A Longitudinal Analysis Of College-Educated Women's Self-Employment Decisions

by

Barbara Woods McElroy

Paula D. Harveston

Cherlyn S. Granrose

 


a peer-reviewed articleBarbara Woods McElroy is a professor at Susquehanna University's Sigmund Weis School of Business. She can be contacted at mcelroyb(at)susqu.edu by replacing (at) with @. Paula D. Harveston and Cherlyn S. Granrose are both professors at Berry College's Campbell School of Business.


ABSTRACT

Researchers do not agree on the reasons why women become entrepreneurs. In this article we use longitudinal data collected over a twenty-year period to explore whether college-educated women entrepreneurs were different early in their lives from other women.  Early differences would offer evidence that female entrepreneurs, much like their male counterparts, are led to self-employment by its inherent virtues or by their specific talents or interests. Lack of early differences would lend credence to the notion that female entrepreneurs are led to self-employment by other factors. We also examined the responses of the entrepreneurial women studied more qualitatively in an attempt to categorize the entrepreneurs into the four categories recommended by Goffee and Scase (1985). Based upon a longitudinal analysis, only about half of the women seemed to fit into these categories, and the number who seemed to fit changes at each data point. The evidence suggests that women’s status as entrepreneurs is at least as much the result of life circumstances as the completion of long-term goals.

 

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, an increasing number of women have started businesses. A number of studies have considered several aspects of female entrepreneurs: their activities (i.e. Buttner, 2001); career selection (Matthews and Moser, 1996; Scherer, Brodzinski and Weibe, 1990); work-home role conflict (Stoner, Hartman and Arora, 1990); gender and ownership patterns (Rosa and Hamilton, 1994); entrepreneurial attitudes and skills (Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990); perceptions about entrepreneurship (Hisrich, Koiranen and Hyrski, 1996); education (Dolinsky, Caputo, Parsumarty and Quazi, 1993; Hisrich and Brush, 1983); and networking patterns (Aldrich, Reese and Dubini, 1989; Andre, 1992; Carsrud, Gaglio and Olin, 1986; Cromie and Birley, 1992). The majority of these studies compared male and female entrepreneurs. While these studies show the differences between female and male entrepreneurs, collectively they fail to clarify the unique dimensions of women entrepreneurs.

The focus of this study is to examine over time why college-educated women choose to become self-employed entrepreneurs. We are particularly interested in examining whether long term intentions drive entrepreneurship for women or whether they are forced into self-employment by lack of opportunity due to the existence of a glass ceiling in the corporate world or are led to it by opportunities that present themselves as their lives progress (Auster, 1993). We investigate this research question using longitudinal data gathered from a sample of women we followed over a twenty-year period after their formative college years.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The management literature contains many studies of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is important because small businesses have historically provided both the majority of jobs and innovation in the U. S. economy. Recently, this trend has intensified and become more global in nature.  As shown in Table 1, the percentage of jobs in firms with more than one hundred employees has fallen in nearly all developed nations (Reynolds and White, 1997).


Table 1

Growth Trends in Small and Medium Enterprises in Developed Nations

 

Country

Years

Firm Size (# of employees, %)

 

 

1-19

20-99

100-499

500+

Canada1

1984-89

0.6

6.8

-2.1

-3.7

France2

1985-90

3.0

0.0

-1.9

-1.1

Germany

1988-90

2.1

-0.7

-0.4

-0.9

Italy

1988-90

3.6

-0.8

-0.3

-2.0

Japan2

1988-91

-0.4

0.4

0.2

-0.7

Spain

1988-90

7.3

-3.8

-4.5

1.0

UK

1988-91

1.0

1.0

-0.5

-1.5

USA3

1988-90

7.4

-1.1

-1.5

-3.2

Adapted from Reynolds and White, 1997

1Manufacturing only, 2Employees only (Owners excluded), 3Establishments, excluding agricultural sector


Generally, early entrepreneurship research was conducted by economists who focused on the role of the entrepreneur in economic growth and innovation (i.e., Schumpeter, 1934). Early studies found that new businesses were the result of a desire to be entrepreneurs, and that entrepreneurs were somehow different from employees (Brockhaus, 1982; Brush, 1992).

Beginning in the 1970s, a second wave of interest in entrepreneurship emerged that compares female and male entrepreneurs. This surge of interest in female entrepreneurs was fueled by lackluster performance of major corporations, by the women’s movement, and by the fact that female self-employment growth outpaced that of males. Female self-employment in the UK increased 81% between 1981 and 1989, while male self-employment increased only 51% (Carter and Cannon, 1992).   In the U.S., women started businesses at twice the rate of men between 1975 and 1990 (Murphy, 1992).

This second wave of research found that female entrepreneurs differ from their male counterparts in several ways. Women attach different connotations to terms commonly used to describe entrepreneurs such as “innovation” (Lee-Gosselin and Grise, 1990) and “risk taking” (Green and Cohen, 1995). Hakim (1989) found that women become entrepreneurs for different reasons than men. Early research using male subjects indicated that entrepreneurship was the result of a lifelong desire for self-employment, and that entrepreneurs and employees were inherently different. More recent research with women indicated that entrepreneurship could also be a response to dissatisfaction with career options (Rosin and Koranik, 1992).  Women entrepreneurs appear to vary greatly from their male counterparts in the resources such as spousal support, education, and work experience that they bring to the new enterprise (Watkins and Watkins, 1984; Harveston, Davis and Lyden, 1997). Finally, there is evidence that women organize their business operations and manage succession issues differently (Harveston, Davis and Lyden, 1997).

Perhaps Green and Cohen (1995) best described the effect of these differences. Their grounded-theory study explored the experiences of twenty four women who left large corporations to set up their own businesses. They concluded “while self-employment offers ways of accommodating women’s dual roles as mothers and professionals, it does little to alter their structural positions within the labor market and society more generally, nor does it seem to have any impact on their ideological perspectives. Self-employment in this sense can be seen as a hegemonic process–giving women the opportunity to negotiate, to feel autonomous, empowered, and in control, and in doing so, ensure that existing circumstances remain essentially unchallenged.”

Review of these differences in the past literature led us to the question of whether women who become self-employed differ early in their lives from those who do not become entrepreneurs. Early differences between those who become entrepreneurs and others would support the idea that female entrepreneurs, much like their male counterparts, are led to self-employment by its inherent virtues or by their specific talents or interests. Lack of such differences would lend credence to the notion that females become entrepreneurs due to their dissatisfaction with opportunities available to them as employees or opportunities that arise later in their careers or because of opportunities that the marketplace affords them. We wanted to examine several potential areas of difference between entrepreneurs and employees. Thus, the primary research questions we pursued were whether women who become entrepreneurs are identifiable by characteristics of family background, by their career orientation, by their beliefs about family relationships, by their expectations about family income, by their feelings of self-worth, by their levels of satisfaction with family relationships or their careers. Therefore, we decided to test the following hypotheses:

H1: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different views about family relationships.

H2: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different career orientations.

H3: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different expectations about family income.

H4: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different views of their self worth.

H5: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different satisfaction levels with their family relationships.

H6: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different satisfaction levels with their careers.

 

EXISTING CLARIFICATIONS OF FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS

 

In addition to testing for differences between female entrepreneurs and employees we wanted to explore differences among female entrepreneurs. We considered two classification schemes from extant literature.  Goffee and Scase (1985) classified women entrepreneurs into four types based upon two factors:  their attachment to entrepreneurial ideals and their willingness to accept conventional gender roles.  Conventionals showed commitment to both factors.  They were primarily working-class women with fragmented work histories forced into self-employment by economic necessity. Innovators were committed to entrepreneurial ideals but not to conventional gender roles.They were largely professional women who had chosen self-employment as a solution to restricted career prospects. Domestic Entrepreneurs had little attachment to entrepreneurial ideals and much to conventional gender roles. They tended to fit their business duties around their family responsibilities. Radical Entrepreneurs held little attachment to either factor.  They were frequently involved in collective ventures, political in nature, and aiming to promote women’s interests.


Figure 1
Goffee and Scase Typology of Female Entrepreneurs

 

                                                                                          Commitment to Entrepreneurial Ideals
Commitment to   Low High
Traditional Low Radical Entrepreneurs Innovators
Gender Roles High Domestic Entrepreneurs Conventionals

From Goffee and Scase (1985)


Carter and Cannon (1992) use a sample of 60 business owners in Britain to classify female entrepreneurs into five types based upon heterogeneity and change. Drifters are young women who use self-employment to overcome unemployment.Young achievers are aspiring, well educated and with little experience. Achievers were somewhat older and with more experience. Returners used self-employment as a way to re-enter the work force after a career break. Traditionalists were women, generally over age 45, who had always worked in family- owned and managed businesses. Carter and Cannon stress the flexibility of these categories, and the dynamic nature of small business.

Each of these classification schemes has limitations. The Goffee and Scase typology is largely theoretical, and it represents a snapshot of entrepreneurs at a given moment.  The Carter and Cannon taxonomy better reflects the changing nature of entrepreneurship as women pass through the stages of life. We chose to use the Goffee and Scase categorization for two reasons.  First, it addresses women’s motivations for self-employment more effectively. Second, our sample does not include older women, and that eliminates the possibility of having any subjects in Carter and Cannon’s final two categories.

METHOD

In 1980-82, 433 college junior and senior women participated in a study of the intention to return to work following childbirth. Respondents were asked to describe these intentions, their beliefs about consequences of working and not working, and their career and childbearing plans.

In 1990, we obtained 336 current addresses of the original participants. We received Phase II questionnaires from 263 women, and were able to match Phase I and Phase II questionnaires for 228 women (68% of those sent questionnaires and 52.6% of the original respondents).  In 1990, two additional types of questions were asked. The first asked the extent to which job characteristics, family situations, and child care problems would influence the person to leave an organization. Respondents were asked to refer to the organization they were working for at the time of the birth of their first child if they were mothers, or to their current organization if they were not mothers. A second type asked the extent to which their expectations had been met in the jobs they had held since college and whether a woman had ever considered becoming an entrepreneur

In the summer of 2001 we located for the third time 265 women. Of those, 75 responses could be matched to both Phase I and Phase II (29% of those sent Phase III questionnaires and 17% of the original participants). Though this would generally be considered a rather low response rate, we were pleased to realize that 29% of the women we located retained an interest in the study twenty years after its inception despite lives busy with work and children. In addition to repeating the questions from Phase One and Phase Two about respondents’ beliefs about the consequences of working or not working after childbirth, the 2001 survey included questions about whether the woman had considered self-employment, whether she actually opened the business and, if not, why not, whether either of her parents had been an entrepreneur, and the response of any partner to her desire to become self-employed.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Phase I:

As reported earlier, the original 433 women participating in the study were college juniors and seniors.They came from one of two universities in the northeast and were pursuing a wide range of majors.

Phase II:

As a group, the women who participated in Phase II of this study maintained an educated but middle class life style during the 1980s. Over one-third received graduate degrees. The majority (57%) was employed in service industries, with substantial minorities in finance, insurance and real estate (20%), and manufacturing (11%). The most common occupations included manager (25%), housewife (11%), scientist (9%), and computer specialist (8%).  Over 72% worked 35 or more hours per week in jobs they had held for the past three years. Their average income was slightly over $30,000, and for those who were married, spouses made about $50,000 annually. Family life had been delayed longer than anticipated in 1980, but 46% had one child, 20% had two children and 4% had three.

Phase III: 

 By the summer of 2001, only one woman continued to delay childbearing. The respondents are on the whole middle-class. Because some women who self-reported as entrepreneurs reported very few hours of work, we classified women who work fewer than ten hours weekly as homemakers in order not to confuse entrepreneurs with those who  only had an avocation. Of the 75 current respondents, we classified twenty as entrepreneurs, 42 as employees, and 13 as homemakers.[1]

RESULTS

Demographic differences

The only significant demographic differences among the three groups were that entrepreneurs had a larger number of younger brothers, and that a larger portion of entrepreneurs had a self-employed parent.

Analysis

We conducted two types of analysis. The first analysis was simple F-tests to discover mean differences between the three groups on a variety of measures gathered as college students and at one and two decades after college graduation. All items were measured on a 1-5 scale with 1 indicating events of very low value or very improbable events and 5 indicating very valuable or very probable events. The second analysis was a qualitative analysis of the responses the entrepreneurial women made about their careers at all three times in an attempt to categorize the respondents into the Goffee and Scase model.

The Statistical Analysis

We compared the scores of all women who returned questionnaires for Phase Two and Phase Three on these questions about their interest in becoming an entrepreneur. Because we have lost track of many participants in the past twenty years, this is a small sample. Many differences were non-significant. However, a few were significant in ways that are interesting.

H1:  Entrepreneurs and employees will have different views about family relationships


Table 2A:  Family Relationships

 College Years

 

Variable Description

Mean

Entrepreneurs

N=20

Mean

Employees

N=42

Mean

Homemakers

N=13

Significance

Values:

 

 

 

 

Feel close to child

4.71

5.00

5.00

**

Train child myself

4.00

3.74

4.14

 

Have time for Child

4.36

4.79

4.71

 

Independent child

4.21

4.33

4.00

 

Secure child

4.71

4.78

4.86

 

Well-disciplined child

4.43

4.61

4.29

 

Probability if working:

 

 

 

 

Feel close to child

3.85

3.89

3.43

.

Have time for Child

3.54

3.63

3.00

 

Independent child

4.08

4.16

3.86

 

Secure child

3.69

4.11

3.43

 

Well-disciplined child

3.54

4.11

3.29

.

Probability if not working:

 

 

 

 

Feel close to child

4.08

4.53

4.14

 

Train child myself

4.69

4.68

4.00

.

Have time for Child

4.69

4.89

4.43

**

Independent child

3.08

3.68

3.43

 

Secure child

4.38

4.53

4.14

 

Well-disciplined child

4.23

4.37

4.14

 

Probability:

 

 

 

 

Partner Approve of working

4.00

4.21

3.86

**

Comply with Partner’s wishes

4.00

4.21

3.86

 

 Parents Approve of working

0.92

1.37

0.57

 

Comply with Parents’ wishes

0.77

1.42

0.71

.

*              .05 < p < .10

**           .01 < p < .05

***         .00 < p< .01

All scales are from 1 (not at all, or not at all likely, or not at all probably) to 5 (very much or very likely, or very probable)


College Perceptions

Table 2A shows the results of questions about family relationships given by the women while of college age. There were very few significant differences, and in two of the three cases those differences were between homemakers and employees rather than between entrepreneurs and employees. The only significant difference in attitudes about family relationships between future entrepreneurs and employees was that entrepreneurs placed less value on feeling close to their children. In light of there being no differences in the value they place on having time for the child, training the child personally, and the child being independent, secure, and well-disciplined, this one difference seems inconsequential.  Thus, there is little evidence that entrepreneurs and employees have different attitudes toward family relationships while in college.

One-Decade Post-College Perceptions

Table 2B shows the results of the family relationships questions one decade after college.  For many of these women, motherhood had been postponed longer than anticipated. Though 91% expected in 1980 to have children a decade later, only about 50% of subjects had children eight to ten years after college graduation. Though homemakers exhibited some significant differences from the others, there were no differences in the probabilities entrepreneurs and employees assigned to the consequences of working or not working on their family relationships. There is no evidence that entrepreneurs and employees have different attitudes toward family relationships one decade past college.


Table 2B: Family Relationships

 Ten Years After College

 

Variable Description

Mean

Entrepreneurs

N=20

Mean

Employees

N=42

Mean

Homemakers

N=13

Significance

Consequences of working:

 

 

 

 

Feel close to child

4.77

5.63

3.71

 

Train child myself

4.08

3.95

4.00

 

 Have time for Child

4.85

4.68

4.43

 

Independent child

4.46

4.53

4.43

 

 Secure child

4.85

4.95

4.57

*

Well-disciplined child

4.69

4.53

4.29

 

Consequences of not working:

 

 

 

 

Feel close to child

3.92

3.84

3.29

 

Train child myself

2.62

2.95

2.57

 

Have time for Child

3.15

3.32

2.57

 

 Independent child

3.62

4.21

3.57

*

Secure child

3.69

3.89

3.14

 

Well-disciplined child

3.54

3.63

3.43

 

Probability:

 

 

 

 

Partner Approve of working

4.00

4.11

5.29

 

Comply with Partner’s wishes

1.92

2.58

4.29

*

Boss Approve of working

4.85

4.37

5.14

 

Comply with Boss’s wishes

3.38

3.74

4.43

 

*              .05 < p < .10

**           .01 < p < .05

***         .00 < p< .01

All scales are from 1 (not at all, or not at all likely, or not at all probably) to 5 (very much or very likely, or very probable)


 

Two Decades Post-College Perceptions

Table 2C presents the results of the family relationships questions two decades post-collegeBy this point, all but one of our respondents had children. We found only one significant difference between entrepreneurs and employees. Employees are more likely to believe that their child will be secure if they work. Perhaps the fact that homemakers and entrepreneurs do not share this explains their choices. Homemakers may stay home in an attempt to make their children secure. Entrepreneurs may choose self-employment because they think that the greater control over their work and their working hours makes their children more secure.


Table 2C: Family Relationships

 Twenty Years after College

 

Variable Description

Mean

Entrepreneurs

N=20

Mean

Employees

N=42

Mean

Homemakers

N=13

Significance

Consequence of working:

 

 

 

 

Feel close to child

4.16

4.29

3.38

.**

Train child myself

3.20

3.60

2.54

.***

Have time for Child

3.05

3.40

1.92

.***

Independent child

3.80

4.24

3.38

.***

Secure child

3.30

4.24

2.85

.***

Well-disciplined child

3.50

3.93

2.92

.***

Consequence of not working:

 

 

 

 

Feel close to child

4.37

4.39

4.46

 

Train child myself

4.53

4.53

4.08

 

Have time for Child

4.42

4.61

4.08

 

Independent child

4.42

3.32

3.92

 

Secure child

3.89

4.27

4.31

 

Well-disciplined child

3.79

4.12

4.15

 

Probability:

 

 

 

 

Partner Approve of working

4.05

4.32

3.00

.***

Comply with Partner’s wishes

2.56

2.59

2.46

 

Boss Approve of working

4.33

4.45

4.56

 

Comply with Boss’s

 wishes

3.41

3.50

4.11

 

*              .05 < p < .10

**           .01 < p < .05

***         .00 < p< .01

All scales are from 1 (not at all, or not at all likely, or not at all probably) to 5 (very much or very likely, or very probable)


Thus, overall, the hypothesis that entrepreneurs and employees have different attitudes toward family relationships is not supported during college, ten years after college, or twenty years after college. There are very few differences in these attitudes at any of the three points.

H2:  Entrepreneurs and employees will have different career orientation.

We asked the women questions about maintaining skills and advancing their careers. During college the women stated the desirability to them of these goals and the probability that they would accomplish these goals if they did and if they did not work. They answered the questions about the probabilities of attaining the goals again at ten and twenty years after college.


Table 3:  Career Orientation

 

Variable Description

Mean

Entrepreneurs

N = 20

Mean

Employees

N = 42

Mean

Homemakers

N = 13

Significance

College Years

 

 

 

 

Value: 

 

 

 

 

Maintain Skills

4.57

4.63

4.14

 

Advance Career

4.50

4.21

3.43

.**

Probability if working:

 

 

 

 

Advance Career

4.23

3.89

4.00

 

Probability if not working:

 

 

 

 

Maintain skills

2.23

2.74

3.00

 

Advance Career

1.77

1.89

2.57

 

Ten Years After College

 

 

 

 

Consequence of working:

 

 

 

 

Maintain Skills

3.85

3.89

3.29

 

Advance Career

3.46

3.79

3.14

 

Consequence of not working:

 

 

 

 

Maintain skills

4.23

4.32

4.14

 

Advance Career

3.77

4.00

3.57

 

Twenty Years After College

 

 

 

 

Consequence of working:

 

 

 

 

Maintain Skills

3.80

4.29

4.23

 

Advance Career

3.35

3.67

3.77

 

Consequence of not working:

 

 

 

 

Maintain skills

2.32

2.02

2.15

 

Advance Career

2.00

1.76

1.83

 

*              .05 < p < .10

**           .01 < p < .05

***         .00 < p< .01

All scales are from 1 (not at all, or not at all likely, or not at all probably) to 5 (very much or very likely, or very probable)


Table 3 shows the results of these questions. There were no significant differences in career orientation at any time between entrepreneurs and employees.  In fact, the only significant difference found was that, while still in college, homemakers valued advancing their careers less than the other two groups. The hypothesis that entrepreneurs and employees will have different career orientation is not supported.

H3: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different expectations about family income.

Table 4 presents the results of questions about expectations about family income. During the college years, there were no significant differences in their expectations that the family would have sufficient or extra income if they worked or did not work. Ten years after college, there were still no significant differences between entrepreneurs and employees, though differences between homemakers and employees had arisen. Twenty years after college, differences between homemakers and the other groups have intensified,, but there are still no significant differences in how entrepreneurs and employees see family income expectations if they work or do not work. The hypothesis that entrepreneurs and employees will have different expectations about family income is not supported.


Table 4:  Income

 

Variable Description

Mean

Entrepreneurs

N = 20

Mean

Employees

N =42

Mean

Homemakers

N = 13

Significance.

  College Years:

 

 

 

 

Probability if working:

 

 

 

 

 family have sufficient income

4.54*

3.89*

4.57*

 

Probability if not working:

 

 

 

 

 family have sufficient income

1.15

1.32

2.00

 

 family have extra income

2.23

2.42

3.00

 

Ten Years After College:

 

 

 

 

Consequence of working:

 

 

 

 

family have sufficient income

4.69

4.58

4.43

 

 family have extra income

4.08

4.26

3.71

 

Consequence of not working:

 

 

 

 

family have sufficient income

4.31

4.53

3.57

**

family have extra income

4.08

4.00

4.00

 

Twenty Years After College:

 

 

 

 

Consequence of working:

 

 

 

 

 family have sufficient income

3.95

4.29

4.38

 

family have extra income

3.40

3.88

4.46

*

Consequence of not working:

 

 

 

 

family have sufficient income

2.74

2.32

3.38

**

 family have extra income

1.89

1.78

2.62

*

*              .05 < p < .10

**           .01 < p < .05

***         .00 < p< .01

All scales are from 1 (not at all, or not at all likely, or not at all probably) to 5 (very much or very likely, or very probable)


H4:  Entrepreneurs and employees will have different views of their self worth.

The women were asked eleven questions in Phase II of the study related to self worth. The two primary questions (I am a person of equal worth to others; I can do things as well as others) were repeated on in Phase III.  No significant differences were found on any question between any of the three groups at any point. The hypothesis that entrepreneurs and employees will have different views of their self worth is not supported.

H5: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different satisfaction levels with their family relationships.

The women answered questions about their satisfaction with their family and with motherhood in Phase II.  A question about satisfaction with intimate relationships was asked in Phase III.  No significant differences were found on any of these questions between any of the three groups at any point. The hypothesis that entrepreneurs and employees will have different satisfaction levels with their family relationships was not supported

H6: Entrepreneurs and employees will have different satisfaction levels with their careers.

Phase II included a question about satisfaction with career, and more specifically with their job, advancement, hours, salary, autonomy, and status.  Each of the more specific questions was repeated in Phase III. No significant differences were found on any of these questions between any of the three groups at any point. The hypothesis that entrepreneurs and employees will have different satisfaction levels with their careers was not supported.

Overall, then, our results do not support Brockhaus (1982) or Brush (1992). These female, college-educated entrepreneurs exhibit very few significant differences from others who are employees. Demographically, the only differences were in the number of younger brothers and the incidence of entrepreneurship among their parents.  They do not exhibit different views about or satisfaction with family relationships, different career orientations or satisfaction levels, different expectations about family income, or self worth than employees.  Both of these groups, however, are somewhat different from those who became homemakers.  Hakim (1989) is supported:  many women evidently become entrepreneurs not because they are fulfilling lifelong goals or are inherently different from other women.

CATEGORIZING ENTREPRENEURS WITHIN THE GOFFEE AND SCASE MODEL

Longitudinal Classification

When we tried to categorize the women who said that they wanted to start their own business into the four categories recommended by Goffee and Scase (1985), based upon the twenty years of longitudinal data, we found that only eleven women (55% of those we classified as entrepreneurs) fit well into one of the four categories. Nine others (45% of those we classified as entrepreneurs) did not seem to fall into any category in this classification. Three additional women expressed a desire to be entrepreneurs, but either did not actually start their business, or worked so few hours (fewer than ten weekly) that we categorized them as homemakers.


Figure 2
Entrepreneurial  Classification—Longitudinal Analysis

 

                                                                                Commitment to Entrepreneurial Ideals
Commitment to   Low High
Traditional Low 1 Radical Entrepreneur 4 Innovator Entrepreneurs
Gender Roles High 5 Domestic Entrepreneurs 1 Conventional Entrepreneur

From Goffee and Scase (1985)

Not clearly classifiable:  Nine entrepreneurs.


Conventional Entrepreneurs:  1 Woman

We initially found it surprising that only one woman in our sample fit into the conventional category. Even she did not fit this category exactly, since she not only became an entrepreneur out of economic necessity, but also later left her enterprise for the same reason. However, it may be that the small number of conventional woman entrepreneurs is a result of the characteristics of our sample. All of the women in the original sample were juniors or seniors in college and thus had the educational resources to be able to get a job. Another reason may be that college-educated women are typically less accepting of traditional female roles.

Innovator Entrepreneurs:  4 Women

Innovators desired to be entrepreneurs early, and they have followed through with those plans despite childbirth and, in one case, a disability.   Though they had breaks in self-employment, they remain committed to their entrepreneurial goals. Interestingly, these women have the largest families in our sample; yet half earn as much money as their spouses. These women most closely resemble the results of Brockhaus (1982) and Brush (1992) because of their long-term goal of entrepreneurship.

Domestic Entrepreneurs:  5 Women

Domestic entrepreneurs exhibit a high level of commitment to both traditional gender roles and self-employment. They want to work and to be self-employed, but feel a strong desire to balance that with a traditional family life. Five women were classified as Domestic Entrepreneurs.  Interestingly, though these domestic entrepreneurs believed in traditional female roles, they have no more, and in some cases, fewer children than the women in other categories. Only the woman with a single child makes as much money as her husband, even in situations where the husband and wife share the same family business. Perhaps this is because their traditional beliefs about gender roles include the thought that their husbands should be the primary breadwinners. These women, like the men studied by Brockhaus (1982) and Brush (1992) chose entrepreneurship from en early age. However, they felt a need to balance that desire with a traditional family life.

Radical Entrepreneurs:  1 Woman

One woman seems to fit the definition of a radical entrepreneur who was not devoted to traditional gender roles or to being an entrepreneurship. Though only one person in our sample fit into this category, we do not find that surprising. Such entrepreneurs are rare in our economy.

Not Clearly Classifiable: 9 Women

Although we were able to find some examples of each of the categories of entrepreneurs cited in a traditional categorization, nearly half of the entrepreneurs did not fit this categorization. The following quote, from a woman we will call  “Barbara,” exemplifies their responses.  It also mirrors to a large extent the findings of Green and Cohen (1995).

"Careers are very important to people until you (sic) have children. Once you have children, then the career is not as important as the family. When my husband wanted me to work, I didn’t want or need any more stress than I already have, so that is why I started my card business. My husband had only a limited amount of time to watch the kids so I needed something that didn't require much time outside the home. Now I work and have not much stress from work and I am still able to contribute financially."

Categorizations based upon their answers at a specific moment in time--while college students, ten years after college, and twenty years after college--resulted in differing numbers of women in each cell of the matrix, as shown below, offering additional evidence that women’s commitment to entrepreneurial ideals and traditional gender roles often evolve rather than remain stable.

With the exception of one woman, who has yet to have children, this group seems to have started their careers with a strong commitment to non-traditional career paths that did not include staying home for long periods of time after their children were born. Thus, they did not fit the Conventional or Domestic categories of the Goffee and Scase typology when we look at their careers longitudinally. They seem to have become entrepreneurs, not because they were blocked from corporate advancement or because they had entrepreneurial ideals early in their careers as do Innovators, nor is it because they had unusual lifestyles as do Radical Entrepreneurs. Rather, they seem to have changed their commitment from their careers to their families once they had children; thereby supporting Auster (1993) and Rosin and Korabik (1992).  In a cross sectional study, perhaps these women would be categorized as Domestic Entrepreneurs. Only when we track their careers longitudinally do we discover that they did not always have a commitment to traditional gender roles. These beliefs occurred after they became mothers.

Classification While in College

Of the twenty women who are classified as entrepreneurs, fourteen did not appear to fit into any one category while in college, primarily because the majority of the women planned to be employees, not entrepreneurs. None of the women had children at this point in their lives.


Figure 3
Entrepreneur Classification While College Age

 

                                                                          Commitment to Entrepreneurial Ideals

Commitment to   Low High
Traditional Low 1 Radical Entrepreneur 3 Innovators
Gender Roles High 2 Domestic Entrepreneurs 0 Conventional Entrepreneurs

From Goffee and Scase (1985)

 Not clearly classifiable:  14 entrepreneurs


Classification Ten Years Post-College

Of the twenty women who are classified as entrepreneurs, sixteen did not appear to fit within one category based strictly upon their responses ten years after college. There are two reasons for this.  Many women did not express a firm career plan at this point. Others were still employees with no plans to become an entrepreneur. Childbearing had been delayed longer than anticipated, but about half of the women in the sample had at least one child at this point.


Figure 4

Entrepreneur Classification 10 Years Post-College

                                                                                 Commitment to Entrepreneurial Ideals
Commitment to   Low High
Traditional Low 1 Radical Entrepreneur 0  Innovator Entrepreneurs
Gender Roles High 1 Domestic Entrepreneurs 2 Conventional Entrepreneurs

*From Goffee and Scase (1985)

Not clearly classifiable:  16 entrepreneurs


Classification Twenty Years Post- College

Of the twenty women who are classified as entrepreneurs, four did not appear to fit into any one category based strictly upon their responses twenty years after college.  They were either employees or did not answer questions about career plans.  All but one woman in the sample had at least one child by this point.


Figure 5
Entrepreneur Classification 20 Years Post-College

 

                                                                                 Commitment to Entrepreneurial Ideals
Commitment to   Low High
Traditional Low 3 Radical Entrepreneurs 3 Innovator Entrepreneurs
Gender Roles High 7 Domestic Entrepreneurs 3 Conventional Entrepreneurs

*From Goffee and Scase (1985)

Not clearly classifiable:  4 entrepreneurs.


DISCUSSION

The fact that such a large percentage of our sample does not fit the Goffee and Scase model, and that the number in each cell changes over time, shows that their classification scheme is incomplete.  It appears that a model based on only two variables is unable to adequately predict the career choices of women entrepreneurs, at least those who have college educations. Their model describes an ideal snapshot of the world taken at one point in time, but the real world is much more complex, and women’s decision process is richer than the model can portray. Early in their careers, some women today appear to make career and self-employment decisions much as men do. However, when children enter the picture, some women begin to re-consider the balance between their commitment to entrepreneurial ideals and their commitment to traditional gender roles when making self-employment decisions. Even today, for many women, family needs trump career aspirations, and the career paths they follow are determined, at least while children remain at home, by practical considerations rather than ideology. Some who would prefer to be entrepreneurs take traditional jobs because they offer more security, and some who would prefer to be employees choose self-employment because it gives them the flexibility to continue working and earning money while offering them more control.

By following women’s careers across time, this paper makes a contribution to our understanding of college-educated women entrepreneurs.  It is the first to use longitudinal data about early intentions of female entrepreneurs, rather than asking women at one point to report what their intentions had been at some earlier time. We provide additional evidence that women’s status as entrepreneurs or non-entrepreneurs is at least as much the result of life circumstances, particularly the needs of their families, as the completion of long-term goals. (See the Appendix to this article for a detailed description of the participants.)

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

As with any study, our findings must be assessed with certain caveats. First, the study relied on a key-informant methodology (Phillips, 1981). Thus, the information gathered may be biased in that respondents may have responded in a manner that they believe is socially desirable.  In addition, the study is longitudinal in nature, leading to a relatively small sample size because a number of the members of the sample had moved without leaving a forwarding address. In addition, our sample consisted entirely of college-educated women; is narrow in terms of the ages of the participants, all but one of whom is a mother; and the children of  many of the members of the sample are relatively young. Finally, all these women answered three questionnaires; thus they may be women who perceive themselves to be successful in life at the three points in time when they were surveyed.

Some could argue that other variables are more salient than those studied here. Future research may wish to examine such variables or to test our work, which suggests that a better model of women entrepreneurship would include consideration of at least three variables: commitment to entrepreneurial ideals, commitment to traditional gender roles, and family status.

Finally, this research has focused on women. Early research focused on men. Though this study seems to indicate that women become entrepreneurs for different reasons than men, the earlier research focusing on males took place in an era in which the roles of both women and men were more firmly defined. Perhaps men now, too, become entrepreneurs for different reasons than previously.

Despite the limitations outlined above, we believe that this study provides useful insights regarding the entrepreneurian choices of women. Many studies of entrepreneurs are cross-sectional in nature and so cannot determine whether the relationship between entrepreneurship and certain factors or dispositions is truly causal in nature. Because our study has followed women from college through twenty years of managing family and careers, it makes a unique contribution to the body of knowledge by focusing on the complex issues faced by women entrepreneurs.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H., P Reese and P. Dubini. 1989, Women on the verge of a breakthrough: Networking among entrepreneurs in the United States and Italy. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 1: 339-356.

Allen, K. and N. Carter. 1996. Women entrepreneurs: Profile differences across high and low performing adolescent firms. In P. Reynolds, S. Birley, P. Davidsson, J. Butler, W Gartner, W Bygrave and P. McDougall (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (Babson College, Wellesley, MA), pp. 98-99.

Andre, R. 1992. Women's participation in networks of business leaders. Journal of Small Business Management, 30(1): 66-73.

Auster, E. R. 1993. Demystifying the glass ceiling: Organizational and interpersonal dynamics of gender bias, Business and the Contemporary World. 5: 47-68.

Brockhaus, R. H. 1982. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, pp. 39-57. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Brodsky, M.  1993.  Successful Female Corporate Managers and Entrepreneurs: Similarities and Differences, Group and Organization Management, 18(3):  366-378.

Brown, C.  1995.  Women Entrepreneurs earn less than Men, Black Enterprise, 25(12): 34-38.

Buttner, E. and D. Moore: 1997, Women's organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: Self reported motivations and correlates with success.  Journal of Small Business Management, 35(1): 34-46.

Buttner, E. and B. Rosen. 1988. Bank Loan Officers' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Men, Women, and Successful Entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 3(3): 249-258. Buttner, E. and B. Rosen. 1989. Funding New Business Ventures: Are Decision Makers Biased against Women Entrepreneurs? Journal of Business Venturing 4(4): 249-261.

Buttner, E. and B. Rosen. 1992. Rejection in the Loan Application Process: Male and Female Entrepreneurs' Reactions and Subsequent Intentions, Journal of Small Business Management 30(1): 58-66.

Carsrud, A., C. Gaglio and K. Olm. 1986. Entrepreneurs - Mentors, Networks, and Successful New Venture Development: An Exploratory Study, in R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson and K. Vesper (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (Babson College, Wellesley, MA), pp. 229-235.

Carter, S. and T. Cannon.  1992.  Women as Entrepreneurs (London, Academic Press)

Chaganti, R and S. Parasuraman. 1996. A Study of the Impact of Gender on Business Performance and Management Patterns in Small Business, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 21(2): 73-76.

Cromie, S. and S. Birley. 1992. Networking by Female Business Owners in Northern Ireland, Journal of Business Venturing 7: 237-251.

Dolinsky, A., R. Caputo, K. Parsumarty and H. Quazi. 1993. The Effects of Education on Business Ownership: A Longitudinal Study of Women, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 18(1): 43-54.

Egan, M.  1997.  Getting Down to Business and Off Welfare: Rural Women Entrepreneurs, Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 12(2): 215-228.

Fay, M. and L. Williams. 1993. Gender Bias and the Availability of Business Loans, Journal of Business Venturing 8: 63-376.

Goffee, R. and R. Scase.  1985.  Women in Charge: The Experiences of Female Entrepreneurs (London, Allen and Unwin)

Green, E. and L. Cohen.  1995.  Women’s Business: Are Women Entrepreneurs Breaking New Ground or Simply Balancing the Demands of “Women’s Work” in a New Way?  Journal of Gender Studies, 4(3): 297-314

Harveston, P., P. Davis and J. Lyden.  1997.  Succession Planning in Family Business: The Impact of Owner Gender, Family Business Review, 10(4): 373-396.

Hisrich, R. and C. Brush. 1983. The Woman Entrepreneur: Implications of Family, Educational, and Occupational Experience, in J. Hornaday, J. Timmons and K. Vesper (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (Babson College, Wellesley, MA), pp. 255-270.

Hisrich, R., M. Koiranen and K. Hyrsky. 1996. A Comparison of Men and Women Entrepreneurs:  A Cross-national Exploratory Study. In P. Reynolds, S. Birley, P Davidsson, J. Butler, W Gartner, W Bygrave and P. McDougall (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (Babson College, Wellesley, MA), pp. 104-105.

Lee-Gosselin, H. and J. Grise.  1990.  Are Women Owner-managers Challenging Our Definitions of Entrepreneurship?  An In-depth Survey, Journal of Business Ethics, 9:  423-433.

Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba.  1985.  Naturalistic Inquiry.  Beverly Hills, CA:  Sage.

Hakim, C.  1989.  New Recruits to Self-employment in the 1980s, Employment Gazette, 97(6): 286-297.

Lerner, M., C. Brush and R. Hisrich. 1997. Israeli Women Entrepreneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting Performance, Journal of Business Venturing 12: 315-339.

Matthews, C. and S. Moser. 1996. A Longitudinal Investigation of the Impact of Family Background and Gender on Interest in Small Firm Ownership. Journal of Small Business Management 34(2): 29-43.

Murphy, A.  1992.  The Start-up of the 90’s, Inc 14(3): 32-40.

Nelton, S.  1992.  Women Entrepreneurs: “A Pretty Big Game”, Nation’s Business, 80(8): 53-55.

Reynolds, P. and S. White.  1997.  The Entrepreneurial Process (Quorum Books, London)

Riding, A. and C. Swift. 1990. Women Business Owners and Terms of Credit: Some Empirical Findings of the Canadian Experience. Journal of Business Venturing 5(5), 327-340.

Rosa, P. and D. Hamilton. 1994. Gender and Ownership in UK Small Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 18(3), 11-28.

Rosin, H. and K. Korabik.  1992, Corporate Flight of Women Managers, Women in Management Review, 7(3): 31-35.

Royal, W.  1998.  Vanishing Execs: Women, Industry Week, Vol. 247, No. 14, pp. 32-38.

Scherer, R., J. Brodzinski and E. Wiebe. 1990. Entrepreneurship Career Selection and Gender: A Socialization Approach. Journal of Small Business Management 28(2), 37-44.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Sexton, D. and N. Bowman-Upton. 1990. Female and Male Entrepreneurs: Psychological Characteristics and Their Role in Gender-related Discrimination. Journal of Business Venturing 5: 29-36.

Srinivasan, R., C. Woo and A. Cooper. 1994. Performance Determinants for Male and Female Entrepreneurs. In W Bygrave, S. Birley, N. Churchill, E. Gatewood, F Hoy, R. Keeley and W Wetzel, Jr. (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (Babson College, Wellesley, MA), pp. 43-56.

Stoner, C., R. Hartman and R. Arora. 1990. Work- home Role Conflict in Female Owners of Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Small Business Management 28(1), 30-38.

Warbington, R.  2000.  Women Entrepreneurs Make Large Gains, Women in Business, 52(2):  10-11.

Watkins, J. and D. Watkins.  1984.  The Female Entrepreneurs: Background and Determinants of Business Choice - Some British Data, International Small Business Journal, 2(4):  21-31.

Wells, J.  1997.  Stuck on the Ladder, Maclean’s, 110(42):  60-63.

Women Entrepreneurs Embrace New Information Technology.  1998.  Women’s International Network News, 24(1): 79-80.

APPENDIX: DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENTREPRENEURS

While the tables within the body of the paper concisely present the results of the qualitative longitudinal analysis that led to the classification of the twenty women into the Goffee and Scase (1985) model, they lack the richness of a more detailed presentation. Some readers will gain more knowledge and satisfaction from the following “thicker description” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). To those readers, we offer the following data.

Longitudinal Qualitative Analysis Using the Goffee and Scase Model

When we tried to categorize the women who said that they wanted to start their own business into the four categories recommended by Goffee and Scase (1985), we found that only eleven women (55% of those we classified as entrepreneurs) fit well into one of the four categories.  Nine others (45% of those we classified as entrepreneurs) did not seem to fall into any category in this classification, and three women either did not actually start their business, or worked so few hours that we categorized them as homemakers. For each entrepreneurial category, we will describe the career of one representative woman in detail and supplement this with a summary of the other women in the category. All names are pseudonyms.

To be  considered conventional entrepreneurs, women needed to exhibit commitment to conventional gender roles for women and be self-employed because of economic necessity. These women would have a desire to stay at home with their children and a lack of strong career goals. They would be motivated to become entrepreneurs because it enabled them to spend more time with their children while still contributing to the family income. We found only one such woman in our sample, and even she did not fit the profile perfectly.

Conventional Entrepreneur

Connie was certain when she was a college student that she would be able to stay home with her children. She did not have a particular career goal, but wanted to travel and see the world before getting married. Connie was raised in a family of four children with one older sister and one younger sister and one younger brother. Her father was a chemical engineer and her mother a laboratory technician who worked when Connie was an infant and again when Connie was a teenager after her father left the home.

Connie began her career in the garment industry, with stints as salesperson and product manager. After losing her job, she returned to college for a teaching certificate.

Ten years after college, Connie had one two-year-old child and had returned to work as a substitute teacher five months after childbirth. She was in a long-term relationship with a musician. Both she and her partner had an annual income of less than $20,000 per year. At that time she thought it was very likely she would open a used clothing shop.

Twenty years after college, Connie is married with two children, now 12 and 10. She started a business as a technology support consultant when her younger child was four. She ran this business for one year, and then returned to teaching because she was the only steady income in her family. Both she and her spouse are making about $30,000.

Innovators (4 women)

Women were classified as innovators if they exhibited non-traditional gender roles and had entrepreneurship as a career goal or as a result of lower opportunities as employees.

 Our example, Irene, was the daughter of a shoe store sales person who later  was shoe storeowner  and a foreman father who also co-owned a shoe store. She was the third youngest child in a family of seven children. In college, Irene was quite certain she would be employed rather than be a homemaker after she had children. Her career plan was to get an entry-level job in an advertising or retail firm and eventually work her way up to middle or top management. If her plans were blocked, she said she would go into business for herself, perhaps in real estate, owning her own apartment complex.

Ten years after college, Irene was the mother of three children between three and six years of age. She had stayed out of the labor force for two years between the birth of her first and second child, then become the manager of an apartment complex with 350 employees. She thought she might become self-employed as a day care center operator. Her husband was an engineer making an annual income in the mid $40,000 range, while her own income was under $20,000.

Twenty years following college, Irene had left the building maintenance position because of a disability. She was a parole officer and a state constable, which in her state was a self-employed contractor position. She remarked that her father had owned several businesses and this had inspired her to become self-employed. Her husband was making over $100,000 per year, and she was making about $20,000 per year. Thus, Irene's entrepreneurial spirit appeared early and she followed her original entrepreneurial interests. Her actual entrepreneurial activity seemed constrained by her physical disability, but even with this disability, she selected a career alternative where she ran her own one-person business.

Three other women were classified as innovators. Andy wanted to own her own accounting business when she was a college student. She now has five children and now is self-employed in a retail business selling a product of her own making. Both she and her husband earn about $50, 000 per year. Simone, a mother of two, opened a real estate office with her husband about seven years ago. Despite concerns that her husband may become upset if she earns more than he, she aspires to open her own office in the near future. Nivine planned a career in the computer industry.  She now has two children, and has been managing her own private computer consulting business for seven years. She and her husband are each making an annual salary in the mid-$50,000 per year.

In summary, these innovators desired to be entrepreneurs early, and they have followed through with those plans despite childbirth and, in one case, a disability. Though they had breaks in self-employment, they remain committed to their entrepreneurial goals. Interestingly, these women have the largest families in our sample, yet half earn as much money as their spouses.

Domestic Entrepreneurs (5 women)

Domestic entrepreneurs exhibit a high level of commitment to both traditional gender roles and self-employment. They want to work and to be self-employed, but feel a strong desire to balance that with a traditional family life. Five women were classified as Domestic Entrepreneurs.

Doris has one younger brother and is the daughter of a college educated father and a mother with two years of college who returned to work when Doris was a teenager. Doris was about evenly divided between thinking she would or would not work following childbirth when she was a college student. She planned to stay at home for at least two years after the birth of each child and perhaps work part time until her children were grown.

Ten years after college, Doris had not yet had a child, was working 50 hours a week as a training consultant for an insurance firm making about $35,000 year, and her attorney husband was making over $80,000 annually. She said she was about equally likely or unlikely to start her own business, and if she did, she would write children's books or join her husband in producing a newsletter.

Twenty years after college, Doris is the mother of a three-year-old and an eight-year-old. She took a 7-month maternity leave for each child and works part time about 20 hours a week, still doing training for insurance companies. Doris emphasized that she would only work outside the home because her mother-in law was willing to do childcare. In addition to her part time consulting, she also works with her lawyer husband running their family business, a legal newsletter. Her current income is about $30,000 and her husband's is about $150,000.

Patrice believed when she was a college student that she wanted to be a computer analyst, but she also wanted to stay home with her children. Twenty years later she had left a successful computer career in organizations to start her own programming business in order to be able to be home with her one child. Both she and her partner earn over $90,000 per year.

Kelly has two children and runs an email business because she wants more time with her children. Bev, a mother of three, operates a sales consulting firm. Cassandra is co-owner of a manufacturing firm with her husband and supervises the payroll office of the firm. This family has three children, ages 16, 13, and 10. She reports that she makes less than $20,000 and her husband over $100,000 per year.

Radical Entrepreneurs (1 woman)

One woman seems to fit the definition of a radical entrepreneur who was not devoted to traditional gender roles or to being an entrepreneur.

Rachael has two children, ages eight and five.  She has often worked as a waitress, but her real love is the theater. She has been intermittently unemployed, but opened her own theater company in order to gain artistic control. She also is a part-time theater coach who offers adult and child classes in acting. Her income was under $20,000. She did not report a partner income.

Not Clearly Classifiable (9 women)

Although we were able to find some examples of each of the categories of entrepreneurs cited in a traditional categorization, nearly half of the entrepreneurs did not fit this categorization.  Below are brief summaries of several of these women’s career paths.

Barbara exemplifies their responses. Barbara wanted to be a computer programmer when she was in college. She had no intention of starting her own business. A decade later, she had not yet started her family, but had a successful career in computers.Two decades after college, she has three children, ages 3, 7, and 8.  Barbara stayed out of the labor force for two years after the birth of her third child. Two years ago she started a greeting card business. She is the one previously quoted who wrote:

"Careers are very important to people until you (sic) have children. Once you have children, then the career is not as important as the family. When my husband wanted me to work, I didn’t want or need any more stress than I already have, so that is why I started my card business. My husband had only a limited amount of time to watch the kids so I needed something that didn't require much time outside the home. Now I work and have not much stress from work and I am still able to contribute financially."

Barbara currently makes under $20, 000 and her husband earns $180,000 and up.

Another computer professional, Lydia, was sure she would be a career woman, but again had no aspirations to be self-employed.  A decade later, she had two young children. She returned to work two months after childbirth and thought she was quite unlikely to start her own business.  However, if she were to do so, it would be an at-home childcare facility. Two decades after college, Lydia reports that her computer company had closed nine years before, and she had opened a childcare business. She is making less than $20,000 per year, and her husband earns about $70,000.

As a college student, Tammy was extremely committed “making it in a large company.” She didn't want children a decade after college while she had a career in retail as a buyer. She and a girlfriend opened a gift basket business when they anticipated having children, but closed it later when her partner found it too difficult to manage with young children at home. Now, twenty years after college, Tammy has one child, age two.  She is not employed, and her husband makes over $170,000 per year. She has relinquished both her business and her corporate career.

Alise wanted a corporate career, but was unsure whether or not she wanted to stay home after childbirth. A decade later she had one child.  She returned to her job in computer sales two months after childbirth and believed she was quite unlikely to leave her job to start her own business.Twenty years after college, she has five children. Though she briefly owned an educational consulting business, she has been a homemaker for the past seven years.

Betty was moderately committed to working after childbirth when she was a college student and had a general career idea that perhaps she would work as a psychologist after attending graduate school. A decade later she reported that she had switched from clinical psychology to social work and was in school to obtain her MSW. She had one child. Two decades later Betty is self-employed as a private clinician. She divorced her husband because he wanted her to go back to work within seven weeks of childbirth, and she wanted to wait for one year. She resumed to her career as a clinical social worker and opened her own business about a year ago. She now makes about $70,000 annually.

Amanda has not yet had a child twenty years after college, but she hopes to have one within the next two to three years. She is privately employed as a teacher in a business she opened with her domestic partner seven years ago, and she also works as a teacher in an organizational setting. Her combined income is about $50,000 annually.


Footnote

[1] One reviewer suggested that some of these businesses are suspect because of low reported earnings, particularly where the woman had higher earnings previously.  We do not believe classifying women as entrepreneurs based upon their reported incomes would be preferable to our classification scheme.  First, entrepreneurs, especially those whose businesses are young, often need time to develop the business before it becomes profitable. We think that effort is a better measure of entrepreneurial commitment than income.  Second, there are significant costs of being an employee that may either be avoided or taken as business expenses by entrepreneurs.  Entrepreneurial income may be far lower than in previous employment while conveying much the same cash flow and/or disposable income.


Links to tables of contents