Forced to play by the rules? Theorizing how mixed-sex founding teams benefit women entrepreneurs...

We examine how establishing a mixed-sex entrepreneurial founding team may benefit women entrepreneurs in male-dominated cultures and industries. We contend that as a result of sex-based stereotypes, women entrepreneurs face unique obstacles in securing access to resources for their ventures.

We argue that one way for women entrepreneurs to overcome these obstacles is to partner with a man. Drawing upon institutional, resource-based, and network theories, we theorize how partnering with a man may help provide women entrepreneurs in male-dominated contexts with enhanced legitimacy, access to a larger number of resources, and a stronger, more diverse social network.

Introduction

While women-owned entrepreneurial endeavors continue to grow as a driving force in the United States and global economy (Greene, Hart, Gatewood, Brush, & Carter, 2003; Jalbert, 2000), many industry segments and business cultures continue to be male-dominated within the United States and other industrialized countries, posing unique challenges to women entrepreneurs. For example, while women own nearly 50% of U.S. businesses, more than half of those businesses are in the retail and service industries. Many primary industries such as construction, agriculture, transportation, information technology (IT), and finance remain male-dominated, with female-owned firms ranging only between 10 and 20% (Center for Women's Business Research, 2005, 2001). This trend does not appear unique to the United States, for a similar pattern of female ownership is seen in other countries as well. In Canada, the manufacturing, knowledge-based, agriculture, forestry, and energy sectors all exhibit below-rate participation by female majority owners (Industry Canada, 2003), and in the United Kingdom, recent surveys have also indicated an underrepresentation of women in the manufacturing, construction, transportation, and agricultural sectors (Carter, Tagg, & Brierton, 2002). In addition to the challenges posed by male-dominated industries, many women entrepreneurs around the globe also continue to face patriarchal societies, where male-centric attitudes predominate (Carr, Chen, & Jhabvala, 1996; Kabeer, 2000; Kantor, 2003; Shaheed, 1989). India, Iran, and Japan are but three examples of the many nations with traditionally male-focused attitudes that impact the nature of business conducted within those cultures. While the degree of male dominance and subsequent authority within business contexts may vary across these cultures, they nonetheless pose particular challenges to women entrepreneurs.

For women entrepreneurs working within these male-dominated industries and cultures, gender arguably remains a salient issue as they attempt to secure resources and to create a new venture. As Eagly and Karau (2002, p. 574) suggest, "a potential for prejudice exists when social perceivers hold a stereotype about a social group (i.e., women) that is incongruent with the attributes that are thought to be required for success in certain classes of social roles (i.e., entrepreneurs)." And, unfortunately, sex-based (1) stereotyping remains a social reality. Compared with women, men are believed to be more instrumental or task oriented, persistent, risk taking, confident, autonomous, able to lead, and knowledgeable about business (Buttner & Rosen, 1988; Diekman & Eagly, 2000; Sexton & Bowman-Upton, 1990; Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999). In a study of women entrepreneurs, Baker, Aldrich, and Liou (1997) suggested that as scholars and the mass media have increasingly considered women's entrepreneurship less novel and newsworthy, they may also have helped foster a social dialogue that reinforces traditional female career and ownership paths (such as "lifestyle" entrepreneurship, a focus on service industries and retail, etc.), and a portrayal of female entrepreneurship as ancillary to the economy. Such stereotypes and social discourse (or lack thereof) help perpetuate the "think manager-think male" mentality in society (Schein, 1973; Schein, 2001). As such, we argue that a woman entrepreneur within a male-dominated industry or culture may carry the invisible-yet-cumbersome baggage of sex-based stereotypes when she attempts to secure resources, develop business networks, and gain legitimacy for her business venture.

While seldom acknowledged in theoretical work, entrepreneurship is generally a collaborative activity involving several partners, even at the early stages of a new venture (Gartner, Shaver, Gatewood, & Katz, 1994). Because much of the literature on entrepreneurship discusses the individual entrepreneur, however, "very little is known about how teams are formed, demographic and functional area composition, and how these factors are related to the development of emerging firms" (Chandler & Lyon, 2001, p. 1). Thus, despite the substantial presence of entrepreneurial founding teams (EFTs) at new venture formation, there are still many unanswered questions about how the sex composition of these founding teams impacts the entrepreneurs' access to resources. Existing research does suggest that each member of an EFT may provide a venture with access to an array of valuable financial, social, and human capital resources that the solo entrepreneur would not be able to access alone (Kor & Mahoney, 2000). Despite these findings, Ruef, Aldrich and Carter (2003) identified a distinct tendency for entrepreneurial founding groups to form around similarities, rather than differences--including a propensity for same-sex gender pairing. We argue that this tendency toward same-sex partnership when creating the new venture may pose unique challenges to women entering a male-dominated industry or culture, as women in these contexts often find themselves on the outside of important networks that hold opportunities for assembling needed resources.

In this article, we suggest that one possible strategy that women who are seeking to enter a male-dominated industry, or who are working in a male-dominated culture, might implement to surmount the hurdle of sex-based stereotypes and counter the homophilic tendency toward same-sex partnerships is to strategically partner with a man. While we recognize that other options may be available for women entrepreneurs to advance within male-dominated contexts, and that the ideal situation would be to change any cultural system or industry that favors men over women, we believe that in many instances, a mixed-sex partnering approach may provide opportunities to women entrepreneurs that they may not have otherwise. Although mixed-sex partnering is only one tactic among many that female entrepreneurs may use to increase their participation and influence in cultures or industries where they have traditionally been underrepresented or ignored, we believe that this approach represents an underexplored approach for theoretical and empirical investigation.

The idea of women finding benefit from male partnerships is not new. In some transition economies, in which women are beginning to seek inroads into cultures that are particularly patriarchal (such as those in the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe), the concept of male-female partnering is a necessity for many women entrepreneurs. Previous research has noted that in these cultures, partnering with a man may be a requirement for a woman to gain access to the fundamental ability to conduct business (Kabeer, 2000), handle money (Shaheed, 1989), and work outside the home (Carr et al., 1996). This suggests that in these cultures, a male presence is given a certain weight that translates into the ability to collect resources, create accepted social connections, and acquire the legitimacy required for a new venture, and it is our belief that outside these cultures, the phenomenon may extend to cultures and economies wherein women benefit from freer entry, but wherein barriers are still imposed either through patriarchal behavior, or in domination of the industry by males.

In their review of research and theory on women entrepreneurs, Greene et al. (2003, p. 27) specifically identified three theories as potential fertile ground for inquiry, stating that researchers might consider "institutional or social network theory to examine whether or not institutional norms or network configurations influence women's ability to acquire resources, or grow their ventures ... Alternatively, resource based theories might be the basis of exploring how women-led ventures develop capabilities leading to competitive advantages." In partial response to their call, we will build upon institutional, social network, and resource-based theories in an effort to develop a richer understanding of the dynamic impact mixed-sex founding teams have on entrepreneurial ventures. Taken together, we feel that these three theoretical perspectives provide a more complete framework for examining the possible structural barriers women entrepreneurs face within male-dominated cultures and industries.

Drawing upon sociological institutional theory (Deephouse, 1996; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), we expect that in order for entrepreneurs to be credible, they must "play" by the preestablished rules of business and shape the organization in such a way as to mimic existing organizational forms and practices. We will argue that for a woman who is trying to enter a male-dominated industry or is working within a male-dominated culture, strategically partnering with a man may provide her with added legitimacy and the benefits of resources and broader networks when beginning a new venture. Relying on social network theory (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973), we explain how partnering with men might also provide women with increased access to a larger and more diverse social network, which in turn may provide them access to informal funding networks and added information about resources and intellectual capital otherwise unavailable to them. Finally, using a resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1986, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984), we argue that women who partner with men may not only be able to access more information (as suggested by social network theories) and greater venture legitimacy (as suggested by institutional theories), but may also command greater access to the resources needed for new venture success. In other words, within male-dominated industries and cultures, playing by the current societal rules and norms that favor men may be one way to help women entrepreneurs obtain increased legitimacy, access to resources, and information as they begin their ventures.

After a brief discussion of the importance of teams within new entrepreneurial ventures and a review of sex-based stereotyping research, we detail propositions regarding the impact we expect mixed-sex founding teams may have on women-led ventures, based on sociological institutional theory, social network theory, and a resource-based view of the firm. We then discuss the implications of these propositions for future research as well as for entrepreneurial practice. Our aim in this article is to move beyond the stream of empirical work on women entrepreneurs and to extend the theoretical understanding of the entrepreneurial process for women within male-dominated contexts. By doing so, we hope to suggest a possible strategy that will give women entrepreneurs an edge in their efforts to succeed in male-dominated cultures and industries.

The Importance of Teams in New Ventures

Although much of the literature on entrepreneurship focuses solely on the individual entrepreneur, many new ventures are in fact formed by a team of individuals (Gartner et al., 1994). An EFT is a group of entrepreneurs who jointly hold ownership and control positions in the firm (Ucbasaran, Lockett, Wright, & Westhead, 2003). Previous research has suggested that a strong association exists between team-created ventures and venture success. For instance, Timmons (1994) argues that team-based ventures have a better track record than individually led ventures, while Kamm and Shuman (1990) suggest that venture capital firms are more likely to consider proposals from team-based ventures rather than from solo entrepreneurs. Although much remains to be understood about the dynamics of the EFT, the current dialogue seems to suggest that an EFT provides the new venture with valuable resources and that each member may contribute to the team's diversity of views and skills, and can enable the completion of complex tasks (Kor & Mahoney, 2000).

The research conducted on EFTs to date, however, has rarely mentioned the impact of sex composition on the formation or outcomes of these teams. As previously discussed, with the unique challenges women entrepreneurs may face, we reason that sex composition may impact EFTs and that women may especially benefit from creating mixed-sex EFTs.

Review of Sex-Based Stereotyping Studies

While a comprehensive review of sex-based stereotyping is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to review some of the major findings within this field of inquiry to better understand the unique obstacles women entrepreneurs face within male-dominated contexts. Decades of research suggest that society may attribute different behavioral characteristics to men and women (Eagly, 1987). Women are typically viewed as being more communal, or socially oriented, with a primary concern for the welfare of others. As such, they are perceived as being kind, insecure, dependent, sympathetic, helpful, and passive. Men, however, are believed to behave more often in a task-oriented and agentic manner, meaning that they have a greater focus on themselves and on autonomy (Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2005). Thus, men are typically seen as being confident, aggressive, ambitious, dominant, and independent (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Schein, 2001). (2)

In the 1970s, Schein and others began to explore sex-based stereotypes specifically in the business context by empirically illustrating that society holds a think manager-think male mentality (Schein, 1973; Schein, 2001). This phenomenon has been confirmed in many subsequent studies, supporting the assertion that the profession of management is still associated predominately with men (e.g., Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995; Willemsen, 2002). Schein's (1973) work suggests that society is conditioned to believe that stereotypic male behaviors such as aggressiveness, forcefulness, rationality, competitiveness, decisiveness, strength, self-confidence, and independence are requisite traits for successful managers.

While sex-based stereotyping does raise questions about society's perception of women and their capabilities, many theorists have also explored the social and emotional ways in which women and men do tend to differ--as these differences are often the root of differential behavioral attributions made across the sexes. Carol Gilligan (1982) coined the term "difference feminism" to highlight that women and men are fundamentally different in how they approach many social and career-related outcomes. Women, she noted, often define success in terms of their relationships with others, while men tend to define success monetarily. Similarly, she noted, male moral tendencies tend to center on rules and justice, while women's moral tendencies center on caring and relationships. These differences in and of themselves are neutral; it is not until social norms and biases develop in preference of one sex in certain roles that stereotypes and discrimination emerge. For example, Harding (1991) discussed how women often take on multiple roles across their social, personal, and professional lives, which affect how they perceive themselves, often causing them to create parallel, contradictory role relationships. The issue, however, is not the innate nature of the roles themselves, but rather when society uses the differences between the sexes as a mechanism to indicate what social roles women and men should fill. In certain industries and in new venture opportunities, e.g., those who deviate from the dominant model, which Harding (1987, p. 46) identifies as the "western, white elite class male," may not be expected to or supported to succeed.

Sex-Based Stereotypes within Entrepreneurship

In the specific context of entrepreneurship, gendered characteristics of entrepreneurs have increasingly become a focus of investigation (e.g., Chell, Haworth, & Brearely, 1991; Greene et al., 2003; Holmquist, 2003). Emerging research suggests that, stereotypically, men are believed to be more persistent, risk taking, confident, and knowledgeable about business than women. For example, a study by Buttner and Rosen (1988) found that bank loan officers more often attributed successful entrepreneurial characteristics, such as leadership, autonomy, risk taking, and tolerance for change to men than they did to women. Additionally, Bird and Brush (2002) have documented how the entrepreneur's activities have been described historically as masculine, and entrepreneurship has been perceived as a "man's" domain.

Recently, two groups of authors have examined how the contents and language patterns of business and popular press have stereotypically portrayed women entrepreneurs. Langowitz and Morgan (2003) examined the U.S. business press for accounts of women entrepreneurs, and then compared these results to a survey of women entrepreneurs. They found that business press in the United States often created a stereotyped view of common social norms among women entrepreneurs and their businesses that had little relationship with the diverse portrait offered in survey data. Similarly, Achtenhagen and Welter (2003) studied the portrayal of female entrepreneurs in the German press, and found that the creation of role models among women entrepreneurs often revolved around their sex appeal, reinforcing a stereotype, and typically compared women entrepreneurs to men, rather than considering them on their own merits. Such a system, they argue, sets up a pecking order of entrepreneurship wherein men are viewed as the standard, and women are viewed as the exception to the rule.

The popular press may not be the only writers who are perpetuating a sex-based distinction between men and women entrepreneurs; academics may be culpable as well. In a discourse analysis of 81 scholarly articles on women entrepreneurs, Ahl (2004) argues that even in instances wherein women's entrepreneurship is championed, the assumptions that are made by authors often perpetuate a double standard and reinforce a secondary position for the role of women in new venture creation. Ahl argues that by focusing on differences between the sexes (despite the larger number of similarities), highlighting women entrepreneurs as unusual (based on their status as women alone), and by creating a specific "feminine" model of entrepreneurship, authors present a picture of women as the weaker sex. Further, she argues that these assumptions and the resulting conclusions focus attention on essential differences in male and female entrepreneurs, where few may exist. Ahl suggests that this type of analysis ignores how gender is dealt with in daily life and, continuing the argument of Harding (1987) and others, argues for a perspective on women's issues (in this case, entrepreneurship) that bases itself in women's own direct experiences--a concept that Harding labeled as "feminist standpoint epistemology."

Sex-based stereotypes, while remaining a persistent reality, may be quite inaccurate. For example, a study by Masters and Meier (1988) found no significant difference in risk-taking propensity between men and women entrepreneurs. In fact, one study showed that women entrepreneurs and managers were actually more likely to take risks than their male counterparts, with the argument being that women actually have to be more willing to accept entrepreneurial risk because they face a more hostile and prejudicial work environment (Bellu, 1993). Subsequent research by Twenge (2001) found no differences in assertiveness based on the sex of the entrepreneur. Similarly, Sonfield, Lussier, Corman, and McKinney (2001) found no significant difference in venture innovation, the risk level of decisions, or in the strategies chosen by business owners. Even more recently, in a survey of small to medium-sized firm owners, Watson and Newby (2005) found that although women rated higher on measures of "femininity" than men, differences in "masculinity" were not found related to biological sex. The only significant difference between the sexes was propensity for risk taking, in which men were higher than women. Such findings support the argument that gender traits such as masculinity and femininity may be more accurate differentiators across psychological attributes than biological sex. Other studies have also found that differences between men and women may have less to do with inherent characteristics of the sexes and more to do with the social context. For example, in comparing women who entered industries typically identified with female entrepreneurship (retail, social services, etc.) with women who entered into nontraditional industries (such as manufacturing or construction), Anna, Chandler, Jansen, and Mero (2000) highlighted significant differences between the level of venture self-efficacy, career expectations on the part of founders, and their perception of available outside support. Their findings suggest that many of the capability arguments made against women's ability to succeed in entrepreneurship may have less to do with the women themselves than with a function of industry, climate, or perceived likelihood of venture success.

The Hurdle: Discrimination as an Obstacle for Accessing Resources

Stereotypes, regardless of their accuracy, continue to have real consequences for how men and women are treated. Eagly and Karau (2002) argue that prejudicial actions against a social group can emerge whenever that group is stereotyped with characteristics that are incongruent with the attributes believed necessary for success in a certain role. Similarly, Heilman's (1983) "lack of fit" theory suggests that when a certain organizational role (such as manager) is associated with men, women are seen as not "fitting" the role, because they are not perceived as having the necessary abilities to fulfill it, and thus are subject to discrimination. In support of this theory--and the think manager-think male mentality--a recent study showed that students of both sexes still regard the successful middle manager as having more typical male attributes than female (Ching-Yin Yim & Harris Bond, 2002). Therefore, because a woman entrepreneur is stereotyped with characteristics that are incongruent with the characteristics often attributed to a successful entrepreneur, she faces discriminatory actions when seeking to secure access to resources for her business.

These discriminatory actions pose a real hurdle to women entrepreneurs as they establish their organizations. Evidence of sex discrimination has appeared in a range of studies, showing that women may face unique challenges when trying to assemble the variety of resources vital to the establishment of a new venture. Although discrimination has been argued in many different resource contexts, this article in the literature review that follows will focus on the provision and attainment of financial resources. We believe that the attainment of financial resources plays a critical role in the formation of sustainable new ventures and represents a quantifiable proxy for other nonmaterial resources, and thus is particularly suited for use as a measure of the benefits of the partnering strategy that we outline subsequently.

In an early article on women's entrepreneurship, Schwartz (1976) reported that unlike their male counterparts, women entrepreneurs reported experiencing credit discrimination during the capital formation stage. Hisrich and O' Brien (1981) found that funding for their businesses was an issue at start-up, as most women entrepreneurs identified access to credit as a significant barrier, reporting that it was difficult to overcome society's negative beliefs about women. One study found that women business owners were also significantly more likely to perceive disrespectful treatment by lending officers (Fabowale, Orser, & Riding, 1995). Examining men and women-owned businesses with similar organizational characteristics, another study found that while women secured larger loans than males in their study, they were charged higher interest rates (McKechnie, Ennew, & Read, 1998).

Others have suggested that women entrepreneurs are less likely to obtain a loan than male applicants (Fay & Williams, 1993), are likely to face higher interest rates (Coleman, 2000) and higher collateral requirements for their entrepreneurial ventures (Coleman, 2000; Riding & Swift, 1990), and are more likely to start out with less initial capital (Rosa, Hamilton, Carter, & Burns, 1994). Another study found that women business owners reported more often that they believed they had experienced sex-related discrimination in their banking relationships (Read, 1994). Buttner and Rosen (1992) concluded that women were more likely to attribute the denial of a bank loan to sex-based bias than were men, but there was evidence that some of the differences were actually based on the stereotypes held by the capital providers. A recent study by Carter, Shaw, Wilson, and Lam (in press), which explores the differences in bank lending decisions, bolsters the initial findings of Buttner and Rosen (1992). Results from their work suggest that while there are similarities in the criteria used to assess men and women applicants, the greatest difference between the sexes is seen in the lending officers who are actually negotiating the loan applications. These findings strengthen the argument that it is the sex of the lender, rather than the sex of the applicant, which has implications for the outcome of the loan process and decision.

Some studies, however, also suggest that sex differences in venture funding and outcomes may begin to disappear when confounding issues such as industry type, business size, and age are controlled for (Coleman, 2000; Fabowale et al., 1995). The mixed findings of previous research with regard to access to financial resources highlight a lack of certainty about the impact of sex on entrepreneurial ventures, and the need to better understand the challenges that women face when starting a new venture.

Overcoming the Hurdle: Strategic Mixed-Sex Partnering

Given the challenges that women entrepreneurs face in securing (financial) resources, we argue that one potential tactic for surmounting the hurdle posed by sex-based stereotypes is not to fight the system, but to play by its rules. If gatekeepers and decision makers view women entrepreneurs in a detrimentally stereotypical manner, then women may want to use the biases within the current system to their advantage. One important way that women can work within a male-dominated system is to partner with a man and to form a mixed-sex founding team when starting a new venture.

In the spirit of the calls made by Harding (1987) and Ahl (2004, 2006), we offer our perspective on male-female partnering in new venture creation as a method of dealing with the issues that women continue to face when trying to enter male-dominated industries and cultures, rather than in response to a belief that those issues are valid or justified. We, like Ahl, acknowledge that differences exist between the sexes, but argue, as she does, that these differences are often overexaggerated in their importance when searching for the difference in new venture creation and success. All things being equal, we believe that women are as likely as men to succeed in new venture creation if they can secure entry in a manner that provides them with the resources, contacts, and legitimacy necessary to function. Unfortunately, situations are not always equal, and as we have previously discussed, women in male-dominated industries and cultures may confront barriers to industry entry, even if those barriers are artificially constructed. We propose that in addition to working toward the deconstruction of these obstacles, women can also work with the social pressures they face to succeed.

Working with the Pressure to Conform

Institutional theory suggests that within an industry or economic environment, new entrants are likely to be shaped by isomorphic pressures that push them toward adopting the structure and form of existing organizations, organizations that are seen as "legitimate" (Deephouse, 1996; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Following Zimmerman and Zeitz's (2002) argument, we reason that legitimacy is a resource in and of itself for new ventures, enabling organizations to access other necessary resources such as quality personnel, financial resources, technology, etc. Similarly, Aldrich and Fiol (1994, p. 647) concluded that "access to capital, markets, and government protection are all partially dependent on (their) level of legitimacy." Delmar and Shane (2004), in a study of newly formed Swedish ventures, found that the establishment of the venture as a separate legal entity and the creation of a business plan each significantly impacted the rate of new activity within the firm and delayed the threat of firm dissolution. These findings indicated, in the author's opinions, strong support for the notion of legitimacy as a valid and essential element for new ventures. Legitimacy can be enhanced by the strategic actions taken by the new venture such as creating organizational structures similar to other organizations in their environment. Oliver (1991) outlined five types of strategic responses that an organization may enact in response to pressures toward conformity with other institutions, including acquiescence, in which imitation is one tactic that can be taken to mimic existing legitimate institutional models. Similarly, Zimmerman and Zeitz (2002) suggest that such conformity to accepted organizational forms may be a strategic advantage for new ventures in that it helps them appear more like existent, legitimate others.

This pressure toward institutional isomorphism leads us to expect that for entrepreneurs to be credible, they must shape the organization in such a way as to imitate existing organizational forms and practices that have legitimating ability. Women entrepreneurs--like any entrepreneur--face pressures to comply with the institutional standards that society has created and deemed necessary for acquiring legitimacy. Because sex stereotyping poses an additional credibility obstacle for women, the need for women to appear legitimate is even more salient, and thus institutional pressures to appear like the other players may be even more pronounced for them. Personally transforming themselves into credible entrepreneurs may not be as easy for women as it is for men, as the stereotyping research suggests that even when a woman does strategically add additional educational or business references to her resume, she still faces sex-based stereotypes that label as unsuited for entrepreneurship. Therefore, one way for a woman to enter into entrepreneurship looking like a serious contender in a male-dominated culture/industry is to take an active strategy of acquiescence toward the sex-based pressures at play and to create an organization that mimics other businesses (3) by partnering with a man. Such an approach may help her gain increased legitimacy and thus access to resources that she would otherwise not have.

While partnering in general may give any entrepreneur added benefits when beginning their venture (Timmons, 1994), a woman who creates a mixed-sex EFT may be able to counter the lack-of-fit stereotypes that could plague her if she was on her own. By leveraging her partnership with a man, a woman entrepreneur is not merely using her male partner as window dressing. Rather, she is using him to represent the EFT with the social circles where a male presence is stereotypically held in better favor.

Proposition 1: As a result of increased legitimacy from team formation with a mixed-sex composition, women entrepreneurs who partner with men have greater access to key resources in male-dominated industries or cultures than solo women entrepreneurs and all-women EFTs.

Working with Existing Social Networks

Women entrepreneurs may also benefit from increased network density and breadth as a function of partnering with a man. As Ucbasaran et al. (2003, p. 107) point out, EFTs "may provide a venture with access to an array of valuable financial, social, and human capital resources. Each team member adds to the diversity of views and skills, and can enable the completion of complex tasks." Burt (1992) suggests that networks provide individuals with the benefits of access to information that they could not possess alone, such as having early access to information and having another person help promote their interests through referrals. Thus, as proposed by Bourdieu (1986), individuals' social network is an indicator of their social capital, which allows them access to information, resources, and opportunities.

The differences in networks between the sexes have been repeatedly investigated. As reviewed by Mencken and Winfield (2000), numerous studies have found that men are more likely to have wider-ranging networks, consisting of colleagues, coworkers, and higher-status persons, while women are more likely to have kin-centered and local support networks. For example, compared with men, women are more likely to have homogeneous networks with respect to kin (Renzulli, Aldrich, & Moody, 2000) and have a higher proportion of contacts that are their close relations (Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin, 1999).

The structure of women entrepreneurs' networks has implications for their success in business. First, having a disproportionately high ratio of familial contacts may be a disadvantage to women entrepreneurs. Research has suggested that kin ties are less likely than nonkin ties to provide instrumental resources and unique information (Fischer & Oliker, 1983; Moore, 1990). In their study specifically comparing men's and women's networks and entrepreneurial outcomes, Renzulli et al. (2000, p. 526) suggest that the increased ratio of familial ties may "provide the emotional strength owners and managers need to cope with daily exigencies, but such ties may also limit the diversity and reach of women' s networks." With their findings, they concluded that networks made up of a greater proportion of kin were disadvantageous to the entrepreneurial start-up. Women's tendency toward familial networks is also likely to create more redundant contacts, i.e., contacts that are nonunique. Whereas redundant contacts lead to the same people and provide the same information (Burt, 1992), nonredundant contacts offer additive informational benefits (Burt, 1997). Having more family members in their network seems likely to increase women's frequency of redundant information about resources and opportunities, rather than to open up new channels of information. By partnering with a man, women entrepreneurs may be able to augment their redundant contacts with individuals outside their normal spheres of influence, and to reduce their dependence on family and kin. Note that we do not assume that having access to these additional contacts guarantees that a woman will have open entree to networks that were previously closed to her. Indeed, the woman may still find herself personally on the outside of various "old boys" networks that continue to pervade male-dominated industries. However, even when the female entrepreneur may not have access to a particular network, we argue that her venture is still likely to benefit from unique contacts (and embedded information and opportunities therein) provided by her male partner's association with networks of which she is not a part.

Proposition 2: Women entrepreneurs who partner with men exhibit a higher concentration of nonfamilial and kin contacts in their business' social network than solo women entrepreneurs and all-women EFTs.

Looking beyond familial contacts, research has also found that women have more homogeneity in their nonfamilial contacts (Campbell, 1988) and have networks with a higher proportion of women than men (Aldrich, Kalleberg, Marsden, & Cassell, 1989). Even within their extracurricular activities, such as volunteer organizations, women tend to belong to organizations that are sexually segregated (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1982). The types of organizations that women belong to are often different than men's, thus affecting their depth and breadth of social ties. For example, Smith-Lovin and McPherson (1993) found that while men are more often involved with political and business-related organizations, women often belong to groups such as the Parent-Teacher Association and church-related organizations. Such findings illustrate the fact that women are not tapped into as wide an array of potential business contacts as men. By partnering with a male, women entrepreneurs may be likely to expand beyond their immediate sources of network contacts to organizations that are not as sexually segregated or sexually associated. At the very least, the addition of a man to the venture team may allow the venture to associate with a larger group of prospective contacts, regardless of the sex of its owners.

Proposition 3: Women entrepreneurs who partner with men have network structures that are more heterogeneous, in terms of the variety of contact sources, than solo women entrepreneurs and all-women EFTs.

Finally, research has also suggested that the homogeneous nature of women's networks results in women having more strong ties among a denser network, while men's heterogeneous networks give them a greater number of weak, diverse ties (Cromie & Birley, 1992; Katz & Williams, 1997; Starr & Yudkin, 1996). Again, while strong ties may be useful for social support, research on job searches has argued that having more weak ties in the form of colleagues or acquaintances may prove more advantageous than having primarily strong ties (Granovetter, 1973, 1995; Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981; Montgomery, 1992). Similarly, in looking at what types of network structures are most helpful for mobilizing entrepreneurial resources, research has suggested that diverse networks with weak ties are most valuable (Aldrich, Elam, & Reese, 1997; Olm, Carsrud, & Alvey, 1988). Weak ties are proposed as being beneficial because they help provide a bridge across different social contexts and thus provide access to increased information and opportunities for resources. Paradoxically, because men have more weak ties across various social groups, they seemingly have "stronger and deeper ties to the labor market" (Stoloff, Glanville, & Bienenstock, 1999, p. 94). The stronger ties to business are in fact because they have connections (albeit weak connections) that are embedded across a broader social context, and thus can call upon various relationships in order to access information and resources. In partnering with a man, women entrepreneurs may find the ability to build a more balanced social network--a social system that allows for the breadth of information received by weak ties, and the depth of information provided by strong ties, thus maximizing the advantage of both sources.

Proposition 4: Women entrepreneurs who partner with men exhibit networks that include the presence of stronger and weaker ties than solo women entrepreneurs and all-women EFTs.

Working with the Challenge of Assembling Resources

Whereas institutional theory suggests that a woman entrepreneur may pattern her venture to the environment via partnering, a resource-based view of venture success suggests that partnering may allow her to assemble the most valuable and the largest number of resources possible, and that in traditionally male-dominated industries, partnering with a man may create a source of competitive advantage. Viewed from the context of resource dependency theory, ventures need to access resources from their environment in order to function most efficiently (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978: Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). From the somewhat more value-laden perspective of the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1986, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984), some resources, by virtue of their rarity, value, or inimitability, may provide the firm with a source of competitive advantage by their existence and application. In male-dominated industries, the addition of a male partner may increase access to certain resources, such as skilled labor, financial resources, or critical knowledge beyond that obtained in a social network or by adapting to institutionally accepted forms. The resources gained may be of such significant value as to create a source of competitive advantage, both over women-only firms, where the benefits of association with a man will not hold, and over male-only firms, where the added perspective of woman ownership will not be evidenced.

As the current reality of the business landscape in many industries and cultures is one dominated by men, women entrepreneurs, by virtue of legitimacy, networks, or other functions, may not have the ability to obtain or utilize certain resources. As these resources appear critical to venture growth and development, and their presence or absence may be vital to her venture's success, a woman entrepreneur seeking to most effectively access a wide array of resources may benefit from adding a male to her venture's ownership structure. Given the predominance of men in leadership and strategic roles, men may be likely to have access to resources outside women entrepreneurs' typical sphere of influence. Thus, partnering with a male may bring not only access to more information (as suggested by social network theories) and greater venture legitimacy (as suggested by institutional theories), but access to the physical and financial resources necessary to grow and succeed. Also, the addition of a man to the ownership structure may allow a woman entrepreneur to choose the go-between for these transactions, rather than relying on her ability to negotiate a male-dominated landscape.

Proposition 5: Women entrepreneurs who partner with males have access to a greater number of resources, both financial and nonfinancial, and are more likely to possess a source of perceived competitive advantage than solo women entrepreneurs and all-women EFTs.

Strategically Using Mixed-Sex Partnering for Entry into Male-Dominated Industries/Cultures

Creating a mixed-sex EFT needs to be a conscious strategic move for women. Research has shown that left to their own preferences, people will most likely form relationships with others similar to themselves (Ibarra, 1992; Rodgers & Kincaid, 1981). This includes pairing within groups of homogenous sex. As previously indicated, Ruef et al. (2003), in a study specifically examining EFTs, found that composition of EFTs reflects a tendency toward sex-based homophily (women tend to partner with women and men tend to partner with men). Their finding that founding teams are highly homogeneous suggests that women are more likely to partner with women and men more likely to partner with men. We suspect that within male-dominated cultures and contexts, these homogeneous pairing tendencies may hinder women more so than they do men. We suggest that in such contexts, strategically choosing to partner with a man may provide the woman entrepreneur with legitimacy and may increase her likelihood of acquiring resources for their venture.

For the reasons that we have previously outlined, we argue that making the strategic choice to partner with a man may allow the woman entrepreneur to overcome some of the sex-related hurdles that the entrepreneurship literature suggests still exist for women in male-dominated industries. From an institutional perspective, mixed-sex partnerships hold the potential to provide the venture with increased legitimation, through the reputation that the venture creates or the accrual of legitimating activities. From a network perspective, mixed-sex partnerships hold the potential to expand the social networks of the venture team beyond the familial, homogenous, and sex-specific tendencies of women entrepreneurs. Finally, from a resource perspective, mixed-sex partnerships may enable the venture to secure both more and better resources than a solo woman-led venture might normally secure. Given these various benefits, the strategic decision to partner with a man may help give women entrepreneurs a competitive edge in a male-dominated organizational context.

Discussion and Implications for Future Research

The theoretical arguments proposed here have implications for entrepreneurship theory and practice. While we seek to present here arguments for the benefits of mixed-sex partnerships, we do not mean to imply that this is the only strategic choice that can lead to women-led venture success. Rather, we suggest that given society's current attitudes toward women--especially in male-dominated industries and cultures--one way for women entrepreneurs to circumvent some of the stereotypes and discrimination they may face is to proactively and consciously look for beneficial partners. In some instances (such as in patriarchal-based economies), male partnering may in fact be a necessity for women to even gain entree into any business situation. However, even when such partnering is not a social requirement, it may remain a strategic option (such as in mature market-driven economies), wherein even if the entire culture is not male-dominated, specific industry segments remain so. Therefore, in addition to working to create more equitable treatment across the sexes, we believe that the ideas we propose in this article will provide women information, suggest a plan for practice, and empower them to successfully manage the situations they face as entrepreneurs. In arguing that men are currently a requisite resource for women in venture formation, while women remain an optional resource for men, we want to emphasize that this is only true in male-dominated societal and industry contexts. As more women entrepreneurs enter these contexts and succeed, we believe that the negative stereotypes of women will gradually fade. Women, then, will no longer be forced to play by the rules, but rather, they will be helping establish the rules as equal partners.

In addition to exploring the impact of sex-composition of their EFT, further research is also needed regarding how women structure their new venture and how that does or does not differ from male-led ventures. Given emerging research that suggests that women entrepreneurs might actually have a preference for creating organizations that are more egalitarian and less hierarchical (Cliff, 1998), it will be interesting to further explore women's preferences for organizational structures as well as longitudinal success measures of those structures. If women do tend to create more egalitarian organizations, it will be interesting to explore if there is a tension or legitimacy issue that they encounter as they try to work within the traditional, hierarchy-dominated organizational model. As suggested by institutional theory, "the need to lodge responsibility and managerial authority at least ceremonially in a formally defined role in order to interact with hierarchical organizations is a constant obstacle to the egalitarian or collectivist organizational forms" (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 151).

Along those lines, further research is needed to explore how and if organizations run by women actually reflect values and strategies that are different from men's. If they do differ, then as more women succeed in establishing entrepreneurial ventures, it will also be interesting to investigate how the insemination of female values into the male-dominated hierarchical organizations influences wider-spread institutionalized change in organizational structure and performance. Many other fruitful avenues of research can be traversed by exploring the intersection of gender studies and group dynamics research with entrepreneurship studies. A particularly interesting research direction may emerge from further exploration of how various demographic compositions (in terms of race, sex, ethnicity, etc.) impact an EFT's success, including the interpersonal relationships within the EFT.

We would like to offer a final note about this theory and its policy implications on women entrepreneurs who seek to create a new venture in a male-dominated context. From a strategic perspective, the addition of any partner to a new venture who brings with them skills or attributes that the other partners lack will almost certainly add to the success of the new venture; thus, the theory offered in this article might equally apply to men partnering with other men or to men choosing to partner with women. However, the central notion in our argument is that unlike a male-male partnership, a female-male partnership involves one person who is (or is perceived to be) outside the "in" network when it comes to resources, contacts, or institutional approval in a male-dominated industry or culture. Thus, while it may be beneficial for men to follow this strategy, we believe that the benefits for women may be greater, as it brings them into industries or cultures that exclude them on the basis of their sex. Women who do partner with a man may have an easier time securing loans, receiving venture capital funds, or access to credit simply because the male partner can be the representative agent with financial institutions that, as previously discussed, may give them preferred treatment because they represent the financial institution's dominant mental model of a successful business applicant. In addition to serving as the "face" of the business when the context calls for it, male partners may also bring with them access to information about potential business and funding opportunities by virtue of their embeddedness in social networks that women are not a part of (i.e., political and other male-dominated social arenas).

As we have previously indicated, we view a strategy of female-male partnering as an interim solution to deeper issues related to female entry into male-dominated industries or cultures. In the long-term, where women are prevented from entering into industries because of their sex (as opposed to where industry entry is a choice women make), researchers must fully examine the causes of barriers being put in place, and must determine in the context of culture, industry, and impact how those barriers may best be removed or overcome. In many instances, a lack of female participation in industries may be the result of larger systemic issues. For instance, the perpetuation of male dominance within certain industry segments (such as engineering, IT, science, construction) may be traced to the lack of participation (and encouragement) of young women in degree programs while in university, which is often fueled by the social misperception of an industry being beyond the capability of a woman. The strategy of mixed-sex partnering, as offered here, is merely a temporary relief to these larger egalitarian issues in society. However, it is our view that even before these deeper problems are resolved, some women entering and excelling in these industries are better than none in the short term. We believe that any increased female presence may provide valuable institutional, social, and resource-based support for future women entrants until larger systemic changes can take place, provided that women who achieve successful entry into the industry are willing to mentor and assist those who seek entry. While this may be an optimistic view, given the competitive and institutional pressures these incumbent women may face, we believe that in such circumstances, the desire to see more women participants in male-dominated contexts will lead at least a portion of these women to aid new female entrants. For in the short term, our belief is that some participation, however slight, will help improve the situation for women seeking to create new ventures in male-dominated industries or to succeed in patriarchal cultures. Our goal herein is to contribute our part to the conversation around the topics of women entrepreneurs and founding team composition in hopes of helping draw the map to direct entrepreneurs in their course toward successful entrepreneurial ventures.

A previous version of this article has been presented at the 2004 Academy of Management Conference. The authors wish to thank William Schulze, Melissa Cardon, Jennifer Cliff, Candida Brush, Friederike Welter, Anne deBruin, Tracey Messer, Joakim Wincent, Sergey Anokhin, and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

REFERENCES

Achtenhagen, L. & Welter, F. (2003). Female entrepreneurship as reflected in German media in the years 1995-2001. In J.E. Butler (Ed.), New perspectives on women entrepreneurs, volume 3 in research on entrepreneurship and management (pp. 71-100). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Ahl, H. (2004). The scientific reproduction of gender inequality: A discourse analysis of research texts on women's entrepreneurship. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory. and Practice, 30(5), 595-621.

Aldrich, H.E. & Fiol, C.M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19, 645-670.

Aldrich, H.E., Elam, A.B., & Reese, RR. (1997). Strong ties, weak ties and strangers: Do women owners differ from men in their use of networking to obtain assistance? In S. Birley & I.C. MacMillan (Eds.), Entrepreneurship in a global context (pp. 1-25). London: Routledge.

Aldrich, H.E., Kalleberg, A.L., Marsden, P.V., & Cassell, J. (1989). In pursuit of evidence: Five sampling procedures for locating new businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 367-386.

Anna, A.L., Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N.R (2000). Women business owners in traditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 279-303.

Baker, T., Aldrich, H.E., & Liou, N. (1997). Invisible entrepreneurs: The neglect of women business owners by mass media and scholarly journals in the USA. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9, 221-238.

Barney, J.B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectation, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1512-1514.

Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

Bellu, R.R. (1993). Task role motivation and attributional style as predictors of entrepreneurial performance: Female sample findings. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5, 331-344.

Bird, B. & Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation: Masculine and feminine views on organizations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 41-65.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory, and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Butt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Butt, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-365.

Buttner, E.H. & Rosen, B. (1988). Bank loan officers' perceptions of the characteristics of men, women and successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 249-258.

Buttner, E.H. & Rosen, B. (1992). Rejection in the loan application process: Male and female entrepreneur's perceptions and subsequent intentions. Journal of Small Business Venturing, 30, 58-66.

Campbell, K.E. (1988). Gender differences in job-related networks. Work and Occupations, 15, 179200.

Carr, M., Chen, M., & Jhabvala, R. (1996). Speaking out: Women's economic empowerment in South Asia. London: IT Publications.

Carter, S., Shaw, E., Wilson, F., & Lam, W. (in press). Gender, entrepreneurship and business finance: Investigating the relationship between banks and entrepreneurs in the UK. In C.G. Brush, N.M. Carter, E.J. Gatewood, P.G. Greene, & M.H. Hart (Eds.), Growth oriented women entrepreneurs and their businesses. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Carter, S., Tagg, S., & Brierton, J. (2002). Restricted access: Women-owned businesses in profile. Available at http://www.prowess.org.uk/publications.htm, accessed 4 January 2006.

Center for Women's Business Research. A compendium of national statistics on women-owned businesses in the U.S. Executive Summary and Data Report. Report #01COM, National Women's Business Council, September 2001.

Center for Women's Business Research. Top facts. Available at http://www.nfwbo.org/topfacts.html, accessed 17 March 2005.

Chandler, G.N. & Lyon, D.W. (2001, August). Entrepreneurial teams in new ventures: Composition, turnover, and performance. Paper presented at the 2001 National Academy of Management Meetings, Washington, DC.

Chell, E., Haworth, J., & Brearely, S. (1991). The entrepreneurial personality: Concepts, cases and categories. London: Routledge.

Ching-Yin Yim, P. & Harris Bond, M. (2002). Gender stereotyping of managers and self-concept of business students across their undergraduate education. Women in Management Review, 17, 364-373.

Cliff, J.E. (1998). Does one size fit all'? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 523-542.

Coleman, S. (2000). Access to capital and terms of credit: A comparison of men- and women-owned small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 38, 37-52.

Cromie, S. & Birley, S. (1992). Networking by female business owners in Northern Ireland. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 237-251.

Deephouse, D.L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024-1039.

Delmar, F. & Shane, S. (2004). Planning for the market: Business planning before marketing and continuation of organizing efforts. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 767-785.

Diekman, A.B. & Eagly, A.H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1181.

DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.

Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly, A.H. & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Ely, R. (1995). The power of demography: Women's social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589-635.

Fabowale, L., Orser, B., & Riding, A. (1995). Gender, structural factors, and credit terms between Canadian small businesses and financial institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 41-65.

Fay, M. & Williams, L. (1993). Gender bias and the availability of business loans. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 363-376.

Fischer, C.S. & Oliker, S.J. (1983). A Research note on friendship, gender, and the life cycle. Social Forces, 62, 124-133.

Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Gatewood, E., & Katz, J.A. (1994). Finding the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 5-10.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

Granovetter, M.S. (1995). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Greene, P.G., Hart, M.M., Gatewood, E.J., Brush, C.G., & Carter, N.M. (2003). Women entrepreneurs: Moving front and center: An overview of research and theory. Available at http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/ whitepapers/greene2003.pdf, accessed 15 February 2005.

Harding, S. (1987). Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: Social science issues (pp. 1-14). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Harding, S. (1991). Who knows: Identities and feminist epistemology. In J. Hartman & E. Masser-Davidson (Eds.), Engendering knowledge: Feminists in academe (pp. 100-120). Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

Heilman, M.E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269-298.

Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J., & Martell, R.F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence the perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237-252.

Hisrich, R.D. & O'Brien, M. (1981). The woman entrepreneur from a business and sociological perspective. In K.H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurial research (pp. 21-39). Boston: Babson College.

Holmquist, C. (2003). Is the medium really the message? Moving perspective from the entrepreneurial actor to the entrepreneurial action. In C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), New Movements in Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422-447.

Industry Canada (2003). SME financing in Canada. Available at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insbrprppe.nsf/en/rd00617e.html, accessed 19 September 2005 from Industry Canada Small Business Research and Policy.

Jalbert, S.E. (2000). Women entrepreneurs in the global economy. Paper presented at the Center for International Private Enterprise Conference, Women: The Emerging Economic Force, Washington, DC.

Kabeer, N. (2000). The power to choose. London: Verso.

Kamm, J.B. & Shuman, J.C. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory, and Practice, 14, 7-17.

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kantor, P. (2003). Women's empowerment through home-based work: Evidence from India. Development and Change, 34, 425-445.

Katz, J.A. & Williams, P.M. (1997). Gender, self-employment and weak-tie networking through formal organizations: A secondary analysis approach. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9, 183-197.

Kor, Y.Y. & Mahoney, J.T. (2000). Penrose's resource-based approach: The process and product of research creativity. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 109-139.

Langowitz, N.S. & Morgan, C. (2003). Women entrepreneurs: Breaking through the glass barrier. In J.E. Butler (Ed.), New perspectives on women entrepreneurs, volume 3 in research on entrepreneurship and management (pp. 101-120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Lin, N., Ensel, W.M., & Vaughn, J.C. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46, 393-405.

Masters, R. & Meier, R. (1988). Sex differences and risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 26, 31-35.

McKechnie, S.A., Ennew, C.T., & Read, L.H. (1998). The nature of the banking relationship: A comparison of the experiences of male and female small business owners, International Small Business Journal, 16, 39-55.

McPherson, J.M. & Smith-Lovin, L. (1982). Women and weak ties: Differences by sex in the size of voluntary organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 883-904.

Mencken, EC. & Winfield, I. (2000). Job search and sex segregation: Does sex of social contact matter? Sex Roles, 42, 847-864.

Montgomery, J.D. (1992). Job search and network composition: Implications of the strength-of-weak ties hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 57, 586-596.

Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men's and women's personal networks. American Sociological Review, 55, 726-735.

Mosher, C.E. & Danoff-Burg, S. (2005). Agentic and communal personality traits: Relations to attitudes toward sex and sexual experiences. Sex Roles, 52, 121-129.

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.

Olm, K., Carsrud, A., & Alvey, L. (1988). The role of networks in new venture funding of female entrepreneurs: A continuing analysis. In B.A. Kichoff, W.A. Long, W.E. McMullan, K.H. Vesper, & W.E. Wetzel (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. (1978). External control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row.

Read, L.H. (1994). Raising finances from banks: A comparative study of the experiences of male and female business owners. In W.D. Bygrave, S. Birley, N.C. Churchill, E. Gatewood, F. Hoy, R.H. Keeley, & W.E. Wetzel (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Renzulli, L.A., Aldrich, H.E., & Moody, J. (2000). Family matters: Gender, networks and entrepreneurial outcomes. Social Forces, 79, 523-546.

Ridgeway, C.L. & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). Interaction in the gender system: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191-216.

Riding, A.L. & Swift, C.S. (1990). Women business owners and terms of credit: Some empirical findings of the Canadian experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 327-340.

Rodgers, E. & Kincaid, D.L. (1981). Communication networks. New York: New York Press.

Rosa, P., Hamilton, D., Carter, S., & Burns, H. (1994). The impact of gender on small business management: Preliminary findings of a British study. International Small Business Journal, 12, 25-33.

Ruef, M., Aldrich, H.E., & Carter, N.M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195-222.

Schein, V.E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100.

Schein, V.E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675-688.

Schwartz, E. (1976). Entrepreneurship: A new female frontier. Journal of Contemporary Business, 5, 47-76.

Sexton, D.L. & Bowman-Upton, N. (1990). Female and male entrepreneurs: Psychological characteristics and their role in gender-related discrimination. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 29-36.

Shaheed, F. (1989). Purdah and poverty in Pakistan. In H. Afshar & B. Agarwal (Eds.), Women, poverty and ideology in Asia (pp. 1-16). New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith-Lovin, L. & McPherson, J.M. (1993). You are who you know: A network approach to gender. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender: Feminism on theory (pp. 223-251). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Sonfield, M., Lussier, R., Corman, J., & McKinney, M. (2001). Gender comparisons in strategic decision-making: An empirical analysis of the entrepreneurial strategy matrix. Journal of Small Business Management, 39, 165-174.

Starr, J.A. & Yudkin, M. (1996). Women entrepreneurs: A review of current research. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women.

Stoloff, J.A., Glanville, J.L., & Bienenstock, E.J. (1999). Women's participation in the labor force: The role of social networks. Social Networks, 21, 91-108.

Stuhlmacher, A.F. & Waiters, A.E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 52, 653-677.

Timmons, J.A. (1994). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century (4th ed.). Boston: Irwin.

Tolbert, P.S. & Zucker, L.G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175-190). London: Sage.

Twenge, J.M. (2001). Changes in women's assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931-1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133-145.

Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. (2003). Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors associated with entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 107-127.

Watson, J. & Newby, R. (2005). Biological sex, stereotypical sex-roles, and SME owner characteristics. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 11, 129-143.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.

Willemsen, T.M. (2002). Gender typing of the successful manager--a stereotype reconsidered. Sex Roles, 46, 385-391.

Zimmerman, M.A. & Zeitz, G.J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414-431.

(1.) We use the term "sex-based" to refer to the differential gendered behaviors (feminine or masculine qualities) typically attributed to individuals on the basis of their biological sex. We recognize that gender is a socially constructed and learned set of behaviors, and therefore it is not our assertion that gendered traits are inherently different according to one's biological sex (i.e., Watson & Newby. 2005), but rather that stereotypes are attributed to individuals according to their biological sex, given that it is a salient form of classification between individuals, particularly in the introductory stages.

(2.) Scholars have argued that the process of associating biological sex differences with psychological or behavioral traits is largely a socially constructed process that is sustained by the unequal distribution of power and privilege between men and women. Women's token status in workplace situations leads both men and women to exaggerate sex differences based on sex role stereotypes. So, when women are minorities and in subordinate roles, stereotypical expectations of women as passive, etc., and men as leaders are reinforced. However, note that distinctions based on sex emerge as a result of power differentiation rather than vice versa (e.g., Ely, 1995; Kanter, 1977).

(3.) Oliver (1991) suggests other strategies, among them "avoidance" and "defiance," and these strategies have been well-documented responses in certain industries to a male-centric climate. While these strategies may provide more impetus for system-wide change, we believe that a strategy of acquiescence is the most immediate productive response to a male-dominated industry or cultural climate.

Please send correspondence to: Christopher E. Stevens, tel.: 216-368-2095; e-mail: christopher.stevens@ case.edu at the Case Western Reserve University, 222 Peter B. Lewis Building, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-7235.

Lindsey Godwin is a Ph.D. candidate in Organizational Behavior at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management. She holds a M.S. in Conflict Analysis and Resolution from George Mason University and a B.A. in Psychology and Sociology from Ohio Wesleyan University. Her research interests include moral imagination in organizational decision-making, global corporate citizenship, values-based leadership, and moral and ethical development in business education.

Christopher Stevens is a Ph.D. student in Organizational Behavior at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management. His research focuses on social entrepreneurship, sustainability and entrepreneurship, gender and race issues in new ventures, entrepreneurial failure, and human resources and entrepreneurship.

Nurete Brenner is a doctoral candidate in Organizational Behavior at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management. Her research interests include gender and entrepreneurship, gender and diversity in organizations, and dialogue in conflict management.