psychological attributes and entrepreneurial success

International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research__________________________________ ISSN 2277 3630 IJSSIR, Vol. 2 (11), NOVEMBER (2013) Online available at indianresearchjournals.com

PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES AND ENTREPRENEURIAL SUCCESS DR. SIMMI ARORA*; DR. NARESH KUMAR** *ASSISTANT PROFESSOR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY ** PROFESSOR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT: The present investigation has been designed to study the nature and differences between psychological attributes and entrepreneurial success among women entrepreneurs of Haryana, Punjab and Delhi. The study was conducted on a sample of 132 women entrepreneurs. The findings of the study reveal that the women entrepreneurs from Haryana, Punjab and Delhi differ on two of the personal attributes i.e. delegation of authority and risk taking propensity. Moreover, women entrepreneurs from three states i.e. Haryana, Punjab and Delhi also differ significantly on income/profit/ entrepreneurial success criteria. However no significant difference exists in psychological attributes of the women entrepreneurs KEY-WORDS:

Introduction Entrepreneurship is the most powerful economic force known to mankind. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), 2000 view entrepreneurship as an attempt at new venture creation, such as self-employment, a new business organization, or the expansion of any existing business, by an individual, a team of individuals, or an established business whereas, Shane and venkatraman (2000) describes entrepreneurship as the process of identifying, evaluating and pursuing opportunities. Entrepreneurship is the dynamic process of creating incremental wealth by individuals or group of people who assume the major risks in terms of equity, time, and/or career commitment of providing value for some product or service. The product or service itself may or may not be new or unique but value must somehow be infused by the entrepreneur by securing and allocating the necessary skills and resources. The word entrepreneur is derived from the French word entreprendre, meaning “to undertake”. Ronstadt 1984; Cunningham and Lischeron 1991 describe an entrepreneur as an innovator or developer who recognizes and seizes opportunities, converts those opportunities into workable/marketable ideas; adds value through time, effort, money, or skills; assumes the risks of the competitive marketplace to implement these ideas; and realizes the rewards from these efforts whereas, Schumpeter (1965) view an entrepreneur as a man with idea and action who possesses ability to inspire others and who does not accept the boundaries of structured situations. Moreover he acts as a change agent who is instrumental in discovering new opportunities for the uniqueness of entrepreneurial functions. In recent years, women have been recognized as an important untapped source of economic growth. They are acting as pivot and prime contributors towards the economic development and hence are a propeller of progress. Year 2001 has been identified as a year of women empowerment. Since then day and night economists, management practitioners and Government 42


is making every necessary effort to get maximum economic contribution from the female work force. Also economic empowerment is the prime pillar which further supports and strengthens all other pillars of empowering women. Hence, women should be motivated to increase their contribution in the economy. Literature Review: Entrepreneurship research has examined behavioral characteristics such as personality traits, demographics and socio-economic characteristics and how these attributes have been associated with entrepreneurial decisions and outcome. Henry et al. (2003) reported that women entrepreneurship is an under-researched area with tremendous economic potential and the same requires special attention. Akram (2002) emphasized the need to create an environment that encourages and prospects women‟s role in the economic activity in general and as an entrepreneurs or businesswomen in particular. Kalaichelvi (2011) concluded that economic role played by a woman cannot be isolated from the framework of development as the role and degree of women‟s economic independence and status. Certain psychological traits of individual entrepreneurs such as propensity towards risk taking (Begley and Boyd, 1987), an internal locus of control (Brockhaus and Horwitz, 1986) have been found to be attributed to entrepreneurship. McClelland (1962, 1965 & 1969) has shown achievement motivation to be the prime motivational factor among entrepreneurs. McClelland (1971) found that entrepreneurs exhibit a much higher level of energy than the average person. Hornaday and Aboud (1975) have emphasized the motivational need aspects such as nAch, nAff, nPower, nSupport, nInd, and leadership in the psychological makeup of the entrepreneurs. Masiuddin (1980) concluded that entrepreneurs were propelled with high nAch and they were found to be high on sociability, emotional instability and assertiveness scales. Orhan and Scott (2001) reported that women entrepreneurs in developing countries were motivated by the need for achievement. NearchouEllinas et al. (2004) stated that the desire for women to have control and make decisions was one of the major factors for women to start up their own businesses. Brockhaus (1980) and Master‟s and Meier (1988) focused on the propensity of risk-taking by entrepreneurs and concluded that there is insignificant difference in risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs and managers. The authors also reported no significant difference in risk taking propensity between male and female entrepreneurs. Lerner et al. (1995) demonstrated that network affiliation, human capital, and motivation theories have greater explanatory power for performance than does social learning or environmental perspectives. This study found that membership in an association or network of businesswomen had a highly significant effect on profitability. Paige and Littrell (2002) defines success by intrinsic criteria including freedom and independence, controlling a person‟s own future, and being one‟s own boss; while extrinsic outcomes are increased financial returns, personal income and wealth. Masuo et al. (2001) found that business success is commonly defined in terms of economic or financial measures which include return on assets, sales, profits, employees and survival rates; and non-pecuniary measures, such as customer satisfaction, personal development and personal achievement. Similarly, Buttner and Moore (1997) stated that business performance is usually measured from the economic perspectives of growth in sales or employees; and /or by the increase in profits. Dhaliwal (2000) reported that a handful of women entrepreneurs measure success as and when they can see that they are an economically valuable source. Fasci and Valdez (1998) reported that higher profitability projections were associated with the founder‟s achievement and income goals. Hyrsky and Tuunanen (1999) 43


compared entrepreneurial behavior of Finnish and U.S entrepreneurs and reported that American entrepreneurs had greater propensity to take risk and are highly innovative as compared to Finnish entrepreneurs who tended to be conservative and risk- averse. Masters and Meier (1988) conducted a comparative study to determine difference between risk taking propensity of U.S male and female entrepreneurs and reported no significant difference among the two groups. Whereas, Masters et al. (1988) reported that the risk taking propensity of Indian and American female managers were on a level with their American male counterparts. Indian female managers also reported a higher risk propensity than their male counterparts. McClleland and Winter (1969) found achievement to be the differentiating factor between small business entrepreneurs and other business leaders. Carsrud and Olm(1986) studied multiple dimensional achievement in samples of male and female entrepreneurs and reported patterns similar to other successful professionals. Minniti (2005) reported that with respect to the rhythm of growth, women tend to have slower early growth trajectories. Further, Cliff (1998) observed that Women preferred for slower-growth strategies due to the risks associated with fast-paced growth strategies. Some authors conclude that there is a similar performance in women- and men-owned organizations (Watson, 2002; Watson and Robinson, 2003), and there are others who report that women-owned organizations are lower in performance than men-owned organizations (Fischer et al., 1993; Srinivasan et al., 1994; Sexton & Robinson, 1989). Mac Donald (1986) conducted a study to compare the perceptions of successful women entrepreneurs with those of the less successful ones and concluded net profit to be a factor of success in the opinion of more successful women entrepreneurs. Further, length of time in business is a prediction of success for both successful and less successful women entrepreneurs. Sextan and Kent (1981) compared the characteristics of female entrepreneurs and executives reporting that female entrepreneurs are marginally less educated than female executives; though the younger female entrepreneurs are better educated, they tend to place slightly higher emphasis on their job than their family. The executives view their ability to work with people as the greatest factor of success, while the entrepreneurs tend to view hard work and persistence as more important. Problem statement The present study is an attempt to study the nature of differences on decision making styles(rational, intuitive, dependent and avoidant), motives (need for achievement, need for affiliation, need for approval and need for power), entrepreneurial attitude orientation attributes(work accomplishment, innovation, personal control and self-esteem), personal attributes(creativity, delegation of authority and risk taking propensity) and entrepreneurial success among women entrepreneurs belonging to Punjab, Haryana and Delhi. Objectives The objectives of the present study are:  To study the differences in the decision making styles i.e. rational, intuitive, dependent and avoidant decision making style of women entrepreneurs from the three places.  To study the need for achievement, need for affiliation, need for approval and need for power of women entrepreneurs.  To investigate differences in entrepreneurship attitude orientation attributes i.e. work accomplishment, innovation, personal control and self-esteem of women entrepreneurs belonging to different states (Haryana, Punjab &Delhi). 44


 

To study the nature of differences in personal attributes (i.e. creativity, delegation of authority and risk taking propensity) of women entrepreneurs from the three places. To investigate level of entrepreneurial success among the women entrepreneurs.

Hypothesis H1: there is no significant difference in decision making styles of women entrepreneurs. H2: there is no significant difference in motives structure of women entrepreneurs. H3: there is no significant difference in entrepreneurship attitude orientation attributes of women entrepreneurs. H4: there is no significant difference in personal attributes of women entrepreneurs. H5: there is no significant difference on entrepreneurial success among women entrepreneurs. Research Methodology Sampling plan and Data collection The present study was conducted on132 women entrepreneurs (44 each) from Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. To get required information on the variables considered in the present investigation, structured questionnaires were administered through personal contacts and e-mail The women respondents have been into multiple businesses of boutiques, beauty parlors, retail stores, private schools, play schools, baby care centers, consultancy firms, private hospitals and nursing homes. For the present study purposive sampling has been used. I Decision making style questionnaire Decision making style is a habit –based propensity to respond in a certain way when making decisions. Decision making style has been assessed by using a questionnaire recommended by Scott and Bruce (1995) consisting of 16 items. The responses for each item is measured on a five point scale with labels from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A score of „1‟ was given to strongly disagree and „5‟ was given to strongly agree. Score for different decision making styles were arrived at by summing up the scores of statements relevant for those. The questionnaire identifies four decision making styles (i.e. rational, intuitive, dependent and avoidant). A rational decision making style reflects the use of a thorough search and evaluation of alternatives. It means that an individual make consistent, value-maximizing choices within specified constraints. An intuitive decision making style reflects the tendency to make decisions on the basis of experience, feelings and accumulated judgment. A dependent decision making style is illustrated by a search for advice, input, and direction from others. An avoidant decision making style reflects the avoidance of decision making till an individual is constrained to take decisions. II Motives questionnaire The motive scales were developed by Mishra and Tripathi (1980). The questionnaire measures need for achievement (12 items), need for affiliation (11 items), need for power (9 items) and need for approval (12 items). Need for achievement refers to a tendency to strive for success against some standard of excellence. Need for affiliation refers to the need for social acceptance and involves positive affective relationship with another person. Need for power refers to the needs to master and control one‟s environment. Need for approval refers to „attempts to achieve‟ favorable evaluations from other members of society. The items in each subscale consist of 45


statements on five point scale ranging from „to a very great extent‟ to „almost no extent‟ and the subject is required to respond to them by stating her degree of agreement. The test-retest reliability coefficient reported by the author for the scales range from 0.59 to 0.73 with an interval of one month. The odd-even split half reliabilities were also calculated and found to be in the range of 0.37 to 0.67. III Entrepreneurial orientation attributes questionnaire: Entrepreneurial attitude orientation scale by Shetty (2004) was used to assess work accomplishment, innovation, self-esteem and personal control. As a research tool, the respondents were made to respond with regard to statements on five-point likert‟s rating scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Some items in the scale were reversed scored. The scale consisted of total 45 items out of which 14 relates to work accomplishment ,16 relates to innovation; 11 relates to self-esteem and 4 relates to personal control. Cronbach alpha ranges between 0.53 and 0.76. IV Personal attributes questionnaire (creativity, delegation of authority and risk taking propensity): creativity is defined as the process of using imagination and skill to develop a new or unique product, object, process or thoughts. In the present investigation, in order to access the creativity of the respondents, investigator developed a set of questions on five point scale with the help of literature and experts review. Various aspects of creativity are measured on a 5 point scale ranging from Always (5) to never (1). Delegation of authority is a process by which authority is distributed downward in an organization. The degree of delegated authority can be relatively high or low. Any particular job involves a range of alternative configurations of authority delegation. In the present study, delegation of authority is assessed by using a five statement subscale are measured on a 4 point scale ranging from extensively (4) to not to all (1). Risk taking propensity of women entrepreneurs is taken on a dichotomous scale (yes/No). The items related to personal attributes scale were extracted consulting literature and seeking the advice of various experts. Classification of Entrepreneurial Success Although success originally referred to any positive outcome, it has become increasingly associated with wealth and prestige (Oxford English Dictionary, 1971). In this present study success is defined objectively on the basis of monthly income earned by a women entrepreneur. For the purpose of the present study, success is categorized into four categories: low success, moderately low success, moderately high success, and high success depending on the net income or profit earned. The gradation is as follows: Low Success: A women entrepreneur who earns a net profit / income up to `10,000 per month is classified as low success group. Moderately Low Success: A women entrepreneur who earns a net profit / income ranging from `10,001-20,000 per month is classified as moderately low success group. Moderately High Success: A women entrepreneur who earns a net profit / income ranging from `20,001-30,000 per month is classified as moderately high success group. High Success: A women entrepreneur who earns a net profit / income more than `30,000 per month is classified as high success group.

46


Results and interpretation: Table-1: Table of scores on different psychological measures and entrepreneurial success

Haryana Variables Rational decision making style Intuitive decision making style Dependent decision making style Avoidant decision making style Need for achievement Need for affiliation Need for approval Need for power Work accomplishment Innovation Personal control self esteem Creativity Delegation of authority Risk taking propensity Entrepreneurial success

Punjab

Delhi

N 132 132 132

Mean 16.48 14.84 13.95

Std. deviation 3.267 3.019 2.588

Mean 17.02 15.5 13.41

Std. deviation 1.811 3.136 3.426

Mean 17.18 15.25 13.7

Std. deviation 2.17 2.598 2.993

132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132

11 41.5 38.09 40.18 29.93 59 54.14 14.73 38.84 19.5 11.32 2.59 2.43

2.506 4.168 4.709 4.726 3.572 4.889 4.311 2.376 4.946 3.246 2.1 1.317 1.129

10.23 41.89 37.48 39.32 29.45 59.11 53.5 15.23 40.43 18.98 8.82 2.98 2.89

3.305 4.746 5.074 4.487 4.014 5.239 5.642 1.854 5.708 2.749 2.244 1.32 1.146

10.91 42.64 38.23 39.25 28.39 57.73 55.82 15.45 41.57 19.34 11.32 3.5 3.2

2.876 4.923 5.117 3.889 3.149 6.828 6.525 1.91 5.432 2.312 2.399 1.089 0.878

47


Table- 2 Summary of ANOVA for psychological attributes and entrepreneurial success variables

F

Sig.

Rational decision making style

.966

.383

Intuitive decision making style

.569

.568

Dependent decision making style

.359

.699

Avoidant decision making style Need for achievement

.924 .687

.399 .505

Need for affiliation

.284

.753

Need for approval

.618

.540

Need for power

2.131

.123

Work accomplishment

.798

.452

Innovation

2.036

.135

Personal control

1.435

.242

self esteem

2.862

.061

Creativity

.404

.668

Delegation of authority

18.091

.000

Risk taking propensity

5.890

.004

Entrepreneurial success

5.929

.003

Descriptive statistics: Table-1 presents the list of variables used in the investigation along with their mean and SD. It represents the data for various psychological attributes and entrepreneurial success of women entrepreneurs from Haryana, Punjab and Delhi. Analysis of variance: In order to examine the difference among various psychological attributes of women entrepreneurs with respect to location the data was arranged for one-way ANOVA analysis. The variable “location” was varied at three levels i.e. Haryana, Punjab and Delhi. The obtained data for 15 psychological variables and entrepreneurial success was analyzed by applying one way analysis of variance. In order to fulfill the objectives of the present investigation, the obtained data was processed for computation of means, SD, F-ratios (ANOVA). The criterion for the significance of F ratio was taken at .05 probability level, the degrees of freedom being 2/132. The results of analysis of variance have been presented under separate headings. 48


Decision making styles: An inspection of Table 1 indicates that the dominant decision making style preferred by women is rational as the mean scores for all the three places for the same has been maximum. Whereas, the least preferred style in the present study is avoidant. It could be inferred that that women entrepreneurs were in the habit of taking timely decisions. The results of ANOVA (Table 2) for the four decision making styles i.e. rational, intuitive, dependent and avoidant decision making styles indicates no significant difference among the women entrepreneurs belonging to three places. The F ratio for the same has been.383, .568, .699 and .399 (DF=2/132) respectively. All the four F ratios are insignificant at .05 level of probability. From the above results it can be inferred that women entrepreneurs do not differ significantly for decision making styles or decision making styles orientation for all the women are more or less same and hence significant difference is not reported for the same which justifies the acceptance of null hypothesis. Motives: Table 1 reports that out of the four motives women entrepreneurs were found to be high on need for achievement for all the three places as need for achievement got the highest mean score. Women entrepreneurs were also found to be moderately high on other three motives besides need for achievement. The results of ANOVA for the four motives i.e. need for achievement, need for affiliation, need for approval and need for power reveals no significant differences for the motives among the women entrepreneurs from Haryana, Punjab and Delhi. The F ratios were found to be .505, .753, .540 and .123 (DF=2/132) respectively (Table 2). All the four F ratios are insignificant at .05 level of probability showing that psychological construct i.e. motives more or less vary at similar levels as far as entrepreneur is concerned. The present investigation does not reveal any significant difference for the motives and hence null hypothesis for the same is accepted. Entrepreneurship attitude orientation attributes: An immediate view of table 1 indicates no significant difference among the mean scores for EAO attributes. However, women entrepreneurs were found to have high level of work accomplishment, innovation, self-esteem and personal control. The results of ANOVA for the four EAO attributes i.e. goal accomplishment, innovation, personal control and self-esteem reveals no significant differences for the same among the women entrepreneurs from Haryana, Punjab and Delhi(Table 2). The F ratios were found to be .452, .135, .242 and .061 (DF=2/132) respectively. All the four F ratios are insignificant at .05 level of probability showing an insignificant difference for the EAO attributes and hence null hypothesis for the same is accepted. Personal attributes: Table 1 reports no significant difference among women entrepreneurs of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi regarding mean scores of creativity but significant mean score difference could be observed for delegation of authority and risk taking propensity. For delegation of authority similar mean scores of 11.32 has been observed for women entrepreneurs from Haryana and Delhi followed by those of Punjab (8.82). Women entrepreneurs from Delhi with mean score 3.5

49


were observed to be high in risk taking followed by women of Punjab (2.98) and then by women belonging to Haryana (2.59). The present investigation using ANOVA reveals that women entrepreneurs belonging to Haryana, Punjab and Delhi differ significantly for two of the personal attributes i.e. delegation of authority and risk taking propensity F values being .000 and .004 respectively which are significant at .05 level of probability. However, one personal attribute i.e. creativity does not report any significant difference among women entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial success: Women entrepreneurs belonging to Haryana, Punjab and Delhi significantly differ for entrepreneurial success as the F ratio is significant (.003) at .05 level of probability. An immediate inspection of table 1 reveals that women entrepreneurs from Delhi enjoy a greater degree of success (3.2) followed by women of Punjab (2.89) and subsequently by women of Haryana (2.43). Key Findings The obtained findings using one way ANOVA reveals that women entrepreneurs of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi significantly differ in their mean scores for two psychological variables i.e. delegation of authority and risk taking propensity and entrepreneurial success . However rest of the psychological attributes does not show any significant difference. Implications The present study significantly contributes to the existing literature on women entrepreneurship by concluding that women do not significantly differ on psychological attributes as far as the location is concerned but still the research can be further expanded for other states where it might give some significant differences in other psychological attributes. References Akram, A. (2002), “Water fetching and its impact on women‟s health: A case study of village Pothi Bala, district Poonch”, M.Sc. Thesis, Anthropology, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Arko, D. (1999), “Virtual teams”, unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado executive MBA program, Denver. Begley, T.M. and Boyd, D. (1987), “Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and small businesses”, Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 79-93. Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520. Buttner, E.H. and Moore, D.P. (1997), “Women‟s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: Self-reported motivations and correlation with success”, Journal of Small Business Management, 35(1), 34-46. Cunningham, J. B. and Lischeron, J. (1991), “Defining entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, 29, 45-61. Fasci, M.A. and Valdez, J. (1998), “A performance contrast of male and female owned small accounting practices”, Journal of Small Business Management, 36(3), 1-7.

50


Hornaday, T.A. and Aboud, J. (1971), “Characteristics of successful entrepreneur”, Personal Psychology, 24 (2), 141-153. Kalaichelvi, K. (2011), “Problems of women entrepreneurs- A special reference to Tiruchirappalli district”, Entrepreneurship Business Review, 1(2). Lerner, M., Brush, C.G. and Hisrich, R. D. (1995), “Factors affecting performance of Israeli women entrepreneurs: An examination of alternative perspectives”, Babson College, Boston MA. Mashiuddin, T. (1980), “Personality study of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Enterprise Development, Management and Extension, VII (2), 143-158. Masters, R. and Meier, R. (1988), “Sex differences and risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Management, 26 (1), 31-35. Masters, R., Gibbs, M. and Meier, R. (1988), “Risk-taking propensity of American and Indian small business managers: A comparative study”, The Proceedings of the 33rd World Conference of the International Council for Small Business, Boston, MA, 206-211. Masuo, D., Fong, G., Yanagida, J. and Caba, C. (2001), “Factors associated with business and family success: A comparison of single manager and dual manager family business households”, Journal of Family and Economy Issues, 22(1), 55-73. McCelland, D. C. (1962), “Business drive and national achievement”, Harvard Business Review, 40(4), 99-112. McCelland, D. C. (1965), “Achievement motivation can be developed”, Harvard Business Review, 6-24. McClelland, D. and Winter, D. G. (1969), “Motivating economic achievement”, New York: Free Press. Mishra, G. and Tripathi, L.B. (1980), “Psychological consequences of prolonged deprivation”, National Psychological corporation, Agra. Mishra, G. and Tripathi, N.K.M. (1981), “Need for approval and locus of control”, Journal of Psychological Researches, 25(1), 21-23. Orhan, M. and Scott, D. (2001), “Why women enter into entrepreneurship: An exploratory model”, Women in Management Review, 16, (5-6), 232-244. Paige, R.C. and Littrell, M.A (2002), “Craft retailers: Criteria for success and associated business strategies”, Journal of Small Business Management, 40(4), 314-331. Ronstadt, R. (1985), “The educated entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning”, American Journal of Small Business, summer, 7-23. Ronstadt, R.C, (1984), “Entrepreneurship”, Dover, MA: Lord Publishing. Schumpeter J. A. (1965), “Economic theory and entrepreneurial history: Explorations in enterprise”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Scott, S. G. and Bruce, R. A. (1995), “Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”, The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. Shetty, P., (2004), “Attitude towards entrepreneurship in organizations”, The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13, 1, 53-68. Sternberg, R. J. (1999), “Handbook of creativity”, London: Cambridge University Press. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2000), Entrepreneurship in Ireland 2000, UCD, Dublin

51


Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2003), „Entrepreneurship Education and Training‟, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot Brockhaus, R. H. Sr., & Horwitz, P. S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In Sexton, D. L., and Smilor, R. W. (Eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 25-48 McClelland, D.C. (1971), “Entrepreneurship and Achievement Motivation: Approaches to the Science of Socioeconomic Development” in: Lengyel, P. (Ed.) Paris: U.N.E.S.C.O. Dhaliwal, S (2000) Entrepreneurship - a learning process: the experiences of Asian female entrepreneurs and women in business Education and Training. Vol. 42. Issue 8 MCB University Press. Nearchou-Ellinas L, Kountouris IS (2004). Women entrepreneurs in Cyprus: a new dynamic in Cyprus economy. Women Management Review, 19(6): 325-332. Minniti, M., Arenius, P. & Langowitz, N. (2005). 2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship. GEM. Cliff, J. E. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), 523-542. Watson, J. (2002). Comparing the performance of male- and female-controlled businesses: Relating outputs to inputs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 91-100. Watson, J., & Robinson, S. (2003). Adjusting for risk in comparing the performances of maleand female-controlled SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6), 773-788. Fischer, E. M., Reuber, R. A., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151-168. Srinivasan, R., Woo, C., & Cooper, A. (1994). Performance determinants for male and female entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College. Sexton, E. A. & Robinson, P. B. (1989). The Economic and Demographic Determinants of SelfEmployment. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College. Sextan and Kent, The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship , Cambridge, Mass, Ballinger, 1981. J.L.Mac Donald(1986), „The traits and characteristics of women entrepreneurs: Criteria for predicting success in business management‟, Dissertation Abstracts International (Part-A), 46(8), 2169-A. Kimmo H. and Mika T. (1999), innovativeness and risk-taking propensity: A cross-cultural study of Finnish and U.S. entrepreneurs. Carsrud, A. L., and K. W. Olm (1986). “The success of male and female entrepreneurs: A comparative analysis of the effects of multi-dimensional achievement motivation and personality traits,” in Managing Take-Off in Fast Growth Firms. Eds. R. Smilor and R. L. Kuhn. New York: Praeger, 147–162.

52