Entrepreneurial woman and territory: A cross-sectoral analysis

XML Template (2014) [5.11.2014–4:58pm] [1–15]//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/LECJ/Vol00000/140052/APPFile/SG-LECJ140052.3d (LE-C) [PREPRINTER stage]

Feature

Entrepreneurial woman andterritory: A cross-sectoralanalysis

Vittoria Marino and Raffaella MonteraSalerno University, Fisciano (SA), Italy

Abstract

This paper aims to outline the role of territory in international expansion, styles of command and

innovative approaches of women business proprietorships operating in various economic sectors.

The exploratory investigation uses a three-dimensional ILI (Internationalization–Leadership–

Innovation) model. This model is validated through a qualitative survey conducted on a conven-

ience sample. The primary data are collected using the focus group technique. This work shows

that territory influences internationalization, leadership and innovation of women business pro-

prietorships in the different economic sectors. Moreover, it also leads to a new taxonomy of

women business proprietorships that are linked to the divinities of Greek and Roman mythology.

This taxonomy can contribute to the understanding of the interconnections and interdependen-

cies between business and territory.

Keywords

focus groups, innovation, internationalization, Italy, leadership, Salerno, territory, women business

proprietorship

Introduction

Studies and empirical research on womenentrepreneurship are relatively recent(Garcıa-Tabuenca et al., 2011). Their evolu-tionary path begins with a phase of infancy(de Bruin et al., 2006), characterized by ascarcity of contributions (Terjesen, 2004).In fact, the first studies on business propri-etorships focus almost exclusively on men,especially in the Anglo-Saxon context(Watkins, 1982). In the 1980s, women entre-preneurship becomes a research field in its

own right with the aim of establishingwhether and to what extent women entre-preneurs differ from their male counterparts(Birley, 1989) in management styles(Chaganti, 1986), risk propensity(Fagenson, 1993), orientation to businessgrowth (Hisrich, 1986) and concili-ation with their personal life (Hisrich and

Corresponding author:

Raffaella Montera, Business Studies Department, Salerno

University, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano (SA),

Italy.

Email: [email protected]

Local Economy

0(0) 1–15

! The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0269094214559666

lec.sagepub.com

by guest on May 28, 2015lec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lec.sagepub.com/


Brush, 1983). In this respect, the gap in theknowledge on women business proprietor-ships was gradually reduced (Cromie, 1987),but not filled. In more recent decades, thepresence of women in enterprise has revolu-tionized the way wealth is produced, estab-lishing itself as a force that can no longer beignored (Wittenberg-Cox and Maitland,2010). Hence, the explosion of studies onthe subject (Allen et al., 2007; Brush et al.,2010; Davis and Shaver, 2012) can be inter-preted as the sign of a slow transition fromthe infancy to the adolescence of researchon women entrepreneurship (Hughes et al.,2012). However, this evolution is notenough to put women at the centre of theacademic debate on business proprietor-ships which Ahl (2006) criticizes on severalfronts. It is astonishing to learn how littlethe debates refer to anything other thanfinancial performance and growth ofwomen enterprises without taking into con-sideration the historical, cultural and con-textual variables that influence the successof women businesses.

The consideration of only the personalfactors of the woman entrepreneur – age,level of instruction, personal ambition,entrepreneurial orientation, business moti-vation (GEM, 2011) – is not enough toexplain entrepreneurship, which is alsoinfluenced by contextual determinants(Sternberg and Rocha, 2007) attributableto the territory in which the firm is situated.Not surprisingly, women entrepreneurshipvaries widely from one country to anotheraround the globe (Minniti, 2009). Its foun-dation is formed inside a structural frame-work of territory, which is conceived as ageographically defined context with a pre-determined physical configuration (Barileand Saviano, 2011). The recognition of thecentrality of human–environment inter-actions (Magnaghi, 2010) transforms theterritory into a historical entity with rootsand affections (Franch, 2010) produced bylocal actors and charged with intangible

components. Territory, in fact, can bedivided into a first layer of tangible compo-nents (natural beauty, infrastructures, cul-ture, production), followed by a level ofemotive, intangible components (energy,emotions and atmospheres generated fromthe area) and a cognitive level (learning abil-ity) which interacts between them (Schillaciand Gatti, 2011).

The review of the main theories of busi-ness provides an interesting interpretationof the relationship between women propri-etorship businesses and territory. Accordingto contingency theory, businesses react tochanges in the territory with adaptation(Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). The theoryof dependence on external resources main-tains that a business relies on the territory tofeed its activity and strives to reduce itsdependency through adequate control(Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). The stake-holder theory maintains that the differentparticipants of interest who are part of theterritory have an influence on the business(Freeman and McVea, 2001). As for thetype of relationship between women busi-ness proprietorship and its set up territory,we can distinguish between ‘pirate’ firmsand ‘native’ firms (Baccarani and Golinelli,2011). The pirate firm perceives territory assomething ‘different from itself’: it is to beconquered and looted, ignoring the geniusloci with delocalization once the resourceshave been exploited or the local complexityincreases. On the other hand, the native firmis an integrated part of the territory andthus called ‘of the territory’ (Del Baldo,2012), perceives the local context as ahighly complex, living subject (Magnaghi,2006), to be interpolated at each phase oforganization, transformation or valoriza-tion of resources. The relationship ‘nativefirm – territory’ is so intense that it reachesa reciprocal identification (Esposito, 2011).

These considerations guide this work inits choice of a subject of study that has sofar been little investigated (women business

2 Local Economy 0(0)




proprietorship) and from which researchtheses can be expanded (internationaliza-tion, leadership, innovation), adopting anapproach to the analysis of entrepreneur-ship that does not exclude the determinantsof context (territory).

The aim of the research is to delineate therole of territory in the trajectories of inter-national expansion, styles of command andinnovative approaches of women busi-ness proprietorships in various economicsectors.

Methodology

The presence of a woman sole proprietorconstitutes the identification criterion forthe women business proprietorship, whichis consistent with the definition elaboratedby the Centre for Studies and Research ofthe Italian government (Unioncamere,2011). The territory coincides with thegeographic area in which the business pro-prietorship is set up and where it carries out– wholly or in part – its activity. The terri-tory can be subdivided into territorialunits, identifiable on the basis of the

morphological structure of the area itself(Amendola et al., 2010). In this way, wehave a triple division of ‘territory’ intocoastal area, inland area and provincial cap-ital. In this work, therefore, we give priorityto a territorial analysis from a physicalviewpoint, even though we indirectlyconsider its cultural and technological-production viewpoints (Vescovi andGazzola, 2007).

The exploratory investigation uses thethree-dimensional ILI (Internationalization–Leadership–Innovation) model (Marino,2011), which allows a joint analysis of thethree dimensions of interest articulated inspecific sub-dimensions (Figure 1).

The x-axis defines internationalization (I)as an entrepreneurial process of discovery,activation, evaluation and exploitation ofopportunities – beyond the national borders– to create goods and services for the future(Oviatt and McDougall, 2005). The sub-dimensions of internationalization can beidentified as follows:

. domestic: for women enterprises that donot expand their range of operations

Figure 1. The three-dimensional ILI model.

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Marino and Montera 3




beyond the borders defined by theirdomestic market;

. relational: for women enterprises thatconduct simple and occasional transac-tions with foreign markets;

. competitive: for women enterprises thatstrive to guarantee systematic andplanned actions on the foreign market,establishing, however, relatively simplerelations for commerce and/orproduction.

The y-axis defines the leadership (L)dimension, intended to represent the abilityto lead a group and to influence it towardsthe success of a specific aim/objective(Garibaldi, 2006). The sub-dimensions ofleadership can be identified as follows:

. transactional: for women enterprises thatattribute more importance to structuralfactors of the business and give more pri-ority to procedure, assigning rewards forperformance;

. androgynous: for women enterprises thatadopt a hybrid style which results in thecontemporary presence of transactionalleadership characteristics, typicallymale, and transformational leadershipcharacteristics, traditionally female;

. transformational: for those leaders whoattribute more importance to thehuman and cultural factors of the busi-ness and give priority to results, prefer-ring an orientation to relationships.

Finally, the z-axis of the quotas identifiesthe Innovation (I) dimension as a combina-tion of creativity and implementation(Lyons et al., 2007) that finds its expressionin the investments made in research anddevelopment, in the construction of infra-structures and innovative applications(ICT) (technology-driven innovation), andin the development of new products, ser-vices (market-driven innovation) or

processes (internal process-driven innov-ation). The sub-dimensions of innovationcan be identified as follows:

. traditional: for women enterprises thatdo not implement innovative processesof production in general;

. discontinuous: for women enterprises thatinvest only in forms of product/servicesinnovation or exclusively in forms ofprocess or marketing innovation;

. continuous: for women enterprises thatinvest in forms of innovation throughoutthe whole structure.

The three-dimensional ILI model was vali-dated through a field survey. The referencepopulation was extrapolated from a databaseof the Chamber of Commerce and wasdefined by 19,721 women business propri-etorships in the province of Salerno, having,from the third quarter of 2012, the legal formof sole proprietor and operating in the fieldsof agriculture, trade, services and handicrafts,and are distributed over the coastal area, theinland area and the provincial capital (Table1). Trade, in particular, consists of the buyingand selling of goods on a retail basis or whole-sale. The field of services includes firms thatproduce business services (e.g. credit, finance,insurance), social services (e.g. health, educa-tion, environmental services), and personalservices (e.g. restaurants, hotels, leisure).The focus was exclusively on sole proprietor-ship businesses, whichmake up about 70%ofthe women enterprises in the province(Marino, 2012). The geographic horizon ofthe study is limited to Salerno, as it is thelargest province in Italy and the most mor-phologically varied in Campania.

A qualitative research approach wasadopted because it clearly shows the modesand motivations (Colella, 2011) of the ILIbehaviour of the women business proprietor-ships. Qualitative research necessitates theuse of a non-probability sample and, specif-ically, a procedure of convenience sampling.





The first 250 units were selected from thosereadily available (Corbetta, 2003) for eacheconomic sector in each areaof the provincialterritory (Table 2).

Data collection and analysis

We opted for the focus group techniqueaimed at collecting critical information oneach single individual through the inter-action of the group members (Frisina,2010). In order to permit the active partici-pation of all the group members, the sampleunits from each economic sector and terri-torial area were subdivided into full groups,that is, from 8 to 12 individuals (Marbach,2010). These were then selected so as toform groups whose members had never pre-viously met, in order to avoid familiarityinhibiting their free expression. The groupsformed in this way were internally homoge-neous: they contained women sole propri-etors, operating in a given sector andgiven area of the same provincial territory;in this way, an exchange of opinion andreciprocal understanding was favoured.However, a certain heterogeneity is guaran-teed – in age, cultural level, marital status –in order to stimulate discussion withoutconflict. On this basis, 26 groups wereformed, distributed over the various eco-nomic sectors and territorial areas of theprovince, respecting the conveniencesample and the dimensional criteria of thegroups.

The 26 groups also had 26 focus groups(Table 3), made up over a three-monthperiod, after preliminary testing with ques-tions and stimuli and a previous examina-tion of the suitability of one subject as

Table 3. The focus groups (FGs).

Economic

sectors

Coastal area Inland area Provincial capital Total

FGs

Members

for FGs FGs

Members

for FGs FGs

Members

for FGs FGs

Members

for FGs

Agriculture 1 11 2 8-8 1 9 4 36

Trade 3 10-10-8 3 8-8-9 3 12-12-8 9 85

Services 3 8-8-10 2 8-12 2 11-12 7 69

Handicraft 2 8-12 2 10-12 2 10-8 6 60

Total 9 85 9 82 8 83 26 250


Table 2. The convenience sample.

Economic

sectors

Coastal

area

Inland

area

Provincial

capital Total

Agriculture 11 16 9 36

Trade 28 25 32 85

Services 26 20 23 69

Handicraft 20 22 18 60

Total 85 82 83 250


Table 1. The population.

Economic

sectors

Coastal

area

Inland

area

Provincial

capital Total

Agriculture 625 5.199 94 5.918

Trade 1.055 5.751 1.871 8.677

Services 722 3.615 789 5.126

Handicraft 424 1.858 301 2.583

Total 2.826 16.423 3.055 22.304a

aThe population is represented by 19,721 units, divided by

territory and economic sector. They are the result of the

sum of women business proprietorships in agriculture,

trade and services, and also includes the handicraft

sector, seeing as handicrafts pervade the various eco-

nomic sectors. Putting the handicraft sector on a separate

line means the women business proprietorships rise to

22,304, which does not correspond to the effective popu-

lation because it includes those units already counted in

agriculture, trade and services.






compared to another (pilot focus group).The survey instrument used was a groupdiscussion of 90 to 120minutes on the prem-ises of the University of Salerno in the pres-ence of a moderator and an observer. Itcovered pre-established questions andsequence data but could be modified in thelight of the ongoing dynamics of the groups(semi-structured focus group) (Zammuner,2003). The socio-graphic data (Gianturco,2005) was compiled at the beginning of thediscussion and then questions concerninginternationalization, leadership and innova-tion were asked. The answers were audioand video recorded.

Only the parts strictly linked to the keythemes were written up. The data analysiswas carried out using the T-LAB software,which allows a qualitative and quantitativesearch on textual data, thanks to the oper-ations of coding, retrieval and comparisonof quotations (Lancia, 2004). In this way,we could identify the prevalent positionsof the groups on the key themes and con-struct a synthesis (Acocella, 2008).

Research findings in the coastalarea

Women business proprietorships from thecoastal area present differences as regardsinternationalization, leadership and inno-vation in the various economic sectors(Figure 2).

ILI – Agriculture

Internationalization (I) of the women busi-ness proprietorships is relational. In orderto comply with spontaneous requests fromabroad and increase their profits, firms con-duct simple and occasional transactionswith EU countries. Any further internation-alization is hampered by limited specificcompetencies and inadequate knowledgeof world markets, to which we can add dif-ficulties in identifying an intermediary andvery little collaboration among the womensole proprietors in the field of agriculture.Leadership (L) is androgynous: autonomy inmaking the most important decisions and

Figure 2. The ILI of the women business proprietorships in the coastal area.






authority in evaluating personnel, featuresof a transactional leadership, can be foundalongside a propensity to delegate and anability to balance heart and mind, whichare features of a transformational leader-ship. Finally, innovation (I) is discontinuousin that it covers only process innovations,such as production quality certification.

ILI – Trade

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is domestic in that the firmsdo not operate abroad, nor do they plan tointernationalize. This is due to the scarcityof financial resources, to inexperience ininternational markets and to problems ofwork–family conciliation. Leadership (L)is transformational because women adopt astyle of running the business characterizedby a high orientation towards relations andlow directive behaviour. Finally, innovation(I) is traditional because the firms do notinitiate any kind of processes for the pro-duction or implementation of innovation.

ILI – Services

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is competitive in that thefirms conduct planned and systematic trans-actions with EU countries and non-EUcountries, knowing full well that the sur-vival of the firm depends on its dealingswith new markets. Not by chance, the pre-ferred mode of entry is direct exportationthrough agents, representatives and dis-tributors resident abroad added to directsales through multilingual websites. Theprevalent trend, however, is to create rela-tively simple commercial relations, given theinsufficient financial resources and the lackof investors available to women entrepre-neurs. Leadership (L) is transformationalbecause women make few directives, createand maintain excellent interpersonal rela-tions based on trust and on the recognition

of staff merit. Finally, innovation (I) istraditional because the firms do not set upany kind of process for the production orimplementation of innovation.

ILI – Handicrafts

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is competitive in that thefirms conduct transactions with countriesoutside the EU and the United States.Expansion abroad is systematic: inter-nationalization, in fact, is a priority inorder to de-seasonalize sales and presenttheir typical products to the world. The pre-ferred entry mode is direct exportationthrough agents, representatives and dis-tributors resident abroad and contactedthrough trade fairs. Commercial relations,however, are relatively simple due to thelack of collaboration between the womenentrepreneurs and the scarcity of financialresources. Leadership (L) is transactionalbecause the women efficiently define theiroperative procedures, and their correct exe-cution guarantees excellence in their pro-duction. Finally, innovation (I) iscontinuous because the firms invest inevery form of innovation.

Research findings in the inlandarea

The inland area has an influence on thewomen business proprietorships in the vari-ous economic sectors (Figure 3).

ILI – Agriculture

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is competitive in that thefirms conduct transactions with EU coun-tries and the United States. Expansionabroad is systematic: in fact, the intensecompetition in this sector makes it necessaryto look for new markets, proposing theirlocal products to the world. The preferred





entry mode is direct exportation throughagents, representatives and distributors resi-dent abroad. However, commercial relationsare relatively simple given the lack of finan-cial resources, specific competencies, govern-ment facilitations and institutional support.Leadership (L) is transactional because thewomen do not seek confrontation in decisionmaking, neither do they make an issue ofethics regarding their personal or businessinterests. Finally, innovation (I) is continu-ous because the firms invest in product, pro-cess and marketing innovation.

ILI – Trade

Internationalization of women businessproprietorships is domestic in that thefirms do not operate abroad in any way,nor do they plan to internationalize due toa very low vocation for property export-ation. Leadership (L) is transactionalbecause the women deal with everythingthemselves, with authority and an orienta-tion for procedure. Finally, innovation (I) istraditional because the firms do not initiate

any kind of process for the production andimplementation of innovation.

ILI – Services

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is relational in that the firmsconduct simple and sporadic transactionswith EU countries, waiting for the foreignclients to contact them spontaneously. Anyfurther internationalization is hampered byinsufficient knowledge of the world marketsand the lack of services available for thefamily dimension of the woman entrepre-neur. Leadership (L) is transformationalbecause women recognize the importancethe human and cultural factors of the firmand give more importance to results, to beachieved in respect of ethical values.Finally, innovation (I) is continuous becausethe firms invest in all forms of innovation.

ILI – Handicrafts

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is relational in that the firms

Figure 3. The ILI of the women business proprietorships in the inland area.






conduct simple and sporadic transactionswith EU countries and non-EU countriesthrough direct sales on multilingual websitesor in response to spontaneous requests fromabroad. International expansion, therefore, isfinalized to a primary objective of research fornew markets, contributing to the develop-ment of the territory. Any further inter-nationalization is hampered by the scarcityof financial resources, by unmotivated staffand by the difficulty in accessing credit andinformation sources. Leadership (L) is andro-gynous with a transactional leader who cen-tralizes control and functions, blindly trustingonly herself. At the same time, her low level ofcontrol over emotions and her skill in creatinga relaxed organizational environment makeher a transformational leader. Finally, innov-ation (I) is discontinuous as it concerns onlyprocess innovation such as production qual-ity certification.

Research findings in the provin-cial capital

Internationalization, leadership and innov-ation of the women business

proprietorships in the various economic sec-tors depend on their localization in the pro-vincial capital (Figure 4).

ILI – Agriculture

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is domestic in that the firmsplan to internationalize but do not operateabroad due to lack of experience and lim-ited specific competencies. Leadership (L) istransactional because women feature a lowpropensity for delegation and because oftheir tendency to autonomous decisionmaking, without losing sight of the objec-tive, to be achieved as practically and punc-tually as possible. Finally, innovation (I) istraditional because the firms do not initiateany kind of process for the production orimplementation of innovation.

ILI – Trade

Internationalization of women businessproprietorships is competitive in that thefirms conduct transactions in EU and non-EU countries. Expansion abroad is

Figure 4. The ILI of the women business proprietorships in the provincial capital.






systematic and planned, considering the lowprospects for growth on the domesticmarket. The preferred entry mode is directexportation through agents, representativesand distributors resident abroad. Theprevalent trend, however, is to set up rela-tively simple commercial relations given thelack of experience on international markets,the lack of motivated staff and the lack ofcredibility that women entrepreneurs sufferon international markets. Leadership (L) isandrogynous: in conformity with transac-tional leadership, women do not involveemployees or family members in decisionmaking and they supervise over the use ofhuman resources; in line with transforma-tional leadership, women will renew theirability to balance heart and mind in dedicat-ing themselves entirely and without reserveto the firm. Finally, innovation is continuousbecause the firms invest in every kind ofinnovation.

ILI – Services

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is competitive in that thefirms conduct transactions in EU countries,non-EU countries and the United States inthe aim of de-seasonalizing sales andachieving personal ambitions. Womenentrepreneurs systematically plan inter-nationalization, they use agents, representa-tives and distributors resident abroad andmediated through personal contacts. Alsoimportant are direct sale on multilingualwebsites, also used as a communicationvehicle for commerce and offers. The scar-city of financial resources, difficulties inaccessing international markets and thelack of services available for the familydimension of the woman entrepreneur con-stitute the main reasons for the creation ofrelatively simple foreign commercial rela-tions. Leadership (L) is androgynous:together with autonomous decisionmaking and authority in the evaluation of

personnel which are the features of transac-tional leadership, there is also a propensityto delegate and the ability to act balancingheart and mind which are features of trans-formational leadership. Finally, innovation(I) is discontinuous because it concerns onlymarketing innovations.

ILI – Handicrafts

Internationalization (I) of women businessproprietorships is relational in that the firmsconduct simple and sporadic transactionswith non-EU countries, in the search fornew markets and opportunities for profit.Entry mode is in response to spontaneousrequests from abroad in the form of directsales on multilingual websites, used as acyber-shop window for their local special-ities. Any further internationalization ishampered by a lack of experience in inter-national markets, by an inadequate knowl-edge of languages, by the lack ofcollaboration from industry and the lackof government facilitation and institutionalsupport. Leadership (L) is transformationalbecause women present a high level oforientation to relations and a low directivebehaviour. Finally, innovation is discontinu-ous because it only regards product/serviceinnovation.

Discussion

The exploratory investigation proved suit-able to the objective of the research, outlin-ing the critical role of territory ininternational expansion, in the styles ofcommand and in the innovative approachesused by the women business proprietorshipsin the various sectors. Moreover, the studyleads to a new taxonomy of women businessproprietorships, an outcome of the inter-pretation of the positions that the womenentrepreneurs hold most frequently in dis-cussion groups on the topics of internation-alization, leadership and innovation.





Our proposal for typologizing women soleproprietors is based on the divinities ofGreek and Roman mythology, in turnrooted in the territorial unit in which thefirms are established.

A new profile of women sole proprietorsas the goddess called Salacia

Women business proprietorships from thecoastal area can be characterized bySalacia, the goddess of the sea, salt andtrade. The characteristics of the Salernocoast mean that the local women businessproprietorships present, across the variouseconomic sectors, competitive internation-alization, transformational leadership andtraditional innovation (Figure 5).

Internationalization (I) is competitivebecause the coastal area is well endowedwith infrastructures for transport via road,railway, sea and air (physical capital), whichmake it easy for women business propri-etorships to conduct transactions with vari-ous parts of the world. Women sole

proprietors do not adopt more radicalforms of internationalization because ofthe absence of cooperation or association(social capital) in the set up area.Leadership (L) is transformational in thatthe style of participation in the running ofthe firm reflects the spirit of the area. It isimbued with the different cultures conveyedby the proximity of the sea and is character-ized by local costumes that recognize theimportance of human relationships.Innovation (I) is traditional because a cer-tain gap in the knowledge, skills and com-petencies (human capital) of the localcommunity and the advantage of belongingto a place that is naturally open to tradedemotivate women business proprietorshipsfrom investing in any kind of innovationaimed at improving the offer. Salacia, inshort, is a firm that is deep rooted but notfully mature as regards social responsibilitybecause it leans on the strong points of thearea, contributing little to overcome theweaknesses of the territory or to the cre-ation of local wealth.

Figure 5. Salacia, Daphne and Fortuna.






A new profile of women sole proprietorsas the nymph called Daphne

Women business proprietorships from theinland area are characterized by Daphne,a mountain nymph representing a symbioticrelationship with nature which resulted inher metamorphism into a tree. The charac-teristics of the inland area of Salerno meanthat the local women business proprietor-ships present, across all the variouseconomic sectors, relational international-ization, transactional leadership and con-tinuous innovation (Figure 5).

Internationalization (I) is relationalbecause the scarce inter-modal facilitiesand limited rail and logistic services (phys-ical capital) of the inland area lead to theconducting of only sporadic transactionsabroad. Furthermore, an unsupportivecredit system in the area and the low capi-talization of the local business structure leadto only simple international transactionsdespite the highly specialized nature oflocal productive activity. Leadership istransactional because the women from theinland area reach the objectives of theirfirms with the same authority and determi-nation with which the local communitydefends its cultural identity, an echo of his-torical customs and traditions. Innovation(I) is continuous because the territorial isola-tion motivates the women business propri-etorships of this area to invest in pervasiveforms of innovation. In this respect, womenbusiness proprietors can count on a commu-nity with a good level of knowledge, skillsand competencies (human capital) and will-ing to create systems (social capital), attrib-utable to the effect of low populationdensity. In short, Daphne is deeply rootedin the territory due to her high dependencyon local resources. The relationship with thearea is such that it encourages a real com-mitment among women business proprietorsto contribute to the distribution in loco ofthe wealth they have generated.

A new profile of women sole proprietorsas the goddess called Fortuna

Women business proprietorships from theprovincial capital can be characterized byFortuna, goddess of luck, prosperity andthe city, whose destiny depended on thewill of the gods. The characteristics of theprovincial capital mean that the localwomen business proprietors present –across the various economic sectors – acompetitive internationalization, anandrogynous leadership and a discontinu-ous innovation (Figure 5).

Internationalization (I) is competitivebecause the provincial capital offers widesources of knowledge, skills and competen-cies (human capital), as a result of the vari-ous cognitive, cultural and creative stimulito which the citizens are continuallyexposed. Local women business proprietor-ships, therefore, draw from this human cap-ital in the area the ability to combine andvalorize the resources of the territory toconduct transactions with various countriesin the world, also taking advantage of thestrategic geographic position of the provin-cial capital and its infrastructures. The com-mercial relations created are relativelysimple, even though the capital aboundswith projects for local development regard-ing internationalization. These projects aremanaged mainly by public bodies, whichreduce the capacity of the provincial capitalto attract the private capital that wouldmake the internationalization of thewomen business proprietorships in thearea more rapid and more functional.Leadership (L) is androgynous as the pro-vincial capital presents a very low level ofsocial cohesion and a low propensity amonglocal actors to create systems (social cap-ital). These aspects are reflected in transac-tional leadership and, therefore, littleparticipation of the local women entrepre-neurs. Nevertheless, the cultural identity ofthe area, dedicated to hospitality activities,





reflects a transformational style of leader-ship, characterized by partial control ofthe emotions and by the creation of arelaxed organizational environment.Innovation (I) is discontinuous despite thepresence of a university and research cen-tres, evidently not well connected to theproductive system. In short, Fortunadraws vitality from her set up area, fromwhich she demands a continuousstrengthening of the territory’s resourcesand intelligence so as not to compromiseher competitiveness with competitors fromboth inside and outside the province. In thiscontext, Fortuna contributes to the devel-opment and wealth of the provincial capital,capable of defending her own competitive-ness from the territories both inside andoutside the province. It is, therefore, theprinciple of the do ut des which regulatesthe ideal alliance between Fortuna and theprovincial capital.

Conclusion

This study proposes and validates a modelwith which to outline the role of territoryfor the trajectories of international expan-sion, styles of command and innovativeapproaches of women business proprietor-ships operating in various economic sectors.This study also contributes to the under-standing of the interconnections and inter-dependencies between business and territorythanks to a new taxonomy of woman entre-preneurs from a territorial perspective.

Entrepreneurship is not only an individ-ual question (Gubitta, 2010) – linked to theattitudes and competencies of the womanwho decides to set up a business – but isalso a collective event, that depends on thearea in which it arises. This conclusion hasimportant social and managerial implica-tions. The research findings underline thenecessity to create entrepreneurial terri-tories (Schillaci and Longo, 2010), as eco-systems functional to the capillary diffusion

of women enterprises and to the wealth ofthe set up territory.

However, this work is not without itslimits. The definition of women businessproprietorships carries some potential forerror as the title does not always and auto-matically mean that the management andresponsibility of the firm actually comeunder the control of the woman who is offi-cially the sole proprietor. Moreover, using anon-probabilistic sample, the resultsobtained have no statistical foundationand thus cannot be generalized. The focusgroup technique also presents some risks:the restricted context in which the researchhas been conducted makes it difficult tocreate groups whose members do not previ-ously know each other and the crucial roleof the moderator in choosing the partic-ipants and directing the discussion groupcould mean that his actions have someweight on the results obtained.

In the future, quantitative methodscentred around the measurement of thedimensions of internationalization, leader-ship and innovation could be used in orderto link the ILI of women business propri-etorships to the territory in a cause–effectrelationship. Furthermore, the investiga-tion could be conducted on womencompanies or on women business propri-etorships from different territories. Alsointeresting would be a comparison betweenthe ILI of women and men business pro-prietorships to examine the business–territory relationship from a genderperspective.

Funding

This research received a specific grant from the

Chamber of Commerce of Salerno, Italy.

References

Acocella I (2008) Il Focus Group: Teoria e

Tecnica. Milano: Franco Angeli.





Ahl H (2006) Why research on women entrepre-

neurs needs new directions. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 30(5): 595–621.

Allen IE, Elam A, Langowitz N, et al. (2007)

Report on women and entrepreneurship.Global entrepreneurship monitor. Availableat: www.babson.edu/cwl (accessed 29October 2014).

Amendola A, Coppola G, Paolucci C, et al.(2010) Analisi Socio Economica per il PianoTerritoriale di Coordinamento della Provincia

di Salerno. Research reports, University ofSalerno, Fisciano, Italy.

Baccarani C and Golinelli GM (2011) Per una

rivisitazione delle relazioni tra impresa e ter-ritorio. Sinergie 84: VII–XIII.

Barile S and Saviano M (2011) Foundations ofsystems thinking: The structure-system para-

digm. In: Various Authors (eds) Contributionsto Theoretical and Practical Advances inManagement: A Viable Systems Approach

(VSA). Avellino: International Printing,pp. 1–26.

Birley S (1989) Female entrepreneurs: Are they

really any different? Journal of Small BusinessManagement 27(1): 32–37.

Brush CG, de BruinA,Gatewood EJ, et al. (2010)

Women Entrepreneurs and the GlobalEnvironment for Growth. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chaganti R (1986) Management in women-

owned enterprises. Journal of Small BusinessManagement 24(4): 18–29.

Colella F (2011) Focus Group: Ricerca Sociale e

Strategie Applicative. Milano: Franco Angeli.Corbetta P (2003) La Ricerca Sociale:

Metodologia e Tecniche. III. Le Tecniche

Qualitative. Bologna: il Mulino.Cromie S (1987) Similarities and differences

between women and men business proprietor-

ship. International Small Business Journal 5:43–60.

Davis AE and Shaver KG (2012) Understandinggendered variations in business growth inten-

tions across the life course. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 36(3): 495–512.

de Bruin A, Brush CG and Welter F (2006)

Introduction to the special issue: Towardsbuilding cumulative knowledge on women’sentrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice 30(5): 585–593.

Del Baldo M (2012) Le aziende ‘di territory’ fra

teoria e prassi: Verso lo sviluppo integrale del-l’azienda e del contesto locale. Paper presentedat the Sinergie Annual Conference, University

of Salento, Lecce, 18–19 October.Esposito A (2011) La relazione tra impresa e ter-

ritory: Pedavena l’esperienza di un brand disuccesso. Sinergie 86: 151–164.

Fagenson EA (1993) Personal value systems ofmen and women entrepreneurs versus man-agers. Journal of Business Venturing 8(5):

409–430.Franch M (2010) Marketing delle Destinazioni

Turistiche: Metodi, Approcci e Strumenti.

Milan: McGraw-Hill.Freeman RE and McVea J (2001) A stakeholder

approach to strategic management. In: HittM, Freeman RE and Harrison J (eds)

Handbook of Strategic Management. Oxford:Blackwell, pp. 189–207.

Frisina A (2010) Focus Group: Una Guida

Pratica. Bologna: il Mulino.Garcıa-Tabuenca A, Crespo-Espert JL and

Pablo-Martı F (2011) Women, entrepreneur-

ial activity and territory: Differences ormyths? ERSA Conference Papersersa10p1465: 1–25.

Garibaldi R (2006) Lo Sviluppo Organizzativoper il Futuro dell’Impresa Turistica. Milan:Franco Angeli.

GEM (2011) 2010 Report: Women entre-

preneurs worldwide. Available at: www.gemconsortium.org/docs/768/gem-2010-womens-report (accessed 29 October 2014).

Gianturco G (2005) L’intervista Qualitativa: DalDiscorso al Testo Scritto. Milan: Guerini eAssociati.

Gubitta P (2010) L’imprenditorialita non e solouna questione individuale. Harvard BusinessReview Italia 6: 23.

Hisrich RD (1986) The woman entrepreneur:Characteristics, skills, problems, and pre-scriptions for success. In: Sexton DL andSmilor RW (eds) The Art and Science of

Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: BallingerPublishing, pp. 61–84.

Hisrich RD and Brush CG (1983) The woman

entrepreneur: Implications of family, educa-tional and occupational experience.In: Hornaday JA, Timmons JA and Vesper

KH (eds) Frontiers of Entrepreneurial



www.babson.edu/cwl

www.gemconsortium.org/docs/768/gem-2010-womens-report





Research. Boston, MA: Babson College,

pp. 566–587.Hughes KD, Jennings JE, Brush C, et al. (2012)

Extending women’s entrepreneurship

research in new directions. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 36(3): 429–442.

Lancia F (2004) Strumenti per l’Analisi dei Testi:Introduzione all’Uso di T-LAB. Milan: Franco

Angeli.Lawrence PR and Lorsch JW (1967)

Organization and Environment. Cambridge:

Harvard Business School.Lyons RK, Chatman JA and Joyce CK (2007)

Innovation in services: Corporate culture and

investment banking. California ManagementReview 50(1): 174–191.

Magnaghi A (2006) Il territory come soggetto disviluppo delle societa locali. Paper presented at

the conference ‘Lo sviluppo in questione’,University of Macerata, Italy.

Magnaghi A (2010) Il Progetto Locale: Verso la

Coscienza di Luogo. Turin: BollatiBoringhieri.

Marbach G (2010) Ricerche per il Marketing.

2nd edition. Turin: Utet.Marino V (2011) L’Imprenditoria Femminile:

Analisi Strutturale, Condizioni di Vitalita e

Strategie di Sopravvivenza in Provincia diSalerno. Naples: Editoriale Scientifica.

Marino V (ed.) (2012) L’imprenditoria Femminilein Provincia di Salerno: Monitoraggio e

Dinamiche Evolutive delle Ditte Individuali.Series of Studies and Research published bythe Chamber of Commerce Salerno.

Minniti M (2009) Gender issues in entrepreneur-ship. Foundations and Trends inEntrepreneurship 5(7/8): 497–621.

Oviatt BM and McDougall PP (2005) Defininginternational entrepreneurship and modelingthe speed of internationalization.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29:537–554.

Pfeffer J and Salancik GR (1978) The External

Control of Organizations: A ResourceDependence Perspectives. New York: HarperRow.

Schillaci CE and Gatti C (2011) E pluribusunum: Intenzionalita collettiva e governo deisistemi territoriali. Sinergie 84: 21–45.

Schillaci CE and Longo MC (2010) Territori

Imprenditoriali: Nuovi Scenari di CompetitivitaEtica. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.

Sternberg R and Rocha HO (2007) Why entre-

preneurship is a regional event: Theoreticalarguments, empirical evidence, and policyconsequences. In: Rice MR and Habbershon

TG (eds) Entrepreneurship: The Engineof Growth, Vol. 3. Westport, CT: Praeger,pp. 215–238.

Terjesen S (2004) Female business owners: A

review of the last decade of research. Paperpresented at the Annual Academy ofManagement Meetings – Entrepreneurship

Division, New Orleans, August.Unioncamere (2011) Impresa in Genere. 2�

Rapporto Nazionale sull’Imprenditoria

Femminile, Rome.Vescovi T and Gazzola P (2007) Immagine ter-

ritoriale e identita globale. L’utilizzo del

legame con il territory nello sviluppo dellamarca.Micro & Macro Marketing 3: 321–337.

Watkins J (1982) The female entrepreneur:American experience and its implications for

the UK. In: Stanworth J, Westrip A, WatkinsD, et al. (eds) Perspectives on a Decade ofSmall Business Research. Aldershot: Gower.

Wittenberg-Cox A and Maitland A (2010)Rivoluzione Womenomics: Perche le Donnesono il Motore dell’Economia. Milan: Il Sole

24 Ore.Zammuner VL (2003) I Focus Group. Bologna: il

Mulino.




Entrepreneurial woman and territory: A cross-sectoral analysis

Documents

Transcript of Entrepreneurial woman and territory: A cross-sectoral analysis