Journal of Small Business Management 2018 00(00), pp.

1–21
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12490

A Gender-Aware Study of Self-Leadership

Strategies among High-Growth Entrepreneurs
by Bari L. Bendell,* Diane M. Sullivan,* and Matthew R. Marvel

We apply a gender-aware framework to examine the self-leadership strategies men and women
early stage high-growth entrepreneurs employ as they develop innovations. Utilizing a matched-
pair sample of early stage entrepreneurs operating firms in high-technology business incubators,
our results suggest that female and male entrepreneurs have significantly different self-goal-
setting and self-cueing behaviors. Results also suggest male entrepreneurs who use stronger goal-
setting behaviors increase their intellectual property development to a greater extent than female
founders. Further, for female entrepreneurs who use greater self-cueing, the negative relationship
realized with intellectual property development is lower than for male entrepreneurs.

Introduction Our motivation for answering the first re-

What behavioral and/or cognitive strategies
do early stage high-growth entrepreneurs use
to help them innovate? Can a gender-aware
framework help explain differences in the ef-
fectiveness of women and men high-growth
entrepreneurs’ use of strategies to achieve in-
novative outcomes? The present study seeks
to answer these research questions by con-
sidering the association between early stage
high-growth entrepreneurs’ self-leadership
strategies (self-goal-setting, self-cueing, and
self-dialogue) and their development of intel-
lectual property. Through our consideration of
self-leadership strategies, we advance a gen-
der-aware framework (Brush, de Bruin, and
Welter 2009) for understanding differences in
the approaches male and female high-growth
entrepreneurs’ harness to develop innovations.
search question follows from scholar’s long-
time interest in explaining behavioral and
cognitive approaches entrepreneurs utilize
to improve venture outcomes (Ebbers 2014;
Grégoire, Corbett, and McMullen 2011; Mueller,
Wolfe, and Syed 2017). Broadly, this research
has established that different cognitive char-
acteristics, dispositions, and resources as well
as the behaviors entrepreneurs undertake can
lead to different venture development, growth,
and performance outcomes (Grégoire, Corbett,
and McMullen 2011). The present study builds
on and extends this research by considering
that the self-leadership strategies entrepreneurs
employ act as cognitive resources (Neck et al.
2013) that may be helpful for successfully gen-
erating innovative outcomes. As such, self-lead-
ership (i.e., explicit behavioral and cognitive

Bari L. Bendell is assistant professor in the Management and Entrepreneurship Department at Suffolk University.
Diane M. Sullivan is associate professor in the Management and Marketing Department at the University of
Dayton.
Matthew R. Marvel is the George A. Ball Distinguished Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Department of
Management at Ball State University.
* The authors contributed equally to the development of this work.
Address correspondence to: Bari L. Bendell, Management & Entrepreneurship Department, Suffolk University,
Boston, MA 02108. E-mail: bbendell@suffolk.edu.

BENDELL, SULLIVAN, AND MARVEL 1

prescriptions used to achieve greater personal
effectiveness) acts as a self-influence process
that can help entrepreneurs be self-directed
and motivated to perform tasks that may be im-
portant to achieving their entrepreneurial goals
(D’Intino et al. 2007; Neck and Houghton 2006).
We focus on self-leadership strategies as a
cognitive resource because the nature of entre-
preneurship inherently requires entrepreneurs
to lead themselves as they seek to launch and
grow their ventures, and their success in doing
so often involves their individual persistence
through challenging tasks (D’Intino et al.
2007). This self-directed leadership is likely to
be particularly important for high-growth en-
trepreneurs who are seeking to develop novel
innovations that may require learning about,
and completing, breakthrough tasks that have
no prescribed sequence of actions that lead to
successful innovation development. Recent re-
search has suggested that employing effective
self-leadership strategies may be one approach
entrepreneurs can use to improve success
with their entrepreneurial endeavors (Neck
et al. 2013). We build from this research by
considering how early stage high-growth en-
trepreneurs use self-leadership strategies of
self-goal-setting, self-cueing, and self-dialogue
to achieve innovative outcomes in the form of
developed intellectual property (e.g., patents,
trademarks).
Our second research question asks if a gen-
der-aware framework might help explain differ-
ences in the effectiveness of women and men
high-growth entrepreneurs’ use of self-leader-
ship strategies to achieve innovative outcomes.
We are motivated to answer this question in
response to calls for research to consider the
gendered nature of entrepreneurship (Bird and
Brush 2002; Renfrow and Howard 2013), par-
ticularly for women operating in environments
ascribed as especially masculine, like high-tech-
nology business incubators (Marlow and
McAdam 2015; McGowan et al. 2015). We ad-
vance a gender-aware framework of self-leader-
ship strategies for high-growth entrepreneurs,
as the concept of self-leadership initially devel-
oped, in part, as an alternative to the heroic
leadership model that emphasizes masculine
ideals, norms, and workplaces (Conger and
Kanungo 1988; Harrison, Leitch, and McAdam
2015; Neck and Houghton 2006). Building upon
leadership theories emphasizing self-aware-
ness, empowerment, and self-efficacy (Fletcher
2004), self-leadership has been associated with
2 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
outcomes including positive affect (Neck and
Manz 1996), diversity management (Neck,
Smith, and Godwin 1997), and spirituality (Neck
and Milliman 1994). This emphasis on individ-
ual empowerment and its associated outcomes
may broadly be considered characteristics of a
leadership style that is congruent with gender
roles, workplace environments, or professions
that are more feminine (Bird and Brush 2002;
Johnson, Holladay, and Quinones 2009; Kidder
and Parks 2001; Renfrow and Howard 2013).
Moreover, some research recognizes the pos-
sibility for gender differences relative to the
use of self-leadership strategies (Kurman 2001;
Nolan-Hoeksema and Corte 2004), but this re-
search has been limited, leading scholars to call
for more attention to self-leadership and gender
considerations (D’Intino et al. 2007).
Also motivating our interest in developing
a gender-aware framework is research that re-
ports women operating high-growth ventures,
particularly in technology business incuba-
tors, may not benefit as much as men from
the venture development-focused social in-
teractions these entrepreneurial development
organizations purport to provide (Amezcua
2010; Marlow and McAdam 2012, 2015). Thus,
high-growth women entrepreneurs might
necessarily resort to other, individual, ap-
proaches to successfully develop their firms,
like self-leadership strategies. Overall, for
these reasons, we believe self-leadership is a
prime perspective useful for informing a gen-
der-aware framework associated with high-
growth entrepreneurs.
The present study extends research on
self-leadership theory, gender, and entre-
preneurship in three key ways. The first
contribution relates to important boundary
conditions of self-leadership theory. The
findings from the present study suggest that
when applied to high-growth entrepreneur-
ship some self-leadership strategies are help-
ful, whereas others may be harmful. This
finding challenges an implicit assumption as-
sociated with the applicability of self-leader-
ship strategies for achieving greater personal
effectiveness across organizational contexts
(Neck and Houghton 2006). Second, results
from this study highlight the importance of
considering individual differences in studies
of self-leadership. In particular, our study
found men and women differentially empha-
sized self-leadership strategies and realized
varying outcomes in association with their
use. This suggests studies on self-leadership
would be wise to integrate a consideration
of individual differences (e.g., gender, cul-
ture) into their theorizing. Finally, and per-
haps most important, the findings from the
study highlight the benefit and necessity of
employing a gender-aware framework to the
study of entrepreneurship. Our results sug-
gest gender differences when women and
men high-growth entrepreneurs are pursuing
the development of intellectual property. The
strategies employed by men entrepreneurs
for developing intellectual property were not
equally effective for women entrepreneurs,
and vice versa. These findings highlight the
need for a gender-aware framework by il-
lustrating the gendered nature of entrepre-
neurship and the theories we may employ
to explain entrepreneurial phenomena (cf.,
Brush, de Bruin, and Welter 2009).
Theoretical Development
and Hypotheses
Self-Leadership
Self-leadership is a self-influencing process
that enhances an individual’s self-motivation
and self-direction capabilities (Manz 1986;
Neck and Manz 2012). Self-leadership speci-
fies a collection of intraindividual strategies
that provide explicit behavioral and cogni-
tive prescriptions that can be used to achieve
greater personal effectiveness. Although
self-leadership strategies were informed by
established theories of motivation, self-regu-
lation, and self-influence, they are normative
in nature (i.e., they extend beyond the typical
descriptive or deductive theory of a phenom-
ena). Indeed, normative theories are prescrip-
tive and advise how something should be
done, rather than just describing what it is and
how it is. Over the last 30–40 years, research
has not only shown why self-leadership strat-
egies work, but identified and explained the
theoretical mechanisms through which these
strategies influence and empower individuals
(Neck and Houghton 2006). Broadly, extant
research indicates that self-leadership strate-
gies positively influence performance (Neck
and Manz 1992, 1996; Prussia, Anderson, and
Manz 1998). For example, a field study by
Neck and Manz (1996) demonstrated the ef-
fectiveness of self-leadership training, which
resulted in improved job satisfaction, enthusi-
asm, and mental performance.
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
Though there has been a great deal of
self-leadership research to date, much of it
has been conceptual and focused on man-
agers and teams in organizational settings,
with a paucity of research examining self-
leadership in entrepreneurship (for excep-
tions see D’Intino et al. 2007; Neck et al. 2013;
and Neck et al. 1999). Thus, despite several
decades of self-leadership research, little is
known about the degree to which self-lead-
ership relates to the entrepreneurial process.
Given the potential value of self-leadership
for entrepreneurs, who inherently require
self-direction, the dearth of empirical studies
focusing on self-leadership and entrepreneur-
ship is surprising. This lack of attention is also
unexpected given entrepreneurship scholars’
in-depth interest in other, related, constructs
such as entrepreneurial orientation. Such
constructs have been used to help explain en-
trepreneurs’ successful venture creation and
performance (Covin and Lumpkin 2011).
Self-leadership, however, should generalize
particularly well to entrepreneurs, as self-lead-
ing individuals tend to be opportunity think-
ers who challenge prevailing assumptions and
attitudes while devising innovative solutions to
problems (Neck and Manz 1992). Neck (1996)
argues that self-leadership could help individu-
als succeed in dynamic, uncertain, and stressful
contexts—contexts experienced by many entre-
preneurs. Further, the absence of a superseding
level of management to turn to for leadership,
requires entrepreneurs to lead themselves. Thus,
self-leadership could replace leadership typically
culled from other sources (Manz and Sims 1980).
Self-Leadership and High-Growth
Entrepreneurs
High-growth entrepreneurs, particularly
those in technology incubators, are tasked
with developing, often radically, innovative
products and services (Marvel and Lumpkin
2007). The process of developing these novel
outputs requires entrepreneurs to consider
new means–ends relationships, deal with
changing/emerging customer needs, and cre-
atively address unanticipated questions and
technology challenges that arise during ven-
ture development (Blank 2013; Denrell, Fang,
and Winter 2003; Ravasi and Turati 2005).
Given the high levels of uncertainty and new-
ness high-growth entrepreneurs encounter,
those who utilize self-leadership strategies
3
may be more successful in developing inno-
vative outcomes. This is because self-leading
individuals often develop a heightened sense
of ownership over their work, and thereby,
exhibit stronger commitment to their goals,
tasks, or organization, relative to those who
are more minimally engaged in self-lead-
ership (Houghton and Yoho 2005; Manz
and Sims 2001; Neck and Houghton 2006).
Moreover, self-leadership “explicitly encom-
passes the questioning of existing structures
and routines… [and] proactively shaping
and influencing…an innovative, creative ap-
proach to arising questions” (Hauschildt and
Konradt 2012, p. 502). Thus, self-leadership
should be a prime perspective to help inform
research explaining entrepreneurs’ develop-
ment of innovative outcomes.
Some research has recognized the poten-
tial of self-leadership strategies for explaining
the achievement of innovation. Hauschiltd and
Konradt (2012), for example, found that both
individuals and teams who utilized self-lead-
ership strategies exhibited more proactive, in-
novative, behaviors in German organizations.
Similarly, Carmeli, Meitar, and Weisberg (2006)
reported a positive relationship between em-
ployees’ use of self-leadership strategies and
employee- and supervisor-ratings of employee
innovative behavior. Finally, both Pratoom
and Savtsomboon (2012) and Gomes, Curral,
and Caetano (2015) reported that the effect of
self-leadership on team- and individual-based
innovation operated through a mediator (team
creative culture and work engagement, respec-
tively). Overall, and building from this work,
we believe applied to the context of high-
growth entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs who
use self-leadership strategies in their pursuit of
innovation development may be more success-
ful compared to those who rely less on these
strategies. We explore this idea next.
Self-Leadership Strategies. Self-leadership
strategies are typically classified in one of three
ways: natural rewards, behavior-focused, or con-
structive thought pattern strategies (Neck and
Manz 2012), with the last two sets of strate-
gies being the most relevant to an entrepre-
neur’s self-leadership. Behavior-focused
strategies help strengthen an individual’s
behavioral management (particularly for tasks
that are unpleasant but necessary) through
enhanced self-awareness (Neck and Manz
2012). Two of the most promising behavior-fo-
4 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
cused self-leadership strategies for entrepre-
neurs are self-goal-setting and self-cueing.
Constructive thought pattern strategies help
an individual create habitual ways of thinking
that influence emotional and behavioral reac-
tions to a situation—especially those that are
new or especially stressful (Neck and Manz
2012). One of the most promising thought
pattern self-leadership strategies for entrepre-
neurs is self-dialogue [what we tell ourselves
out loud or in our head (Manz and Neck 1991)].
Self-Goal-Setting. Self-goal-setting provides
specific strategies for managing one’s own
behavior in an effort to not only set performance
standards and assess the degree of achievement,
but also in evaluating the relevance and
rationale of the goals themselves (Manz 1986).
Individuals who exhibit strong self-goal-setting
behavior incorporate both cognitive and
behavioral strategies that better enable them to
evaluate a goal within a context vaster and more
enduring than the immediate situation. High
levels of self-goal-setting behavior also lead to
a greater understanding and assessment of the
suitability of and motivation behind the goal
setting process (Neck and Houghton 2006).
Extant research indicates that the process
of setting explicit, meaningful (i.e., valuable
and attainable), and challenging goals can
significantly increase individual effort and
performance and, ultimately, lead to superior
achievement (Carver and Scheier 1998; Locke
and Latham 2002). Conversely, individuals who
adopt sub-optimal goals (i.e., simple and am-
biguous goals that satisfice) reach inferior out-
comes (Locke and Latham 1984). In the context
of high-growth entrepreneurship, founders, es-
pecially those in technology business incuba-
tors, endeavor to develop new and proprietary
technology. The pursuit of these innovative,
proprietary, technologies often requires found-
ers to use or invent frame-breaking products
and processes which are, at best, challenging
to develop. Echoing this point, technological
innovations have even been found to have im-
portant strategic implications, the potential to
reshape industries as a whole, and are arguably
the greatest source of competitive advantage
(Porter 1985). The development of these inno-
vations, and intellectual property in particular,
often also requires reaching a series of mile-
stones, or goals, involving research, iterative
development, testing, and intellectual property
protection requirements. Moreover, the novelty
of the intellectual property outputs developed
by high-growth entrepreneurs are likely to be
viewed as meaningful developments along a
new technology pathway, the pursuit of which
requires development goals to progress the in-
novation process. Because of this, we believe
high-growth entrepreneurs’ use of self-goal-set-
ting self-leadership strategies may help propel
them toward their goal of developing intellec-
tual property. That is, goal setting plays an es-
sential role in the entrepreneurial motivation to
achieve (Shane, Locke, and Collins 2003) and
when high-growth entrepreneurs’ set challeng-
ing performance goals that inspire their mo-
tivation, they are more likely to successfully
progress toward their desired performance
outcomes. Overall, this leads us to hypothesize
the following:
H1: There will be a positive relationship be-
tween self-goal-setting and innovation in
terms of intellectual property among high-
growth entrepreneurs.
Self-Cueing.  Self-cueing involves individuals
creating lists, notes, reminders, etc. that can
focus their attention on the completion of
goals and tasks (D’Intino et al. 2007). This
development and review of external cues is a
behavior-focused strategy that helps encourage
constructive behaviors aimed at goal attainment
while simultaneously eliminating or decreasing
destructive behaviors that may hinder the
achievement of goals (Neck and Manz 2012).
Tangible environmental cues associated with
self-cueing behaviors can serve as effective
reminders to keep one’s attention and
effort focused on desirable activities that
may lead to successful outcomes (Manz and
Sims 2001; Neck and Manz 2012). In the
context of high-growth entrepreneurship such
cues can help keep entrepreneurs’ attention
focused on the achievement of desirable
outcomes, like the development of proprietary
technology. Because the development of
intellectual property often requires numerous
complex and iterative processes aimed at the
achievement of important technology-related
milestones, the use of self-cueing might act as
an effective means of tracking one’s progress,
identifying tasks in need of completion, and
keeping entrepreneurs focused on activities
that might be task- or time-dependent.
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
Self-cueing–self-leadership strategies may
also help encourage entrepreneurs to
persevere as they encounter the inevitable
difficulties, set-backs, and/or other
contingencies (D’Intino et al. 2007) that
occur during the development of intellectual
property. Because of this, we hypothesize the
following:
H2: There will be a positive relationship be-
tween self-cueing and innovation in terms
of intellectual property among high-growth
entrepreneurs.
Self-dialogue.  Research indicates that self-
dialogue strategies (also referred to as self-
talk) increase self-efficacy levels, a primary
determinant of confidence and performance
expectancies, potentially leading to more
effective self-regulation and increased
performance (Carver and Scheier 1998). Self-
dialogue is what individuals tell themselves
out loud or in their head about what they
choose to believe (Manz and Neck 1991), and
it involves mental self-evaluations and self-
directed responses (Ellis 1977; Neck and
Manz 1992). Through repeated self-dialogue,
one’s beliefs and assumptions become
internalized and eventually automatically
influence one’s information processing system.
Self-dialogue strategies facilitate opportuni-
ty-oriented thought patterns that can enhance
persistence in the face of obstacles (Neck and
Manz 2012), which are inherent in the inno-
vation process. Constructive thought strategies
such as self-dialogue also offer potential for en-
hancing one’s self-regulatory effectiveness. For
example, self-leading individuals who are able
to harness these constructive thought patterns
and habitual ways of thinking are better able to
identify and replace negative and destructive
self-dialogue with more constructive internal di-
alogues, and ultimately positively improve their
task performance (Neck and Manz 1992, 2012).
When it comes to the challenge of developing
proprietary innovations, high-growth entrepre-
neurs encounter numerous hurdles given the
newness and complexity of developing novel
technologies (Baumol 2002, 2010; Freeman,
Carroll, and Hannan 1983). These entrepre-
neurs’ abilities to remain positive and focus on
constructive thoughts aimed at solving tech-
nology problems are likely to be particularly
5
important to their successful development of
intellectual property. Because self-dialogue–
self-leadership strategies can help positively
direct one’s thoughts and actions while temper-
ing negative thoughts, we believe self-dialogue
should be helpful toward this end. Accordingly,
we test the following hypothesis:
H3: There will be a positive relationship be-
tween self-dialogue and innovation in terms
of intellectual property among high-growth
entrepreneurs.
Gender and Self-Leadership
Women often face obstacles related to char-
acterizations of their gender in gaining the
credibility and legitimacy essential to leading
their venture to goal achievement (Koenig et
al. 2011; Marlow and Patton 2005; McGowan
et al. 2015). Moreover, in addition to combat-
ing historical, yet persistent, associations that
align entrepreneurship with heroic men (Bird
and Brush 2002; Leibenstein 1968), women
have also battled the cultural masculinity
of heroic leader stereotypes (Fletcher 2004;
Harrison, Leitch, and McAdam 2015; Koenig et
al. 2011). Leaders are often seen as assertive,
competitive, goal-focused, decisive agents of
change who act alone—heroic (Fletcher 2004;
Koenig et al. 2011). As these attributes are as-
cribed more often to men than women (Spence
and Buckner 2000), the perceived demands of
leadership are generally associated with mas-
culinity (Eagly and Karau 2002; Lewis 2015).
However, a significant shift in leadership the-
ory and practice over the last 20 years gave
rise to more relational models of leadership
(Fletcher 2004; Harrison, Leitch, and McAdam
2015).
Indeed, the concept of self-leadership
was initially developed, in part, as an alter-
native to the heroic leadership model that
emphasized masculine ideals, norms, and
workplaces (Conger and Kanungo 1988; Neck
and Houghton 2006) predominantly defined
through masculine-coded stereotypes (e.g., in-
dividualism, toughness, and heroism) (Koenig
et al. 2011). Conversely, self-leadership draws
upon leadership theories emphasizing femi-
nine-coded qualities including self-awareness,
empowerment, and self-efficacy (Fletcher
2004). Despite its greater emphasis on femi-
nine-coded qualities, some of self-leadership’s
6 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
prescriptions may yet more strongly align with
masculine norms, leading to gender role incon-
gruities for female entrepreneurs. For example,
the nature of goal setting in high-growth en-
trepreneurship may motivate male entrepre-
neurs to develop and pursue more numerous
and aggressive, masculine goals in comparison
to females (Eddleston and Powell 2008; Gupta
et al. 2009).
Though self-leadership strategies may bet-
ter embrace feminine ideals in comparison
to the traditional heroic models of leader-
ship overall, our gender-aware framework
of self-leadership questions whether some
self-leadership strategies may still emphasize
masculine norms. Additionally, although the
gendered nature of self-leadership strategies
has been under-examined, there is substantial
research indicating women high-growth en-
trepreneurs may encounter gendered imped-
iments that affect the extent to which they
are able to utilize self-leadership to achieve
their innovation goals. As much of the stake-
holder environment for high-growth firms
was constructed by men and reflects mascu-
line values and customs, women entrepre-
neurs may be perceived as less legitimate in
this space (Bhidé 2003; Greene, Brush, Hart,
and Saparito, 2001) and their efforts deval-
ued (Marlow and Patton 2005). Because of
this, although female high-growth entrepre-
neurs may use self-goal-setting, self-cueing,
and self-dialogue as strategies for improving
innovative output, their efforts may not reap
as great a benefit compared to males. Also
highlighting this possibility, are structural
barriers that exist for women entrepreneurs
due to the “masculinized normative model of
social-economic interaction” where women
founders are often “disadvantaged by unequal
access to the necessary resources” (Marlow
and Patton 2005, p. 721), which may be es-
pecially prominent in high-growth entrepre-
neurship (Marlow and McAdam 2012, 2015).
Accordingly, our gender-aware framework of
entrepreneur’s self-leadership strategies leads
us to hypothesize:
H4a: The positive relationship between self-
goal-setting and innovation in terms of intel-
lectual property will be moderated by gender,
such that this relationship will be weaker for
female entrepreneurs.
H4b: The positive relationship between self-
cueing and innovation in terms of intellec-
tual property will be moderated by gender,
such that this relationship will be weaker for
female entrepreneurs.
H4c: The positive relationship between self-
dialogue and innovation in terms of intellec-
tual property will be moderated by gender,
such that this relationship will be weaker for
female entrepreneurs.
Methodology
Sample and Procedure
Our sample focused on high-growth ven-
tures operating in high-technology incubators.
This population is ideal for several reasons.
First, in order to be accepted into a high-tech-
nology incubator, firms must go through an
application process where their technology,
business plan, and objectives are reviewed and
implicitly validated via acceptance. This helps
decrease survival bias, as the firms were con-
sidered viable, thereby reducing the potential
impact of untested, potentially confounding,
factors. Second, firms accepted into technol-
ogy incubators are expected to attain certain
high-growth goals during their incubator ten-
ure including fund-raising and human capital
growth.
Utilizing the National Business Incubation
Association online database, we obtained a list
of business incubators. We limited our focus
to the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions of the
United States and screened the website of each
incubator to identify incubators emphasizing
technology ventures. This resulted in 97 po-
tential technology incubators. Each incubator
manager was then contacted by one of the re-
searchers and provided with a study overview.
The managers were then asked to identify in-
cubator firm founders who met two key crite-
ria: (1) founder of a technology-based venture
and (2) established the venture within the last 5
years. From the incubator managers who were
contacted, 19 declined participation and 10
indicated they did not have any tenants who
met the criteria for study participation. This re-
sulted in a total of 68 incubator managers who
recommended 639 technology venture found-
ers for participation in the study. Each founder
was contacted via email and an overview of the
study was provided to them. The email also in-
cluded a link to a confidential online survey,
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
which according to pilot testing took roughly
19 minutes to complete. Each founder was sent
an incentive for participation (e.g., a copy of
The Founder’s Dilemmas) as well as two re-
minder emails during the surveying period.
Ultimately, 465 founders participated. However,
39 were not usable, resulting in a sample of
426, of which 43 did not report their gender.
Thus, our final sample was n = 383.
Of these, 59 founders (15.4 percent) were
female. Given noted statistical gender differ-
ences in the entrepreneurial growth and risk
orientations (Byrnes, Miller, and Schafer 1999;
Cliff 1998; Jennings and McDougald 2007) of
ventures, we adopted a matched-pair sam-
pling procedure to detect real rather than sam-
ple differences between female- and male-led
ventures. Prior gender research incorporating
a matched-pair design include Marlow (1997)
who paired male and female business own-
ers in order to determine whether there are
significant differences in their motivation, ap-
proach to, and experience of self-employment.
Other research utilizes matched-pair designs
to study family versus nonfamily firms (c.f.
McConaughy et al. 1998; Westhead and Cowling
1997; Westhead, Cowling, and Howroth 2001),
firms committing crimes versus those that do
not (O’Connor et al. 2006; Schnatterly 2003),
and high- versus low-performing organizations
(Teece 1981). A discussion of the methodology
can be found in Sheskin (2000).
A matched-pair design is particularly im-
portant for our study as only 15.4 percent of
our respondents were female. Utilizing the full
gender imbalanced data set in our analysis
would provide less statistical power to detect
differences in the slope of the interaction pre-
dictors (e.g., gender’s moderation effect) than a
balanced design (Aguinis et al. 2005; Cohen et
al. 2003). Moreover, a matched-pair design de-
creases the influence of potentially confound-
ing factors that could not be controlled for in
our model (Westhead, Cowling, and Howroth
2001). Matching provides greater statistical
control with fewer observations (Teece 1981)
because the sample is selected pairwise (i.e.,
one male respondent is matched to a similar
female respondent). This process allows us
to better investigate gender’s relationship to
self-leadership strategies and its direct and
moderating influence on intellectual property,
as observed differences in outcomes are more
likely to be attributed to the gender of the en-
trepreneur (Marlow 1997).
7
 We matched each high-growth female
founder with a high-growth male founder as
closely as possible by firm age, founder’s com-
mitment to their venture and the importance
of financial capital. Firm age was selected as a
matching criterion due to the fact that produc-
ing intellectual property is a time-intensive pro-
cess such that older start-ups are much more
likely than newer ventures to achieve tangible
innovation measures. Utilizing a founder’s com-
mitment to their venture as a matching criterion
was motivated by prior research that links en-
trepreneurial passion and grit to creative prob-
lem-solving and firm performance (Cardon et
al. 2009; Mueller, Wolfe, and Syed 2017). Thus,
the matching procedure simultaneously con-
trolled for the potentially distorting influence
of two variables: firm age and venture com-
mitment. Firm age was measured as the num-
ber of months the venture has been actively
pursued. Venture commitment was measured
(on a seven-point Likert scale) based on the re-
spondents’ answer to the question: “How much
time, money and energy have you invested in
your firm?” If, after satisfying the first two cri-
teria, there was more than one male founder
candidate available, we then matched respon-
dents’ answer (on a seven-point Likert scale) to
the question: “How important has raising cap-
ital been to the current venture?” as closely as
possible. Choice of these matching criteria was
motivated by prior research that found signif-
icant relationships between access to financial
capital, innovativeness, risk-taking, and proac-
tiveness (Wiklund and Shepherd 2005).
Given the large male founder sample size,
the final sample is comprised of 59 strong
pairs (n = 118). Following O’Connor et al.
(2006), we defined perfectly matched pairs
for each characteristic for all firms as 1.00. We
obtained an average match of 0.83 for firm
age, 0.99 for venture commitment, and 0.90
for the level of importance of raising capital.
To test the effectiveness of the matches and to
detect the presence of any remaining selection
bias, we used only the three matching covari-
ates with the 59 matched pairs to predict in-
novation (using the same dependent measure
as our model) and compared this three vari-
able model to the full data set (n = 383). Our
matched-pair sample (n = 118) demonstrated
matching effectiveness and minimal selection
bias as the spurious impact of the confound-
ing variables in the model was reduced 88.5
percent from an Adjusted R2 = 0.277 found
8 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
in the full data set (n = 383) to an Adjusted
R2 = 0.032 in the matched-pair sample. Lastly,
the strength of the pairs was confirmed via
a series of ANOVAs examining differences in
the means between the genders in terms of
venture commitment, level of education, years
of professional work experience, and parental
entrepreneurship (no differences were found
below p < .10 level). Overall, the average firm
age in our sample was 40.8 months. Half of
the ventures in our sample had three or fewer
network partners and nearly 70 percent of
the ventures in our sample were made up of
entrepreneurial teams. Most (57.6 percent)
of the founders reported that they attained an
advanced degree (masters or doctorate).
Although we implemented procedures to
minimize common method and source vari-
ances, including careful survey design which
took into account methodological and psycho-
logical best practices (Podsakoff et al. 2003),
additional measures were taken to ensure
the validity of our findings as all data were
collected at a single point of time from the
same source using the same instrument. To
assess whether common method and source
variance bias was present we conducted the
Harman single-factor test (Podsakoff et al.
2003) where all variables were loaded onto
one factor. Confirmatory factor analysis indi-
cated that a single factor (method) did not
fit the data (χ2 = 301.17, p < .01; CFI = 0.57;
RMSEA = 0.16; SRMR = 0.14), suggesting that
method variance is not responsible for the
covariation among the measures. We also re-
duced potential multicollinearity threats by
centering our data prior to creating the inter-
action variables. Moreover, we evaluated the
model’s variance inflation factors (VIFs) and
found that all individual VIFs were below 2,
indicating low collinearity threats (Kleinbaum
et al. 2007).
Measures
Innovation.  Innovation was measured as the
sum of self-reported intellectual proprietary
assets in the following four areas: patents,
patents pending, trademarks, and copyrights.
Intellectual property is a key measure for
innovative output, because as entrepreneurial
activity increases, the number of intellectual
assets increase (Acs and Audretsch 1989;
Marvel, Lee, and Wolfe 2015). Furthermore,
it is well known among angel investors,
venture capitalists, and firms looking to make
acquisitions, that considerable value is placed
on intellectual property in firm valuations and
determinations of competitiveness (Baum and
Silverman 2004; Shane and Stuart 2002).
Self-Leadership.  We assessed the respondent’s
self-leadership across three areas: self-goal-
setting, self-cueing behavior, and self-dialogue
thought patterns based on scales created by
Houghton and Neck (2002). The four items
on the self-goal-setting scale (𝛼 =  0.787) refer
to an individual’s ability to recognize the need
for, establish, and work toward specific goals.
Both items on the self-cueing scale (𝛼 = 0.884)
refer to an individual’s ability to use concrete
reminders (notes, lists, etc.) to focus on, and
keep track of, what they need to accomplish.
The three self-dialogue scale items refer to what
individuals tell themselves out loud or in their
head about a difficult situation or problem
(𝛼 = 0.935). Each self-goal-setting, self-cueing, or
self-dialogue item was measured on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all accurate
to 5 = completely accurate. Confirmatory factor
analysis was conducted to test the dimen­
sionality of the self-leadership scale. Our
analysis confirmed the preestablished theory
on self-leadership that describes self-
goal-setting, self-cueing, and self-dialogue
as three distinct factors (χ2  =  28.33, p  <  .05;
CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.04).
Controls.  Given the exponential rate of
development high-growth firms can achieve,
we controlled for firm age to account for
time-based influences that could lead
to differences in innovation. Given the
gendered perspective driving this study, we
captured gender via a self-reported dummy
measure asking respondents “What is your
gender?” where “male” = 0 and “female” = 1.
We introduced formal education and
professional work experience as controls in
our model. We chose these controls because
previous research on the start-up process
suggests that the human and social capital
associated with these controls affect resource
assembly and a venture’s development
trajectory (Brush et al. 2001). For example,
formal education may bestow both the
technical shrewdness and social networks
entrepreneurs need to develop innovation and
growth-oriented ventures (Lüthje and Franke
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
2003). Education was measured with an item
that used an ordinal scale and requested the
respondents’ highest level of formal education.
The scale included high school = 1, associate
degree  =  2, bachelor’s degree  =  3, master’s
degree  =  4, and Ph.D.  =  5. Similarly, work
experience often endows entrepreneurs with
specific capabilities and knowledge while also
providing access to industry contacts useful for
developing innovation. Work experience was
measured as the number of years of previous
full-time professional work experience.
Prior research indicates that entrepreneur-
ial parents may provide their offspring with
social capital and general business human
capital (Fairlie and Robb 2007; Edelman
et al. 2016)—potentially through role-
modeling (Parker 2009). Entrepreneurial par-
ents may shape their children’s intellectual
curiosity, entrepreneurial values and taste
for autonomy as well as enhance the number
of their social network ties, which may lead
to improved or faster access to information
and other resources (Sorenson et al. 2009),
which are helpful in the innovation process.
Entrepreneurial parents was a self-reported
dummy measure asking respondents “Are/
were your parents or guardians entrepre-
neurs?” where “no” = 0 and “yes” = 1. Lastly,
we controlled for the founder’s commitment
to the venture by capturing their personal in-
vestment of time, money, and energy into the
firm, as entrepreneurs who are more commit-
ted, likely experience stronger outcomes in
terms of innovation.
Results
Variable means, standard deviations,
and zero-order correlations are reported in
Table 1. Hypotheses were tested using re-
gression, the results of which are reported
in Table 2.
Prior to testing our hypotheses we exam-
ined the base model’s (i.e., the five controls
and gender) impact on innovation and found
an Adjusted R2 of 0.022. We then tested the
three self-leadership hypotheses and three
gender interactions hypotheses, which in-
creased the fit of the model 422.7 percent from
the base (Adjusted R2 = 0.115). Hypothesis
1 predicted a positive relationship between
self-goal-setting and innovation. As can be
seen in the main effects model in Table 2,
a positive and significant relationship was
9
10
Table 1 
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Intellectual Parent Venture Self-Goal-
Variables Mean S.D. Property Firm Age Entrepreneur(s) Education Experience Commitment Gender Setting Self-Cueing

Intellectual 5.82 23.98 1

Property
Firm Age 40.77 40.12 0.198* 1
Parent 0.40 0.49 −0.036 0.166 1
Entrepreneur(s)
Education 3.66 1.05 0.022 −0.141 −0.072 1
Experience 14.16 10.16 0.000 0.173 −0.108 −0.058 1
Venture 5.48 1.34 0.172 0.373** 0.166 −0.089 0.248** 1
Commitment
Gender 0.50 0.50 −0.112 −0.097 −0.024 0.081 0.093 0.019 1
Self-Goal-Setting 4.29 0.59 0.092 −0.027 0.129 0.163 0.032 0.029 0.209* 1
Self-Cueing 4.33 0.93 −0.161 −0.063 0.089 0.153 −0.031 0.028 0.228* 0.423** 1
Self-Dialogue 3.70 1.15 0.089 −0.140 0.211*a −0.140 −0.071 −0.068 0.136 0.181 0.199*

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
 Table 2 
Standardized Coefficient Estimates for Intellectual Property Models
Independent Variables Controls Only Main Effects Gender Interactions
Firm Age 0.177* 0.187* 0.206*
Parent Entrepreneur(s) −0.090 −0.142† −0.137†
Education 0.051 0.089 0.071
Experience −0.083 −0.082 −0.076
Venture Commitment 0.149† 0.166† 0.137†
Gender −0.103 −0.106
Self Goal-Setting 0.194* 0.218*
Self-Cueing −0.258** −0.252**
Self-Dialogue 0.192* 0.168*
Gender * Self Goal-Setting −0.169*
Gender * Self-Cueing 0.199*
Gender * Self-Dialogue −0.098
Adjusted R2 0.022 0.089 0.115
2
Δ in Adjusted R from 0.067 0.093
Base
Percent Δ in Adjusted 304.5 percent 422.7 percent
R2 from Base
F Statistics 1.50 2.33 2.27
†
p ≤ .10.
*
p ≤ .05.
**
p ≤ .01.

found (β = 0.194, p < .05), supporting H1. behaviors. No significant differences were

Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relationship
between self-cueing and innovation. Results
in Table 2 suggested a significant relationship
(β = −0.258, p < .01), however, it was in the
opposite direction from what was predicted,
not supporting H2. Hypothesis 3 predicted a
positive relationship between self-dialogue
and innovation and results in Table 2 sug-
gest a positive and significant relationship
(β = 0.192, p < .05), supporting H3.
Prior to testing our interaction effects in the
full model, we ran an ANOVA to test whether
men and women in our matched-pair sample of
high-growth entrepreneurs employed different
levels of self-leadership strategies. ANOVA re-
sults showed that men and women high-growth
entrepreneurs employ significantly different
levels of self-goal-setting (F = 5.28, p < .05,
µfemale = 4.41, µmale =  4.17) and self-cueing
(F = 3.06, p < .05, µfemale = 4.86, µmale = 4.16)
found for self-dialogue.
After examining these differences, the inter-
action hypotheses were evaluated, the results
of which are presented in the “gender inter-
actions” column from Table 2. Hypothesis 4a
predicted that the positive relationship be-
tween self-goal-setting and innovation would
be moderated by gender whereby the relation-
ship would be stronger for male entrepreneurs.
Results suggest the interaction is significant
(β = −0.169, p < .05). To further understand the
nature of this relationship, the interaction was
plotted using procedures established by Cohen
et al. (2003) and Dawson (2014). The plot is
illustrated in Figure 1. As can be seen from
the figure, gender does moderate the relation-
ship between self-goal-setting and intellectual
property development whereby the positive
relationship is stronger for male entrepreneurs
compared to female entrepreneurs, supporting

Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel 11

 Figure 1 
Interaction between Gender and Self-Goal-Setting

Figure 2 
Interaction between Gender and Self-Cueing

H4a. These findings are additionally supported
as a test of the slopes reveals that the slope
(16.25) for males is significantly different from
zero (t = 2.64, p < .001), but the slope (1.84)
for females is not (t = 0.304, p > .10).
Hypothesis 4b predicted that the positive
relationship between self-cueing and innova-
tion would be moderated by gender whereby
the relationship would be stronger for male
entrepreneurs compared to females. Results
suggest the interaction is significant (β = 0.199,
p < .05). The interaction plot is illustrated in
Figure 2. As can be seen from Figure 2, gen-
der does moderate the relationship between
self-cueing and intellectual property develop-
ment. However, the interaction plot reveals a
negative relationship whereby entrepreneurs
who use more self-cueing behaviors develop
less intellectual property. Additionally, the plot
suggests that at low levels of self-cueing, male
high-growth entrepreneurs generate greater
intellectual property compared to females
and at high levels of self-cueing, female high-
growth entrepreneurs generate greater intel-
lectual property compared to males. Overall,
it seems that the negative relationship found
for self-cueing on intellectual property devel-
opment is less extreme for females compared
to males as self-cueing behaviors increase.
Confirming these findings is a test of the
slopes whereby the slope (−11.93) for males
(t = −3.28, p < .001) is significantly different

12 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

from zero, whereas the slope (−1.25) for fe-
males is not (t = −0.30, p > .10). Overall, H4b
was not supported.
Finally, H4c predicted that the positive rela-
tionship between self-dialogue and innovation
would be moderated by gender whereby the
relationship would be stronger for male entre-
preneurs compared to females. No significant
relationship was found for this interaction
(β = −0.098, ns), not supporting H4c.
Robustness Checks
We conducted several robustness checks to
account for other possible relationships in our
data. First, the following four new variables
were added to our model: (1) whether the busi-
ness focuses on products or services; (2) found-
er’s level of technical experience; (3) number
of network partners the venture has; and (4)
number of new businesses the founder has
started. Though these controls were not signif-
icant, all five hypotheses that were significant
in our original model (H1–H3, H4a, and H4b)
were still significant (p < .05). Second, we
reran our model omitting some or all of our
original control variables. Initially, we only
omitted the two control variables that were not
significant in our original model. Reducing the
number of controls still indicated significance
for H1 and H2 (p < .05), H3 (p < .10), H4a and
H4b (p < .05). Next, we excluded all control
variables, which show four of the five (H1, H2,
H4a, and H4b) originally significant hypothe-
ses significant at p < .05. Overall, we believe
the results of these tests suggest our findings
are robust.1
Discussion
The first research question this study sought
to address was what behavioral and/or cogni-
tive strategies do early stage high-growth en-
trepreneurs utilize to help them innovate. To
answer this, we examined whether entrepre-
neurs’ self-leadership strategies of self-goal-set-
ting, self-cueing, and self-dialogue are related
to the development of intellectual property.
Results from H1 corroborate tenets of goal-set-
ting theory that suggest setting challenging,
meaningful, and motivating goals should im-
prove individual performance by illustrat-
ing that such goals may include intellectual
1
Due to space limitations, the full set of results from the robustness analyses are not reported as they
yield very similar outcomes to those documented in Table 2 and are available from the authors.
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
property development in high-growth entre-
preneurial settings.
With respect to H2, results suggest a nega-
tive relationship between entrepreneurs’ use
of self-cueing behaviors like writing notes,
setting reminders, and developing lists, and
their development of intellectual property.
One possible explanation is that as high-
growth entrepreneurs dedicate more time to
planning activities (e.g., writing to do lists
for upcoming tasks), that time may come at
the expense of executing the development
of their technology outputs. Some research
on business planning has suggested similar
phenomena whereby entrepreneurs’ efforts
dedicated to planning are thought to take
away from more valuable organizing and
venture development actions (Bhidé 2003;
Honig and Karlsson 2004). Thus, self-cueing
behaviors may distract from more useful en-
trepreneurial behaviors aimed at execution
versus preparation. Another possibility is
that because entrepreneurs in high-growth,
high-technology, settings are engaging in
the development of novel and challeng-
ing-to-develop offerings, there may be no
prescribed sequence of “to do” actions that
lead to successful intellectual property devel-
opment. Set plans established by self-cueing
behaviors may therefore send entrepreneurs
down a less successful path compared to
entrepreneurs who maintain greater flexibil-
ity and adaptability. This logic echoes find-
ings that indicate women are less likely to
follow sequential steps in venture creation
(Brush 1990). To begin to explore this as a
possible explanation, we conducted a post
hoc analysis examining an interaction be-
tween self-goal-setting and self-cueing. The
results suggested a significant interaction
(β = −0.25, p < .01) whereby the relation-
ship between self-goal-setting and intel-
lectual property development increases at
lower levels of self-cueing. However, when
self-cueing is high, the relationship between
self-goal-setting and intellectual property
development is not significantly different
from zero. We believe this preliminarily sug-
gests that as entrepreneurs increasingly use
self-goal-setting, particularly in the pursuit
of challenging goals like developing in-
tellectual property, the less they prescribe
13
their actions via self-cueing the more suc-
cessful they may be.
Regarding self-dialogue (H3), results sug-
gest for high-growth entrepreneurs self-
dialogue strategies may help direct their
thought patterns toward potential opportuni-
ties. These constructive thought patterns may
also help high-growth entrepreneurs persevere
in the face of challenging obstacles they may
encounter during the technology development
process.
The second research question this paper
addressed was whether a gender-aware frame-
work might help explain differences in the ef-
fectiveness of women and men high-growth
entrepreneurs’ use of self-leadership strategies
to achieve innovative outcomes. Generally, re-
sults suggest gender differences whereby fe-
male entrepreneurs use self-goal-setting to a
greater extent than males and male entrepre-
neurs use self-cueing more than females.
In exploring implications of these gender
differences, we examined how gender moder-
ates the relationship between self-leadership
strategies and the development of intellectual
property. The nature of goal setting, particularly
in environments ascribed as strongly mascu-
line, like technology business incubators, may
motivate or encourage male entrepreneurs to
develop and pursue more numerous and ag-
gressive goals (Eddleston and Powell 2008;
Gupta et al. 2009). Results from H4a found
that although female entrepreneurs use self-
goal-setting to a greater extent than males, they
do not appear to benefit as greatly in terms of
generating innovative output, highlighting the
gendered nature of high-growth, high-tech-
nology, entrepreneurship. High-technology
industries are very competitive domains that
require aggressive competitive moves, risk-tak-
ing, and may require setting very challenging
technology development goals. It is possible,
given the masculine orientation of these work
environments which require incongruent gen-
der role behaviors (Gupta et al. 2009; Rudman
et al. 2012) associated with competition, ag-
gression and greater risk-taking (Eddleston
and Powell 2008; Gupta et al. 2009; Rudman
et al. 2012), as well as especially lofty goals
(Kurman 2001), that female high-growth en-
trepreneurs may be less accustomed to and/or
encouraged to set their intellectual property
aspirations as high as their male counterparts.
Although we cannot test for this possibility, we
believe this finding, at minimum, highlights
14 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
the gendered nature of high-growth entrepre-
neurship, particularly in the high-technology
business incubation context.
To explain the intriguing findings for H4b,
we considered the, perhaps, more feminine
orientation of self-cueing strategies. Although
self-leadership developed from post-heroic
models of leadership that emphasize feminine
ideals of empowerment, self-goal-setting may
be more closely aligned with masculine, agen-
tic, leadership strategies that emphasize com-
petitiveness and assertiveness (Kurman 2001).
Alternatively, self-cueing may be more closely
aligned with establishing a nurturing environ-
ment that uses more relational decision-making
approaches, both qualities of feminine work
environments (Bird and Brush 2002; Renfrow
and Howard 2013). As a consequence of these
potential differences, female entrepreneurs may
be more accustomed to employing self-cueing
behaviors and thus experiencing fewer draw-
backs. Another possible explanation relates
to the pattern of results in Figure 2. For low
self-cueing, males developed more intellectual
property than females, whereas at high levels
of self-cueing, males’ intellectual property de-
velopment dropped significantly and females’
innovative output remained stable. It is possi-
ble that given gender differences in the entre-
preneurial growth and risk orientations (Cliff
1998; Byrnes, Miller, and Schafer 1999), male
high-growth entrepreneurs may be more likely
to delegate lower level preparation or planning
(e.g., to do list-type) tasks to employees, which
can help them focus on technology and inno-
vation development endeavors. Some research
supports this, suggesting male-owned ventures
employ more workers than female-owned firms
( Jennings and McDougald 2007). If this is the
case, these early employees may allow males to
delegate the “cueing” activities to others such
that they then engage in less self-cueing while
spending more of their time innovating.
Gender did not moderate the relationship
between self-dialogue and intellectual prop-
erty (H4c). To explain this unexpected result,
we considered the relative focus of self-
dialogue, which emphasizes the internal dia-
logues that individuals have with themselves.
Given its internal focus, self-dialogue might
vary somewhat in comparison to self-goal-
setting and self-cueing–self-leadership strate-
gies. That is, when entrepreneurs engage in
self-goal-setting, those goals are likely even-
tually shared with those in the stakeholder
environment. Further, self-cueing activities
involve the development of physical cues
that might be observable by others. Because
of the masculine norms characterizing the
social–economic interactions, particularly in
high-growth entrepreneurship (Marlow and
McAdam 2012, 2015), these relatively more
outward facing self-leadership strategies
might lend themselves more toward gender
differences as men and women high-growth
entrepreneurs enact gender role norms.
Because self-dialogue can involve entirely in-
ternal reflections and habitual ways of indi-
vidual thinking, this self-leadership strategy
might have a more gender neutral character,
in a similar vein as findings regarding con-
structs like entrepreneurial self-efficacy (cf.,
Mueller and Conway Dato-On 2008; Zhao,
Siebert, and Hills 2005).
This study’s findings contribute to research
on self-leadership theory, gender, and entre-
preneurship. Notably, this study suggests im-
portant boundary conditions of self-leadership
theory. Prior studies of self-leadership theory
have largely assumed that across organizational
contexts individuals employing self-leadership
strategies can realize greater personal effec-
tiveness (Neck and Houghton 2006). However,
the results reported here suggest that in the
high-growth entrepreneurial context (technol-
ogy business incubators, in particular), some
self-leadership strategies (self-cueing) might
actually hinder effectiveness (intellectual prop-
erty development). This finding highlights the
importance of accounting for organizational
context in studies of self-leadership. Failure
to do so could result in improperly specified
models, incomplete theorizing, or incorrect
conclusions. That women and men differen-
tially emphasize self-leadership strategies and
realize varying outcomes in association with
their use also contributes to self-leadership the-
ory. This highlights the importance of carefully
considering individual differences (e.g., gen-
der, culture, age) when theorizing about self-
leadership strategies as not all strategies may be
equally applicable or beneficial to all individu-
als. Finally, this study contributes by illustrating
the need to employ a gender-aware framework
to the study of entrepreneurship. The results
we report, alone, support theorizing through
a gender-aware lens. But, they also highlight
the need to be considerate of the theories em-
ployed when seeking to explain gender differ-
ences in entrepreneurship (cf., Alh and Marlow
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
2012; Brush, de Bruin, and Welter 2009).
Although some prescribed self-leadership strat-
egies may yet emphasize the entrepreneurial
male norm (Brush, de Bruin, and Welter 2009),
we believe the differences our study elucidated
allow us to tentatively suggest self-leadership
as a useful perspective for scholars interested
in understanding entrepreneurs utilizing a gen-
der-aware framework.
Limitations
The findings of this study should be con-
sidered relative to some limitations. First, to
identify technology venture founders we fo-
cused on technology incubators in specific
U.S. regions—the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic.
Consequently, the study’s results might not
generalize to entrepreneurs operating out-
side of incubator settings or in different
geographic regions. Second, a self-report
measure was utilized to assess innovation in
terms of intellectual property. Although sim-
ilar research suggests there are significant
correlations between objective and subjective
assessments and that innovation can be reli-
ably assessed via subjective measures (Dess
and Robinson 1984; Jennings and Young
1990), future research may benefit from in-
cluding a variety of measurement approaches
from multiple sources. Third, recall bias
may exist in our sample of entrepreneurs.
However, because entrepreneurs are deeply
immersed in their start-ups, and recall bias is
reduced when participants have experienced
significant investments (e.g., emotional, fi-
nancial) (Huber and Power 1985), we suspect
this might only be a small limitation in the
current study.
Conclusion and Future
Research Directions
Overall, this research contributes to the
study and practice of self-leadership by inves-
tigating the generalizability of self-leadership
to high-growth entrepreneurs and through
advancing a gender-aware framework for un-
derstanding high-growth entrepreneurship.
Based on the current study, several priorities
are worth noting for future research. First,
given our findings that suggest greater self-
goal-setting and cueing may help or hinder in-
tellectual property outcomes in high-growth
ventures, understanding how other self-
leadership strategies relate to innovative and
15
other entrepreneurial outcomes is a critical
area requiring further research. Second, al-
though our focus was innovation in terms of
intellectual property, future research should
consider how cognitive resources affect addi-
tional dimensions of innovation. When con-
sidering product innovation, scholars have
often distinguished between incremental
innovation and radical, or discontinuous, in-
novation (Baumol 2010). Radical innovations
are frame-breaking and reflect discontinuous
changes, whereas incremental innovations are
extensions in a line of gradual improvements.
The challenges associated with developing
radical innovations often require consider-
able cognitive challenges in product develop-
ment (Alexander and Van Knippenbert 2014).
Though we suspect both self-goal-setting and
self-cueing are helpful in creating new prod-
ucts, our analysis suggests that each strategy
may be more beneficial to developing some
innovations over others. For example, with-
out gradual product iterations to build upon,
entrepreneurs pursuing radical innovations
face greater task complexity and uncertainty
in product development (Sullivan and Marvel
2011) and therefore rely on setting ambitious
goals. Thus, self-goal-setting may be more
important for radical innovation development
because of the need to set ambitious stretch
goals to achieve frame-breaking innovation,
whereas self-cueing may be more helpful in
developing gradual improvements because
incremental innovations may be more likely
to build off of existing innovations that have
a more prescribed set of “to do” actions as-
sociated with them. We encourage future
research to explore cognitive aspects that
may be of particular salience to developing
incremental and radical product innova-
tions. Third, it is also important to consider
implications of self-leadership strategies in
varying entrepreneurial contexts (e.g., firms
outside of incubators, lifestyle ventures, hy-
brid entrepreneurs), as strategies may be
more or less effective in different contextual
circumstances. Fourth, it would be particu-
larly interesting to examine differences in the
experiences of women and men high-growth
entrepreneurs in cross-cultural settings. It is
possible that women and men high-growth
entrepreneurs operating in cultures empha-
sizing differing gender values and beliefs
(Baughn, Chua, and Nuepert 2006), as well
as cultural dimensions (Hofstede 1983),
16 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
might support men and women entrepre-
neurs differently. In addition, it is possible
that the importance of some self-leadership
strategies may be more or less effective for
entrepreneurs operating in locales with vary-
ing cultural emphases. Exploring topics such
as these would more fully enrich our under-
standing of a gender-aware framework in
high-growth entrepreneurial settings. Finally,
prior research indicates self-leadership strate-
gies can be learned and adjusted (Manz 1986;
Stewart, Carson, and Cardy 1996) and in or-
ganizations self-leadership training has led to
improved employee self-efficacy (Neck and
Manz 1996). Given the importance of entre-
preneurial self-efficacy in successful venture
growth (Miao, Qian, and Ma 2017), future re-
search examining self-leadership training in
entrepreneurial settings would be valuable.
Moreover, because most business incuba-
tors emphasize mentoring and coaching as a
part of their tenancies, exploring the effects
of coaching on self-leadership, including
any gender differences in the need for and/
or effects of coaching, would be particularly
worthwhile.
References
Acs, Z., and D. B. Audretsch (1989). “Patents as
a Measure of Innovative Activity,” Kyklos
42(2), 171–180.
Aguinis, H., J. C. Beaty, R. J. Boik, and
C. A. Pierce (2005). “Effect Size and
Power in Assessing Moderating Effects
of Categorical Variables Using Multiple
Regression: A 30-Year Review,” Journal of
Applied Psychology 90(1), 94–107.
Ahl, H., and S. Marlow (2012). “Exploring
the Dynamics of Gender, Feminism and
Entrepreneurship: Advancing Debate to
Escape a Dead End?,” Organization 19(5),
543–562.
Alexander, L., and D. Van Knippenberg (2014).
“Teams in Pursuit of Radical Innovation: A
Goal Orientation Perspective,” Academy of
Management Review 39(4), 423–438.
Amezcua, A. S. (2010). “Boon or Boondoggle?
Business Incubation as Entrepreneurship
Policy.” Unpublished Manuscript.
Baughn, C. C., B. L. Chua, and K. E. Neupert
(2006). “The Normative Context for
Women’s Participation in Entrepreneruship:
A Multicountry Study,” Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 30(5), 687–708.
Baum, J. A., and B. S. Silverman (2004).
“Picking Winners or Building Them?
Alliance, Intellectual, and Human Capital
as Selection Criteria in Venture Financing
and Performance of Biotechnology
Startups,” Journal of Business Venturing
19(3), 411–436.
Baumol, W. J. (2002). The Free-Market
Innovation Machine: Analyzing the
Growth Miracle of Capitalism. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Baumol, W. (2010). The Microtheory of
Innovative Entrepreneurship. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bhidé, A. V. (2003). The Origin and Evolution
of New Businesses. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bird, B., and C. Brush (2002). “A Gendered
Perspective on Organizational Creation,”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
26(3), 41–65.
Blank, S. (2013). “Why the Lean Start-up
Changes Everything,” Harvard Business
Review 91(5), 63–72.
Brush, C. (1990). “Women and Enterprise
Creation: Barriers and Opportunities,” in
Women, Entrepreneurship and Economic
Development. Eds. S. Gould and J. Parzen.
Paris: OECD, 37–50.
Brush, C. G., A. De Bruin, and F. Welter (2009).
“A Gender-Aware Framework for Women’s
Entrepreneurship,” International Journal
of Gender and Entrepreneurship 1(1),
8–24.
Brush, C. G., G. G. Patricia, M. H. Myra, and
S. H. Harold (2001). “From Initial Idea to
Unique Advantage: The Entrepreneurial
Challenge of Constructing a Resource
Base [and Executive Commentary],” The
Academy of Management Executive (1993–
2005) 15(1), 64–80.
Byrnes, J. P., D. C. Miller, and W. D. Schafer
(1999). “Gender Differences in Risk Taking:
A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin
125(3), 367–383.
Cardon, M. S., J. Wincent, J. Singh, and
M. Drnovsek (2009). “The Nature and
Experience of Entrepreneurial Passion,”
Academy of Management Review 34(3),
511–532.
Carmeli, A., R. Meitar, and J. Weisberg (2006).
“Self-Leadership Skills and Innovative
Behavior at Work,” International Journal
of Manpower 27(1), 75–90.
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
Carver, C. S., and M. F. Scheier (1998). On the
Self-Regulation of Behavior. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cliff, J. E. (1998). “Does One Size Fit All?
Exploring the Relationship between
Attitudes Towards Growth, Gender,
and Business Size,” Journal of Business
Venturing 13(6), 523–542.
Cohen, J., P. Cohen, S. G. West, and L. S.
Aiken (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/
Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Conger, J. A., and R. N. Kanungo (1988). “The
Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory
and Practice,” Academy of Management
Review 13(3), 471–482.
Covin, J. G., and G. T. Lumpkin (2011).
“Entrepreneurial Orientation Theory
and Research: Reflections on a Needed
Construct,” Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 35(5), 855–872.
Dawson, J. F. (2014). “Moderation in
Management Research: What, Why,
When and How,” Journal of Business and
Psychology 29(1), 1–19.
    (2018). “Interpreting Interaction
Effects.” Available at: https://www.jere-
mydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm (accessed
January 16, 2018).
Denrell, J., C. Fang, and S. G. Winter (2003).
“The Economics of Strategic Opportunity,”
Strategic Management Journal 24(10),
977–990.
Dess, G. G., and R. B. Robinson, Jr. (1984).
“Measuring Organizational Performance
in the Absence of Objective Measures:
The Case of the Privately-Held Firm and
Conglomerate Business Unit,” Strategic
Management Journal 5(3), 265–273.
D’Intino, R. S., M. G. Goldsby, J. D. Houghton,
and C. P. Neck (2007). “Self-Leadership:
A Process for Entrepreneurial Success,”
Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies 13(4), 105–120.
Eagly, A. H., and S. J. Karau (2002). “Role
Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward
Female Leaders,” Psychological Review
109(3), 573–598.
Ebbers, J. J. (2014). “Networking Behavior
and Contracting Relationships among
Entrepreneurs in Business Incubators,”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
38(5), 1159–1181.
17
Eddleston, K. A., and G. N. Powell (2008). “The
Role of Gender Identity in Explaining Sex
Differences in Business Owners’ Career
Satisfier Preferences,” Journal of Business
Venturing 23(2), 244–256.
Edelman, L. F., T. Manolova, G. Shirokova,
and T. Tsukanova (2016). “The Impact of
Family Support on Young Entrepreneurs’
Start-up Activities,” Journal of Business
Venturing 31(4), 428–448.
Ellis, A. (1977). “The Basic Clinical Theory of
Rational-Emotive Therapy,” Handbook of
Rational-emotive Therapy 1, 3–34.
Fairlie, R. W., and A. Robb (2007). “Families,
Human Capital, and Small Business:
Evidence from the Characteristics of
Business Owners Survey,” Industrial and
Labor Relations Review 60(2), 225–245.
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). “The Paradox of
Postheroic Leadership: An Essay on
Gender, Power, and Transformational
Change,” The Leadership Quarterly 15(5),
647–661.
Freeman, J., G. R. Carroll, and M. T. Hannan
(1983). “The Liability of Newness: Age
Dependence in Organizational Death
Rates,” American Sociological Review
48(5), 692–710.
Gomes, C., L. Curral, and A. Caetano (2015). “The
Mediating Effect of Work Engagement on
the Relationship between Self-Leadership
and Individual Innovation,” International
Journal of Innovation Management 19(1),
1–18.
Greene, P. G., C. G. Brush, M. M. Hart, and P.
Saparito (2001). “Patterns of the Venture
Capital Funding: Is Gender a Factor?”
Venture Capital 3(1), 63–83.
Grégoire, D. A., A. C. Corbett, and J. S. McMullen
(2011). “The Cognitive Perspective in
Entrepreneurship: An Agenda for Future
Research,” Journal of Management Studies
48(6), 1443–1477.
Gupta, V. K., D. B. Turban, S. A. Wasti,
and A. Sikdar (2009). “The Role of
Gender Stereotypes in Perceptions of
Entrepreneurs and Intentions to Become
an Entrepreneur,” Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 33(2), 397–417.
Harrison, R., C. Leitch, and M. McAdam (2015).
“Breaking Glass: Toward a Gendered
Analysis of Entrepreneurial Leadership,”
Journal of Small Business Management
53(3), 693–713.
18 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Hauschildt, K., and U. Konradt (2012). “Self-
Leadership and Team Members’ Work
Role Performance,” Journal of Managerial
Psychology 27(5), 497–517.
Hofstede, G. (1983). “National Cultures in Four
Dimensions: A Research-Based Theory
of Cultural Differences among Nations,”
International Studies of Management and
Organization 13(1–2), 46–74.
Honig, B., and T. Karlsson (2004). “Institutional
Forces and the Written Business Plan,”
Journal of Management 30(1), 29–48.
Houghton, J. D., and C. P. Neck (2002). “The
Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire:
Testing a Hierarchical Factor Structure for
Self-Leadership,” Journal of Managerial
Psychology 17(8), 672–691.
Houghton, J. D., and S. K. Yoho (2005). “Toward
a Contingency Model of Leadership and
Psychological Empowerment: When
Should Self-Leadership Be Encouraged?”
Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies 11(4), 65–83.
Huber, G. P., and D. J. Power (1985).
“Retrospective Reports of Strategic-Level
Managers: Guidelines for Increasing Their
Accuracy,” Strategic Management Journal
6(2), 171–180.
Jennings, J. E., and M. S. McDougald (2007).
“Work-Family Interface Experiences
and Coping Strategies: Implications for
Entrepreneurship Research and Practice,”
Academy of Management Review 32(3),
747–760.
Jennings, D. F., and D. M. Young (1990).
“An Empirical Comparison between
Objective and Subjective Measures of the
Product Innovation Domain of Corporate
Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 15(1), 53–66.
Johnson, S. K., C. L. Holladay, and M. A. Quinones
(2009). “Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Performance Evaluations:
Distributive Justice or Injustice?” Journal
of Business and Psychology 24(4), 409–418.
Kidder, D. L., and J. M. Parks (2001). “The
Good Soldier: Who Is S (He)?” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 22(8), 939–959.
Kleinbaum, D., L. Kupper, A. Nizam, and
K. Muller (2007). Applied Regression
Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods.
Boston, MA: Cengage.
Koenig, A. M., A. H. Eagly, A. A. Mitchell, and
T. Ristikari (2011). “Are Leader Stereotypes
 Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three
Research Paradigms,” Pyschological
Bulletin 137(4), 616–642.
Kurman, J. (2001). “Self-Regulation Strategies
in Achievement Settings: Culture and
Gender Differences,” Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology 32(4), 491–503.
Leibenstein, H. (1968). “Entrepreneurship and
Development,” The American Economic
Review 58(2), 72–83.
Lewis, K. V. (2015). “Enacting Entrepreneurship
and Leadership: A Longitudinal
Exploration of Gendered Identity Work,”
Journal of Small Business Management
53(3), 662–682.
Locke, E. A., and G. P. Latham (1984). Goal
Setting: A Motivational Technique That
Works! Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    (2002). “Building a Practically
Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey,” American
Psychologist 57(9), 705.
Lüthje, C., and N. Franke (2003). “The ‘Making’of
an Entrepreneur: Testing a Model of
Entrepreneurial Intent among Engineering
Students at MIT,” R&D Management 33(2),
135–147.
Manz, C. C. (1986). “Self-Leadership: Toward
an Expanded Theory of Self-Influence
Processes in Organizations,” Academy of
Management Review 11(3), 585–600.
Manz, C. C., and C. P. Neck (1991). “Inner
Leadership: Creating Productive Thought
Patterns,” The Executive 5(3), 87–95.
Manz, C. C., and H. P. Sims (1980). “Self-
Management as a Substitute for Leadership:
A Social Learning Theory Perspective,”
Academy of Management Review 5(3),
361–367.
    (2001). The New Superleadership:
Leading Others to Lead Themselves. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Marlow, S. (1997). “Self–Employed Women—
New Opportunities, Old Challenges?”
Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development 9(3), 199–210.
Marlow, S., and M. McAdam (2012). “Analyzing
the Influence of Gender Upon High-
Technology Venturing within the Context
of Business Incubation,” Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 36(4), 655–676.
    (2015). “Incubation or Induction?
Gendered Identity Work in the Context
of Technology Business Incubation,”
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
39(4), 791–816.
Marlow, S., and D. Patton (2005). “All Credit
to Men? Entrepreneurship, Finance, and
Gender,” Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 29(6), 717–735.
Marvel, M. R., I. H. I. Lee, and M. T. Wolfe (2015).
“Entrepreneur Gender and Firm Innovation
Activity: A Multilevel Perspective,” IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management
62(4), 558–567.
Marvel, M. R., and G. T. Lumpkin (2007).
“Technology Entrepreneurs’ Human
Capital and Its Effects on Innovation
Radicalness,” Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 31(6), 807–828.
McConaughy, D. L., M. C. Walker,
G. Henderson, and C. S. Mishra (1998).
“Founding Family Controlled Firms:
Efficiency and Value,” Review of Financial
Economics 7(1), 1–19.
McGowan, P., S. Cooper, M. Durkin, and
C. O’Kane (2015). “The Influence of Social
and Human Capital in Developing Young
Women as Entrepreneurial Business
Leaders,” Journal of Small Business
Management 53(3), 645–661.
Miao, C., S. Qian, and D. Ma (2017). “The
Relationship between Entrepreneurial Self-
Efficacy and Firm Performance: A Meta-
Analysis of Main and Moderator Effects,”
Journal of Small Business Management
55(1), 87–107.
Mueller, S. L., and M. Conway Dato-On (2008).
“Gender-Role Orientation as a Determinant
of Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy,” Journal
of Developmental Entrepreneurship 13(1),
3–20.
Mueller, B. A., M. T. Wolfe, and I. Syed (2017).
“Passion and Grit: An Exploration of the
Pathways Leading to Venture Success,”
Journal of Business Venturing 32(3),
260–279.
Neck, C. P. (1996). “Thought Self-Leadership:
A Self-Regulatory Approach Towards
Overcoming Resistance to Organizational
Change,” The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis 4(2), 202–216.
Neck, C. P., and J. D. Houghton (2006). “Two
Decades of Self-Leadership Theory and
Research: Past Developments, Present
Trends, and Future Possibilities,”
Journal of Managerial Psychology 21(4),
270–295.
19
Neck, C. P., and C. C. Manz (1992). “Thought
Self-Leadership: The Influence of Self-Talk
and Mental Imagery on Performance,”
Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(7),
681–699.
    (1996). “Thought Self-Leadership: The
Impact of Mental Strategies Training on
Employee Cognition, Behavior, and Affect,”
Journal of Organizational Behavior 17,
445–467.
    (2012). Mastering Self-Leadership:
Empowering Yourself for Personal
Excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Neck, C. P., and J. F. Milliman (1994). “Thought
Self-Leadership: Finding Spiritual
Fulfilment in Organizational Life,” Journal
of Managerial Psychology 9(6), 9–16.
Neck, C. P., W. J. Smith, and J. L. Godwin
(1997). “Thought Self-Leadership: A
Self-Regulatory Approach to Diversity
Management,” Journal of Managerial
Psychology 12(3), 190–203.
Neck, C. P., H. M. Neck, C. C. Manz, and
J. Godwin (1999). “‘I Think I Can; I Think
I Can’: A Self-Leadership Perspective to-
ward Enhancing Entrepreneur Thought
Patterns, Self-Efficacy, and Performance,”
Journal of Managerial Psychology 14(6),
477–501.
Neck, C. P., J. D. Houghton, S. R. Sardeshmukh,
M. Goldsby, and J. L. Godwin (2013). “Self-
Leadership: A Cognitive Resource for
Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Small Business
and Entrepreneurship 26(5), 463–480.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., and C. Corte (2004).
“Gender and Self-Regulation,” in Handbook
of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory and
Applications. Eds. R. F. Baumiester and
K. D. Vohs. New York: Guilford Press.
O’Connor, J. P., R. L. Priem, J. E. Coombs, and
K. M. Gilley (2006). “Do CEO Stock Options
Prevent or Promote Fraudulent Financial
Reporting?” Academy of Management
Journal 49(3), 483–500.
Parker, S. C. (2009). The Economics of
Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee,
and N. P. Podsakoff (2003). “Common
Method Biases in Behavioral Research:
A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies,” Journal of
Applied Psychology 88(5), 879–903.
20 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Porter, M. E. (1985). “Technology and
Competitive Advantage,” The Journal of
Business Strategy 5(3), 60–78.
Pratoom, K., and G. Savatsomboon (2012).
“Explaining Factors Affecting Individual
Innovation: The Case of Producer Group
Members in Thailand,” Asia Pacific
Journal of Management 29(4), 1063–1087.
Prussia, G. E., J. S. Anderson, and C. C. Manz
(1998). “Self-Leadership and Performance
Outcomes: The Mediating Influence of
Self-Efficacy,” Journal of Organizational
Behavior 19, 523–538.
Ravasi, D., and C. Turati (2005). “Exploring
Entrepreneurial Learning: A Comparative
Study of Technology Development Projects,”
Journal of Business Venturing 20(1),
137–164.
Renfrow, D. G., and J. A. Howard (2013).
“Social Psychology of Gender and Race,”
in Handbook of Social Psychology. Eds. J.
Delamater and A. War. New York: Springer,
491–531.
Rudman, L. A., C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. E. Phelan,
and S. Nauts (2012). “Status Incongruity and
Backlash Effects: Defending the Gender
Hierarchy Motivates Prejudice against
Female Leaders,” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 48(1), 165–179.
Schnatterly, K. (2003). “Increasing Firm
Value through Detection and Prevention
of White-Collar Crime,” Strategic
Management Journal 24(7), 587–614.
Shane, S., E. A. Locke, and C. J. Collins (2003).
“Entrepreneurial Motivation,” Human
Resource Management Review 13(2),
257–279.
Shane, S., and T. Stuart (2002). “Organizational
Endowments and the Performance of
University Start-Ups,” Management Science
48(1), 154–170.
Sheskin, D. J. (2000). Parametric and
Nonparametric Statistical Procedures.
Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Sorenson, R. L., K. E. Goodpaster,
P. R. Hedberg, and A. Yu (2009). “The
Family Point of View, Family Social Capital,
and Firm Performance an Exploratory Test,”
Family Business Review 22(3), 239–253.
Spence, J. T., and C. E. Buckner (2000).
“Instrumental and Expressive Traits, Trait
Stereotypes, and Sexist Attitudes: What
Do They Signify?” Psychology of Women
Quarterly 24(1), 44–53.
Stewart, G. L., K. P. Carson, and R. L.
Cardy (1996). “The Joint Effects of
Conscientiousness and Self-Leadership
Training on Employee Self-Directed
Behavior in a Service Setting,” Personnel
Psychology 49(1), 143–164.
Sullivan, D. M., and M. R. Marvel (2011).“Knowledge
Acquisition, Network Reliance, and Early-
Stage Technology Venture Outcomes,” Journal
of Management Studies 48(6), 1169–1193.
Teece, D. J. (1981). “Internal Organization
and Economic Performance: An Empirical
Analysis of the Profitability of Principal
Firms,” The Journal of Industrial Economics
30(2), 173–199.
Westhead, P., and M. Cowling (1997).
“Performance Contrasts between Family
and Non-Family Unquoted Companies
Bendell, Sullivan, and Marvel
in the UK,” International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research
3(1), 30–52.
Westhead, P., M. Cowling, and C. Howorth
(2001). “The Development of Family
Companies: Management and Ownership
Imperatives,” Family Business Review
14(4), 369–385.
Wiklund, J., and D. Shepherd (2005).
“Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small
Business Performance: A Configurational
Approach,” Journal of Business Venturing
20(1), 71–91.
Zhao, H., S. Seibert, and G. E. Hills (2005).
“The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in
the Development of Entrepreneurial
Intentions,” Journal of Applied Psychology
90(6), 1265–1272.
21