ENTREPRENEURSHIP, WORK VALUES AND GENDER IDENTITY IN EIGHT YEARS PERSPECTIVE AMONG POLISH STUDENTS

Dominika Ochnik

Psychology DepartmentKatowice School of Economics, Poland

Abstract:Purspose:

The aim of this study is to explore relations between entrepreneurship, work values and genderidentity. The study attempted to find the answer to the question whether and if so, how, sex,gender, age and work experience can influence work values and entrepreneurship.Furthermore, the association between entrepreneurship and work values was sought.

Designs:The study was conducted within 141 students, in average age of 27. The results were comparedwith analogous research (N=300) carried out in 2003.The results are discussed in the context of gender theory and work psychology.

Findings:The prospective study revealed the increase in the number of androgynous people. The studyalso indicated that gender identity is a significant variable which differentiatesentrepreneurship and work values as well.

Practical implications:It is suggested that these results can find application in the process of employee selection. Moreover, it is implied that gender identity can be considered as a predictor of professionalcompetence.

Originality:The paper regards to the issue of gender identity pertaining to professional domain, especiallyentrepreneurship and work values. This linkage of gender identity (sex-roles) and

1

entrepreneurship can be found as original. Moreover, the 8 years perspective research revealeda significant change among polish students in gender identity.

Introduction This paper aims at presenting the issue of entrepreneurshiprelated to work values and results of research in genderstudies. Connecting these three aspects of human activities isjustified by the fact that it allows for a betterunderstanding of entrepreneurship itself. Entrepreneurship isneither separate from work experience nor independent fromparticular subjective conditions, gender identity being one ofthem. In order to provide a fuller understanding ofassociations between the three aspects, the aforementionedterms will be discussed further.

What is entrepreneurship?When considering the meaning of the term entrepreneurship, thehistory of economics cannot be omitted. As far as history ofthe subject is concerned, the term was coined by Jean BaptisteSay in 1803 with the reference to an entrepreneur as a personconverting economic resources of lower productivity into thoseof higher productivity (Say, 1803/2007). Joseph Schumpeter(1960) altered the definition and gave it a differentdimension by stating that the function of an entrepreneur isto undertake new ventures. By doing this, Schumpter pointedout that entrepreneurs are not only people who operate abusiness, but also hired employees of a company or a privatebusiness e.g. executives, members of the boardprovided thatthey carry out functions constituting an extension of the termentrepreneur i.e. they undertake new ventures (Schumpeter,1912/1982). Therefore, in the initial historical developmentperiod, an entrepreneur was epitomized with an active owner ofproduction resources (the owner of a business). In subsequentperiods, along with the separation of proprietary and

2

managerial functions, an entrepreneur began to be identifiedwith a hired manager, managing a business on a day to daybasis. Entrepreneurship is an ability of taking rational action and

achieving a measurable objective, which, in terms of marketeconomy, can be defined as profit (Otoliński, 1996). It isalso a kind of activity expressed by creating a novelty, yetpossessing a particular value (Wärneryd, 1988).Entrepreneurship requires a certain amount of time and effortbut also undertaking a financial, psychological or socialrisk. The time and effort and the risk are taken in order togain a reward in the form of a financial profit and personalsatisfaction. Entrepreneurship understood in such way may beimplemented in any domain. Entrepreneurship can also be viewedas a characteristic of certain people- an inclination andability to implement novel and daring activities (Tyszka,2002, s. 358).Wärneryd (1988) indicates that people who can be

characterised as entrepreneurs achieve success more often thanothers. In addition, their fathers are also entrepreneurs.Moreover, such people frequently belong to minority groups. Asregards their level of education, it is either above or belowaverage. An average age when these people decide to establishtheir own business is between 30 and 35 years old. Ewa Lisowska (1998) emphasises the fact that definitions of

entrepreneurship by many economists include education andgaining knowledge as a vital element of the term.Entrepreneurship can manifest itself in favourable externalconditions. It can also be developed in the process ofsocialisation and under the influence of proper education.Studies in entrepreneurship involve gaining knowledge ofeconomics and law but also knowledge and practice inpsychology and methods of developing entrepreneurial featuresin oneself. On one hand, success is fostered by competencesin management and experience. On the other hand, it isinfluenced by self-confidence, acquired methods of overcomingdifficulties, dealing with stress, risk and uncertainty.

3

When analysing entrepreneurship, numerous researchers seekcommon denominators linking entrepreneurs. In research carriedout in Poland ( Piecuch 2009) the following commondenominators are enumerated: creativity, consistency, honesty,competences, ability to make decisions, boldness,assertiveness, proper appearance, strong character,communication skills, resourcefulness, efficiency, inclinationtowards taking risks, work discipline, confidence, activity.A.P. Wiatrak (2003) claims that entrepreneurship may beregarded in terms of individual characteristics such as: theability to concentrate, high motivation to succeed, ability ofabstract thinking, the need to dominate, intellectual skills.Although, when defining entrepreneurship, taking risks ismentioned as a key characteristic of entrepreneurs, anunequivocal academic point of view is yet to be established(Zaleśkiewicz, 2004). A part of research data indicated thelack of difference as regards taking risks by entrepreneursand other people (Palich, Bagby,1995; Brockhaus, 1980). Othersources state that entrepreneurs are nevertheless moreinclined to take risks than others (Steward, Roth, 2001). Itmay be possible that entrepreneurs are more inclined to takerisks in situations where the outcome depends on their skillsand abilities. However, entrepreneurs may not differ fromothers as regards the attitude to risk dependent on fortune(Tyszka, 2002). Both economists and psychologists point out that

entrepreneurship can be learnt and acquired (Kraśnicka, 2000;Drucker, 2006) and that the quality is not inborn. L. Millian(2000) indicates that entrepreneurship is a kind of individualpredisposition which enables a person to undertakeentrepreneurial activities.

Work values and sex of entrepreneursWork values constitute a key element of employment andprofessional career (Johnson, Elder, 2002). In addition, theyseem to be more fundamental than professional interest (Super,1972).

4

The idea of work, both as an objective reality andsubjective social representation (ideologies, beliefs, values)of an individual and a social group (Gergen, Gergen, 2004;Liebel, 2004) allows for the consideration of work valuesthemselves in such perspective. Therefore, these values willrepresent an individual's aspirations but will also reflectthe process of socialisation (social gender roles amongothers). Such perspective will be the basis for theinterpretation of own research results, which will bepresented in the further part of the chapter. Entrepreneurs possess a defined system of values. The need

for independence, unwillingness to be subjected to others areof considerable importance for such people (Tyszka, 2002). Inaddition, entrepreneurs devote more time to work than to theirprivate life (Tyszka, 2002). As a consequence, entrepreneursare much more focused on work than others and attribute morevalues to it. Stereotypically, entrepreneurship is associated with male

social role (Gupta, Turban, Wasti, Sikdar, 2009). Thestereotype characterises men as more entrepreneurial thanwomen (Gupta, Bhawe, 2007). At the same time, internationalresearch proved that men in general establish their ownbusinesses more frequently than women (Langowitz, Minniti,2007). Theoretical framework of social feminism gives reason to the

explanation of sex differences as a consequence ofsocialisation experiences leading to developing a diverseoutlook on reality (DeTienne, Chandler, 2007; Fisher, Reuter,Dykes, 1993). Women credit family as the most fundamentalvalue, thus they seem to subject their economic and socialactivities to it (Nagy, 1998). At the same time, women exhibita greater motivation towards associating their family rolewith the professional role then men (Carter, Gartner, Shaver,Gatewood, 2003; Havenga, 2009). On the other hand, researchamong women-entrepreneurs indicate that they value thepossibility of self-actualisation and the opportunity toutilise knowledge, skills and independence the most (Nagy,

5

1998). Therefore, women-entrepreneurs exhibit an attitudegoing beyond their conventional social role. Reba Rowe and William Snizek (1995) indicated in their

research that a diverse study group (N=7436; 12 nationalitiesrepresenting all main classified professions) lackedsignificant differences as regards work values among men andwomen. However, the research revealed dependence of workvalues on age, education and the prestige of the profession.Previous research by Snizek (Neil, Snizek, 1987) indicatedgreater differences regarding sex in values. Women ascribedgreater values to interpersonal relations whereas men valuedremuneration, status and prestige more. Research carried out among Israeli youths (N=484) (Erez,

Borochov, Mannheim, 1989) revealed differences in terms of sexas regards two values: independence and free time. As opposedto the traditional point of view, girls appreciatedindependence more than boys and free time significantly less.Moreover, other research (Beutell, Brenner, 1986) revealeddifferences in sex on the level of work values. Resultsconsistent with the social stereotype indicated that menvalued opportunities for promotion and risk-taking more,whereas women appreciated good working environment andpleasant atmosphere. At the same time, the same researchrevealed that men valued security and free time whereas womenesteemed achievement and development opportunities (Beutell,Brenner, 1986). The significance of these differences is nothigh and suggests the inclination of valuing similar values bymen and women (Beutell, Brenner, 1986). American research (Chusmir, Parker, 1991) carried out among

managers (N=258) revealed lack of diversity in work values interms of sex. However, differences in values appreciated inpersonal life were established. In accordance with Dorval's research (1999, as cited in:

Brown, 2002b), values such as care for others andrelationships were typical for women choosing traditionallyfemale professions (nurses, social workers). For women takingup nontraditional professions (engineers, science)

6

achievements, responsibility, independence and financial well-being were more significant. As regards their professional motives, women tend to give

more altruistic reasons than men (Davey, 2001). Davey (2004)indicated that work values may be similar in men and womenworking on similar positions, which determines particularvalues. Duane Brown (2002a) presents a theory of work valueswhich stipulates that sex is the determinant regarding thechoice of a profession. Therefore, women prefer social valuesand professions associated with these. Other research seems tosupport the relationship (Neil, Snizek, 1987). In stereotypically male professions, men have got higherexpectations than women as far as achieving success isconcerned. Probably, it is the stereotypical socialisationwhich drives men, as breadwinners, to value achievement atwork (Eccles, Hoffman, 1984; Herzog, Bachman, 1982) and task-orientation (Marini, 1978; Eccles, Hoffman, 1984; Eccles,1987) and women to appreciate flexibility (due to thepossibility of sharing time between work and family) (Eccles,Hoffman 1984; Herzog, Bachman 1982) and people-orientationi.e. professions associated with interpersonal communication(Marini, 1978; Eccles, Hoffman 1984; Eccles,1987).

Gender identity and professional domain

The issue of gender identity was based upon gender schematheory of Sandra Lipitz Bem (Bem, 1981, 1994). The theoryexplains the process of developing gender identity inaccordance with social schemas of masculinity and femininity(social prism).Sandra L. Bem assumed that both masculinity and femininity

constitute two separate personality realms. On the basis ofthe assumption she distinguished (Bem, 1981): - sex-typed, conventional individuals, who define themselvesby means of stereotypical features pertaining to their sex;they prefer attitudes and situations conforming with thesocial prism of masculinity or femininity and they tend to

7

avoid the non-conforming ones;- androgynous individuals possessing both strong masculine andfeminine features regardless of their sex;- cross-sex-typed, conventional individuals whose mentalfeatures correspond to the opposite sex;- undifferentiated people whose masculine and femininefeatures are developed on insignificant level. Research indicates that sex-typed people (masculine men andfeminine women) tend to view information in terms of sexualcategories (Bem, 1981). Therefore, it can be said that suchpeople perceive reality via the polarisation of gender. Psychological femininity is associated with a good quality of

social relations (Wells, 1980), satisfaction with these(Zeldow, Clark, Daughtery, 1985) and empathy (Carlozzi,Hurlburt, 1982). Psychological masculinity correlates withhigh self-assessment (Cook, 1985; Olrofsky, O`Heron, 1987) andsocial competences (Cate, Sugawara, 1986). As regards thedomain of professions, a relationship between masculinity anda defined professional identity was observed (Grotevant,Thorbecke, 1982). On the other hand, androgynous individuals exhibit a more

varied spectrum of behavior linking stereotypically masculineand feminine behaviors. Moreover, research revealed a positiverelationship between androgyny and self-assessment (Bem, 1975;Bem, Lenney, 1976), which manifests in women in particular,and considerable satisfaction with life (Schickman, Cooper,1984). Androgyny, as a varied model of behavior, is associatedwith high adaptive skills (Wells, 1980; Cook, 1985).Undifferentiated identity is associated with the lack of

susceptibility to manipulation leading to acquiredhelplessness (Baucom, Danker-Brown, 1979). There exists a relationship between gender and professionalorientation (Erez, Borochov, Mannheim, 1989; Schutte, Malouff,Curtis, Lowry, Luis, 1996; Chusmir, 1983).Women who embrace the traditional sexual role tend to choose

traditional professions (Schutte, Malouff, Curtis, Lowry, Luis1996, as cited in: Brannon 2002), while women possessing

8

masculine or androgynous features are inclined to take up non-stereotypical professional roles (Philips, Imhoff, 1997). Bothmen and women who choose positions stereotypically associatedwith the opposite sex tend to have elevated stress levels(Gutek, 1985). Nonetheless, women tend to enter traditionallymasculine domain more frequently than men who find themselvesin traditionally feminine positions (Gutek, 1985). Thephenomenon may be explained by the existence of a greaternumber of professions traditionally considered as “masculine”.Research (Erez, Borochov, Mannheim 1989) carried out on

youths (N=484) revealed a relationship between a high level offemininity (females and androgynous people) and the preferenceof socially oriented professions. Chusmir (1983) suggests thatmasculine women prefer non-traditional professionalenvironment more than feminine women. Psychological masculinity in professional domains is connectedwith a considerable want of achievement and a low necessity ofaffiliation. Psychological femininity, on the other hand,correlates positively with justice, interpersonal sensitivityand expressiveness (Cooper, Arkkelin, Tiebert, 1994).It is noteworthy that masculine and feminine perception of

self is less stereotypical in economically and sociallydeveloped countries (Williams, Best, 1989).

Justification for undertaking the issue

This section of the article will present results of ownresearch in entrepreneurship and work values as regards sexand gender. Gender is an interesting issue in terms ofchanging social norms connected with femininity andmasculinity. In own research from 2003 (Ochnik, 2003) femininefemales were dominant among women (high intensity oftraditionally feminine characteristics). As far as men areconcerned, androgynous males were dominant (high intensity ofboth traditionally feminine and masculine features). In theface of “crisis of masculinity” (Melosik, 2006) and attemptsat redefining social male and female roles, an attempt at

9

defining the distribution of gender among students andrevealing any changes in the span of 8 years seems valid. Gender is an issue frequently considered in the context of

personality. However, I deemed the examination of gender interms of professional domain necessary. Therefore, researchquestions pertained to the relationship between genderidentity and entrepreneurship and work values. A questionregarding the relationship between entrepreneurship and workvalues was also posed. Additional categorising variables wereage and sex. Taking the gender schema theory into consideration, one can

assume that work values and entrepreneurship will bedifferentiated by gender identity.

Objective

The fundamental aim of the paper was the examination of theinfluence of sex, gender, age and professional experience onentrepreneurship and work values and the relationship betweenentrepreneurship and work values. An additional objective wasthe comparison of gender types of people graduating fromuniversities with research results from the previous 8 years.

Research modelThe independent variables include: age, professionalexperience, sex and gender identity. Work values andentrepreneurship constitute dependent variables.

[Fig.1. Research model]

10

AGE PROFESSIONAL

EXPERIENCEWORK VALUES ENTREPREN

EURSHIP

SEX

Description of the sample groupThe sample group consisted of 141 people, including 111 womenand 30 men. Age average amounted to 27,63 (range of 20-51years old). Professional experience ranged from none to 25years of experience. The largest group (23,40%) ranged from 6months to 2 years of professional experience. Respondentsconsisted of final year students of full-time and extramuralcourses of Economics.

Research methods

S. L. Bem Sex Role Inventory adapted by A. Kuczyńska. The inventory was formed on the basis of the American Bem SexRoles Inventory (BSRI). The theoretical basis consists of L.S. Bem's gender schema theory (Bem, 1974, 1981). The inventoryis comprised of two scales: masculinity and femininity scale.The femininity scale includes such adjectives as: sensitive,protective or caring. The masculinity scale includes e.g.dominating, independent or competitive. The inventory consistsof 35 features examining masculinity, femininity and buffercharacteristics. The respondent must define the extent whicheach feature characterises them to (1-5 scale, 1- I amcompletely not like that, 5- this is exactly who I am).

Ministry of Labour and Social Policy materials regarding “My first job” program- Work values questionnaire

The questionnaire consists of 13 work values (autonomy,security, social interactions, good financial conditions,variety, recognition, creativity, productivity, leadership,clarity, professional specialisation, promotion, personaldevelopment) and an extra field to be completed withadditional work values which might not have been enumerated.The respondent must define the importance of each value on 1-5scale. Work values are described in order to make the meaningof each value more concrete.

- Entrepreneurship questionnaire

11

The questionnaire consists of 10 parts. Each part pertains tothe following items: sociability, trust, charisma, planning,creativity, responsibility, effectiveness, stress-resistance,persistence and decision-making. Each part contains 3statements. The respondent must select the one which bestdescribes their opinion. These statements are scored and thelevel of entrepreneurship defined on the basis of the score.

Results

1. Gender identity

In the light of own research from 2003 carried out among ananalogous sample group (N=300), it seems that the number ofandrogynous people has risen (from 40,4% to 51,77%) and thepercentage of masculine and undifferentiated people hasdecreased (respectively 2003: 25%- 2011: 14,19% and 2003: 8%-2011: 5,67%). [Tab.1.]

Pearson`s r

Work values

W1 –autonomy

W2 -security

W3 – social

W4 - good financial conditions

W5 - variety

W6 - recognitio

W7 - creativity

W8 - productivity W9 - leadership

W10 - clarity

W11 - professional

W12 - promotion

W13 - personal development

Age

0,13 0,05

0,04

0,06 0,00 0,07

-0,00

0,14 0,12 0,09

0,12 -0,08

0,04

Profession. experie

0,18 0,11

0,09

0,15 -0,03

0,09

-0,07

0,15 0,22 0,22

0,17 -0,00

-0,00

ENTREPRENEURSHIP 0,24*

*0,12

0,06

0,09 -0,03

0,83

0,14

0,19*

0,21*

0,14

0,12 0,26**

0,15

12

Tab.1. Correlations (correlation coefficient Pearson`s r) between workvalues and age; work values and professional experience; work values andentrepreneurship.

In the span of 8 years, the percentage of individual gendertypes among women changed. The greatest shift occurred in thenumber of androgynous women (2003: 37,2%) whose groupconstitutes the majority in the present study (2011: 50,45%).On the other hand, the number of feminine, masculine andundifferentiated women has decreased (respectively 2003:40,2%- 2011: 34,23; 2003: 12,8%- 2011: 8,1% and 2003: 9,8%-2011: 7,21%). [Tab.2.]

03060

Gender Identity 2003/2011

20032011

Tab.2. Gender identity in general 2003/ 2011.

An analogous trend can be observed in men. More than half ofrespondents exhibit the androgynous type (56,66%) as comparedto 44,2% in 2003. Among other gender types a decrease can beobserved- feminine men in 2003: 8,8% and in 2011: 6,67%,masculine men in 2003: 41,2% and in 2011: 36,67%,undifferentiated men in 2003: 5,8% and in 2011: 0%. [Tab.3.]

13

03060Gender identity in women

20032011

Tab.3. Gender identity in women 2003/ 2011 .

2. Age and professional experience vs. work values and entrepreneurship.

No significant relationship between age and professionalexperience on one hand and professional experience and workvalues on the other hand was ascertained. Due to age diversityof the sample group, relations of this variable with workvalues were evaluated. The research revealed no significantrelations, which breaks the stereotype, and indicated thatdifferent work values were appreciated depending on age andprofessional experience. [Tab.4.]

0204060Gender identity in men

20032011

Tab.4. Gender identity in men 2003/ 2011.

A small positive relationship was established betweenprofessional experience and entrepreneurship (r=0,223,p<0,05).

14

3. Entrepreneurship

Sex does not differentiate statistically relevant level ofentrepreneurship. Both among women (55,86%) and men (53,34%),the majority of people achieved only an average level ofentrepreneurship. Among women, 42,34% scored high as regardsentrepreneurship. Among men the percentage amounted to 46,66%.1,8% of women and 0% of men scored low as regards thischaracteristic.

Gender partially differentiates the level ofentrepreneurship. There exists a medium positive relationship(r=0,401, p<0,05) between gender (psychological masculinity)and entrepreneurship. The higher the level of psychologicalmasculinity the higher the level of entrepreneurship. The relationship between psychological femininity and

entrepreneurship turned out to be very weak, neverthelesssignificant (r=0,033, p<0,05). The significance of differences in entrepreneurship of men andwomen of different gender identity analysed by means ofStudent's t-test test are the following:- androgynous women are more entrepreneurial thanundifferentiated and feminine women (p<0,01),- masculine women are more entrepreneurial thanundifferentiated and feminine women (p<0,01),- there are no significant differences between androgynous andmasculine women and those undifferentiated and feminine asregards the level of entrepreneurship (p>0,05),- masculine and androgynous men are significantly moreentrepreneurial than undifferentiated men (p<0,05),- there are no significant differences between masculine andandrogynous men as regards entrepreneurship (p>0,05). Gender identity and entrepreneurship in women

Among feminine women the group scoring average as regards

15

entrepreneurship was dominant (81,85%). Next, the highlyentrepreneurial group ranked 15,79% and the group with lowentrepreneurial characteristics came last with 2,63%. Amongboth androgynous and masculine women (respectively 60,71% and55,55%) the highly entrepreneurial group was dominant. Therewere no androgynous and undifferentiated women exhibiting lowentrepreneurial characteristics. Among masculine women suchcharacteristics were exhibited by 11%. Masculine women withaverage entrepreneurial features constituted 33,34%.

Gender identity and entrepreneurship in men

Among masculine and androgynous men dominated people withaverage entrepreneurial features (respectively 54,56% and52,94%). 45,54% of masculine men and 47,06% of androgynous menbelong to the highly entrepreneurial group. Among femininemen, half of them can be considered highly entrepreneurial.The other half are moderately entrepreneurial. 4. Work values

On average, respondents valued security (W2) (clearly definedfuture, career streams, methods of rewarding and disciplining,job security, the feeling of stabilisation) and personaldevelopment (W13) (opportunity of learning, tasks facilitatingdevelopment) the highest. After these, respondents valued goodfinancial conditions (W4) (high earnings and bonuses) andsocial interactions (W3) (frequent interactions with people,teamwork, good atmosphere at work). Respondents valued thelowest the following features: leadership (W9) (influencingother people's behaviour and their work performance, bearingresponsibility for others, monitoring and evaluating otherpeople's work), productivity (W8) (high requirements, concretework results, short-term objectives) and creativity (W7)(inventive work, original ideas, non-typical tasks, novelty).

The comparison of work values appreciated by men and women

16

On average, values esteemed by women the most include: socialinteractions (W3) (frequent interactions with people, goodwork atmosphere). As far as men are concerned, valuesappreciated on average the most include: good financialconditions (W4) (high earnings and bonuses, financialmotivation). On the other hand, men value productivity (W8)the least (high requirements, concrete work results,presenting short-term objectives). As far as women areconcerned, they value leadership (W9) the least (influencingother people's behaviour and their work performance). Leadership is the only value differentiated by sex in a

statistically significant manner. Men value this feature morethan women (t=-2,268, p<.05)

Gender identity and work values

There exists a moderately significant relationship betweenpsychological femininity and security (r=0,4, p<.05) andbetween psychological masculinity and autonomy (W1) (r=0,34,p<.05) and leadership (W9) (r=0,41, p<.05). The higher thelevel of psychological femininity, the higher the probablilityof valuing security (W2) at work. The higher level ofpsychological masculinity, the stronger autonomy (W1) andleadership (W9) are appreciated. [Tab.5.]

Work values

17

Pearson`s r

W1 –autonomy

W2 -security

W3 – social

W4 - good financial conditions

W5 - variety

W6 - recognitio

W7 - creativity

W8 - productivi

W9 - leadership

W10 - clarity

W11 - profession

W12 - promotion

W13 - personal developmen

Femini

-0,085

0,401 *

0,285

0,10 -0,132

0,279

-0,128

0,132

-0,015

0,128

0,187

0,166

0,148

Masculin

0,345*

0,102

0,051

0,319

0,124

0,145

0,227

0,226

0,412*

0,174

-0,033

0,216

0,044

Tab.5. Correlations (correlation coefficient Pearson`s r) between work

values and feminity; work values and masculinity.

On average, for feminine women, social interactions (W3) seemto be the most important. This group values leadership (W9)the least. For androgynous women security (W2) is the mostimportant value. Social interactions (W3), good financialconditions (W4), promotion (W12) and personal development(W13)constitute important values. Values such as creativity (W7)and leadership (W9) are the least important. Masculine womenappreciate social interactions (W3) and good financialconditions (W4) the most, whereas productivity (W8) is valuedas the least important. Undifferentiated women value personaldevelopment (W13) the most and leadership (W9) the least. Gender partially differentiates work values among women. The

analysis of the significance of differences among individualwork values as regards women of different gender identitycarried out by means of Student's t-test revealed thefollowing findings:-androgynous women value social interactions (p<0,05),creativity (p<0,01), productivity (p<0,01) and professionalspecialisation (p<0,01) significantly more than femininewomen;- androgynous women appreciate autonomy (p<0,05), creativity(p<0,05) and promotion (p<0,05) more than masculine women;- androgynous women value autonomy (p<0,01), security and

18

leadership (p<0,05) more than undifferentiated women;- feminine women autonomy (p<0,05) and security (p<0,01)appreciate more than undifferentiated women;-masculine women value security (p<0,05) more than undefinedwomen;- there are no statistically significant differences betweenfeminine and masculine women (p>0,05).On average, androgynous men and women appreciate security the

most. As far as masculine men are concerned, they value goodfinancial condition the most. There are no statistically significant differences on the

level of work values as regards gender among men (p>0,05).

Conclusions

In comparison with own research from 2003 (Ochnik, 2003)carried out among an analogous sample group, in 2011 anincrease in the number of people defining themselves with theuse of feminine and masculine characteristics, in women inparticular, occurred. Therefore, it can be concluded thatacceptance for a broader spectrum of behavior, going beyondthe stereotypical view of femininity and masculinity appearedin Polish society. Sex does not differentiate the level of entrepreneurship,

which found confirmation in own research from 2003 (Ochnik,2003). This proves that associating entrepreneurship withmasculine characteristics is an indication of male/ femalestereotypes. Nevertheless, research revealed various averagelevels of values appreciated by men and women. The fact thatwomen, on average, value security, and men value high earningsthe most, may be taken into consideration from twoperspectives. On one hand, it may be the reflection ofconditions present on the labour market where men receivehigher remuneration than women. On the other hand, system ofvalues seems to be the key as far as setting professionalobjectives and their fulfillment is concerned. Therefore,women's concentration on stabilisation and loyalty may

19

decrease their motivation to undertake activities associatedwith more attractive earnings. For men, this value seems to be fundamental. Consequently, it

can be inferred that they will direct their activities towardsachieving their goal. However, it ought to be also noted thatmen's sample group is considerably less representative thatwomen's group and, except leadership, differences in valuesbetween these two groups are not statistically significant.Indeed, men do value leadership at work more than women. Results of own research contradict assumptions on the

preference of significantly different work values as far assex is considered (Brown 2002a). On the other hand, theresearch reveals differentiation as regards gender identitywhich differentiates both work values and entrepreneurship. It is noteworthy that both age and the level of professional

experience do not differentiate work values, which may be anessential indicator when designing the process of employeeselection. Research results indicate that gender may be considered as a

tool for employee selection. Indirectly, it may suggestparticular work values. The higher level of psychologicalfemininity, the more valued security is. The higher level ofpsychological masculinity, on the other hand, the moreautonomy and leadership are appreciated. Results of ownresearch also suggest that people with the high level ofpsychological masculinity are significantly moreentrepreneurial. As regards broad research indicatingpersonality traits associated with a particular type of genderidentity, it may constitute an effective predictor ofprofessional competences. The thesis, however, requires morein-depth research.

References

Baucom, D.H. and Danker-Brown, P. (1983) Peer ratings of males andfemales possessing different sex-role identities. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 47, 494-506.

20

Bem, S.L. (1974) The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bem, S. L. (1975) Sex role adaptability: One consequence ofpsychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634-643.

Bem, S.L. (1981) Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sextyping. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.

Bem, S.L. (1994) The lenses of gender. Transforming the debate on sexual inequality.London: Yale University Press.

Bem, S. L. and Lenney, E. (1976) Sex typing and avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 48-54.

Beutell, N.J. and Brenner, O.C. (1986) Sex Differences in WorkValues. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28,1, 29-41.

Brockhaus, R.H. (1980) Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs.Academy of Management Journal, 23, 509-520.

Brown, D. (2002a) The Role of Work and Cultural Values inOccupational Choice, Satisfaction, and Success: A TheoreticalStatement. Journal of Counseling and Development 80, 1, 48-56.

Brown, D. (2002b) Career Choice and Development. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass John Wiley&Sons, Inc.

Carlozzi, A.F. and Hurlburt, J.D. (1982) Empathy, expressiveness andinstrumentality. The Humanist Educator, 20, 154-160.

Carter, N. M., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gatewood, E.J. (2003)The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 18, 13-39.

Cate, R. and Sugawara, A.J. (1986) Sex role orientation anddimensions of self-esteem among middle-class adolescents. Sex Roles,15, 145-158.

Chusmir, L.H. (1983) Male-oriented vs. balance-as-to-sex thematicapperception tests. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 29-35.

Chusmir, L.H. and Parker, B. (1991) Gender and situationaldifferences in managers` values: A look at work and home lives.Journal of Business Research, 23, 4, 325-335.

Cook, E.P. (1985) Psychological androgyny. New York: Pergamon. Cooper, S.E., Arkkelin,D.L. and Tiebert, M.J. (1994) Work-

relationship values and gender role differences in relation tocareer-marriage aspirations. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 63-68

Davey, F. H. (2001) The Relationship Between Engineering and YoungWomen's Occupational Priorities. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 35, 221-

21

228.Davey, F.H. and Lalande, V. (2004) Gender Differences, Values, and Occupational

Choice. The National Consultation on Career Development. Availablefrom:

http://www.natcon.org/archive/natcon/papers/natcon_papers_2004_Davey_Lalande.pdf DeTienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2007) The role of gender in

opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 4,81-99.

Drucker, P.F. (2006) Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York:HarperBusiness.

Eccles, J.E. (1987) Gender roles and women`s achievement-relateddecisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135-172.

Eccles, J.E. and Hoffman, L.W. (1984) Sex roles, socialization, andoccupational behavior. In H.W. Stevenson and A.E. Siegel (eds)Child Development Research and Social Policy,pp.367-421. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Erez, M., Borochov, O. and Mannheim, B. (1989) Work values of youth:Effects of sex or sex role typing? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 34, 3,350-366.

Fischer, E.M., Reuber, A.R. and Dykes, L.S. (1993) A theoreticaloverview and extension of research on sex, gender, andentrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 151-168.

Gergen, K. J. and Gergen, M. M. (2004) Social Construction: Entering thedialogue. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.

Grotevant, H.D. and Thorbecke, W.L. (1982) Sex differences in styleof occupational identity formation in late adolescence.Developmental Psychology, 49, 429-435.

Gupta, V., Turban, D., Wasti, S. and Sikdar, A. (2009) The role ofgender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentionsto become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 397-417.

Gutek, B. (1985) Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Josssey-Bass.Havenga, W. (2009) Gender and age differences in conflict management

with small businesses. South African Journal of Human Resource Management,6, 1, 22-28.

Herzog, A.R. and Bachman, J.G. (1982) Sex-role attitude among high schoolseniors. Anna Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, TheUniversity of Michigan.

Johnson, M. K. and Elder, G. H. (2002) Educational Pathways and WorkValue Trajectories. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 113-138.

22

Kraśnicka, T. (2000) Uwarunkowania rozwoju przedsiębiorczości –podejście wielowymiarowe. [Entrepreneurship development conditions– multidimensional approach]. In K. Jaremczuk (ed) Przedsiębiorstwo wprocesie transformacji: materiały z Międzynarodowej Konferencji Naukowej wPrzemyślu.[Enterprise in transformation: materials from International Conference inPrzemyśl]. Przemyśl: PWSZ Press.

Kuczyńska, A. (1992) Płeć psychologiczna. Podstawy teoretyczne, daneempiryczne oraz narzędzia pomiaru [Gender. Theorethicalfoudations, empirical data and measurement tools]. PrzeglądPsychologiczny,2, 237-247.

Lamke, L.K. (1982) Adjustment and sex-role orientation inadolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 247-259.

Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007) The entrepreneurial propensityof women. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 3, 341-365.

Liebel, M. (2004) A Will of their Own: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Working Children.New York: Zed Books.

Lisowska, E. (2001) Przedsiębiorczość kobiet w Polsce na tle krajów EuropyŚrodkowej i Wschodniej [Female entrepreneurship in Poland compared to thecountries of Central and Eastern Europe]. Warsaw: Warsaw School ofEconomics.

Marini, M.M. (1978) Sex differences in determination of adolescentaspirations: A review of the research. Sex Roles, 4, 723-751.

Melosik, Z. (2006) Kryzys męskości w kulturze współczesnej. [The crisis of masculinityin contemporary culture].Cracow: IMPULS.

Milian, L. (2000) Przedsiębiorczość i przedsiębiorstwo turystyczne.Socjopsychologiczne uwarunkowania sukcesu. [Entrepreneurship and business travel.Sociopsychological determinants of success]. Czestochowa: CzestochowaUniversity of Technology Press.

Miluska, J. (1992) Tożsamość płciowa człowieka w cyklu życia.[Genderidentity in life-span]. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 3,35, 365-378.

Nagy, B. (1998) Węgierskie menedżerki i kobiety przedsiębiorcy.[Hungarian female managers and women entrepreneurs]. Kobieta i Biznes, 3-4

Neil, C.C. and Snizek, W.E. (1987) Work values, job characteristics,and gender. Sociological Perspectives, 30, 3, 245-265.

Ochnik, D. (2003) Przedsiębiorczość, predyspozycje zawodowe i wartości cenione wpracy u osób o różnej tożsamości płciowej. [Entrepreneurship, vocationalpredispositions, work values among and gender identity types ]. SilesianUniversity, unpublished mastres`s thesis

Orlofsky, J.L. and O`Heron, C.A (1987) Stereotypic and

23

nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations:Implications for personal adjustment. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 5, 1034-1042.

Palich, L.E. and Bagby, D.R. (1995) Using cognitive theory toexplain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventionalwisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 425-438.

Philips, S.D. and Imhoff, A.R. (1997) Women and career development:A decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 31-59.

Piecuch, T. (2009) Cechy przedsiębiorcy. [Entrepreneurs features]. Ekonomika iorganizacja przedsiębiorstwa,5.

Piecuch, T. (2010) Przedsiębiorczość. Podstawy teoretyczne. [Entrepreneurship.Theoretical foundations]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.

Rowe, R. and Snizek, W.E. (1995) Gender differences in work values.Perpetuating the myth. Work and Occupations, 22,2, 215-229.

Say, J. B. (1803/2007) A treatise on political economy. New York: Cosimo Classics.Schumpeter, J. A. (1912/1982) The theory of economic development. New

Jersey: Transaction Publishers.Schickman, S. and Cooper, E. (1984) Life satisfaction and sex role

concept. Sex Roles, 11, 227-240.Steward Jr., W.H. and Roth, P.L. (2001) Risk propensity differences

between entrepreneurs and managers: A Meta-analytic review. Journalof Applied Psychology, 86,145-153.

Super, D.E. (1972) Psychologia zainteresowań. Warszawa: PaństwoweWydawnictwo Naukowe.

Tyszka, T. (2002) Psychologia ekonomiczna. [Economic psychology].In: J. Strelau (ed) Psychologia. Podręcznik akademicki. Jednostka wspołeczeństwie i elementy psychologii stosowanej. [Psychology. AcademicHandbook. An individual in society and elements of appliedpsychology.] ,pp.351-378, Gdansk: GWP.

Wärneryd, K.E. (1988) The psychology of innovative entrepreneurship.In W.F. van Raaij, G.M. van Zveldhoven and K.E. Wärneryd (eds)Handbook of Economic Psychology, pp. 404-447. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Wells, K. (1980) Gender-role identity and psychological adjustmentin adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 59-73.

Wiatrak, A.P. (2003) Pojęcie przedsiębiorczości, jej cele i rodzaje.[The concept of entrepreneurship, its objectives and types.]. In:K. Jaremczuk (ed.), Uwarunkowania rozwoju przedsiębiorczości – szanse izagrożenia [The business development conditions - opportunities andthreats]. Tarnobrzeg: PWSZ.

24

Williams, J.E. and Best, D.L. (1989) Sex and psyche: self-concept viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Zaleśkiewicz, T. (2004) Przedsiębiorczość i podejmowanie ryzyka.[Entrepreneurship and risk-taking]. In T. Tyszka (ed) Psychologiaekonomiczna.[Economic psychology], pp.202-334. Gdańsk: GWP.

Zeldow, P.B., Clark, D. and Daughterty, S.R. (1985) Masculinity,femininity, type A behavior and psychological adjustment inmedical students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 481-492.

25