(11–12), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-
004-0715-0.
Singer, S., Herrington, M., & Menipaz, E. (2018). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Global report 2017/2018.
http://www.gemconsortium.org/report. Accessed May 2018.
Snavely, W. B., & McNeill, J. D. (2008). Communicator style and social style: testing a theoretical interface.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1071791907308464.
Spagnoli, P., Caetano, A., & Santos, S. C. (2015). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy in Italy: an empirical study
from a gender perspective. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 22, 485–506.
https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM22.4.4.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528.
van der Zwan, P., Thurik, R., Verheul, I., & Hessels, J. (2016). Factors influencing the entrepreneurial
engagement of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. Eurasian Business Review, 6(3), 273–295.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-016-0065-1.
Vecchio, R. P. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common threads. Human
Resource Management Review, 13(2), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00019-6.
Verheul, I., & Thurik, R. (2001). Start-up capital: Does gender matter? Small Business Economics, 16, 329–
345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011178629240.