Suchergebnisse

PurposeExisting entrepreneurship literature has provided mixed evidence as to whether resource providers discriminate against female-led innovative start-up ventures in their resource commitment decisions either in terms of the likelihood or conditions of resource provision. While some studies revealed evidence indicative of negative discrimination against female entrepreneurs, others have provided evidence suggestive of positive discrimination. In light of these divergent findings, the purpose of this paper is to develop a more nuanced and integrative approach to studying gender biases in entrepreneurial resource provision with greater attention paid to both moderating contingency factors and mediating mechanisms.Design/methodology/approachThe authors develop a conceptual model and empirically testable propositions describing whether, how and when entrepreneurial resource providers are likely to under-, over- and equivalue female-led innovative start-up ventures relative to equivalent male-led start-up ventures. The model applies not only to institutional or private investors as providers of financial capital to start-up ventures as discussed extensively in extant entrepreneurship literature but also to prospective employees as providers of human capital and prospective consumers as providers of money in exchange for an entrepreneurial product or service. The authors discuss the gender-typing of the entrepreneur's core product/service offering as a key contingency factor likely to moderate the proposed relation. The authors further delineate the importance of what they refer to as the "first"- and "second-order" mediating mechanisms underlying the hypothesized relation between resource provider evaluations of the male versus female founder-CEO, the attractiveness of his/her start-up venture and the (conditions of) resource provision to their start-ups.FindingsBuilding on social-psychological theories of descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes and extant entrepreneurship literature, the authors establish that gender biases are likely to occur because of resource providers' perceptions of women entrepreneurs at the helm of male-typed start-up ventures to be less competent and agentic, as well as less warm and other-oriented than equivalent male entrepreneurs leading male-typed start-up ventures. The authors discuss the implications of such gender-biased evaluations for the application of stricter performance standards to female-led-male-typed start-up ventures and the likelihood and conditions of resource provision to their companies. The authors further discuss why and when female founder-CEOs of a female-typed (gender-neutral) start-up venture are likely to be overvalued (equivalued) compared to equivalent male founder-CEOs. The authors also develop propositions on additional contingency factors and mediators of the gendered evaluations of founder-CEOs and their start-up ventures, including resource providers' "second-order" gender beliefs, the high-cost versus low-cost resource commitment, individual differences in gender stereotyping and the perceived entrepreneurial commitment of the founder-CEO. The authors conclude by suggesting some practical implications for how to mitigate gender biases and discrimination by prospective resource providers.Originality/valueDiscussing the implications of descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes on evaluative decisions of entrepreneurial resources providers, this study advances not only the women's entrepreneurship literature but also the more-established scholarship on the role of gender stereotypes for women's advancement opportunities in the corporate world that has traditionally viewed entrepreneurship as the solution for women fleeing the gender-stereotype-based discrimination in the corporate setting to advance their careers.

The gender stereotyping of entrepreneurship
Professors Jennings and Tonoyan distill prior research and chart avenues for future research. In two prior Open Access Government articles, Dr Jennifer Jennings from the University of Alberta and Dr Vartuhi Tonoyan from California State University, Fresno, shared findings from their research (with collaborator Dr Robert Strohmeyer from the University of Mannheim) on how sex-based labour market segregation affects women's perceptions of entrepreneurship and innovativeness as entrepreneurs. Here, they summarise key takeaways from their review of the academic literature on the gender stereotyping of entrepreneurship.

Despite the rapidly increasing research on the nexus between gender diversity in upper echelons and firm innovation, the scholarly understanding of this topic is far from complete. Although the burgeoning literature has generated valuable insights summarized in our paper—most fundamentally uncovering gender diversity's positive effect on firm innovation—our review of extant research indicates that it suffers from several limitations. One such key limitation is that scholarship has predominantly theorized and measured the surface-level gender diversity in leadership relying on either gender stereotypes or a notion of innate gender differences when explaining why the inclusion of women on executive boards might make a difference for firm innovation, neglecting the intersection between surface-level gender diversity and deep diversity in top management teams. We develop a multilevel theory that calls attention to investigating intersections between these two constructs, the multidimensionality of firm innovation and gender diversity, and discussing the rationales for why and when diversity is likely to get at the heart of firm innovation. We also map out some methodological suggestions for how scholars could test our propositions. We hope our efforts to describe these paths will encourage their pursuit.

Sex-based labour market segregation and women's perceptions of entrepeneurship
Here Professors Tonoyan, Strohmeyer, and Jennings investigate sex-based labour market segregation and women's perceptions of entrepreneurship. As noted in a prior Open Access Government article, women tend to participate in entrepreneurial activity at lower rates than men within most countries included in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Numerous plausible reasons for this gender gap exist. A large-scale study by Professors Vartuhi Tonoyan (California State University, Fresno), Robert Strohmeyer (University of Mannheim), and Jennifer E. Jennings (University of Alberta) put forth and examined the argument that women are likely to possess less favourable perceptions than men, on average, of how easy it would be to start a business. These scholars further argued that this disparity can be attributed to sex-segregated positions within traditional wage-and-salary employment, which present structural disadvantages for women's entrepreneurship.

Although scholars have long recognized the consequences of sex-based labor market segregation for gendered outcomes in conventional wage-and-salary employment, comparatively little is known about the implications for entrepreneurship. We call attention to implications stemming from manifestations at distinct levels of analysis, specifically to the differential structural positions that men and women are likely to occupy as employees and to the degree of sex-based labor market segregation in a country overall. We hypothesize that the gendering of labor market positions will have the first-order effect of reducing women's likelihood of acquiring entrepreneurship-relevant resources, experiencing entrepreneurial career previews, and being exposed to industry opportunity spaces for launching new firms, which will have the second-order effect of lowering their start-up ease perceptions relative to men's. We further suggest that this gender gap will widen in societies with more highly sex-segregated labor markets. Data from 15,742 employees in 22 European countries provide strong support for these claims. By demonstrating how pre-entry assessments of entrepreneurship are influenced by gendered employment experiences at the individual level and gendered labor market regimes at the country level, this study lays a foundation for further multilevel research on the relationship between institutionalized labor market practices and entrepreneurial activity.

Der vorliegende Bericht stellt die Ergebnisse der Evaluation der BMBF-Fördermaßnahmen BioChance und BioChancePlus dar. Beide zielten als Vorläufer der Förderinitiative KMUinnovativ: Biotechnologie darauf ab, innovative und anspruchsvolle Forschungsvorhaben von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen in der Biotechnologie zu ermöglichen. Die beiden Fördermaßnahmen unterschieden sich in Förderziel und Design: Während BioChance ab 1999 darauf abzielte, neu gegründete Firmen zu unterstützen, ging es in BioChancePlus ab 2003 darum, die weitere Entwicklung junger Biotechnologie-Unternehmen und deren risikoreichen Projekte voranzutreiben. Die vorliegende Analyse zeigt, dass BioChance und BioChancePlus eine angemessene Reaktion auf die Schwierigkeiten waren, mit denen die dedizierten Biotechnologie-Unternehmen in Deutschland in den Jahren 1999-2009 zu kämpfen hatten. Die Fördermaßnahmen wurden in ihrem Design jeweils adäquat weiterentwickelt und den Erfordernissen der Zielgruppe entsprechend angepasst. BioChance und BioChancePlus haben ihre Zielgruppen in hohem Maße erreicht: Von BioChance profitierten 15% der jungen Biotechnologiefirmen in Deutschland, der Nachfolger BioChancePlus erreichte 40% seiner Zielgruppe. Insgesamt erhielten 260 Unternehmen eine Zuwendung. 85% davon wurden nur einmal gefördert. Die öffentliche Förderung stellte eine wichtige, jedoch keineswegs die dominierende Finanzierungsquelle für die Unternehmen dar. So flossen im Zeitraum 2000-2009 rund 3 Mrd. Euro an VC-Investitionen in die Biotechnologie-Branche, während sich die öffentliche Förderung auf ca. 5% dieser Summe belief. Bei BioChance erhielten 17% der eingereichten Anträge eine Förderung, bei BioChancePlus waren es 29%. Insgesamt wurden durch die Maßnahme BioChance etwa 36 Millionen Euro und durch BioChancePlus 133 Millionen Euro an Fördergeldern gewährt.

Der vorliegende Bericht stellt die Ergebnisse einer Systemevaluierung der Förderinitiative KMU-innovativ des BMBF dar. Die Evaluierung startete Ende 2008 und damit ein Jahr nach dem Beginn der Förderinitiative im Herbst 2007. Sie hatte zum Ziel, die Implementation, Zielerreichung und Wirkung der Förderinitiative sowie ihre Position in der Förderlandschaft zu bewerten. Die hier vorgelegten Ergebnisse bilden die Erfahrungen der ersten dreieinhalb Jahre der Umsetzung von KMU-innovativ ab. Die Förderinitiative KMU-innovativ wurde als Teil der Hightech-Strategie der Bundesregierung eingeführt und zielt darauf ab, die Beteiligung von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen (KMU) in den Fachprogrammen des BMBF zu erhöhen, indem der Zugang zur Fachprogrammförderung administrativ vereinfacht, beschleunigt und stärker an den spezifischen Anforderungen von forschenden KMU ausgerichtet wird. Die Ansatzpunkte von KMU-innovativ umfassen folgende strukturellen und prozessualen Komponenten: Regelmäßige (halbjährliche) Auswahlrunden, ein zweistufiges Antragsverfahren, feste Fristen für die einzelnen Verfahrensschritte, ein umfassendes Beratungsangebot durch die Projektträger und den eigens eingerichteten Lotsendienst für Unternehmen bei der Förderberatung Forschung und Innovation des Bundes sowie kleinere Projektgrößen und -verbünde sind die Kernelemente von KMU-innovativ. Diese Maßnahmen strukturieren nachvollziehbar den Antrags- und Bewilligungsprozess und erleichtern den KMU die Planung der zur Förderung eingereichten FuEProjekte.