psychosocial and psycho-entrepreneurial predictors—an exploratory study on indian women...

Women’s Studies, 42:163–192, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0049-7878 print / 1547-7045 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00497878.2013.747380

PSYCHOSOCIAL AND PSYCHO-ENTREPRENEURIALPREDICTORS—AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON INDIAN

WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS

GANESAN RAMASWAMY

Asia-Pacific Institute of Management, Jasola

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is the vital area for overall economic sustenanceand development of any nation. It is more so with referenceto women as entrepreneurship plays a vital role in terms offulfilling their economical needs and attaining social status.Entrepreneurship plays a pre-dominant role in many developedand developing1 economies. It is asserted that individuals mightbe more inclined to pursue entrepreneurship if they believe thatthey possess skills, such as high education, that are necessary tofunction effectively in an entrepreneurial environment (Guptaand York 25). The emergence of women entrepreneurs in thesociety depends on changing social, psychological, economic, reli-gious, cultural, technological, and political factors, which invokesa positive effect in their economic participation of developedand developing countries. History is full of instances of individ-ual entrepreneurs, whose creativity has lead and been a causeto rapid industrialization and globalization of many developednations. Women entrepreneurs are the key players in any devel-oping country, particularly in terms of contribution to economicsustenance2 and development (Baker, Aldrich, and Liou 222).Research on the differences between men and women indicatethat there are significant differences in their career choices, and

Address correspondence to Dr. Ganesan Ramaswamy, Area Chair—Strategy &Entrepreneurship, Asia-Pacific Institute of Management, #3 & 4, Institutional Area, Jasola,New Delhi 110025, India. E-mail: [email protected]

1Countries where economic needs are very much indispensable.2Facilitating the family’s economical needs and balancing the economy through an

enterprising activity thereby attaining sustenance.

163

164 Ganesan Ramaswamy

that theoretical models that describe the career paths of men arenot entirely appropriate for women (Neergard, Shaw, and Carter357; Gupta, Turban, and Bhawe 1067).

A research study by Corner in 1998 in Cambodia founda majority of the actors working in MSEs have been found tobe women, who act as owners, entrepreneurs, and managers, aswell as employees, home-workers, and unpaid family labor (qtd.in Makararavy et al. 7). In recent years, the United States andCanada have seen the increasing role of women in enterprisingactivities constituting one-third of the small business owned inthe United State and Canada. As far as the workforce is con-cerned, Britain has seen an increase of over three times thatof men. Researchers of women entrepreneurship have revealedthat female entrepreneurs want work that is challenging and hasgrowth orientation (Morris et al. 232).

The literature also showed women entrepreneurs in devel-oped countries are far ahead in progression and economic partici-pation. A study conducted among Latin American and Caribbeanwomen business owners indicated the economic activity rate foradult women is as high as 40 percent or more in major LatinAmerican countries. In addition to that, a survey conducted byUnited Nations in 1995 revealed a lack of access to capital andtechnology, which is surprising to note that entrepreneurial char-acteristics and attributes are not indicated as crucial parametersin westernized countries. Nearly, 34 percent of Latin Americanwomen over 15 years of age are economically active, comparedto over 50 percent of the developed countries. The reason forcomparing Latin American countries is because certain LatinAmerican countries do have similar economies to that of India.According to Jalbert, most of the available literature on womenbusiness ownership has concentrated on entrepreneurial develop-ment in industrialized countries at the national level and withinthe less developed formal sector. Very little literature is availableon the roles of women entrepreneurs in the global economy( Jalbert 14). It is essential to categorize woman entrepreneurship,where women-owned businesses employ more than 15 millionworkers in the United States and sales generated amount toapproximately $1.4 trillion (Nelton 7). In lieu with womenentrepreneurship development, food processing is consideredas one of the prominent areas of industrialization in terms of

Indian Women Entrepreneurs 165

global economic development. India constitutes a major sharein terms of production and exports in this avenue. In India,women hold a major share in running the food processingenterprises due to their traditional inducement in this particu-lar avenue. However, there were other reasons, substantiating thisnotion, as it is often felt and perceived with a traditional mind-set in a country like India where they found suitable for homemakers, due to the patriarchal influences and socio-cultural sys-tem still prevalent at different corners within the society. Thiswould have been the main reason for their late entry to theeconomic world. This has been realized only in late 1980s bymajority of researchers and policy makers that active participationof women in economic development sector can bring a bal-ance in economic development to attain economic sustenance inIndia.

Tiny enterprises were considered to be the best suitable forIndian women and especially food processing enterprises whichhad its genesis long back where women were involved themselvesin traditional food processing for meeting the requirement offamily needs. This has been burgeoning into a commercial plankfor their entrepreneurial expedition and in this context, growthpotential of food processing enterprises was high (Saigal 2001).However, in case of women entrepreneurs into food processingenterprises, research literatures were found mostly in amalgamat-ing the demographic profile. Research on perceptional parame-ters (psychosocial and psycho-entrepreneurial) having an effectenterprises owned by women were woefully inadequate, and alsolimited. Also, the scenario of women entrepreneurship in generalwas not numerically high in India in accordance with its volumi-nous population. In India a majority of women entrepreneursin food processing were mostly found in the unorganized sec-tors. A study conducted on these lines (Savadi 2001) explainedthat women entrepreneurs account for nearly 10 percent in theunorganized sectors and about 9 percent in small-scale industry(organized sector) comparison with other developing countriesand developed countries. Although, the concept has been initi-ated much before other developing countries, the pace is notso appreciating with technological advancements with regard towomen entrepreneurs into food processing enterprises. Several


factors3 are described for their less participation, which includedlack of appropriate finances, education and training, and favor-able societal attitudes and familial problems. The gateways forwomen entering business enterprise could be on the basis of back-ground parameters and psychosocial profile, which have beenhighly indispensable for a woman entrepreneur’s emergence andsuccess. However, paucity of research in the area left no tangibleand imperative picture in the issue, which has to be addressedcarefully through inculcation of important and crucial avenues ingearing women entrepreneurship development. Thus, perceptionof women entrepreneurs, could possibly explain the psychosocialand psycho-entrepreneurial dispositions. The present study willprovide us a better understanding about contributions made bydemographic profiles (socio-background)4 in facilitating theiremergence and predicting success in their enterprises.

Psychological Dimensions in Entrepreneurship

Motivation is one of the important psychological dimensions inentrepreneurship often referred to as the inner drive that ignitedand sustained behavior to satisfy needs. It is further referred to asan integral feeling, which produced goal-directed behavior.

This goal directed behavior was shaped by several socio-psychological factors such as: personal, familial, social and cul-tural and so on. The most relevant theory of motivation forentrepreneurship development was explained by McClelland in1961 and 1962 in which, he focused on life experience, set ofmotives and behavior. According to him three types of needshad important role to play the origin of entrepreneurship. Thesewere need for achievement, power and affiliation, and thesehave to be continuous, throughout one’s life for personal andentrepreneurial growth. Besides social learning theory proposedby Rotter in 1954 and 1966 (Rotter vol. 1 609); and applicationsby Rotter, Chance, and Phares in 1972, achievement motivationtheory by McClelland in 1961 and Winter’s personality theoryin 1969 contributed towards entrepreneurial growth. Locus ofcontrol is considered to be a part of the conscientiousness factor

3Factors that act as entry barriers to women to become entrepreneurs.4Socio-economic background of women entrepreneurs.


as it relates to job performance behaviors regarding dependabilityand responsibility (Lefcourt 413; Black 28).

These theories have supported many contemporaryresearches on entrepreneurship determining the entrepreneurialcapabilities of entrepreneurs in terms of need, motivation,achievement, and perception and in turn facilitated the dimen-sions and inclinations to entrepreneurship development. In lieuwith the above views on entrepreneurship, motivation has beenconsidered as a drive for an intuitive action in any given situation.Keeping this view, perception is again an offshoot of motivation,which enhances it and at the same time prevents them to entryas well as performance in their entrepreneurial choices. It isalso observed to be a continuation to the above lines that con-structs on perceptional parameters were constructed in termsof perceptions of success, perceptions about self-achievementsand entrepreneurship awareness and technical know-how skills,respectively, in order to fact-find the exact contributors withsocio-background variables.

Review on Woman Entrepreneurship

A longitudinal study conducted by Gatewood, Shaver, and Gartner(389) found female entrepreneurs have higher internal attribu-tions for starting their ventures than males. In another studyconducted by James and Paul (27) on 122 Black, White, Hispanicand American Indian women entrepreneurs found that theresponses of both minority women entrepreneurs and thosewomen entrepreneurs in the general populace differed signif-icantly on tests measuring achievement, autonomy, aggression,conformity, independence, benevolence, and leadership. Hisrichand Marie (38) in an in-depth study tried to find out the demo-graphic characteristics, their motivation and business problemsof 21 women entrepreneurs. It was reported that the majority ofthem were first born in their family, married (71%), had at leasttwo children (55%), and between 31–41 years old (48%). In addi-tion to that 38% of the respondents’ fathers were self-employedand more than 50% of their mothers also worked outside theirhomes.

A study conducted by Chowdhary in 1982 reported positivecorrelation between caste and adoption behavior in technology


innovation. Roomi and Parrot (69) indicated that there are bar-riers to development and progression of female entrepreneurs,resulting in limited spatial mobility and a dearth of social capitalfor female entrepreneurs. According to Cook and Schwartz, theearly studies on women entrepreneurship were into exploring whyfemales become entrepreneurs found they gave similar responsesto their male counterparts such as need to achieve and indepen-dence (qtd. in Brooke and Margaret 2). Another study conductedby Hisrich and others in 1996 reported that no difference existsbetween women entrepreneurs in comparison with men regard-ing personal goals such as independence, achievement, and eco-nomic necessity. It was Fagenson (428) who discovered that femaleentrepreneurs had much broader vision involving their desiresincluding total equality and world peace. Women entrepreneursin Turkey have faced common problems like social and cul-tural surroundings, difficulties in finance, insufficient education,and excessive burden from family responsibilities at home. It isobserved that most women entrepreneurs focused on the servicesector because of their education, managerial experience, and risktolerance. Moreover, special attention has been given on theoret-ical and empirical literature of gender discrimination in Turkey,wherein, traditional and cultural beliefs are still widespreadand impact labor force participation rates and entrepreneurship(Meltem 141). According to a study conducted by Hisrich andBrush (76) a typical woman entrepreneur was the first born;hailed from a middle or upper class family; had a self-employedfather; held a college degree; was married; had children; startedtheir significant entrepreneurial career between the ages of 40–45;had previous experience in the venture; and were independent.Also, it was found that achievement and job satisfaction werethe strongest motivational factors to starting their own business.They also found education was important not only for womenentrepreneurs but also for their parents particularly, their fathers,who were reported to be more highly educated than the gen-eral populace. In addition to their findings they reported womenentrepreneurs also tended to marry more highly educated men.The importance of education was reflected in the following com-ment of a woman entrepreneur: “In my family, education was veryimportant, my mother was a dentist in a day when most womendid not even graduate from high school, but it was my father who


was my real innovator.” In a South Asian study in Pakistan, Roomiand Parrot (68) found that women entrepreneurs do not enjoysame opportunities as men due to number of deep-rooted dis-criminatory socio-cultural values and traditions. There are oftenentry barriers to the road of entrepreneurship for females. Forinstance, lack of access to capital, business premises, informationtechnology, training, agency assistance, and also social networks(Klyver and Terjesen 695; Hwang et al. 524) act as entry barriersfor women entrepreneurship.

A study conducted by Anwar (163) in Bangladesh triedto project the characteristics of activities adopted by womenentrepreneurs. Furthermore, he observed that constraints likesocial norms prevalent in the society have prevented womenentrepreneurs from managing their business independently.Moreover, those norms have restricted their mobility andthereby affected interaction with others, particularly for obtain-ing accurate information for business operation; besides thesenorms there exists a gap in availing training opportuni-ties for skill formation. Along these lines Anna (29) statedthat entrepreneurs generally hail from communities, whichhave been traditionally practicing entrepreneurial activities,thus, imbibing entrepreneurial qualities. A study conductedby Ganesan, Kaur, and Maheshwari (90) on problems andprospects of women entrepreneurs revealed that system modelfor entrepreneurship based on 4Es (Entrepreneur-AdequateEntrepreneurship-Enterprise-Environment) with other relatedand facilitative factors to emancipate women entrepreneurshipdevelopment. Yet another study by Ganesan and others(88) revealed, role-conflict, training methodology, and andro-centrism were the problems faced by women entrepreneurs infood processing enterprises, which curtailed their entrepreneurialprospects to become vibrant entrepreneurs. A research studyconducted in 1998 in Latin America and in other regions byNational Foundation for Women Business Owners revealed thatwomen business owners have many things in common, regardlessof nationality and share common personal characteristics, whichare similar in many ways in the lines of business they pursue.They encounter similar issues and challenges while starting andgrowing their businesses.


Need and Relevance of the Study

The central focus of literature review on women entrepreneursis the motivation for women to run and develop their ownbusiness enterprises. Primary reasons identified are as follows:balancing family responsibilities (Buttner and Moore 45; Caputoand Dolinsky 11); work–family balance (Kirkwood and Tootell295); and unemployment (Verheul, Van Stel, and Thurik 168).Research on women entrepreneurship and their contributionwith socio-background were woefully inadequate, more so with ref-erence to developing countries like India (Singh 47). However,research found that female entrepreneurs face more obsta-cles and barriers than male entrepreneurs encounter (Morriset al. 238; Roomi and Parrot 70). Research into the field ofwomen entrepreneurs has yet to be integrated into the field ofentrepreneurship research and as such women entrepreneurshiphas to be recognized as distinct field or sub-field of research(Holmquist 180). Studies carried out on need for achievement(n-Ach) by McClelland in 1961 and internal locus of controlby McClelland in 1962 and that by Timmons (8) etc. explainedvariations within the locus of control framework for womenwhich, were not studied including the socio-background andpsychosocial influences on psycho-entrepreneurial influences.Studies conducted by Pareek in 1981 have reported that inter-nal locus of control characteristic of an entrepreneur is animportant characteristic of entrepreneurs. Similarly, those withhigher perceptions about the future are more conscientious intheir work behavior, and those with high perceptions of achieve-ments always have the self-confidence and willpower to excel atany pressure and to run the enterprise effectively (Rathore andChabbra 8). These above literatures substantiated the presentstudy to make an attempt understand the psychosocial profile ofwomen entrepreneurs, which could designate appropriate inter-ventions in terms of policies and programs. With these demo-graphic trends, research interest continues to grow in the personalcharacteristics of female entrepreneurs; especially those contribu-tions towards their perceptions might explain their emergenceand success. According to Bilesanmi and Kalesanmo in theirstudy on Nigerian women entrepreneurs suggested more femalesshould be encouraged to study Science and Technology in schoolsand colleges. In doing so, they could gain access to know-how,


technologies, appropriate and adequate skills, training to upgradetheir technical capabilities, and their entrepreneurial and busi-ness skills whether in artisan production or in high-tech industries(Bilesanmi and Kalesanwo 64).

Moreover, personality characteristics of the entrepreneuralways play a crucial role in running establishing, and main-taining any enterprising activity. Also it is more apparent forany entrepreneur to bring an entrepreneurial growth in his orher enterprise. The individual’s personality traits and charac-teristics account for the entrepreneurial manifestations in anyentrepreneurship development activities especially in predictingentrepreneurial success. According to an extensive research studyconducted by Allen in 1999, women are starting businesses at arate twice that of men. The effects of social variables, like educa-tion, experience, and family could confound the output leadingto poor entrepreneurial success (Chattopadhyay and Ghosh 30).Individuals who believe that the outcome was due to their skilland that the situation can be controlled, might exhibit betterenterprising behavior. This is in contrast to those individuals whobelieve that the situation cannot be controlled and the outcomewas due to chance variables. Individuals falling under the lattercategory might not be able to prepare themselves for uncontrolledsituations, as they saw no relationship between their responseand reward. This pours additional more insight into the presentresearch study in terms of perception of women.

Objectives

To identify the contribution of different socio-background inpredicting psychosocial5 variables and psycho-entrepreneurial6

variables.To find the contribution of different psychosocial variables in

predicting psycho-entrepreneurial variables.In order to meet the above objectives the following

exploratory hypotheses were drawn in the present research study.

5Variables that attribute to self←→environmental aspects pertaining toentrepreneurship development.

6Variables that attribute to self←→entrepreneurial aspects pertaining toentrepreneurship development.


Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

Locus of control, perceived ladder of success at present,entrepreneurial expectations, and conceptual understanding ofentrepreneurship would be predicted differently by differentsocio-background variables.

Hypothesis 2

Locus of control, perceived ladder of success at present,entrepreneurial expectations, would predict conceptual under-standing of entrepreneurship.

Operational Definitions

Locus of Control (LOC)

According to Rotter, locus of control is a learned behavior wherein which the individuals attribute responsibility for events or tofactors within themselves and within their control or to factorsoutside their control (Rotter vol. 1 609).

Conceptual understanding of entrepreneurship (COU)

According to a research study by Ganesan, conceptual under-standing of entrepreneurship may be defined as the level of under-standing of basic qualities more precisely the personality traits inentrepreneurship for performing an entrepreneurial activity orthe entrepreneurial pre-requisites essential for an individual inemerging as an entrepreneur (Ganesan 30).

Method of Study

Selection of the Area

Keeping the exploratory nature of the present study, and toensure authenticity of datum two non-governmental organizations


MOOWES (Marketing Organization Of Women Entrepreneurs)and AWAKE (Association for Women Entrepreneurs of Kar-nataka), having common objectives, that is, women empowermentthrough entrepreneurship training and marketing were selectedand entire list of containing registered women entrepreneursexclusively in food processing enterprises were obtained.

Sampling

The total universe was 78 and only 32 women entrepreneurswho willingly responded were included in the present researchstudy. Moreover, women entrepreneurs in food processing enter-prises running enterprises in preparation of jams, jellies, pickles,papads squashes, and bakeries were taken for the present studysample and were equally divided numerically from two metropoli-tan cities namely Chennai (N = 16) and Bangalore (N = 16).Secondary information pertaining to present study was obtainedfrom two non-governmental organizations in Chennai (AWAKE)and Bangalore (AWAKE) which are into women entrepreneurshipdevelopment in India. Keeping in view, the nature of the study, sur-vey research method and convenient random sampling techniquehas been adopted for collecting the required datum.

Profile of the Study Area

a. moowesThe Marketing Organization of Women Entrepreneurs(MOOWES) was founded in 1990 with 12 members at Chennai.Activities of this organization included firstly, sharing theirviews and the difficulties while running their enterprises byforming networks among women entrepreneurs. Secondly, assist-ing women in the field of marketing by face-to-face contactswith the customers, thereby gaining confidence within womenentrepreneurs, and lastly, conducting periodic training programsfor women on various aspects required for running a businesssuccessfully and to develop their entrepreneurial skills.

b. awakeThe Association for Women Entrepreneurs of Karnataka(AWAKE) was founded in December 1983 comprising 500


members at Bangalore with an aim to empower women econom-ically, through entrepreneurship development. Activities of thisorganization primarily included counseling, entrepreneurshipawareness programs (EAP), entrepreneurship development pro-gram (EDP), trainers training program (TTP), developmentagency/non-governmental organizational sensitization programsand follow-up programs.

Variables and Tools

Keeping in view, the nature of the present exploratory study,three categories of variables were selected, i.e., socio-background,psychosocial, and psycho-entrepreneurial. The data were col-lected through an extensive interview schedule comprising stan-dardized scales which were modified and used according to therequirement of the study.

c. socio-background variablesThe socio-background variables included age (A), education(E), social category (C), previous occupation (O), year(s) ofexperience in running the enterprise (Y), family income (FI),memberships in associations (MA), entrepreneurship and tech-nical training (ETT), place of enterprise (P), father’s presentoccupation (FPRO), and husband’s education (HE). The sampledistribution of the socio-background variables were representedin Table 1.

d. psychosocial variablesPsychosocial variables included Locus of Control (LOC) percep-tions, Perceived Ladder of Success at Present (LASP) perceptions,and perceptions of Entrepreneurial Expectations about the future(EE). The sample distributions of psychosocial variables wererepresented in Table 2.

Locus of Control (LOC) Construct

The Locus of Control scale developed by Rao in 1985 con-sisting of 20 paired statements (inventory) has been selectedand revised according to the nature of the present study with


TABLE 1 Sample Distribution of Different Socio-Background Variables

Age Group Respondents (f) Percentage30–44 18 56.2545–59 14 43.75

Education Respondents (f) PercentageGraduates 23 71.87Non-Graduates 9 28.13

Social Category Respondents (f) PercentageGeneral 24 75.00Backward Class 8 25.00

Previous Occupation Respondents (f) PercentageWorking Women 22 68.75Housewife 10 31.25

Year of Experience Respondents (f) Percentage1–4 years 16 50.005 years and above 16 50.00

Family Income Respondents (f) PercentageUp to Rs. 4500 22 68.75Rs. 4501–10000 10 31.25

Membership in Associations Respondents (f) PercentageYes 23 71.87No 9 28.13

Entrepreneurship andTechnical Training

Respondents (f) Percentage

Yes 24 75.00No 8 25.00

Place of Enterprise Respondents (f) PercentageChennai 16 50.00Banglaore 16 50.00

Father’s Present Occupation Respondents (f) PercentageNo Occupation 24 75.00Business 8 25.00

Husband’s Education Respondents (f) PercentageGraduate 23 71.87Post Graduate 9 28.13

N = 32, Respondents (f): Respondent Frequency.

10 inventories in use. High score (greater than 3.0) indicated thatentrepreneurs are more inclined towards internality. Low score(less than 1.0) indicated that entrepreneurs were more inclinedtowards externality and medium score (1.0–3.0) indicates thatentrepreneurs were tending towards internality (i.e., they willbe internal with time; range (<1.0–>3.0). The scale had a highreliability coefficient of 0.89 (Ganesan; Sujata 77).


TABLE 2 Sample Distribution of Different Psychosocial Variables

Locus of Control Respondents (f) Percentage< 1.0 External 1 3.131.0–3.0 Internal 31 86.87> 3.0 Highly Internal — 0.00

Ladder of Success at Present Respondents (f) PercentageStep 2 1 3.13Step 4 4 12.50Step 5 18 56.25Step 6 6 18.75Step 7 3 9.37

Entrepreneurial Expectationsabout Future


Very Bright — 0.00Bright 8 25.00Moderate 20 62.50Uncertain 4 12.50

Conceptual Understanding ofEntrepreneurship


11–25 (Low) — 0.0026–40 (Medium) 4 12.5041–55 (High) 28 87.50

N = 32, Respondents (f): Respondent Frequency.

Entrepreneurial Expectations about the Future (EE) Construct

An entrepreneurial expectation about the future is a self-devisedscale with 10 to 100 percent to rate entrepreneurs themselvesabout success rate of their enterprise, since its inception (range4–1).

Perceived Ladder of Success at Present (LASP) Construct

There were ten steps (step 1–step 10) in the perceived ladder ofsuccess in which the entrepreneur rated her present success inaccordance with current and forthcoming year.

e. psycho-entrepreneurial variablesOnly conceptual understanding of entrepreneurship has beenincluded as psycho-entrepreneurial variable. The sample distribu-tion of psycho-entrepreneurial variable has been represented inTable 2.


Conceptual Understanding of Entrepreneurship (COUE) Construct

Conceptual understanding of entrepreneurship comprised ofstructured questionnaire pertaining to entrepreneurial qualitieswhich has been modified from a training manual (trainingprogram in entrepreneurship, developed by EntrepreneurshipDevelopment Institute of India, Ahmedabad in collaborationwith Entrepreneurship Development Cell, Indian Institute ofTechnology, Delhi), which consisted of 11 questions on a five-point scale modified and devised by the researcher according tothe requirements of the present study. The highest score is “5” andthe lowest score is “1” against each response has been recordedwherein, maximum score being “55” and minimum score being“11” (range 11–55). The higher the score indicates better concep-tual understanding of entrepreneurship. The split-half reliabilityof this scale was 0.68 (Ganesan and Sujata 77).

Procedure

The study was conducted in two phases, phase-1 at Chennai andphase-2 at Bangalore, respectively. The total span of data collec-tion took almost six months in both the cities inclusive of iden-tifying women entrepreneurs exactly into food processing enter-prises, approaching them, convincing them for the interviews,selecting the sample among them, personally interviewing, andadministering the interview schedule. The present study includedpsychosocial and psycho-entrepreneurial variables to make thisa comprehensive discussion. These two variables were taken inwomen entrepreneurship due to its self ←→ environment andself ←→ entrepreneurial nature, respectively. The sample distri-butions among these variables were indicated in Table 2.

Statistical Tools and Techniques

The data were coded and scored accordingly in the presentstudy and regressed using statistical package for social sciences(SPSS-16.0). Step-wise linear regression analysis has been calcu-lated wherein, variance (R) and “β” coefficients were drawn onthe socio-background, psychosocial, and psycho-entrepreneurialvariables, respectively.


Results

Regressions on Psychosocial and Psycho-Entrepreneurial Variables UsingDifferent Socio-Background Variables

Regression among Socio-Background Variables & Psychosocialvariables (Locus of Control, Perceived Ladder of Success atPresent, and Entrepreneurial Expectations)

Results from Table 3 showed that social category emerged asthe most important predictor of locus of control in case of womenentrepreneurs in food processing enterprises. It predicted 21 per-cent of variance. This indicated that locus of control of thesewomen entrepreneurs could be predicted by their social category(general category and backward category). The next predictor wasage, which predicted an additional 14 percent of variance. Thesocial category and age together explained 35 percent of variance.Moreover, when experience was added to the regression equationalong with social category and age, it predicted 47 percent of vari-ance, showing additional 12 percent of variance. The addition ofother background variables like education, previous occupation,family income, memberships in associations, entrepreneurshipand technical training, place of enterprise, father’s present occu-pation, and husband’s education have not changed percentage ofvariance. Thus, indicating redundancy of these variables in pre-dicting locus of control of the women entrepreneurs in food pro-cessing enterprises. The beta coefficients for age (β = 0.38) indi-cated positive contribution, while social category (β =−0.46) andexperience (β = −0.35), indicated negative contributions. This

TABLE 3 Regressions between Locus of Control (LOC) and Socio-BackgroundVariables

Variable R R2 β F P

C 0.46 0.21 −0.46 7.85 0.01C, A 0.59 0.35 −0.43 7.82 0.01

0.38C, A, Y 0.69 0.47 −0.48 8.24 0.01

0.42−0.35

p: Level of significance; C: Social Category; A: Age; Y: Experience.


TABLE 4 Regressions between Perceived Ladder of Success at Present (LASP)and Socio-Background Variables

Variables R R2 β F P

C 0.35 0.12 0.35 4.26 0.05C, ETTT 0.50 0.25 0.35 4.80 0.05

0.35

p: Level of significance; C: Social Category; ETT: Entrepreneurship and TechnicalTraining.

suggested that positive contribution of age, showed the trend ofelderly women entrepreneurs to have more internal locus of con-trol but those who showed external orientation belonged to lowersocial category and had less experience.

Results from Table 4 revealed that memberships in associ-ations were the major predictor of conceptual understandingof entrepreneurship, which predicted nearly 29 percent of vari-ance. Social category predicted another 10 percent of variancemaking the total variance about 39 percent. The beta coeffi-cients for memberships in associations (β = −0.54) and socialcategory (β = −0.32), thus, made negative contributions. Thissuggested that women entrepreneurs who had conceptual under-standing of entrepreneurship were those having less number ofmemberships in associations and from lower social category. Thevariable’s age, education, previous occupation, experience, familyincome, entrepreneurship and technical training, place of enter-prise, father’s present occupation, and husband’s education havenot made any contributions. Thus, these did not change the per-cent of variance in predicting the conceptual understanding ofentrepreneurship of the women entrepreneurs in food processingenterprises.

It was found from Table 5 that “social category” emergedas one of the major predictors of perceived ladder of suc-cess at present of women entrepreneurs in food processingenterprises. It predicted 12 percent of variance. The next pre-dictor was entrepreneurship and technical training, which pre-dicted another 13 percent of variance. Thus, social category andentrepreneurship and technical training together explained 25percent of variance. The addition of other socio-background vari-ables (age, education, previous occupation, experience, familyincome, memberships in associations, and place of enterprise,


TABLE 5 Regressions between Entrepreneurial Expectations about Future(EE) and Socio-Background Variables

Variables R R2 β F P

P 0.63 0.39 0.63 19.29 0.01P, MA 0.72 0.52 0.55 15.57 0.01

−0.36P, MA, FI 0.77 0.60 0.48 13.70 0.01

−0.33−0.29

p: Level of Significance; P: Place of Enterprise; MA: Memberships in Associations; FI:Family Income.

father’s present occupation, and husband’s education) were notfound significant. These variables, when entered in the regressionequation, did not change the percent of variance. Thus, indicatedredundancy of these variables in predicting the perceptions ofperceived ladder of success at present. The beta coefficients forsocial category (β = 0.35) and entrepreneurship and technicaltraining (β = 0.35), indicated that these two variables made posi-tive contributions. This suggested that women entrepreneurs who“perceived higher ladder of success at present” were those belong-ing to general category and having undergone entrepreneurshipand technical training.

Table 6 indicated place of enterprise as the most importantpredictor of entrepreneurial expectations, which predicted 39percent of variance. This indicated that women entrepreneur’sentrepreneurial expectations about the future could be predictedby their place of enterprise. The other predictor was membershipsin associations, which predicted an additional 13 percent ofvariance. The place of enterprise and memberships in associations

TABLE 6 Regressions between Conceptual Understanding ofEntrepreneurship (COUE) and Socio-Background Variables


MA 0.54 0.29 −0.54 12.39 0.01MA,C 0.63 0.39 −0.50 9.37 0.01

−0.32

p: Level of Significance; MA: Memberships in Associations; C: Social Category.


together explained 52 percent of variance. When family incomewas added to the equation along with these two variables, thesepredicted 60 percent of variance, showing the addition to variancethrough family income by 8 percent. The addition of other socio-background variables (age, education, social category, previousoccupation, experience, entrepreneurship and technical train-ing, father’s present occupation, and husband’s education) inthe regression equation did not changed the percent of variance.Thus, indicating redundancy of these variables in predicting theentrepreneurial expectations of women entrepreneurs. Beta coef-ficients for place of enterprise (β = 0.63) made positive contri-butions and memberships in associations (β = −0.36) and familyincome (β = −0.29) made negative contributions. This suggestedthat women entrepreneurs who had better entrepreneurial expec-tations about their future in food processing enterprises were hail-ing from advanced place (Bangalore), but had few membershipsin associations and belonging to low family income status.

Regressions on Psycho-Entrepreneurial Variables Using DifferentPsychosocial Variables

Table 7 revealed that “perceived ladder of success at present”emerged as the only predictor of conceptual understand-ing of entrepreneurship, which predicted 18 percent of vari-ance. No other psychosocial variables like, locus of con-trol, entrepreneurship awareness and technical know-how,entrepreneurial expectations about the future, perceptions of suc-cess and perceptions of self-achievements were found significant.These variables did not change the percent of variance and thus,indicating redundancy of these variables in predicting concep-tual understanding of entrepreneurship of women entrepreneurs.

TABLE 7 Regressions between Conceptual Understanding ofEntrepreneurship (COUE) and Ladder of Success at Present (LASP)


LASP 0.42 0.18 −0.42 6.43 0.01

p: Level of significance; LASP: Perceived Ladder of Success at Present.


Beta coefficients for women entrepreneur’s perceptions of “per-ceived ladder of success at present” (β = −0.42), thus, made neg-ative contribution. This suggested that women entrepreneurs whohad more conceptual understanding of entrepreneurship werethose who perceived their success at present at a lower ladder.No other psychosocial variable has contributed in predicting con-ceptual understanding of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurialexpectations.

Results Summary

Results revealed that social category emerged as the common pre-dictor which contributed negatively with locus of control, andconceptual understanding of entrepreneurship; positively towardsperceived ladder of success, respectively. The socio-cultural back-grounds of the country, gender stereotyping, role-conflict andso on, were the probable reasons for these contributions. Ageemerged as a predictor only for locus of control and can beexplained in terms of social-emotional maturity, coping stylesand cognitive appraisal of stressors. Memberships in associa-tions contributed negatively with conceptual understanding ofentrepreneurship and positively towards entrepreneurial expecta-tions. Entrepreneurship and technical training contributed pos-itively in predicting perceived ladder of success has been aninteresting result in the present study. Family income contributednegatively in predicting entrepreneurial expectations. The find-ings were discussed in the line of socio-cultural differences,socialization, and life style in both the metros.

Discussion

Findings on regression analyses revealed that except for locusof control, age did not emerged as a predictor of any otherpsychosocial variable. Age had positive impact on locus of control,as with age person’s social–emotional maturity, cognitive appraisalof stressors, stress tolerance threshold and coping styles increasedtremendously irrespective of gender, cultural and geographicalboundaries. This could affect the total perceptual field of per-son resulting in more self-introspection. Perhaps, due to these


elderly women entrepreneurs attributed their success and/or fail-ure more to their knowledge, ability, capability to manipulatesituations in their favor, and other intrinsic variables thus, mak-ing them more internal in their control perceptions. A studyconducted by Carter (174) found that entrepreneurs who startedup business practices rated internal locus of control higher thanother factors. In terms of personality types, entrepreneurs whoattribute events to their own control and that internality are linkedexclusively with their attribution to effort. Social category con-tributed negatively and emerged as a common predictor of locusof control, conceptual understanding, and perception of presentladder of success. Social stratification on the basis of caste in Indiacould be a plausible explanation for this finding, as caste has beenplaying a vital role in almost every aspect of life in India its impacton a person’s own perception and behavior could not be ignored.

The government’s pro-reservation policy on the basis of castein general, and with reference to unemployment, underemploy-ment, sanction of loan, place of enterprise, subsidy, repaymentof loan and so on, in particular, perhaps nurtured external locusof control beliefs in women who belonged to higher social cat-egory. Due to this other structural failures in the entire system,by and large they believed more in external factors controllingtheir success and failure. This also affected their level of con-ceptual understanding as they focused more on manipulatingsituations and significant factors in favor of them, not on the the-oretical understanding of concepts involved in entrepreneurship.The finding of years of experience also supported this result in thepresent study. The more they became experienced; they put moreemphasis on the role of external factors affecting their successand failure. However, their perception of present ladder of successwas enhanced. This could be a result of their superiority complexdue to their societal position and yearly profits they gained fromthe venture. The informal discussions with them by the researcherfacilitated this finding, which revealed that they always exhibiteda tendency to defend their external locus of control orientationdue to lack of policy implementation, unsolved grass-root prob-lems, pro-reservation policy, and so on. However, many of themagreed that they have achieved the growth in their enterprises interms of production, profit, and brand name with whatever facil-ities and resources available to them. Thus, their satisfaction in


work might have affected positively on present ladder of success.Another finding in terms of memberships in professional asso-ciations reduced conceptual understanding and entrepreneurialexpectations were also in line of the above findings. As cross-sectional interactions during professional gatherings could moreelaborately explain the status of enterprise, new emerging con-cepts, etc., their self-evaluations could be lowered down as aresult of their less awareness regarding concepts. Hence, thiscould have an adverse impact on their expectation and achieve-ment (Shaver 22). Entrepreneurial expectation could also beaffected by place of enterprise and family’s low financial condi-tion. As it appeared in the finding that place had positive impacton expectations while negative on perception of achievement andexpectations increased more among women who belonged tofamilies with poor financial status. Perhaps in a more advancedmetropolitan city factors such as, availability of resources, easymarketing, more number of consumers, easy transport, plenty offinancial support, training programs on skill development, andother aspects of entrepreneurship and so on, facilitated theirentrepreneurial expectations about the future. Above all, woman’sstatus itself could play a major role in increasing self-confidenceand expectations in terms of achievement. This finding can also beexplained using Maslow’s need hierarchy theory proposed in 1954and McClelland’s theory of need for achievement highlighted in1961. Maslow’s theory of motivation was based on principles ofdeficiency stated that a deprived need motivated a person’s behav-ior, and principles of progression advocated that higher orderneeds became activated only when the lower level needs were per-ceived as reasonably satisfied. Therefore, women entrepreneurswere motivated by higher order needs like social status, ego, andself-actualization needs, which were accomplished more in anadvanced and modernized metro city. Similarly, McClelland sug-gested that, entrepreneurs had a high “need for achievement” ingeneral. This theory could be further extended to the extent thatwhen resources (infrastructure, raw material, transport, market,finance, social, etc.) were more accessible and easily approach-able, need for achievement could be stronger. One study con-ducted by Devi and Latha (142), on product related problems offood processing enterprises, found power-cut, non-availability ofraw materials, high raw material price, labor, unbranded product


in market, poor packaging materials, and so on, which were not soacute in technologically advanced metro cities. Entrepreneurialexpectations, though, could increase as their needs went onincreasing, more so with women entrepreneurs belonged to lowerfamily income group. This could be explained with a social com-parison (Festinger 115) process which in the case of womenentrepreneurs becomes more difficult as a result of stiff compe-tition and struggle for existence in a metro city. The increasedneeds with upward comparison could lower their self-esteem andmotivation but enhanced their self-expectations. This made themunderestimate their own achievement in the process of upwardsocial comparison. The inconsistency in the ratio of need andachievement reducing perception of need for achievement alsocould be a possible explanation to this finding. The findingof entrepreneurship and technical training facilitated their per-ception of ladder of success at present and was an expectedfinding. Entrepreneurship and technical training has been con-sidered as a splendid facilitator for conceptual understanding ofentrepreneurship in strengthening the awareness level of womenentrepreneurs in terms of technicalities involved in their enter-prises and also assisted them to foresee success with the acquiredtechnical input.

Suggestions

The basic policies and programs for participation and promotionof entrepreneurship development towards women may be possi-ble by commissioning independent nodal center(s)/informationbureau(s) at all educational institutions, panchayat unions,and taluk offices or similar functional bodies. These fur-ther enhance motivation and participation in entrepreneurshipdevelopment and impart necessary technical training so as tofacilitate choice based techno-entrepreneurial learning process,respectively. Establishing and setting up of EntrepreneurshipDevelopment Banks (EDBs) and segmentation of an Unit/Cellwithin EDBs focusing on facilitating Small & Tiny WomenEntrepreneurs in organized and unorganized sectors with con-structive financial modalities and timely procedural formalitiesmay be the only positive ray of hope for women to becomeentrepreneurs in general and in particular in the case of food


processing enterprises in developing countries. The implicationsof this study do suggest policy makers, researchers, and trainersat various training organizations and academic institutions con-sider inclusion of women entrepreneurship as phenomenal anddistinct discipline. More research needs to be conducted inculcat-ing self←→environment aspects and its contributions in womenentrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship development programs focusing onwomen entrepreneurship development should concentrate onperceptional parameters such as: locus of control, conceptualunderstanding of entrepreneurship, and also to reiterate theirexpectations and success out of their enterprises. Moreover, aca-demicians involved in entrepreneurship curriculum could suggestsome more innovative measures on women entrepreneurshipand in filling the inputs on inventories for an extensive percep-tion analysis. The basic elements in entrepreneurship such asattributes for entrepreneuring may be included and impartedas a subject of study at the secondary level of education, whichmay comprise of various social aspects and gender sensitive issuesinto its fold. The study attempted to find the perception of metrowoman entrepreneur within the boundaries of entrepreneurship.However, the social demarcations in terms of rural womenentrepreneurs, that too in unorganized sectors into food pro-cessing avenues remain unseen. Hence, the future researcherscould include women hailing from cross-cultural backgroundsand also include cross-comparison on gender aspects to findpsychosocial and psycho-entrepreneurial dispositions. They couldfurther concentrate on perceptional differences that exist inentrepreneurial understanding and enterprise performanceswith heterogeneous samples. This would possibly provide newerdimensions in case of enterprise management process and anoutlook on favorable options as well as unfavorable choices andtheir corresponding effects in running their business enterprises.There exists an extensive research potential wherein, culturalinfluences are more predominant in terms of gender that curtailwoman’s entry into entrepreneurial action and economic partic-ipation. Such avenues could be identified with inclusion of fewor more variables using larger samples shall provide the possibleexplanations on women entrepreneurship perceptional research.It is obvious that motivational training should also concentrate


on changing woman’s perception towards assurance, sustenance,emergence, and participation in enterprising activities. Thereason being, social comparisons with their male counterpartsdo have a significant chance to affect the woman’s perceptionsand their entrepreneurial performances. More precisely, resultsin the present study justified perceptions, which have beendeveloped with experience, social category, entrepreneurshiptraining, memberships in associations, family income, and so on,on metro women is a positive sign in women entrepreneurshipdevelopment. Similarly, other studies pertaining to womenentrepreneurship research could make attempts as a whole onthe above lines in a broader perspective.

Limitations and Future Directions

There were a few limitations in the present study, whichfuture researchers may consider in their studies in womenentrepreneurship. For instance, sample size may be increasedfor astounding results on practical aspects of entrepreneurship.Other statistical analyses such as t-tests (mean differences) andcorrelations may be carried out with an increase in sample size.Future researchers may consider samples of women entrepreneursfrom all strata within the society, that is urban, semi-urban,rural women entrepreneurs along with women entrepreneursin other metros to test the generalization of these findings.The study mainly focused on psychosocial aspects, but notmuch emphasized on economic aspects of the enterprise. Theresearchers into women entrepreneurship may also include theseaspects and expedite the relationship with psychosocial profileof women entrepreneurs. Also some more important parameters,like achievement motivation, rate of financial growth, and person-ality types may be included for a more comprehensive researchstudy.

Implications and Conclusions

It has been unique from the above discussions, that socio-background variables do have an effect on women’s entrepre-neurial emergence, that is, social category, years of experience,


and age in particular, which accounted for internal locus ofcontrol perceptions. This clearly implied that internal controlperceptions have an impact on their socio-background. Likewise,conceptual understanding of entrepreneurship has an impactwith memberships in associations and entrepreneurship technicaltraining, which contributed to the displacement of their successperceptions in the perceived ladder at present. Thus, it is apparentfrom the study that psychosocial and psycho-entrepreneurial dis-positions do exist in the case of women entrepreneurship, whichcould be explained with their socio-backgrounds. Both hypotheseswere partially accepted in the present study drawing suitable impli-cations and appropriate suggestive measures. One such implica-tion in the present study throws light on perceptions and its effectswith corresponding socio-background variables, which facilitatedtheir entrepreneurial process and choices. Also, background vari-ables like monthly family income had more significant contribu-tions towards placing themselves in the ladder of success and pre-dicting their entrepreneurial expectations, and indicated womenentrepreneur’s balanced action with perception about their enter-prising activity. It also helps in making future visualization oftheir enterprises with present level of operation and functioningin terms of perceptions, which has been found more significantin the present study. Therefore, it becomes necessary that fre-quent socio-entrepreneurial awareness on policies and programsare needed to bring women to perform an entrepreneurial action.Moreover, special emphasis on psychosocial aspects of womenentrepreneurship on small and tiny enterprises at the communitylevel should be systematically pursued and frequently invoked.

To conclude, women entrepreneurship development metho-dologies have to focus more on self-environmental functions notonly in a country like India, but also in other developed, under-developed, and developing countries for economic sustenanceand overwhelming entrepreneurial participation. However, moreresearch into women entrepreneurship with a larger sample couldattribute better results and also widen the scope of generaliza-tions in lieu of the present findings. Future researchers shouldconduct research studies on perceptional parameters on cross-cultural samples from other developing countries to enhancethe entrepreneurial research base for women and to strengthenwomen entrepreneurship in developing and under-developed


countries. This may facilitate them to understand developmentalarchetype for enterprising women.

Works Cited

Allen, K. Launching New Ventures: An Entrepreneurial Approach. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co. 1999. Print.

Anna, V. “Socio-Economic Base of Women Entrepreneurship.” Small EnterpriseDevelopment and Management of Enterprise 17.1 (1990): 17–31.

Anwar, F.S. “Management of Rural Women Entrepreneurship in Bangaladesh:A Case of Bangaladesh.” Journal of Business Administration 18. 3–4 (1992):156–65.

Baker, T., H.E. Aldrich, and N. Liou. “Invisible Entrepreneurs: The Neglect ofWomen Business Owners By Mass Media and Scholarly Journals in USA.”Entrepreneurship and Regional Development - An International Journal 3.9 (1997):221–38.

Bilesanmi-Awoderu, J.B., and O.O. Kalesanwo. “Women Entrepreneurship inScience and Technology: Impetus for Female Participation in NationalDevelopment in Nigeria.” Academic Leadership Journal 7.3 (2009): 62–66.

Black, J.S. “Locus of Control, Social Support, Stress, and Adjustment inInternational Transfer.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management April (1990): 1–30.

Brooke, R.E., and L. Margaret. “Big-Five Personality Model Comparing Male andFemale Entrepreneurs.” Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 9.1 (2003): 1–10.

Buttner, H., and D. Moore. “Women’s Organizational Exodus toEntrepreneurship: Self-Reported Motivations and Correlates with Success.”Journal of Small Business Management 35.1 (1997): 34–47.

Caputo, R., and A. Dolinsky. “Women’s Choice to Pursue Self-Employment: TheRole of Financial and Human Capital of Household Members.” Journal ofSmall Business Management 36.3 (1998): 8–17.

Carter, N. “Entrepreneurial Processes and Outcomes: the Influence of Gender.”The Entrepreneurial Process. Ed. N. Carter. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1997.163–78. Print.

Chattopadhyay, R., and A. Ghosh. “Predicting Entrepreneurial Success: A Socio-Psychological Study.” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 11.1 (2002): 21–31.

Chowdhary, M. Factors Affecting the Percolation of Benefits of Technology in AgriculturalDevelopment, College of Basic Sciences and Humanities, Hissar, India, 1982.PhD Thesis.

Cook, J. “Women: The best entrepreneurs.” Canadian Business (1982): 68–73.Corner, L. Women and Economic Development and Cooperation in Asia-Pacific

Economic Cooperation (APEC): Economic Empowerment Series UNIFEMEast and Southeast Asia, 1998. UNIFEM. Print.

Devi, A., and K.M. Latha. “Problems Related to Food Processing Industries inSelected Districts in Kerala.” Journal of Avinashilingam Institute for Home Scienceand Higher Education for Women-Deemed University 10.3 (2000): 139–45.

Fagenson, E. “Personal Value Systems of Men and Women Entrepreneurs VersusManagers.” Journal of Business Venturing 8.5 (1993): 409–30.


Festinger, L. “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.” Human Relations 7(1954): 114–40.

Ganesan, R. “Contribution of Socio-Background and Psychosocial Variableto the Psycho-Entrepreneurial Disposition of Women Entrepreneurs: AnExploratory Empirical Study.” SRMCEM International Journal—Genesis—ACaravan 2 (2006): 25–40.

Ganesan, R., D. Kaur, and R.C. Maheshwari. “Women Entrepreneurs—Problemsand Prospects.” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 11.1 (2002): 55–93.

Ganesan, R., D. Kaur, R.C. Maheshwari, and S. Satapathy. “WomenEntrepreneurs in Food Processing Enterprises—Factors and Problems.”Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 28.1–2 (2002): 81–88.

Ganesan, R., and S. Satapathy. “Background Differences and EntrepreneurialTraits Among Women Entrepreneurs.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship6 (2002): 75–87.

Gatewood, E., K. Shaver, and W. Gartner. “A Longitudinal Study of CognitiveFactors Influencing Start-Up Behaviours and Success at Venture Creation.”Journal of Business Venturing 10 (1994): 371–91.

Gupta, V., D. Turban, and N. Bhawe. “The Effect of Gender Stereotype Activationon Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93.5 (2008):1053–69.

Gupta, V., and A. York. “The Effects of Geography and Age on Women’sAttitudes Towards Entrepreneurship: Evidence from the State of Nebraska.”International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 9.4 (2008): 12–26.

Hisrich, R.D. “The Woman Entrepreneur: Characteristics, Skills, Problems andPrescriptions for Success.” The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge,MA: Ballinger Publishing Co. 1986. 61–84. Print.

Hisrich, R.D., and C.G. Brush. The Woman Entrepreneur: Starting, Financing andManaging a Successful New Businesses. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986.Print.

Hisrich, R.D., C.G. Brush, D. Good, and G. De Souza. “Some PreliminaryFindings on Performance in Entrepreneurial Ventures: Does Gender Matter?”Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 1996.Print.

Hisrich, R.D., and B. Marie. “The Woman Entrepreneur from a Business andSociological Perspective.” Conference on Entrepreneurship (1981): 21–39. Print.

Holmquist, C. “The Other Side of the Coin or Another Coin?—Women’sentrepreneurship as a Complement or An Alternative.” Entrepreneurship andRegional Development 9.3 (1997): 179–81.

Hwang, D., B. Staley, Y. Chen, and J. Lan. “Confucian Culture and WhistleBlowing by Professional Accountants: An Exploratory Study.” ManagerialAuditing Journal 23.5 (2008): 504–26.

Jalbert, S.E. Women Entrepreneurs in the Global Economy. CIPE Conference “Women:The Emerging Economic Force.” Washington, DC, 2000. 1–67. Print.

James, D., and R.L. Paul. “A Comparison of Selected Personal Characteristics ofMinority and Non-minority Female Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Small BusinessManagement December (1979): 22–29.


Kirkwood, J., and B. Tootell. “Is Entrepreneurship the Answer to Achieving Work-Family Balance?” Journal of Management and Organization 14.3 (2008): 285–98.

Klyver, K., and S. Terjesen. “Entrepreneurial Network Composition: An AnalysisAcross Venture Development Stage and Gender.” Women in Management Review22.8 (2007): 682–98.

Lefcourt, H.M. “Durability and Impact of the Locus of Control Construct.”Psychological Bulletin 112 (1992): 411–14.

Makararavy, T.Y., S. Chhuntek, W. John, and A. Pacapol. “A Study of WomenEntrepreneur Development in Small and Medium Enterprises in Cambodia:Challenges and Opportunities.” Journal of Global Management Research 5.1(2009): 7–14.

Maslow, A.H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row Publications,1954. 81.

McClelland, D.C. The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961. Print.McClelland, D.C. “Business Drive and National Achievement.” Harvard Business

Review 40.4 (1962): 99–112.Meltem, I. “A Socio-Economic Perspective on Women Entrepreneurs: Evidence

from Turkey.” Economic Studies 4 (2009): 138–66.Morris, M., N. Miyasaki, C. Watters, and S. Coombes. “The Dilemma of Growth:

Understanding Venture Size Choices of Women Entrepreneurs.” Journal ofSmall Business Management 44.2 (2006): 221–43.

National Foundation for Women Business Owners. “Issues Affecting WomenBusiness Owners in Argentina and other Latin-and-Iber-American Countries.”Executive Report of Results from a survey conducted at the 8th CongressIberamericano de Mujeres Empresarias. Mar Del Plata, Argentina, 1998. Print.

Neergard, H., E. Shaw, and S. Carter. “The Impact of Gender, Social Capitaland Networks on Business Ownership.” International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviours and Research 11.5 (2005): 338–57.

Nelton, S. “Women-Owned Firms Grow In Number and Importance.” Nation’sBusiness USA, April, 7 (1996).

Pareek, U. “Determining the Destiny.” Measure of Social Psychological Attitudes. Rev.ed. Eds. U. Pareek, T.V. Rao, and D.M. Pestonjee. New Delhi, 1981. Print.

Rao, T.V. Locus of Control Test: Developing Human Resources. Eds. L.D. Goodsteinand J.W. Pfeiffer. San Diego: California University Associates, 1985. Print.

Rathore, B.S., and R. Chabbra. “Promotion of Women Entrepreneurship-Training Strategies.” Small Enterprise Development and Management of Enterprise18 (1991): 7–9.

Roomi, M., and G. Parrott. “Barriers to Development and Progression of WomenEntrepreneurs in Pakistan.” The Journal of Entrepreneurship 17.1 (2008): 59–72.

Rotter, J.B. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1954.

Rotter, J.B. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Locus ofControl of Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs 80 (1966): 1–28 (1,Whole no. 609).

Rotter, J.B., E.J. Chance, and E.J. Phares. Application of a Social Learning Theory ofPersonality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. Print.


Saigal, O. “Food Processing Industry: Current Scene and Prospects.” Yojana(2001): 33–34.

Savadi, S.V. “Women Entrepreneurs in India: Scope and Opportunities.” SouthernEconomist (2001): 17–20.

Schwartz, E. “Entrepreneurship: The New Female Frontier.” Journal ofContemporary Business Winter (1976): 47–76.

Shaver, K.G. “The Entrepreneurial Personality Myth.” Business & Economic Review41.3 (1995): 20–23.

Singh, K.P. “Women Entrepreneurs: Their Profile and Motivation.” The Journal ofEntrepreneurship 2.1 (1993): 47–57.

Timmons, J.A. “Characteristics and Role Demands of Entrepreneurship.”American Journal of Small Business 3.1 (1978): 6–15.

United Nations. The World’s Women: Trends and Statistics. New York, 1995. Print.Verheul, I., A. Van Stel, and R. Thurik. “Explaining Female and Male

Entrepreneurship at the Country Level.” Entrepreneurship and RegionalDevelopment 18.2 (2006): 151–70.

Winter, D.W. Motivating Economic Achievement. New York: Free Press, 1969. Print.

psychosocial and psycho-entrepreneurial predictors—an exploratory study on indian women...

Documents