FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED ...

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS

IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES

MELANIE RAINER

11914509

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

MASTER THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in Strategic Management

At the Leopold-Franzens University Innsbruck - Department of Strategic

Management, Marketing and Tourism

Ass.-Prof. Dr. Roland SCHROLL,

MSc, Philipp JAUFENTHALER

Innsbruck, May 2021

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES I

FROM “INVISIBLE TO INVINCIBLE” (NELTON, 1999, P. 48)

WITH THE FAMILY BUSINESS

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all my interview partners for their openness, courage, and honesty in

sharing their experiences, as well as their willingness to participate. Further, I would like to

express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor MSc. Philipp Jaufenthaler for the valuable

contribution, guidance, and support. Also, I want to express a special thanks to MA Viktoria

Steger, for her support. Especially, I would like to thank my family and friends. Thank you for

inspiring, encouraging and supporting me!

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES III

ABSTRACT Major societal and economical changes have transformed our traditionally gendered culture and

work environment in the last decades. Intrapreneurship gathered strategic relevance for

successful family businesses, as it fosters innovation from within. However, females are still

underrepresented in intrapreneurial positions, as well as male-dominated industries. Family

businesses offer the corresponding entry ticket, a supportive work environment, flexible time

management and security for women. Nevertheless, some females in family firms have a seat

at the table and have learned to assert themselves, but many have not, which poses the question,

why not? As only scant information about female family intrapreneurs is available, the

following thesis investigates female family intrapreneurs’ work experience in male-dominated

industries.

KEY WORDS: Female family intrapreneurs, Family Businesses, intrapreneurship, corporate-

entrepreneurship, male-dominated industries, skillsets, assertiveness, gender stereotypes

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 2

1.2 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 2

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 3

2.0 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 4

2.1 FAMILY BUSINESSES IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES 4 2.1.1 KEY DEFINITIONS 4 2.1.2 GENDER THEORY 8 2.1.3 FEMALE ROLES 10

2.2 FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS 12 2.2.1 KEY DEFINITIONS 12 2.2.2 FRAMEWORK OF INTRAPRENEURSHIP 14 2.2.3 INTRAPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR 15 2.2.4 GENDER BARRIERS AND STEREOTYPES 19

2.3 CONCLUSION 20

3.0 EMPIRICAL STUDY 22

3.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY 22

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD 23 3.2.1 DATA COLLECTION METHOD 24 3.2.2 SAMPLING METHOD 26

3.3 DATA ANALYSIS 27

3.4 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 28

4.0 FINDINGS 29

4.1 WOMEN’S PROFESSIONAL LIFE 30 4.1.1 FEMALE ROLES 30 4.1.2 DEGREE OF VISIBILITY 32 4.1.3 FAMILY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 34

4.2 ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL 41 4.2.1 COMPANY STRUCTURE 41 4.2.2 COMPANY CULTURE 43 4.2.3 COMPANY SUPPORT 44

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES V

4.3 INDIVIDUAL LEVEL 47 4.3.1 PERSONALITY TRAITS 47 4.3.2 OTHER CHARACTERISTICS 50 4.3.3 ATTITUDES 52

5.0 DISCUSSION 55

5.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION 55

5.2 ANSWER TO THE RESEARCH QUESTION 59

6.0 CONCLUSION 61

6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 61

6.2 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH 62

7.0 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 63

REFERENCES 66

APPENDIX 82

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES VI

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: NEESSEN ET AL.’S FRAMEWORK OF INTRAPRENEURSHIP (2019) ......... 14

FIGURE 2: FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS’ WORK ENVIRONMENT ................. 29

FIGURE 3: RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOUNDER ................................................................ 30

FIGURE 4: FAMILY BUSINESS ENTRY .............................................................................. 31

FIGURE 5: FORMATION OF STEREOTYPES ..................................................................... 39

FIGURE 6: INDIVIDUAL LEVEL AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT .................................. 47

FIGURE 7: BIG FIVE .............................................................................................................. 50

FIGURE 8: INTRAPRENEURIAL ATTITUDES (NEESSEN ET AL., 2019) ....................... 52

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................. 26

TABLE 2: BARRIERS ........................................................................................................... 38

TABLE 3: BENEFITS ............................................................................................................. 46

TABLE 4: FATHER RELATION ........................................................................................... 53

TABLE 5: FAMILY MEMBER RELATION ......................................................................... 54

LIST OF PICTURES PICTURE 1: FEMALES’ DEGREE OF VISIBILITY ............................................................. 32

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FB Family Businesses viz. videlicet (namely) i.e. id est (that is) I Intrapreneurs M Managing partners/leaders ib intrapreneurial behaviour SC Social capital SME Small and Medium Enterprise

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Gender roles are deeply ingrained in our society and work environment, which makes them

difficult to reverse. Gender-specific job classifications have not only been subject to many

conflicts but are disadvantaging women, especially by the glass ceiling (Songini & Gnan,

2014). In this regard, females in family firms appear to be a “microcosm of society” (Cole,

1997), which reflects issues working women collectively face.

The characterisation of traditional masculine and feminine roles in the workplace highly

reinforces stereotypes, wherefore “acting like a man” discriminates against women’s

personality (Ely, 1995). Especially, male-dominated industries (Watts, 2007), as well as

intrapreneurship are defined to be masculine (Biju & Pathak, 2019). In this context, Family

Businesses (FB) “contain the otherwise divorced areas of the “feminine” and “masculine”

(Salganicoff, 1990, p. 129), and offer a particularly supportive environment for women.

Further, intrapreneurship is an innovative and strategically significant method (Kellermanns &

Eddleston, 2006) to strengthen managerial skills and develop decision-making abilities within

the FB (Marchisio et al., 2010). Thus, it might support women, as they have a progressive

opportunity to overcome barriers and assert themselves. While females within non-family

business reported to lack support from the company to improve the position (Haupt &

Madikizela, 2009), females within FB appear to receive support from their family and the firm.

However, leadership access, required skillsets and knowledge seem to still present barriers

(Wang, 2010). Female intrapreneurs’ roles and degree of visibility might be interconnected

with the organisational level of the family firm and the individual level of women.

Correspondingly, the organisational level incisively relates to the family structure, while

individual levels are linked to personal characteristics as female’s main entrepreneurial entry

driver in FB (Campopiano et al., 2017).

As little research focused on female family intrapreneurs, females professional experience lies

within “the hidden nature of women’s economic activities” (Khan, 2016, p.166).


1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT Women in FB have been diversely discussed in the literature regarding their role and

succession. Specifically, investigated masculine traits in respect to leadership, male-dominated

sectors and intrapreneurial positions, seem to limit female’s access. However, in practice,

female family intrapreneurs’ appear to have mastered the entry by proper positioning. In

research, work experiences, required skillsets, challenges and specifically women’s family

position in male-dominated industries received remarkably little attention. Especially, the

missing homogenous definition of the female visibility level in FB and male-dominated

industries, as well as necessary skillsets and intrapreneurial qualities women need to overcome

barriers, require further investigation. Consequently, an explicit examination from a female

perspective of intrapreneurship in FB, based in male-dominated industries, is needed to uncover

existing barriers, and identify solutions.

Therefore, this master thesis aims to unveil female’s work experience by answer the following

research question:

How do female family intrapreneurs experience their professional life in male-dominated

industries?

I. What are the main barriers, challenges, and insecurities women face?

II. What skillsets do women need to assert themselves in these contexts?

1.2 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION

This empirical study critically examines female intrapreneurs in FB, which operate in male-

dominated industries. Building on gender/feminist theory, female stereotypes, obstacles, as well

as gender characteristics are investigated in the context of family intrapreneurship and male-

dominated industries. Moreover, Neessen et al.’s (2019) “framework of intrapreneurship”,

helps to assess the intrapreneurial behaviour from a female and family firm perspective, as well

as required skillsets for assertiveness.

Overall, this thesis aims to theoretically contribute to research by providing additional insights

for entrepreneurship theory, family business research, gender/feminist theory and gender

relations. On the other hand, it will provide practical implications for FB, companies in male-

dominated industries and social power institutions.


1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

This thesis is structured into seven chapters. After the introductory section, a comprehensive

literature review on the topics of family businesses in male-dominated industries, and female

intrapreneurship, will provide an overview of the current state of research. All topics are

examined from a female perspective. Based on the literature review, the research gap and the

research questions are defined. Consequently, the third chapter presents the empirical study

framework, providing insights about the research philosophy, the research design and used

methods, as well as the data analysis process and ethical considerations. The overall findings

of this thesis are outlined in the fourth chapter. The subsequent chapter includes the

corresponding discussion and drawn conclusion, potential limitations and future research

suggestions. The last chapters will offer findings based practical implications.


2.0 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The subsequent chapter introduces the theoretical insights of family businesses in male-

dominated industries by explaining applied definitions under the lens of gender theory. The

objective is to provide an overview of already conducted research and a clear outline for this

study. The literature review has been divided into two parts. The first topic presents family

businesses in male-dominated industries with the corresponding definitions and underlying

theories. Furthermore, the organisational culture, as well as female roles and family firm

support will be discussed. The second part provides insights on female family intrapreneurs,

specifically reviewing intrapreneurship in family firms. After explaining the framework of

intrapreneurship, the intrapreneurial behaviour, consisting of skillsets and attitudes will be

summarized. Finally, investigated gender barriers and stereotypes, followed by a conclusion,

will close this chapter.

2.1 FAMILY BUSINESSES IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES

To understand female family intrapreneurs’ roles in male-dominated industries, it is important

to discuss the terms family business and male-dominated industry. Also, an organisational

culture perspective of the firm, as well as the roles females might assume in FB will be reflected

upon. Further, appendix C1 provides a concise overview of existing research of subsequently

discussed topics.

2.1.1 KEY DEFINITIONS Family Businesses (FB) are among the most intensely and broadly discussed topics in literature.

Although FB “are often founded without the intent of being family businesses” (Hoy et al.,

1994), more than 60% of all companies in Europe are classified as family firms (EFBN, 2009).

In this context, a ubiquitous and collective definition is missing, especially as every family

enterprise is characterised by heterogeneous attributes regarding size, objectives, and

organisational structures (Chua et al., 1999; Nordqvist, 2005; Di Toma & Montanari, 2010).

Also, cultural differences significantly influence FB definition (Carney, 2005). According to

Chua et al. (1999), many definitions do not distinguish between management and governance.

However, inasmuch as family-owned, and family managed, seem to collectively prevail as key

indicators, this master thesis will base its research on Rosenblatt’s et al. (1985) terminology.


The latter classifies FB as any business, where only one family controls or owns the majority

of the firm and, where two or more family members were or are engaged (Rosenblatt et al.,

1985). On the other hand, male-dominated industries comprehend, according to the U.S.

Department of Labor Women’s Bureau (2014), all industries, where less than 25% of the jobs

involve females (Campuzano, 2019). They “reflect the more traditional workplace – one

created, maintained, and controlled by males since its inception” (Jandeska & Kraimer, 2005,

p. 465). In this regard, FB in male-dominated sectors are identified by masculinity, which

indicates a tendentiously higher appreciation of men (Ibid.).

Familiness

Success and firm performance are often embedded into “familiness”. The latter implies “the

idiosyncratic firm level bundle of resources and capabilities resulting from the system

interactions” (Habbershon et al., 2003, p. 452).

Familiness has been predominantly investigated from a resource-based view (RBV), where all

resources are characterised by a so-called “family factor”, which can be positive/distinctive or

negative/constrictive. Distinctive familiness could provide an inherent competitive potential.

As family firms operate as systems, with the aim to create sustained wealth, creating a

competitive advantage is imperative. The latter is connected to the family factor. Furthermore,

FB are held together by emotional and affectionate ties, as well as responsibility and loyalty

between and among its members. Consequently, “actions of family member affect and

influence the actions of all other members and the system as an entity” (Kepner, 1983, p.60).

This reciprocal effect can lead to a modification of the system’s regulation if supported. On the

other hand, if no support is given, the relationship between family members is likely to become

distanced and dysfunctional (Kepner, 1983).

The family is responsible for satisfying social and emotional needs and establishing identity.

The social and emotional needs are related to belonging, which implies acceptance of the

membership and the corresponding self-worth; intimacy – validation as an individual; and

identity and autonomy needs – the desire for individualisation and differentiation.

In general, the family is formed by subsystems, which connect the different relationships of

family members, viz. couples, parents, and children. The spouse subsystem is not only

responsible for personal and interpersonal needs between the couple but is referred to as the

policy-making organ, in charge of the leadership dimension for the FB. There exist three

different forms of leadership relations, namely symmetrical, complementary, and reciprocal.

Meanwhile, the symmetrical relationship is competitive oriented, by drawing a status level with


the spouse; the complementary is linked to a division of tasks between husband and wife. On

the other hand, the reciprocal relation consists of vicissitudes of the prior mentioned relations.

Moreover, the spouse guides overall conflict management in the family system. Symmetrical

couples are likely to generate a “no-win” situation, as conflicts are likely to escalate. On the

contrary, complementary relationships express well-differentiated roles with strict rules.

Reciprocal families encourage discussions, compromises, and support (Ibid, 1983).

In family business research, the daughter-father and the brother-sister relationship has gained

more significance. Furthermore, daughter’s participation has rapidly increased in the early

nineties (Dumas, 1989; 1990). According to Wang (2010), daughters might assume leadership

positions solely under special circumstances, which require them to adopt a masculine attitude.

In this respect, the father-daughter relation and communication significantly influence

daughters’ roles (Smythe & Sardeshmukh, 2013). Also, the interaction of mothers, as a family

hub, seems to further affect the family relationship (Jimenez, 2009).

In particular, the parenting subsystem requires parents and couples to simultaneously balance

business and child education. In this case, it is fundamentally important to teach the children

conflict management, especially among siblings. The sibling subsystem implies a learning

group relation, aimed at providing support and caretaking. This is the area, where rivalry and

assertiveness emerge, as children need love, attention, and confirmation. Parents go through a

transformative and transpersonal mission. However, the system also has disadvantages, as

individualisation might become oppressed by the family, because of the importance of group

identity. Moreover, the expression of feelings is important, inasmuch as different family

cultures embed diverse mannerisms. According to literature, determinant times of transition

occur every five to seven years and can be linked to change, separation, and loss. Hereby, major

traits to deal with change properly are connected to acceptance, release, and future orientation

(Kepner, 1983).

In general, family businesses seem to be influenced by the family, which shapes the structure

and culture on an organisational level.

Family firm’s culture in male-dominated industries

According to Hubler (2009) and Whyte (1994), the family of a family firm is considered as the

“soul” of the culture. The organisational culture, by definition, consists of shared experiences,

meanings, and values, which can be expressed symbolically (Alvesson, 1993). Further research

also highlighted that organisational culture is significantly influenced by the role of the founder.

In particular, owner values and motivation are decisive influence factors, as they are embodied


within the company culture. Culture in family enterprises is stronger as the founder’s values

are shared by the family members (Hall et al., 2001).

Male-dominated company cultures can be perceived as mutual relations of social learning

between staff and leaders (Schein, 1983; 2010). In this respect, employees incorporate

perceived values, which favour men. As stated by Schein (2010), social learning directly or

indirectly influences employees’ thoughts, perception, and feelings, which impacts a persistent

male-dominated workplace culture. A homogeneous workforce mentality benefits leader with

their leadership style and limits ambivalent interpretations of values (Alvesson, 2013).

Long accepted historical traditions led to rigid and fixed male-dominated workplace cultures.

As demonstrated by Campuzano (2019), they can be seen as inertia and kept rigid unless

changed by an external force. In this regard, female’s leadership can be identified as a force. In

research, women’s leadership provides a strategy to accomplish goals and modify

organisational cultures (Bligh & Kohles, 2008; Jonsen et al., 2010; Lakshmi & Peter, 2015,

as cited in Campuzano, 2019). Leaders are significant to shape the workplace culture (Alvesson,

2013; Schein, 2010). However, female leadership can be perceived as a force from two

perspectives, namely internal and/or external change. Change from within is linked to women’s

employment within the male-dominated industry. On the contrary, female leadership as an

external force requires male-dominated industries to change. The rapidity of change does not

only depend on the number of female leaders within the industry but factors, which affect the

force. The force is influenced by female leader’s self-perception, organisational and social

environmental impact. It is of no rare occurrence that females suppress their femininity in male-

dominated industries (Bierema, 2009, as cited in Campuzano, 2019).

The Organisational Cultural Assessment Instrument (OCAI) framework identified four

different types of cultures: clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market culture. While clan culture

depends on internal relationships, adhocracy culture focuses on external relations. Also, both

emphasise flexibility and change. On the other hand, hierarchy, and market culture are control

oriented. The hierarchy culture refers to internal processes and the market culture is externally

oriented (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). In addition, “culture is transmitted through the relationship

between generations” (Fletcher et al., 2012, p. 129). Consequently, entrepreneurial culture

refers to the relationship between generations and succession (Zahra et al., 2004). According to

Dyer (1986), FB have four main cultural types: paternalistic, laissez-faire, participative and

professional. The paternalistic culture ascribes decision-making to the family and requires

employees to execute family orders. A similar cultural type regards the laissez-faire culture.

The latter differs in the trustworthiness attributed to employees, which transmits them decision-


making power. The mission and goals of the business remain at the family’s hand. However,

employees have the authority to achieve them. The rarest family business culture is

participative. It is more group-oriented and proactive in monitoring the family business by

valuing employees’ input. On the other hand, the professional culture refers to the nonfamily

management of FB, where employees focus on individual career achievements (Dyer, 1988).

In this regard, organisational identity refers to traits, which identify how a social group or

person comprehends itself. This comprehension does not include an objective view of such

qualities but the perception of involved people. It is related to how organisational members

identify themselves in their external environment. The three levels of identity, namely

organisation, group and individual identity are interconnected. Therefore, the organisational

identity clarifies the question “who are we?”, as a company. The answer to this question also

includes individual identity. In general, this implies that people identify themselves with the

company they work for (Alvesson, 2013). Consequently, it is incisive to manage the family

firm culture accordingly because it “can either contribute to success or be a major stumbling

block” (Dyer, 1988, p. 24).

After discussing the concepts of family businesses and male-dominated industries, the next part

will introduce gender theory and the terms femininity and masculinity.

2.1.2 GENDER THEORY Literature has raised questions about the historical existence of gender inequality, as females

have divergent experiences in society and in their professional life from men (Burke, 1996).

Those stereotypes can also be found in entrepreneurship and leadership. In general, women

seem to display less entrepreneurial activities, and, therefore, also fewer leadership roles.

Further, in male dominate specific industries, women are exposed to pressure to assume

masculine traits (Biju & Pathak, 2020), geared to long-term success.

The following section will investigate in more detail feminist theory and the terms of femininity

and masculinity regarding FB and male-dominated sectors.

Feminist theory

Feminist theory has been categorised into different fields. This thesis will focus on liberal and

radical feminism. Liberal feminism considers men and women as equal humans with the aim

to remove barriers in education and work life. In the context of education, female managers and

intrapreneurs are often college graduates (Brush, 1992). According to Hisrich and Brush (1983),


female entrepreneurs are less likely to graduate in business or engineering, than males. Thus,

entering male-dominated industries without corresponding education might be challenging.

Furthermore, females’ professional experiences shape their entrepreneurial behaviour (Greer &

Green, 2003). However, professional networks provide the needed assistance for women.

Nevertheless, it might be likely that men are part of more powerful and status-relevant

networks, which provide more support. Liberal feminism further states that men and females

are not the “same based upon their opportunities and resources” (Ibid., p. 8). Yet, gender limited

access to resources and opportunities disadvantages women (Marlow & Patton, 2005).

On the other hand, radical feminists deny male-dominated areas and claim female institutions.

Radical feminism looks at males and females’ differences as central aspects of oppression.

(Daly, 1984). Male-dominated industries are characterised by structuring gender differences in

favour of men. As a consequence, male-dominated industries might appear to be built on the

“male-breadwinner” model (Cockburn, 1985). However, the theory assumes men and women

to possess different strengths (Marlow & Patton, 2005). Therefore, femininity and masculinity

can be identified with divergent but equally important characteristics.

Femininity and masculinity

Many social fields are profoundly classified by gender, which fosters the cultural embodiment

of masculinity and femininity. As stated by Oakley (1973), gender assigns characteristics of

masculinity and femininity to men and women. In particular, organisational and occupational

structures are automatically assumed to be masculine. However, as Alvesson & Due Billing

stated (2009), both concepts should be perceived as “products of” or “themes in”, instead of

categories. Meanwhile, masculinity is, by definition, related to adjectives as hard, dry, analytic,

materialist and concepts of self-assertion, separation, control, and independence; femininity is

linked to a prioritization of feelings. Consequently, female organisations are proved to be of

flat hierarchy and based on collective human needs. On the contrary, male organisations are

hierarchical and rely on human resources as tools for goal achievement. In this context,

management and leadership are perceived as masculine rooted, which obstructs females for that

positions (Alvesson & Billing, 2014). As masculinity is viewed as an antithesis of femininity,

“masculinity is defined more by who one is not — rather than who one is” (Alvesson & Billing,

2014, p. 4). Nevertheless, the categorisation of social areas is frequently related to biological

criteria. A distinctive usage of male and female concepts requires to recognise them as types of

subjectivity (Ibid.).


Gender can be perceived as a significant organising principle of society. In particular

‘intersectionality’ of several social groups does not only consider the overlap of different social

classes and gender but also the impact of social dynamics. This implies heterogeneity, for

instance, the financial advantages of women and men of the middle class are linked to pay them

out of problems. However, those classes might experience domestic violence or age

discrimination to the same extent as other classes. In this regard, a distinctive observation

regarding age, industry or ethnicity can not necessarily include all women as a class, it can be

assumed “a mode of experience that is distinctive to women” (Smith, 1989, p. 34; as cited in

Alvesson & Billing, 2009), which could further be interpreted as close to universal. Deetz

(1992, as cited in Alvesson & Billing, 2009) revealed that the notions ‘man’ and ‘woman’

demonstrate what society objectifies, and distance itself from a neutral reality.

In order to take a closer look at objectivations in FB, the subsequent section will provide an

overview of female roles within the firm.

2.1.3 FEMALE ROLES Although FB offer fundamentally superior career chances and income opportunities for females

than other jobs (Salganicoff, 1990), they entail controversial requirements. Those reach from

independent and rather masculine behaviour to dependent and care-taking roles, women need

to assume. In this context, “women’s invisibility remains one of the most important topics […]”

(Faraudello et al. 2018, p. 77). The cultural traditions are the anchor point of females’

inconspicuous level (Ibid.). Women’s invisibility is linked to stereotypes and discrimination as

a preconception of our society, as well as individual attitudes, resulting from female’s

socialisation (Salganicoff, 1990). According to Cole (1997), invisibility is linked to the

ignorance of women’s professional qualifications. In more detail, the term ‘invisible women’

implies females “who act without being acknowledged as agents of their actions” (Karataş-

Özkan et al., 2011, p. 208). This refers to the degree of disregard, females encounter in the

workplace. As proposed by Curimbaba (2002), visibility levels can vary from the lowest

(invisible), medium (professional) to the highest (anchor) degree. Furthermore,

inconspicuousness refers to females, who assume supportive but undefined and often unpaid

roles within the family firm. Accomplishing visibility is easier if a male family member mentor

supports women. As mentor, assistant or mediator roles are perceived as “feminine” per se,

women are more likely to assume those roles, which fosters “occupational segregation”. These

aspects also implicate a predetermined job exclusion within typical male industries, and


supports females in HR, customer care or sales support (Faraudello et al. 2018). In general,

females in FB are highly likely to obtain roles, which reach from wives, mothers, daughters,

and females in-laws. Especially, “nurturing” and “peacekeeping” (Cole, 1997), as well as

managing the social capital of FB became a female task. However, fulfilling multiple roles

might create personal conflict between the family and business position (Faraudello et al. 2018).

On the contrary, women in male-dominated industries have to cope with a high visibility level

and the corresponding issue of the ‘sole women’. Also, in this regard, women encounter a lack

of proper work recognition (Watts, 2007). “In a male-dominated industry such as construction,

women have no history in professional roles, wherefore male ways of working are regarded as

the norm” (Watts, 2007, p. 302).

Cesaroni and Sentuti (2015), identified four different types of daughters, viz. leaders by choice,

compelled leaders, manager by choice and compelled manager. While leaders by choice receive

support from the parents and a solid preparation, compelled leaders are pushed into the

leadership position out of the need for continuity. Further, managers by choice operate in

specific functions but are not the “protagonist” of the company. Compelled managers are

responsible for an area parents assigned them, which forces them to accept minor roles.

On the other hand, spouses assume different instrumental roles and leadership functions based

on their relationship with the CEO. According to Poza and Messer (2001), wives could be

classified as a jealous spouse, as they experience their husband compromising on the family

life; the chief trust officer, the business partner/copreneur, vice president of HR or finance,

advisor and values keeper or a free agent. While “trust catalysts” act as a mediator between

business and family, business partners are involved from the start-up phase. Further, vice

presidents have professional capabilities and are trusted employees, mainly focused on project

management. Value keeper acts as a problem solver and helps coordinate “intangible

crossovers” between family and business. Spouses, who are free agents, are independent

females, which stay out of business but interact as advisors. (Poza & Messer, 2001).

Females’ success within FB depends on the environment created by family members

(Rosenblatt et al., 1985). Especially, female family members are proven to be more supportive

(Gillis-Donovan & Moynihan-Brandt, 1990). Support within family businesses can be found

on three different levels: firm level, the family level and the individual level. The main drivers

for female’s entrepreneurial entry “at the family level are spousal support, family tradition and

culture” (Campopiano et al., 2017, p. 16). In the context of spousal support, emotional and

psychological components have been proven as important. Especially, as the husband has an

impact on the “wife’s psychological contract” with the business (Nikina et al., 2015). Family


tradition and culture offer flexible work schedules, access to male-dominated industries and job

security (Salganicoff, 1990). Furthermore, family relations help females develop

entrepreneurial skillsets (Godfrey, 1992), and provide a pillar of support within the family

culture. Also, it highly influences females to become family entrepreneurs (Gundry & Ben-

Yoseph, 1998). At the family level, family governance, resources and goals are affected by

female’s involvement. The individual level is mainly affected by women’s personality traits.

In order to better understand the individual level and female family intrapreneurs, the following

section will provide a review of literature-based insights.

2.2 FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS „The concept of ‘family intrapreneurship’ includes the additional element of different

generations working together on intrapreneurial ventures, with the next generation

being empowered to create and deliver new sources of sustainable growth” (De Richoufftz,

2016, para. 10). While entrepreneurs innovate for themselves, intrapreneurs do it for the

company, they are employed in. Therefore, female family intrapreneurs assume entrepreneurial

activities within the FB. This section provides an overview of key definitions on female

intrapreneurial employees in family firms, as well as intrapreneurial behaviour, the individual

level and barriers and stereotypes. In addition, appendix C2 comprehensively summarises

important literature of this section.

2.2.1 KEY DEFINITIONS The literature identifies intrapreneurship (Pinchot 1985) through various terms, inter alia with

corporate entrepreneurship and corporate venture (Ellis and Taylor 1987). This thesis will use

the antecedent terms interchangeably.

According to Pinchot (1985) intrapreneurship refers to entrepreneurship within the company.

The definition implies innovative behaviour of employees in organisations to develop and

implement potential business opportunities (Kuratko et al., 1990). Intrapreneurs differ from

entrepreneurs to the extent that they realise their ideas within the framework of the company

and without founding their own business. Also, intrapreneurship is proven to be rooted within

entrepreneurship, and, therefore, is defined by various similarities, as both require opportunity

recognition, team management, an equilibrium of vision and managerial skills and risk

management strategies. However, they distinguish significantly by who takes the risk and owns


the concept. Whereas entrepreneurs take the risk and own the concept, the company takes the

risk and owns the idea for intrapreneurs (Maier & Zenovia, 2011). The latter are risk takers,

adapters, and innovators (Cox & Jennings, 1995, as cited in Di Fabio, 2014). Moreover, they

have been characterised by self-determination, freedom, and autonomy in their decision-

making approach (Menzela, Aaltiob, & Ulijna, 2007, as cited in Di Fabio, 2014). According to

Ronen (2010), intrapreneurship is linked to high self-esteem and self-efficacy and low

neuroticism. In this context, intrapreneurial self-capital can be directly attributed to an

individual’s potential. As Di Fabio (2014) revealed, intrapreneurial self-capital is a “higher

order construct”, which consists of core self-evaluation, hardiness, creative self-efficacy,

resilience, goal mastery, decisiveness, and vigilance. The assigned term implies simultaneous

measurement. In this respect, core self-evaluation can be linked to self-esteem, self-efficacy,

locus of control and the absence of pessimism (Judge et al., 2003, as cited in Di Fabio, 2014).

Moreover, it has been proven to be positively associated with performance, employability, and

career decision-making. Hardiness is linked to commitment, control, and challenges. These

aspects regard the individual ability to monitor, adapt to new situations and recognizing new

opportunities. Creative self-efficacy considers the ability to handle problems creatively. On the

other hand, resilience refers to adaptivity and personal growth orientation to deal with

challenges. Goal mastery is associated with individual skill development and the best

achievement for each task. Decisiveness connects with freedom and autonomy to make

decisions, and vigilance is linked to proper information research and factual decision-making

(Di Fabio, 2014).

According to Sciascia and Bettinelli (2013), FB are shown to be more risk-averse regarding

entrepreneurship because of the non-separation between ownership and management. Studies

investigated the concept of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) in the context of FB and concluded

that it is imperative for FB’ “survival, vitality, profitability and growth” (Zahra 1996;

Habbershon & Pistrui 2002; Rogoff & Heck 2003; Zahra et al. 2004; Zahra 2005; Kellermanns

& Eddleston 2006, as cited in Marchisio, 2010, p. 350).

As summarized by Marchisio et al. (2010), research in the context of intrapreneurship in FB

refer to an “open culture” (Hall et al., 2001) and “external, decentralized and long-term cultural

orientations” (Zahra et al., 2004), entrepreneurial characteristics such as opportunity

recognition, the influence of family possession and “intergenerational involvement”

(Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006). Furthermore, “intrapreneurs must be selected, or, in some

cases, be recognised by or impose themselves on the organisation” (Carrier, 1997, p.6).


To further understand the components of intrapreneurship, the next part provides insights into

the framework of intrapreneurship.

2.2.2 FRAMEWORK OF INTRAPRENEURSHIP

FIGURE 1: NEESSEN ET AL.’S FRAMEWORK OF INTRAPRENEURSHIP (2019)

By drawing on the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), Neessens et al. (2019) identified

the following behavioural dimensions congruent with the term intrapreneurship:

innovativeness/creativeness, proactiveness, opportunity recognition and exploitation, risk-

taking and networking.

As demonstrated in FIGURE 1 intrapreneurial behaviour builds on corresponding attitudes and

characteristics. In the context of attitudes, literature extensively investigated the relationship

with the company, thereby “feelings of belongingness” to the firm positively affect employees’

intrapreneurial behaviour. In addition, work satisfaction and the realisation of own ideas are

proven to strongly correlate. Motivation and intention of intrapreneurial behaviour are further

attitudinal dimensions.


Regarding intrapreneurial characteristics, several skills/abilities, personal knowledge, past

experience, as well as self-efficacy define intrapreneurial employees. The self-perception of

employee’s capabilities, viz. self-efficacy, relates to intrapreneurship as higher self-efficacy

leads to increasing entrepreneurial behaviour, opportunity recognition and product

performance. Higher self-efficacy also correlates with a higher intention to act

entrepreneurially. In addition, researchers discovered that past entrepreneurial experience

enhances employees intrapreneurial activities, as well as derived knowledge fosters opportunity

recognition. The skillsets and abilities refer to social and teamwork skills, persistence, and

endurance. Moreover, “the success of the intrapreneur also depends on the organisational

context” (Neessen et al., 2019, p. 557). Concerning this matter, literature revealed that

facilitating intrapreneurship requires encouragement, recognition, risk-taking and clear rules

from the company towards employees. However, organisational structure in the context of

communication and centralisation of decision-making play incisive roles. Also, Duygulu and

Kurgun (2009), as well as Globocnik and Salomo (2015) found that the degree of formalization

positively relates to job satisfaction and self-efficacy. On the other hand, rewards and

reinforcements increase commitment (Brazeal, 1993, as cited by Neessen et al., 2019) and are

predictors of job satisfaction (Van Wyk and Adonisi, 2008, as cited by Neessen et al., 2019).

Furthermore, resource allocation is imperative for intrapreneurship. The latter include the

quality of time and financing funds. In addition, failure tolerance also influences the

organisational climate and culture.

Nevertheless, personality traits, characteristics and attitudes have an impact on intrapreneurial

behaviour and organisational performance.

2.2.3 INTRAPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR

The tasks and roles of employees have changed in the last years. The rigid hierarchical

structures of companies seem to level off. As decentralisation distributes decision-making

abilities to employees, they obtain more responsibility (Foss et al., 2015, as cited by Neessen

et al., 2019). This responsibility is linked to active opportunity recognition and risk-taking to

innovate and introduce change. Literature intensively investigated the relationship between

entrepreneurial orientation and performance, namely the ‘climates’. However, the

characteristics, attitudes and behaviour of employees influence the whole process. As

summarized by Neessen et al. (2019), intrapreneurial employees possess specific traits, which


refer to innovativeness/creativeness, proactiveness, opportunity recognition and exploitation,

risk-taking and networking.

Furthermore, female leaders are required to be intrapreneurial but intrapreneurs are expected to

possess masculine characteristics. Therefore, women might struggle with their natural

femininity and acceptance as intrapreneurs (Biju & Pathak, 2020).

Personality traits

Personality can be associated with consistent patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting (John &

Srivastava, 1999). Goldberg’s Big Five personality model has been extensively used to analyse

individuals personality traits within five categories: extraversion or surgency,

conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness and emotional stability or

neuroticism (Goldberg, 1993). In this regard, all factors include a wide range of traits, i.e.,

extraversion includes activity (active, energetic), dominance (forceful, bossy), sociability

(outgoing sociable, talkative), expressiveness (adventurous, outspoken, noisy, show-off) and

positive emotionality (enthusiastic, spunky). Conscientiousness has been linked to task interest,

will achievement and dependability. On the other hand, openness includes “open

characteristics” as artistic, curious, and widely interested (McCrae & Costa, 1985) and

“intellectual traits” such as intelligence, insightful and sophistication (Peabody & Goldberg,

1989; Goldberg, 1990). Agreeableness has been defined by tendermindedness (sensitive, kind,

soft-hearted, sympathetic), altruism (generous, helping, praising) and trust (trusting forgiving).

Emotional stability and neuroticism can be classified with emotionality, ego strength,

dominant-assured, satisfaction and affect (McCrae & John, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999). In

this respect, intrapreneurship has been found to significantly relate to extraversion, emotional

stability, and openness to experience. Agreeableness and conscientiousness demonstrated a

negative relationship to intrapreneurship (Farrukh et al., 2016).

Goldberg’s personality model gives “personality psychology a replicable phenomenon to be

explained” (Hogan, 1987, as cited by McCrae & John, 1992). Further, the Big Five can be

linked to occupational attainment (Roberts et al., 2007) and well-being (Steel et al., 2008). They

have also been found to help individuals occupy beneficial roles in networks (Burt et al. 1998;

Fang et al.2015; Kalish & Robins 2006, as cited in Tulin et al., 2018).

On the other hand, consideration needs to be given to social and human capital. According to

Coleman (1988), social capital (SC) is linked to the advantages people have because of the

social structure, they are part of (Tulin, et al., 2018). In this context, men are reported to have

more social capital than females (Lerner & Malach-Pines, 2011). SC affects the organisational


and individual level. While the organisational level is influenced by employees’ goal orientation

and trust as members of the firm (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), the individual level considers

individual skill amplification. As demonstrated by Monnavarian and Ashena (2009), a positive

relationship between SC and intrapreneurship has been found. A company can improve

intrapreneurship by enhancing SC dimensions through networking activities or reward systems.

As argued by Tulin et al. (2018), “the association between personality and social capital” (p.

308) is likely to be linear, viz. differences in the personality explain how much social capital

people have. This further implies that individuals, who can create social ties out of trust and

reciprocity are more likely to share their resources.

Social capital can influence human capital to an extent that both terms are often used

synergistically. Family human capital is the knowledge and skillset of individual family

members (Coleman, 1988). Furthermore, family’s closeness creates a unique environment for

human capital (Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). Hence, human capital is highly likely to offer a

competitive advantage (Barney, 2001), as family members are developed internally (Lepak &

Snell, 1999).

Attitudes

Attitudes are “natural talents” that provide the foundation to develop knowledge and skills

(Nordhaug, 1993). Entrepreneurship research has studied achievement orientation, risk-taking,

internal locus of control, innovativeness, pro-activeness and market orientation as imperative

intrapreneurial attitudes (Jain et al, 2015). In this regard, people with high achievement

orientation are taking responsibility for decisions, setting goals, accomplishing them and aim

for feedback (Jain & Wajid Ali, 2013). Risk-taking refers to the ability to take a calculated risk.

The internal locus of control considers an individual’s belief to influence his/her own outcomes

(Rotter, 1966). On the other hand, innovativeness can be linked to experimentation and

exploitation of new ideas (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Pro-activeness refers to an opportunity-

seeking and future-oriented perspective with the aim of shaping the environment (Lumpkin &

Dess, 2001). Market orientation is linked to the ability to adapt and react to the market

(Atuahene-Gima & Ko, 2001). In general, attitude includes motivation, satisfaction, the

relationship with the company and intention (Neessen et al., 2019).

The Theory of Planned Behavior by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980, as cited in Neessen et al., 2019)

concentrates on intentions as the main crux of behaviour. It assumes that intentions “reflect the

sum of motivational factors and show how hard people are willing to work and to try”

(Akhmedova et al., 2015). The motivation of individuals within FB is categorised by


heterogeneity (Chua et al., 2012; Nordqvist et al., 2014). As identified by Elsbach and Pieper

(2019), specific psychological needs demonstrated to have an impact on group identification

and group identifiers. The shared value needs reach from self-esteem, continuity,

distinctiveness, meaning, efficacy/control to belonging. Self-esteem is connected to a positive

self-concept (Gecas, 1982, as cited in Elsbach & Pieper, 2019). Family members link self-

esteem to the reputation of the business (Elsbach & Pieper, 2019). Also, non-family member

employees, which are friends with family members, are highly likely to have a marked firm

identification. This has been proven by individuals’ willingness to improve the firm’s

reputation (Marler & Stanley, 2008). Moreover, continuity ties up with the prior motive, as

strong identification with the family business relates to continuity in the self-concept (Milton

2008, as cited in Elsbach & Pieper, 2019). On the other hand, distinctiveness specifically

motivates family firm leaders in regard to the image (Memili et al., 2010; Zellweger et al.,

2012). Distinctiveness can be further connected to shared values such as “trustworthiness”

(Dyer & Whetten, 2006; Ward & Aronoff, 1995; as cited in Elsbach & Pieper, 2019);

“customer-orientation” (Cooper et al., 2005) and “quality focus” (Suduramurthy & Kreiner,

2008). The fourth motive considers the need for meaning. The latter refers to life’s significance

and purpose (Baumeister, 1998), as well as the identification with the family business as an

instrument to create meaning (Hwang, 1990). Efficacy and control have been used to promote

the professionality of the firm, in order to justify work performance (Knapp et al., 2013). The

last motivational motive refers to the need for belonging, because of cognitive cohesion

(Cabrera-Suárez et al.,2014).

Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) proposes two different sources of motivation,

namely extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. While intrinsic motivation implies pursuing an

individual interest linked to self-realization, extrinsic motivation refers to an instrumental

reason. However, family motivation can be considered as a type of ethical, namely prosocial

motivation, with the desire of benefitting the family (Grant, 2008). According to Menges et al.

(2017), family motivation makes mundane work more meaningful by supporting the family. A

flexible work environment allows females to take up responsibility early in their career

(Frishkoff & Brown, 1993). Also, the aspect of being “psychologically and financially”

independent encourages men and women to engage in private FB (Palalic et al. 2018). In

general, literature differentiates between the motivation of change and motivation by self-

fulfilment. Motivation to change is a push factor, which stems from dissatisfaction and the urge

to change a situation. On the other hand, the desire for self-fulfilment refers to pull factors.


According to Dumas (1998), women attribute terms as “challenging”, a “family dream”, and

opportunities to improve themselves to FB. In this context, family firms offer a supportive

environment for women, especially by enabling a better family and business balance.

Furthermore, FB “offer a freedom that is unavailable elsewhere” (Faraudello et al. 2018, p.88),

which fosters females’ personal fulfilment (Ibid).

Gender relates to females’ self-perception, which has an impact on business performance

(Jabeen et al., 2015). Even though career advancement is linked to motivation, encountered

stereotypes and barriers depend on gender, which further affects motivation (Akhemdova et al.,

2019) and ultimately influences attitudes.

The next part will provide an overview of already unveiled barriers and stereotypes.

2.2.4 GENDER BARRIERS AND STEREOTYPES The main barrier for women to occupy higher positions comes from history, as females are

identified as the principal household responsible (Faraudello et al. 2018). In this respect,

stereotypes depend on the cultural values of the society (Palalic et al. 2018). Specifically,

undeveloped societies are classified to distinguish between traditional masculine and feminine

jobs (Palalic et al., 2018). The traditional masculine role classifies men as more suitable for

business leadership than women. In particular, the “ideal worker” is characterised by classic

masculine traits such as assertiveness, competitiveness, and rationality (Achtenhagen et al.,

2018). Furthermore, success-oriented traits as forcefulness, activeness, achievement

orientation, competency, independence and emotional stability are perceived to be masculine

(Dawley et al. 2004). Therefore, masculine traits and men are more valued in business than

females and feminine traits (Ibid.), as women are postmarked to lack in attributes required for

managerial success (Eagly et al.,2003; Vecchio, 2002). Negative impressions of women seem

to be linked to role incongruence (Reed, 1983), which results out of females’ leadership

behaviour reserved to men. Men require women to adopt masculine behaviour, but also identify

them with the role of the seductress, or a sex object role– “You have to be a good sport, but the

Virgin Mary too” (Ely, 1995, p. 618).

In this context, the main barriers interact at the macro (societal/cultural) and micro

(individual/family) levels. As observed by Wang (2010), societal aspects and cultural

expectations of roles are often consciously or unconsciously expressed through the decisions

made by the family firm (Hollander & Bukowitz, 1990; Salganicoff 1990).


Gender stereotypes decisively impact the roles and activities women engage in (Salganicoff,

1990). Although cultural standards influence the professional contribution of women in the

firm, they impede participation at the same time. As Orozco Collazos et al. (2018) revealed, the

cultural norms within countries have an influence on how and when females impact firm

performance (Orozco Collazos et al., 2018). According to Jimenez (2009), the main factors

deterring women from leadership positions in FB are women’s inconspicuousness, the glass

ceiling, emotional leadership, succession, and primogeniture (Ibid.).

While invisibility can be linked to the role of females in FB, the glass ceiling is an

inconspicuous barrier, which prevents females from climbing the corporate ladder. The

literature highlighted glass ceiling situations, as well as the “glass escalator” effect, which

supports men. Females in leadership roles are significantly more exposed to critics for negative

results achieved before they enter their new position. In addition, females are “also likely to be

places on a glass cliff” (Faraudello et al. 2018).

Another barrier females face refers to emotional leadership. Women need to fulfil their female

roles as conflict solver or peacemakers. Stereotypical discrimination and biases seem to

establish predominant challenges (Martin & Barnard, 2013), which can be associated with

emotional labour (Biju & Pathak, 2020). Moreover, females are responsible for value

transmission with the family, as well as childcare. In this regard, “mothers teach their children

to love the company” (Jimenez, 2009, p. 55). The role of the emotional leader might be adopted

unconsciously, as females tend to keep the communication channels open within the family.

Furthermore, women encounter stereotypes regarding succession and primogeniture. The latter

refuses females to take over FB, because of the firstborn male child (Ibid.). In addition,

literature demonstrated that women do not plan a career in family firms, but solely enter to help

the family (Dumas, 1989; 1992). Also, daughters seem to experience scepticism from their

father and brothers (Barnes & Kaftan, 1990) and need to balance their family role with the

business position. Hereby, triangulation seems to present a dominant obstacle, as females face

problems of visibility, leadership, and the formation of their identities (Jimenez, 2009).

2.3 CONCLUSION In general, the organisational level of family firms can be linked to the concept of “familiness”,

which further affects the company structure and culture. Male-dominated company cultures and

industry values depend on leadership (Alvesson, 2013; Schein, 2010) and family firm culture

refers to the shared values of family members (Hall et al., 2001). In this respect, gender theory


has an incisive impact on the family firms’ culture, as stereotypes from the family might affect

stereotypes within the family business. Also, the classifications of femininity and masculinity

seem to contradict female roles. Women’s visibility level is linked to the role, females assume,

which reaches from wives, mothers to daughters. Additionally, daughters’ professional roles

seem to be influenced by the father (Dumas, 1990). While wives assume supporting roles,

daughters can be leaders or managers by choice, or compelled (Cesaroni & Sentuti, 2015).

In this context, female family intrapreneurs are involved in entrepreneurial activities on behalf

of the family firm (Maier & Zenovia, 2011). According to the framework of intrapreneurship

(Neessen et al., 2019), intrapreneurial behaviour is mainly determined by attitudes and

characteristics. As a consequence, females’ intrapreneurial intent specifically depends on the

individual level. While intrapreneurial characteristics include skillsets, personal knowledge,

past experience and self-efficacy, attitudes refer to motivation, satisfaction, relation to the

organisation and intention. The individual, as well as the organisational level, are further

affected by social and human capital. Social capital refers to the social structure of the

organisation and human capital to skillsets, which are transmitted to family employees.

Although women seem to receive support within a favourable family environment to remove

the glass ceiling (Songini & Gnan, 2014), in particular daughters, still face gender barriers.

Especially, male-dominated industries and entrepreneurial or leadership positions seem to

highly value masculine traits. Hence, female family intrapreneurs in male-dominated industries

seem to face two gender roles. They are required to assume masculine traits (Biju & Pathak,

2020), geared to long-term success, and need simultaneously fulfil their female roles as conflict

solver or peacemakers. Specifically, the glass ceiling presents a major obstacle. However, FB

are more likely to support females and facilitate their career advancement.

The previous literature review provides an overview of conducted research in the areas of

family business within male-dominated industries, as well as female family intrapreneurs.

One of the most significant current discussions regards females intrapreneurial and leadership

roles, as well as required skillsets within family firms and male-dominated industries. As

research revealed, some females in family businesses are more likely to attain management

positions, as they seem strong enough to overcome barriers and internal family resistance

(Akhemdova et al., 2019). However, only scant research is available. In this regard, the work

experience of female intrapreneurs in family businesses, which operate in male-dominated

industries has not been investigated yet. Hence, the overall aim of this study is to identify

barriers and challenges, as well as benefits and advantages of female family intrapreneurs, to

examine required skillsets and capabilities in respect of assertiveness.


3.0 EMPIRICAL STUDY This chapter will provide detailed information about the research philosophy, the research

design and methods used, data analysis and ethical considerations.

3.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY To appropriately understand the experience of female family intrapreneurs in male-dominated

industries, a phenomenological research philosophy has been chosen, namely feminist

phenomenology.

“Conscious experience is the starting point of phenomenology” (Smith, 2011), wherefore “the

experiences of ‘things’ are the basis for all knowledge” (Aristotle, as cited in Oberg & Bell,

2012, p. 204). In empirical research, males and females are often automatically separated into

gender groups. This seems to contradict the essential principles of classical phenomenological

philosophy, as it constitutes that human experiences are universal and not gender limited

(Martinsen et al., 2013). While phenomenological research is perceived as masculinist and

refers to social and political experience, it is not political per se. On the other hand, feminism

appears to be socially and politically motivated and is conceived as politics. This results out of

deeply rooted motives, such as inequality and oppression. As a consequence, feminism

profoundly takes consideration of gender and/or sexual inequalities (Fisher, 2000).

Gender classifies itself through two perspectives, namely biological difference, and specific

characteristics such as masculinity and femininity. However, as Butler (1990) stated, “gender

is a socially constructed relationship, which is produced and reproduced through people’s

actions” (Butler, 1990, as cited in Martinsen et al., 2013). Phenomenology will help explore the

experience reaching from “appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experiences,

or the ways we experience things, thus the meaning things have in our experience” (Smith,

2011). Therefore, the thesis will apply a phenomenological approach through a descriptive

investigation of meaning but from a feminist perspective. It will investigate “descriptions of

what people experience and how they experience what they experience” (Patton 2002, p.104,

as cited by Stumpfegger, 2015), according to the meaning females attribute to it, as a result of

subjective actions related to their awareness. This subjectiveness is strongly connected to the

individuals lived and embodied experience (Alcoff, 2000). Thus, several types of lived

experience are included: “perception, imagination, thought, emotion, desire, volition and

action” (Smith, 2011), as well as choices and intentions (Alcoff, 2000). More precisely, feminist


phenomenology, also known as critical phenomenology, will help analyse lived experiences to

develop practices and a nuanced understanding of traditional concepts created within male-

dominated industries. This approach allows to examine a gendered work environment and

provides space, where women’s voices and perspectives can be revealed. As the experience of

females needs to be observed from a critical perspective and as a “practice of reflexivity”,

feminist phenomenology will further help improve comprehension and develop tools for

empowerment (Simms & Stawarska, 2013).

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD This part of the thesis will provide detailed information about the selected research method,

from data collection to sampling method.

“In-depth investigations are important for a richer and deeper understanding of family

businesses” (Nordqvist et al., 2009) - The literature review demonstrated that family business

research frequently relied on qualitative research, especially as it considers various

heterogeneous aspects of different FB. Qualitative research allows gathering insights into a

social phenomenon, by interpreting the subjective experience of women. In addition, the

researcher can create “abstracts, concepts, hypotheses or theories” by looking at the bottom of

the phenomena (Palmer & Bolderston, 2006).

According to the main objectives of this thesis, the applied methodology is of qualitative nature.

In this context, interviews allow gaining a clearer understanding of the “nature of meaning”.

Based on the three different types of interview structures, semi-structured in-depth interviews,

together with photo-elicitation (PE) have been selected as adequate techniques to better

understand the encountered work experience of female family intrapreneurs. Semi-structured

interviews permit deviations from the structured guideline and create room for exploration of

the answers and arising issues (Palmer & Bolderston, 2006).

Regarding PE, the researcher chose art-based research and photographs for documentary

purposes (Holm, 2014) to reveal phenomenologically based perspectives. Arts are often used

by social research as a means of sense activation, “expression of complex feeling-based aspects

of social life” (Chilton & Leavy, p. 403), and to “transform consciousness through evoking

empathy and resonance” (Chilton & Leavy, p. 403). On the other hand, photographs “document

the world for further analysis at a larger stage” (Holm, 2014). In the following, the research

procedure will be explained in more detail.


3.2.1 DATA COLLECTION METHOD Primary data collection, based on semi-structured in-depth interviews has been used to gain

detailed and critical insights into the lived work experience of female family intrapreneurs.

As there is no “human experience that cannot be expressed in the form of a narrative”

(Jovchelovitch & Bauer, 2000), the researcher also used narrative techniques to encourage

storytelling beyond the question-answer schema. In this regard, it required the researcher to

“translate exmanent questions into immanent ones”, solely based on the language used in the

narration (Jovchelovitch & Bauer, 2000).

The interview structure followed the suggested guideline of Easterby, Thorpe, Jackson (2015),

by starting with the introduction and introductory questions, followed by the main questions,

closing questions, and ending with debriefing and expression of thanks. As visible in appendix

A, the interview guideline consisted of key questions within five sections:

1. Personal background

2. Entering the family firm

3. Family relationships

4. Business relationships

5. Personality/skillsets

In the first section, questions regarding participants educational and work experience were

posed as an introduction. The second category is related to the entrance reasoning, the entry

position, and the corresponding career advancement. Consequently, the family firms structural

and cultural environment, as well as encountered stereotypes within the men domain have been

investigated. The third and fourth part refer to family roles, challenges, benefits and support

from the family and the FB, as well incisive events regarding external (client/supplier)

relationships. Questions are mainly linked to transgenerational collaboration and encountered

gender-based barriers and insecurities. The final part considers females personality traits, to

specifically understand required skills of assertiveness. In this context, the researcher

investigated Goldberg’s Big Five personality traits and asked participants to reflect upon

extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The importance of

these traits for the position, as well as a self-evaluation on the possession of the qualities, allows

to uncover female’s intrapreneurial and required behavioural traits. Regarding this matter, the


researcher considered “attitudes and characteristics as antecedents of behaviour” (Nesseen et

al., 2019, p. 560).

Moreover, PE has been chosen to get a deeper comprehension of the intensely but not unitedly

discussed themes of ‘visibility’ and ‘invisibility’ in literature. Photographs are “visual

inventories of objects, people, and artefacts”, which capture events and “intimate dimensions

of the social” (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004, p. 1511). In this respect, PE can help to unwind the interview

situation by disrupting power dynamics and enhancing interaction. Furthermore, photos can

help recall past experiences and generate meaning (Ibid.).

Given that female’s invisibility has been an issue deeply rooted in history, the majority of older

paintings classified women within this role. Therefore, the researcher relied on art-based

research for the transmission of invisibility. Hereby, two paintings from Caroline Walker

(‘Empire’, 2019) and Edward Hopper (‘Office at night’, 1940) have been chosen.

While the ‘Empire’ demonstrates a woman standing in her office, behind a window, ‘Office at

night’ depicts the traditional role of the woman, as she is opening the cabinet, whereas the man

is sitting at the desk. On the other hand, to adequately demonstrate “visibility”, two recent

photos from anonymous photographers have been chosen, as few paintings were able to

appropriately identify the theme. Further, both photographers send a clear “message” with the

pictures (Holm, 2014). One clearly demonstrates a discriminatory situation, communicated

through males’ body language, regarding a woman, as they are in direct competition with each

other. The other photo identifies a woman with a fearful facial expression in the midst of men.

In addition, participants had the possibility to choose none of the pictures, in case no personal

reference could be found.

The flexibility of semi-structured interviews allowed the interviewer to deepen the response

and pursue arising ideas in more detail. Overall, 11 interviews have been conducted, of which

the average interview lasted 38 minutes. All interviews have been audio-recorded and realised

online via Zoom. As all participants are German speakers, pivotal parts of the interviews were

translated into English.


3.2.2 SAMPLING METHOD The sample of this research consists of 11 women in family businesses. Five of these are current

intrapreneurs and six have been intrapreneurs and/or are currently managing partners/leaders

of FB. All interviewees are part of small and medium family enterprises. The participants were

contacted through non-probability sampling; viz. non-random selection, based on

predetermined criteria. The criteria include females in intrapreneurial or leading positions

within FB, with clear family ties to the current owners. The women should directly or indirectly

relate to the owner, namely as daughter, wife, niece, or grandchild. Furthermore, the FB needed

to operate within male-dominated industries, which according to Catalyst (2019) regard the

three main European industries employing the least percentage of women: construction

(10.2%), transportation and storage (21.7%) and manufacturing (29.6%). The majority of the

interviewees (80%) do work within the construction and/or manufacturing industry, the other

20% in the transportation sector.

Purposive and snowball sampling have been applied, as they allowed to identify female

intrapreneurs according to the required criteria. Due to the fact, that female family intrapreneurs

in male-dominated industries are challenging to find, snowball sampling allowed to encourage

other women to participate through direct contacts of participants. Furthermore,

purposive/judgmental sampling permitted to explicitly select interviewees according to the

research design (Taherdoost, 2016). The researcher attempted to differentiate the sample as

much as possible, between age, and work department to get the most variance. Participants were

contacted through telephone and e-mail. All 11 interviewees come from South Tyrol, the

northernmost province of Italy.

TABLE 1: RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

RESPONDENT AGE RELATION TO OWNER ENTRY POSITION CURRENT POSITION IN COMPANY/DEPARTMENT INDUSTRY

M1 62 DAUGTHER ROTATING EMPLOYEE CEO CONSTRUCTION & MANUFACTURINGM2 53 WIFE SECRETARY MANAGING PARTNER TRANSPORTATIONM3 44 DAUGHTER SECRETARY MANAGING PARTNER CONSTRUCTION & MANUFACTURINGM4 54 WIFE SECRETARY CEO TRANSPORTATIONM5 39 DAUGHTER ROTATING EMPLOYEE MANAGING PARTNER MANUFACTURINGM6 38 NIECE ROTATING EMPLOYEE MANAGING PARTNER MANUFACTURING

I1 49 WIFE SECRETARY HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION/BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTIONI2 39 DAUGHTER ARCHITECT ARCHITECT/ PLANNING MANAGER CONSTRUCTIONI3 31 DAUGHTER INTERNSHIP HEAD OF MARKETING / PROJECT MANAGER CONSTRUCTIONI4 37 GRANDCHILD MARKETING HEAD OF STRATEGIC MARKETING MANUFACTURINGI5 37 DAUGHTER INTERNSHIP CHIEF SALES OFFICER MANUFACTURING

CURRENT MANAGING PARTNERS/LEADERS = M

CURRENT INTRAPRENEURS = I


3.3 DATA ANALYSIS

After the interviews have been conducted and audio-recorded via Zoom, they were transcribed

using “intelligent transcription” by the researcher. Furthermore, interviews were codified with

MaxQDA. This step allowed to derive and categorize codes and subcodes, as well as

“differentiate the important from the unimportant elements” (Kammerlander & De Massis,

2020, p. 33). In this context, data was coded from participant to participant. During first cycle

coding, single words and full paragraphs have been assigned to initially drawn codes, which

were based on the topic of inquiry and literature. These first rounds of structured, in vivo and

open coding allowed to apply the codes to direct and indirect sections relevant to the research

topic, and eventually add new codes (Saldaña, 2009). The second cycle coding process, based

on axial coding, helped reconfigure the codes, draw connections and aggregate them into more

extensive categories. In practice, a blended approach (Graebner, Martin, and Roundy, 2012, as

cited by Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019), combining inductive and deductive coding, has been

applied. While inductive coding allowed staying close to the diversity of data, deductive coding

helped unfolding theory (Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019).

Afterwards, codes from all transcripts were drawn together and grouped into categories (Sutton

& Austin, 2015). However, as coding and interpretation are “interrelated processes that co-

evolve” (Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019, p.19), the post-coding analysis occurred “in the middle

of things” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/1987, as cited by St. Pierre & Jackson, 2014). Given that

this thesis is interested in the experience of female family intrapreneurs, a content analysis, as

well as objective hermeneutics, have been employed. In this regard, analysing content ”close

to the text, can be seen as phenomenological description, and more latent content, distant from

the text, can be seen as hermeneutic interpretation” (Graneheim et al., 2017, p. 30). Objective

hermeneutics, by definition, implies “textual exegesis” (Wernet, 2014), viz. the latent meaning

of texts. Originally, the method was developed in the context of family observation and is used

to “reveal the latent meaning of utterances” (Wernet, 2014, p. 235). Due to the delicate topic,

the researcher focused on what was said, as well as intention and literal expression.


3.4 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Confidentiality and anonymity have been regulated with the declaration of consent, where

participants got informed about data collection. Moreover, it provides them with the right to

withdraw from the research at any time. The consent for participation has been gathered based

on the following criteria: the person giving the consent was competent to do so, has been

informed and has given it voluntarily (Flick, 2009).

Another ethical issue refers to the sensitivity of the topic. In family business research, a lived

work experience investigation is private and delicate. Consequently, research needs to be

conducted with empathy and a professional approach. In this respect, “the researcher might

have to exclude relevant, interesting – but at the same time also revealing or hurting –

information” (Nordqvist et al, 2009). Furthermore, participants data and statements are included

anonymized and provide an objective basis for interpretations.


4.0 FINDINGS This chapter will discuss how female family intrapreneurs experience their work-life in male-

dominated industries. More detailed (FIGURE 2), females encountered challenges, barriers,

and stereotypes, through their position in the family business within male-dominated industries.

Results reveal findings of females’ professional life, by analysing their role, degree of visibility

and the family business relationship. Subsequently, the organisational level’s impact, viz.

company structure, culture and offered support, will examine the influence on intrapreneurship.

The individual level and required skillsets regarding personality traits, characteristics and

attitudes demonstrate how woman assert themselves within the male-dominated industry

operating FB. While the organisational and individual level will help explain the “multilevel

nature of intrapreneurship” (Neessen et al.,2019, p. 560), outcomes outline the importance of

articulating still present gender inequalities from a critical perspective, as well as experienced

progress within this subject.

FIGURE 2: FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS’ WORK ENVIRONMENT


4.1 WOMEN’S PROFESSIONAL LIFE

The first category examines the influence of female’s relation to the owner and founder. This

refers to the educational and work experiential impact on their professional life, analysed from

their current work position. Furthermore, the section investigates the family business entry

motives and positions, as well as the degree of visibility, external and internal family business

relationships and encountered barriers and stereotypes.

4.1.1 FEMALE ROLES

FIGURE 3: RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOUNDER

The qualitative results reveal that all investigated respondents have a direct or indirect relation

to the founder. While the majority (55%) can be categorised as daughters of the founder, 27%

are wives, 9% nieces and another 9% grandchildren. While daughters, wives and grandchildren

grew up with the family business and the majority seemed to have “beared it in mind” (I4) as

a potential career opportunity, wives entered to help their husband (Dhiman & Kaur, 2011).

Daughters entered because they were already interested in the operating family firm industry

and chose corresponding degree programs (I2), or because it has been put into their “cradle”

(I3) and seemed to be a reasonably logical conclusion. This further justifies the daughter’s entry

as a “constrained and natural choice” (Gheradi & Perrotta, 2016).

Overall, the most frequent entry reasons were finishing the studies (46%), followed by a love

relationship with the owner/and or founder (27%) and personal/family circumstances (27%).

Hereby, finishing the studies is in line with Halkias et al. (2012) findings, that FB are very

likely to influence woman’s educational path.

55%27%

9%9%

FOUNDER RELATION

DAUGHTER WIFE NIECE GRANDCHILD


More detailed, 73% were encouraged by family members to enter and solely 27% explained

self-initiative as the primary entry motive. This is in accordance with the findings of Dumas

(1992) and Salganicoff (1990), which identified various reasons daughters enter the FB. Those

reach from helping the family to fill a position, flexible schedules and to improve job

satisfaction.

FIGURE 4: FAMILY BUSINESS ENTRY

On the other hand, the main entry position for females seems to be the traditional administrative

office/accounting department (36%), followed by job rotation (27%), an internship (18%), and

educational/work experience-based positions (18%). In this regard, educational based positions

depend on the degree of specialisation and/or prior work experience. Further, findings are in

accordance with Dumas (1992) and Vera & Dean (2005), which revealed that typically

daughters enter the family firm to help with administrative work and end up remaining

permanently. Also, accounting is a common role for spouses (Poza & Messer, 2001).

Additionally, females entering a certain position, either had a degree or previous work

experience in this area, which justified their capability for that role (Vera & Dean, 2005).

All women joined the family firm as employees and were able the climb the career ladder over

the years. Females, who reached the managing partner role did that by family request (50%) or

unexpected occurrences (50%). In this respect, compelled leadership has been identified

(Cesaroni & Sentuti, 2015). Additionally, many investigated managers/leaders have been

identified as prior intrapreneurs, as they implemented innovative and intrapreneurial projects

already before their promotion. In comparison, all intrapreneurs were able to position

themselves as managers by choice (Ibid.), through experience, competence, and specific

skillsets. To better understand women’s roles in FB, the following part will demonstrate

findings regarding female’s degree of visibility.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE / ACCOUNTING

INTERNSHIP

SPECIALISATION BASED POSITION

JOB ROTATION

ENTRY JOBS


4.1.2 DEGREE OF VISIBILITY

PICTURE 1: FEMALES’ DEGREE OF VISIBILITY

By the means of PE, the degree of visibility has been investigated. As apparent in PICTURE 1,

interviewees had the possibility to choose among four photos. From a personal reference level,

67% of the investigated managers chose picture 3, 16.5% picture 1, and 16.5 % none of them.

M4 justified the selection with feeling mirrored in picture 1, as the woman seems to be the

entrepreneur, alone in her office. She further added: “the picture probably mirrors me because

I am not the one, who is not outwardly a lot in public. That is not what lies in my nature, but I

would rather lead the company from my office”. Correspondingly, picture 1 has been identified

with women’s entry role at the beginning (M3), as well as a follow-up situation in regard to

picture 3 – M6 stated that “women do think very strategical but also accomplish a lot alone

because it often comes to situations as in picture 3”. Despite the reference to the first picture,

she selected picture 3. This has been associated with the need for preparation and fight to avoid

glances, as from the man in blue in the picture. M3 and M6 recognised similar situations. M3

made an identical observation at her tax accountant’s office and further explained that “it says

a lot about how men think of women and also how the woman has a block and might be

prepared. A man would never think about that”. Further, she noticed that “people know me

now and do not look at me in such a derogative way anymore, because I have the back of the

company” (M3). Also, M6 found a personal reference to the situation, as at a Monday meeting

presentation, men looked at her similarly as in picture 3. On the other hand, it seemed “that

the woman has already asserted herself” (M2), because “they sit on their chair and listen to

me” (M1) and “they are equal” (M2).

None of the participants found a personal reference to picture 2 and 4. While picture 2 has been

identified as traditional role oriented regarding “the woman is more the secretary of the man”


(I3) and the man is the boss (I5). I3 additionally noted that the boss and secretary do not appear

to be on the same level. She further found that at the beginning women surely enter the boss’

office as apparent in the painting. On the other hand, picture 4 remained unidentified to the

extent that it “shows a fearful expression” and “emanates discomfort” (I4). On the other hand,

60% of female intrapreneurs were able to find a reference to picture 3. Although 20% found an

exclusive relation to picture 1, 20% could identify themselves with both, viz. painting 1 and

photo 3. I4 argued:

"I think we, as women, are in general in the background and it is harder to get at the

forefront and women might not want it as much as men", "I think I am the feminist contrary,

but I believe that men do have more of a fulfilment need. I mean, they need to show off more,

they need to dominate, they need to be front row, more of a boss. And I believe as a woman you

come to a point, where you say, the main thing is that the idea is going to be implemented”.

In this regard, she admitted to “pull the strings” in the background because she does not always

like to position herself at the front. Furthermore, picture 3 has been perceived as “competition”,

where all four individuals might be potential candidates for a meeting (I3). However, I4

described the woman as comfortable and able to withstand the looks of men.

All female managers felt visible in their job, compared to 80% of intrapreneurs. The difference

could be explained by the position within the company, as well as the father-daughter

relationship (Barnes & Kaftan, 1990), as intrapreneurs seem to be subordinated to the

manager/owner. In general, the majority of females concluded that women are visible within

the FB and the male-dominated industry, “simply because you are exotic” (M3), or because

they overtook major council roles within networks (I3, M3). The visibility contradicts Cole’s

(1997) findings, that women tend to feel invisible in their professional capabilities, which

probably depends on female’s attitude (I5). Also, I5 selected the 3rd picture because her male-

dominated study program required her to position herself at an early age. This kind of reflection

showed that early educational experience within male-dominated areas, viz. growing up with

males or studying with them, might foster women’s ability to assert themselves and become

visible. Now that respondents have outlined their degree of visibility, the subsequent part

discusses their family business relationships.


4.1.3 FAMILY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

This section reflects on the internal and external relationships, encountered gender stereotypes,

as well as barriers in the context of family and business, within the male-dominated sector

(TABLE 2).

Internal relationships

Three major internal family business challenges emerged from qualitative data: balance of

family and business, communication, and relationships with employees.

The family and business balance presents a decisive challenge for 73% of females, to the extent

as M5 specified:

“You need to be able to separate family and business, which is not easy. When you have

divergent opinions, you cannot leave the office and say, you will never see them again. I

probably see the person at home and then it is easy to say, you need to separate family and

business and be objective. But I could never say everything is okay, because there are things

you take home and then you need to face them and find compromises. The most important thing

is communication and finding a common ground because you are family, also through the eyes

of your employees. I believe that it is a big plus to continue a family business with mutual

respect and knowing that there are different points of view, but you are capable of

compromising and finding a solution.”

Additionally, FB differ because of their emotional level. I4 explained that her parents managed

to separate family and business extremely well through an agreement. The latter constraints

business discussions at home. However, I4 found it hard to comply with, especially at the

beginning, as she was working with both of her parents. Interviewees explained that the

emotional level cannot be turned off completely, in particular between family members. In this

respect, emotions could have an impact on risk assessment and strategy formulation (Mittal &

Ross, 1998) and affect rational decision-making (Baron, 2008).

Moreover, generational moral concepts seem to differ in this regard, as older generations are

more likely to adhere to stereotypes than younger adults (Radvansky, Copeland & Hippel

2010):

“I think it is very difficult for my dad to accept me as a boss. I think he is from an older

generation, where he assumes men manage certain areas. He definitely tends into that direction


and you need to fight for what you want. Because for him a woman simply is a person, who has

her work areas and when she’s getting children, she is finished, her race is over” (I3).

These findings are in line with Cole’s (1997) proposition of work-family conflict.

Consequently, I3 has not been considered as a viable sole successor but been accepted together

with her brother (Aronoff, 1998; Gersick et al., 1999). On the other hand, the relationship with

her brother has been seen as advantageous and harmonious, especially, because of the resulting

strength and the fact, that family will never simply leave the way employees might. The

harmonious relationship results from the clear division of responsibilities (Handler, 1991).

Furthermore, I5 mentioned:

“Since I am head of sales, for three years now, I have more touchpoints with my dad.

He was always, how can I formulate it, very demanding. He always told me to be the first and

last one leaving. In general, we have a good relationship, sometimes we have different opinions,

but it works, everybody states his/her opinion. But of course, you take your work home”.

This relates to research outcomes, that father’s express scepticism towards daughters (Barnes

& Kaftan, 1990). In this context, 64% of respondents also underlined communication as

important, as it has a profound impact on “a positive family culture and a well-run family firm”

(Poza et al., 1997, p.140). Family communication interconnects members interaction and their

social realities, by defining the family (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004).

In particular, family meetings are proven to enhance communication. However, “this is a

degree, which is mixed up, where we need to abandon the sibling’s level and the parental level

and be rational, which is quite challenging” (M4). Accordingly, it seems to be challenging to

distinguish between family and business in meeting, primarily as members share a private

connection. Therefore, the private relationship will be reflected in the provided meeting

answers (M4). Also, parenting style seems to majorly influence family communication (Ibid.),

which is highly likely to affect family business communication patterns. More detailed, an open

conversation probably contributes to a well-functioning family and business relationship

(Schrodt et al., 2007).

A noticeably demanding task for female family intrapreneurs regarding employees and

suppliers is the requirement to prove their competence as employee and manager. 73% of

females mentioned employee relationships as an initial challenge. In this respect, I5 stated that

colleagues assumed her to have no comprehension as a woman. Nevertheless, she proved


herself by “less talking, more doing”. This appears to particularly concern daughters, as non-

family employees and clients tend to oversee them (Cole, 1997) at the beginning. Daughters

seem to encounter statements as “she is the boss’s daughter” or “a wannabe boss” regularly.

Additionally, I4 emphasised that friends and family might link her job with “you are just in the

family firm” and assume her to postpone the work schedule flexibly. Concerning this matter,

past literature identified the schemes of “daddy’s little girl” and the businesswoman (Dumas,

1989; 1992).

Further, employees appear to feel threatened regarding their jobs when daughters enter. Also,

“there were situations, where employees wanted to talk with the older generation and of course,

I felt invisible but not as a woman, more because I was perceived as ‘wannabe junior boss’”

(M5). I1 experienced similar situations, where clients and suppliers did not perceive her as

responsible and wanted to talk with the boss, especially as they did not know her field of

competence. Likewise, M2 explained that clients preferred the additional opinion of her

husband or a male employee after she suggested a product. At the beginning, “they wanted to

talk to my husband because he was perceived as boss and I was the ‘appendage’ or the

secretary” (M2).

On the other hand, female family intrapreneurs perceive themselves as an interface between

boss and employees, viz. I3 is able to have objective discussions with workers and even prevent

them from leaving the company. Simultaneously, she finds herself forced into a police position,

geared to control that employees comply with the rules, specifically with COVID-19. Despite

the business relation, it is possible to build a friendship with employees outside the company

by setting clear rules regarding business and work (M5). The latter finding contradicts

Salganicoff’s (1990) statement of friendships as taboo for female family members.

In addition, the need to justify the own work schedule also appeared to be a problem.

Accordingly, M6 alluded that working from home two afternoons a week because of her kids

requires constant justification. Every time she leaves the office, employees keep blaming her

absence as a vacation. Yet, despite the technological advancement, employees might still

devaluate females work performance. Hence, women are required to clearly position and assert

themselves. Overall, competence seems to be a very important factor for legitimizing females’

internal and external position.

External relationships

Concerning external relationships, competence and negotiations have been described by 73%

as highly challenging. Traditional gender roles seem to still stick out within negotiations and


client/supplier meetings. Thus, as I5 arrived in Serbia to install a new machine as an engineer,

the client immediately classified her as secretary. Only after proving herself, the client

recovered from his “state of shock”. In general, “as a young woman they do not take you

seriously and when you go to the site, the construction manager or someone external tend to

grind and ask you, what you would do there (…). Once someone thought I was the employee’s

girlfriend, who took me with him” (I3). This is concordant with Dumas (1998), inasmuch as

women’s capabilities were traditionally not respected.

A small minority (27%) of females even experienced sexual harassment or being treated with

sexual interests, specifically considering supplier and client relationships. I5 argued: “I think it

is the expectation to negotiate with a woman. They expect flattering the woman will help them

win the negotiation”. Also, I4 explained that once negotiations get tougher, “men tend to go

below the belt”, by complimenting and sexualizing. This is in line with Watts (2007) findings

that women, on one hand, tend to be perceived as a “physical spectacle” (Watts, 2007, p. 307)

but also as less competent. Accordingly, I4 had an extreme experience of sexual harassment

with a supplier:

“We went on a trip with clients to a supplier and I was the only woman. That was

something I needed to get used to because I was often alone in the midst of men, especially in

the sales meeting. Usually, I do not have any problems with that. Anyways, I drove with clients

and some colleagues to our supplier, and it was a long trip. Then we had a casual workday,

and, in the evening, we went out for some drinks. Then the supplier became more obtrusive

until he unambiguously asked me if he could come with me to my room. I grabbed my colleague

and asked him to bring me home. I locked my room and did not leave until the next morning.

He did not even apologize the next day, he accused the alcohol but that is not an excuse.”

Sex-role spill over still seems to be a problem, as women are treated differently in male-

dominated sectors (Gutek & Morasch, 1982). In this regard, the qualitative data proved “high

percentages of one sex in an occupation, causes the gender role for that sex to spill over” (Ely,

1995, p. 595). However, this solely relates to external relationships. Even though, females might

still be identified with the “sex object role” (Ibid., p. 618), they seem to ignore and tolerate it,

as they alluded to have developed a rougher shell and become accustomed to such behaviour.

I2 explained, it is important to not take comments too seriously. In this respect, growing up

with the family business and the male-dominated industry appears to impact female’s behaviour

and enhance the tolerance barrier for discrimination.


TABLE 2: BARRIERS

RESPONDANTS"And than I was the one, who wanted to talk about business at home and my family clearly said, they won't do that. And I believe that's important, I mean, I was quite astonished (…)" (I4)

"It's more difficult. When you work in a family firm it's more difficult because you are involved with your heart. You cannot switch off your phone, as employees do. I am 24h available, especially since Corona, because many employees call me on saturday/sunday" (I3)"You need to follow one line and say that you won't tolerated that anymore" (M4)"I think it is important to say, I am here and I have a say. I believe it is the confidence to talk (…)" (M6)"I believe a lot depends on the communication within the company" (M6)

"I needed to assert myself daily because of various reasons. On one hand, because I am a woman, on the other hand, because I am a family member" (I4)"And you need to demonstrate your competence and I was very happy to had prior work experience" (I4)

"I think, it is easier to accept decisions taken by a men" (M6)"Clients come and ask, where is the boss" (M3)

"If I do not go to eat privately with a business partner, I might keep the distance. Tomorrow I am able to say it is on you and not because we eat out yesterday, it is down to me. I believe it is very important to separte the privat life from business" (I1)

"I was new as a woman and the competitors wanted to steal my employees (…). And they often placed obstacles and then the, the big ones, the competitors, said I will last one year (…)" (M1)

"I remember, I was in the car with an agent. We have accompanied a client because of a reclamation I pursuit and the client did not know that I was in the car and he complained about me, that I have no clue what I am doing and we will get nowhere (…)" (M5)"In a male domain it's still that females are attractive and a woman is a secretary" (M6)"Also i.e. austrian suppliers, which all of a sudden told me I have always been a gorgeous cat" (I4)

CHALLENGES

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

FAMILY AND BUSINESS BALANCE

COMMUNICATION

EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS

COMPETENCE AND NEGOTIATIONS

SEXUAL HARASSMENT


Challenges and Stereotypes

FIGURE 5: FORMATION OF STEREOTYPES

As visible in FIGURE 5, stereotypes and clichés are deeply rooted in society and seem to be

educational results of social agents such as parents or teachers, which shape children’s

behaviour (Bussey & Bandura, 1984) and seem to influence society. In this context, females

encountered stereotypes, as they grew up within FB, which operate in male-dominated

industries. Also, the value system of the father/founder might influence the organisational

approach to stereotypes, especially regarding the father-daughter relationship.

Social feminism elicited that different experiential backgrounds lead to “different - but equally

valid – ways of thinking” (Fischer et al. 1993, cited in Barrett & Moores, 2009, p. 365).

Nevertheless, female family intrapreneurs and managers find themselves in conflict with the

required masculine identity, because in male-dominated industries and leading positions “you

need to think like a man” (M1). Interestingly, M2 stated to have encountered scepticism more

from female clients than males (Cole, 1997) – “I remember a client, which did not want to talk

to me but would rather talk to my husband.” Only through competence, she was able to

convince the client over the years.

Furthermore, education from institutions, such as schools and universities seem to have an

impact on encountered stereotypes as well. In this regard, I5 explained:

"I believe that's an attitude because I was studying and living in a men world and there

it is normal to assert yourself (…). Once at university I did an exam, I remember it now. Electric

or electronic measurement and there was an older professor, and the grade range was between

18 (which is sufficient) and 30, the maximum. I passed the written exam quite well and went to

the oral exam. Then he told me, you are well prepared, I give you 28. And then I asked, yes and

STEREOTYPES & BARRIERS

SOCIAL GROUPS (FAMILY)

EDUCATION

GENDER ROLES


why? Yeah, I cannot give you 30, because you as a woman do not have any practical sense and

I principally don't give 29."

Hence, the educational system still has an enormous impact on gender equality. However,

females seem to have accepted the fact to dominantly assert themselves and to speak up (Cole,

1997). Also, I2 had the impression “that you need to prove yourself more to get treated

equally”. This is in accordance with literature, as daughters might work harder to prove their

competence (Vera & Dean, 2005). While first-generation gender biases refer to visible acts of

discrimination, second generation bias regards implicitly implemented behaviour, women

tolerate (Grover, 2015). As a consequence, some barriers depend on how females position

themselves, and if they accept stereotypical behaviour within their social group (Hunzaker,

2014). I2 further stated: “I realised that sometimes women put themselves into that position”,

which is congruent with conducted research (Curimbaba, 2002; Damaske, 2011; Lewis-Enright

et al., 2009; Mathur-Helm, 2006; Shantz & Wright, 2011). Hence, encountered barriers seem

to correlate with female’s acceptance of stereotypical roles.

On the other hand, the ridge between positioning oneself and aggressiveness is narrow (I5),

because women should approach work by being assertive but not aggressive (Vera & Dean,

2005). As literature linked aggressiveness to interpersonal conflicts and anger, assertiveness

can be defined by pursuing a goal in a “non-dominant or non-aggressive manner” (Ames &

Flynn 2007). I4 described:

“It was very important that I emancipated myself and that I defined my position,

especially because I am a woman. I am convinced that it makes a difference. If I was a man,

then everything would be different. On the other side, you need to avoid having a girl’s image”.

She further explained that she felt prone to be put into a “girls’ drawer” because she was

young. This starts with trivial questions such as “are you writing the minutes today?” (I4) or

“a man in a meeting states his opinion once, and a woman needs to say it three times” (M6).

Further, barriers seem to depend on “how you express yourself as a woman” (M6). In this

respect, I4 attended a training on how to place and assert herself as a woman, where she learned

about male and female thinking processes – “women are more participative, aiming for

consensus and are mostly content oriented”. In addition, she stated to be more result oriented.

This is concordant with Eagly & Johnson’s (1990) findings, whereby female leaders are said to


care more about task accomplishment than men. Yet, “men care more about profiling

themselves with the result” (I4).

Another apparent barrier refers to the biological fact, that females seem to be more limited

through motherhood (Cole, 1997). I4 finds it extremely challenging to keep up with men on a

career level. These results approve traditional gender norms, which connect childcare

responsibilities with females (Becker et al., 2019). Non-family businesses seem to even provide

worse conditions, as women do not have the back of the family firm. In addition, one woman

expressed her experience with hiring based discrimination. In this regard, companies are likely

to not hire non-female family members because of pregnancy (M3).

For a more accurate comprehension of the family firms, the previous part reflects upon the

organisational level.

4.2 ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL

This section analyses the company structure and culture, shared values and offered company

support for females within the family business.

4.2.1 COMPANY STRUCTURE

As proved by different authors, the company structure and strategy in FB strongly depend on

the influence of the family (Lyman et al., 1985; Ponthieu & Caudill, 1993; Voydanoff, 1990;

Rowe & Hong, 2000; Marshack, 1994). Similar to that, I3 noted that the structure and role

allocation “depends on the leadership” (I3). More precisely, “you need to examine the

intention of the founders” (M4). This statement follows the findings of Poza, Alfred and

Maheshwari (1997), viz. the values of the founder relate to the organisational culture of FB. In

this context, stereotypical gender roles are proofed to influence organisational structures

(Martin & Barnard, 2013). Interviewees stated that a female leader is more likely to support

women. On the other hand, Eagly & Johnson (1990) argue that women orientation is lower

when men dominate. This has been supported by M2:

“If we look at other companies, where females lead, everything is accepted differently,

also a girl, which starts working, will be integrated quicker. I think it is an advantage in


comparison to a firm with no female leader but just secretaries - that’s at least what I

experienced”.

Additionally, M6 elucidated that the size of the company could limit gender equality, especially

in large corporations. As a middle-sized company, her family business is able to not tolerate

discrimination. In general, reaching gender equality within the company has been perceived as

a long-term process, linked to the space firms provide clichés internally. In this respect, M4

emphasised the importance of taking a stand for the company culture as a leader to avoid

contestations. Moreover, she explained:

” Within our firm do not exist gender-specific roles. That means my daughters are able

to drive a truck and me too, when it is needed. But the structure is a bit different: my son is

responsible for the operational business and the logistics; my daughter is head of

administration/digitalisation and my other daughter is responsible for clients and will take over

the business”.

However, the successor has not been arbitrarily chosen but rather been selected out of a long-

term process linked to competence and personality traits.

Furthermore, structures in FB seem to be internally clear and distinguish from officially

communicated hierarchies. As I4 recounts:

“The organisational chart of a medium-sized company does not really matter. It is not

really internal, in-house you actually communicate it. Particularly, in family firms, the

organisational chart exists just on paper because the structures are very clear.”

Also, I4 mentioned that the company culture always prevails to the extent that employees “feel”

the management style. She finds it more difficult to change a whole organisation when it is a

non-family business. In addition, some FB have a family council, where “all management

positions are held by family members” (I4) - Respectively, the family council, as demonstrated

by Melin & Nordqvist (2007) is a typical governance practice for managing the family business.

Having family members in key positions assures trust, as “you know that you can 100% rely

on them” (M4). Nevertheless, the difference between family and business seems challenging

because “it is different when I talk to employees and when I need to say it to my brother” (M3).

Hereby, it is essential to have clear regulations and structures.


4.2.2 COMPANY CULTURE

In accordance with research, the findings revealed that the company culture is directly

influenced by the founder (Hall et al., 2001). In this regard, I3 encountered obstacles from the

employees, as well as from her father (the owner), when she attempted to change the culture.

She was required to break taboos and assert herself, in front of employees and the owner.

Moreover, the company culture is connected to the value system of the company. I4

acknowledged sharing the same value system with her mother, who is a managing partner.

Further, she grew up with those family values, which are emanated by the firm. Values are

communicated by the family and as M6 elucidated, those are reflected in the company culture,

viz. “The value WE, simply means that we work together on topics, that everybody is free to

state his/her opinion. That everybody is important when he/she says his/her opinion. I think that

helped me a lot and that's why I believe that in a family firm you are a big family” (M6).

This refers to Schein’s (1995) findings, that culture is one of the most coercive and stable forces

in a company. Moreover, it supports Stock’s et al, (2007) adapted organisational cultural

typology framework from Cameron and Quinn (1999) about clan culture. The latter implies a

culture deeply anchored within the family (Dyer, 1986; Merino et al., 2015). A positive family

culture has been proven as important for the creation of a family-firm culture (Poza, Alfred &

Maheshwari, 1997). In addition, culture is transmitted by the transgenerational relationship of

family members and the succession process (Zahra et al., 2004).

According to Vallejo (2008), a good culture classifies itself through appreciation, commitment,

long term orientation, communication and conflict solving abilities – This has been witnessed

by I4’s statement:

“What is it that distinguishes you from a non-family business? I think we are more long-

term oriented. We do not have the pressure to justify our numbers and can simply be okay with

them. Also, the money flows back to the company because you are not success-oriented but look

in the long run for yourself.

Furthermore, females implicitly assumed that family businesses are classified by “familiness”,

through emotional and affectionate ties (Kepner, 1983). In this context, the family culture seems

to respect employees as family members, which share the same values but support individual

qualities and skillsets (M2).


4.2.3 COMPANY SUPPORT

“The family business has the great advantage when you look together than we are not

5. Two plus three does not make five but a multiple. When you work together you are

able to release different energies.” (M4)

The following section will provide an overview (TABLE 3) of outcomes regarding benefits and

support females receive from the firm, by contrasting them with non-family businesses.

As proved by family business literature, family firms offer women a flexible work environment

(Salganicoff, 1990; Vera & Dean, 2005), particularly regarding job rotation and

childcare/family. Job rotation, more specifically cross-functional rotation, allows employees to

switch from department to department with the aim to improve employee’s skillsets and value

to the company (Ho et al., 2009). This seems highly beneficial for female intrapreneurs, as they

are able to implement a cross-departmental project. Overall, 40% of intrapreneurs rotated

through different departments before specializing to gather an operational comprehension. On

the other hand, 67% of interviewed managers experienced job rotation in their career, which

might have led to their management position.

Another particularly relevant advantage for women is the flexible work schedule regarding

females family life and childcare (Salganicoff, 1990; Vera & Dean, 2005, Cesaroni & Sentuti,

2015). In this regard, it is very important to not think of “children as an alibi, that’s big

pressure. We need to organise ourselves. We work because we like it and not only because of

the money. Thus, we need to focus on work” (M4). According to M4, it is fine to postpone

appointments in case of urgency. However, it should not be exaggerated up to trivialities.

Furthermore, flexible work schedules also have a downside, because “there are days, where

you work 12-13 hours” (M4), and, where you “work at night or the weekend” (I2).

A very important advantage can be linked to trust (Campopiano et al., 2017; Cooper et al.,

2005). The latter is, on one hand, reflected in the given freedom and family support. Trust can

be generated through the emotional connection of couples (Cole & Johnson, 2007). Hence, I1

explained: “I have more freedom and more possibilities to talk with my husband, also to express

concerns. Probably I could bring myself in more than elsewhere”. Also, M2 stated that she

would be able to understand her husband’s problems and address them together. In general,

females mentioned to benefit from shorter communication paths and complete reliance on the

family. Moreover, women emphasised the freedom of self-creation and independent project


realisation. This freedom can be further linked to female’s willingness to give more, as well as

the possibility to contribute more (I1). This freedom seems not possible in non-family

businesses, where females cited “to only realise projects of others” (I2).

Additionally, women appeared to have support from the family, especially from female leaders

and founders. I4 explained that her grandmother and mother “paved her the way” but she

needed to prove her expertise as a woman. Also, the collaboration and support of the family

helped I2 grow her practical knowledge. In general, family businesses share the fact that the

whole company can be considered as a family. This further implies helping each other to

position themselves and supporting personal development (M6). On the other hand, females

have a responsibility towards their family and are required to clearly state their objectives (M5).

Also, the following statement demonstrated, that women feel supported by male family

members, when ignored by clients or external professionals (Cole, 1997):

“I have the privilege that I have men behind me, which help me out. Probably you will

be already classified differently if they notice that you come from the construction industry, so

you are not new” (I2).

As revealed by research, FB offer females an entry ticket into male-dominated industries (Cole,

1997). In this respect, females have the good reputation of the business behind them (Vera &

Dean, 2005). Furthermore, if the owner’s wife or daughter are in the company, it seems easier

to accept their competence and role as boss, because employees, suppliers or clients do not have

any other choice. Especially, the good name of the family firm requires external professionals

to take women seriously. The name of the company further helped females gather recognition

within the sector, as they were suggested by male representatives to take on presidential roles

of industry associations. Nevertheless, participants agreed on non-family businesses: “If you

would apply as a woman in this sector, you will have problems” (M3).

Yet, despite the important family business benefits, assertiveness and the individual level have

been mentioned as central elements for females work position.


TABLE 3: BENEFITS

RESPONDANTS“ I am very grateful that my dad gave me the opportunity to go fromdepartment to department, not just for 1 year but for 5-6 years andthen I said I am interested in that department, and I started educatingmyself about it.” (M5)

“I started as developer, then I was in the technical department, the project management, product management and then they said I am good with clients, I should manage sales.” (I5)“I started as intern by checking out all positions in order to understand them and then I got the task to introduce an occupational safety certification.” (I3)”It has an advantage for family planning, also from a growthperspective because in other companies I worked, I worked forothers.” (I4)

“I always said, if I had kids, I would like to be with them. Therefore, Ialready talked with my dad and brother that I will not work 100% butpart-time until they grow up. (…) Also, the possibility to structure mywork as I prefer. That are of course advantages in a family business,because you can agree among each other, but the rules need to beclear, and the business needs to go on.” (M5)

“I work from home two afternoons a week because I have two children.” (M6)“It is very flexible for me, because of my two children. And it was no discussion that I could structure my time as I prefer - if I work at night or at the weekend. Also, I could stay at home for a certain period. I think that’s not so easy in non-family businesses, because business goes on, also when you step a bit back. And that’s not so easy for a woman, especially to take enough time for her family..” (I2)“I had the advantage that my husband allowed me to take action

and I had his back. When I would have been in another company, Imight not have taken that kind of action.” (I1)“On one hand you are giving more, when needed also on a sunday.But one is also more willing to give more. On the other hand, you getmore as you contribute more.” (I1)"They give me a wide latitude and have huge trust in what I do. Ingeneral, I just need to talk quickly with them, and they usually agreewith me." (I2)

“I think a family business is a group, where different characters andvarious interests and skillsets come together but you can rely oneverybody. You do not need to control if their work is done wellbecause you know everybody gives 100%, if not 200%. Also, theydon’t do something else while work, as it might happen in non-familybusinesses.” (I2)

“ I think it is definitely an advantage when you have the family standing behind you, since you were little, and you see how it works.” (I2)“When you work as a female in a family business you have responsibility for your family and for the employees. But you need clear rules, and you need to know what you want..” (M5)“From an early age on, we talked about the company at home and lived for the company. Therefore, the whole product range is easy to understand for me.” (I4)”I could develop positively because you receive help from each side when you don’t know something. Coming right from the studies you don’t have any practice and that’s very important and my family helped me a lot.” (I2)

“When I went somewhere, I did it on behalf of the company and everybody knew the company, thereupon I had a different background. I think, that’s a huge difference. (…) You are the daughter, and nobody questions your competence.”(M3)

INDUSTRY ENTRY TICKET

ADVANTAGES

WORK FLEXIBILITY

JOB-ROTATION

CHILD CARE & FAMILY

TRUST

FREEDOM

SUPPORT


4.3 INDIVIDUAL LEVEL The findings of this section explain the impact of personality traits, characteristics, and attitudes

on intrapreneurship and female leadership in a family business environment within male-

dominating industries. Based on the qualitative interviews, the individual level, consisting of

personality traits, characteristics, and attitude, mainly developed within the family environment

(FIGURE 6).

FIGURE 6: INDIVIDUAL LEVEL AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT

4.3.1 PERSONALITY TRAITS

Participants’ personality trait reflection evinced that 83.33% of female managers perceive

extraversion as important for their current position. The investigated managers connected

extraversion with curiosity, albeit M6 added: “It is simply important for the company to position

itself. I believe everybody needs to find his place in society and also how he/she positions

him/herself in public". Correspondingly, extraversion seems to be interrelated with the

company and leadership. This refers to Judge et al.’s (2002) findings, that extraversion is the

most important trait for leaders.

On the other hand, only 20% of the intrapreneurs evaluated extraversion as important, 40%

even classified it as unimportant for their job. I5 pointed out that extraversion is solely a

characteristic, where women are more “proactive and outgoing”. However, she alluded that

females are in general required to “lean out a little more to become visible”, which does not

entail introversion as weakness. This contradicts literature (Farrukh et al., 2016), as

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT

PERSONALITY

CHARACTERISTICSATTITUDE


extraversion seems to be more important for female leaders than for female intrapreneurs.

Moreover, introverted corporate entrepreneurs might, as well as introverted entrepreneurs,

focus on creating something, instead of networking (Bernstein, 2015).

Concerning conscientiousness, 66.67% of female managers consider it important, compared to

100% of female intrapreneurs. As I4 stated:

"I think it is important to be conscientious and structured, especially as a woman

because the fault tolerance might be slightly lower as for others". I1 clarified: “It gives you,

how should I say, strength and security, when you know something very precisely, then I can

go differently into negotiations or into meetings".

Thus, females are required to work harder to prove competence, contrasting Farrukh et al.’s

findings (2016) of a negative relationship between conscientiousness and intrapreneurial

behaviour (ib). Furthermore, openness to experience has been elicited by 83.33% of current

managers as important, compared to 100% of female intrapreneurs. Current intrapreneurs

perceive it as essential for their job, as well as a “general trait everybody should have a little

because you need to develop yourself. There are always new things, and you have to face new

challenges” (I3). This supports Honig’s (2001) findings, that the learning style of intrapreneurs

relates to their desire to expand their capabilities (Di Fabio, 2014).

On the other hand, female managers are slightly more concerned about the provided framework

of the company. In this context, M5 mentioned that openness is an important trait, “as long as

the firm enables it, that’s what you also need to consider”. As a result, both groups of women

classify it as imperative, but managers seem to further associate it with the regulatory

framework of the company. These findings sustain Farrukh et al.’s (2016) revelation of a

positive relationship between openness to experience and ib.

The reflection on agreeableness demonstrated that 83.33% of managers evaluated it as relevant.

However, only 60% of female intrapreneurs find it essential. I2 argued:

"I listen to people, when they have a better solution, than I take a look and maybe I make

slight changes, but I rarely say that it was completely wrong, and I do something totally

different. I can, of course, adapt little things, but I stick quite often to my line".

Nevertheless, the ridge between sticking to the own line and appearing “aggressive” seems

narrow – “Of course some women, in order to position are really/seem very aggressive, but


self-confident does not mean aggressive” (I5). In addition, I3 compared her willingness to

compromise with her father and she concluded that “he is like a flag waving in the breeze, and

that’s what a lot of men are”. She believes to be steadier, “which leads to conflicts”.

Moreover, 60% of female intrapreneurs claim empathy as an extremely important trait within

the family business, especially as a woman and because females seem to bring that with them

naturally (I4). Also, literature demonstrated that women have distinctively marked

characteristics such as empathy and kindness, while men are proven to be more aggressive and

confident (Eagly, 2007; Heilman, 2001). I3 even related it “to passion for what you are doing”

and as a “prerequisite for everything you do”. Managers see it more as a learning process,

where you “learn about people, how they really are” (M3). Yet, they also agree that

“willingness to compromise and empathy should be treated with caution” (M5). Especially as

a manager, it is important to be objective and unemotional to keep the line, because it is not

possible to invariably compromise. These findings dispute Farrukh et al.’s outcome, inasmuch

as females do not see agreeableness as weakness, but rather as strength.

Neuroticism has been considered pivotal by a small minority of female managers and none of

female intrapreneurs. In this regard, 50% of managers and 40% of intrapreneurs assessed it as

neither important nor unimportant and even 60% of intrapreneurs and 16.67% of managers find

it irrelevant. M1 stated that it is important to be sensitive and refined as a woman, “to get

compassion”. Moreover, M4 finds it important to possess the ability to address hurtful

statements – “Surely, in a company you should separate the private and the business, but also

show a human side and say, we are not machines”. Managers seem to assess this value with

greater importance, to an extent where M5 says: “we can have a friendship outside of work, but

the company is the company and work is work, there are clear rules".

On the contrary, intrapreneurs estimated it as not so important within the male-dominated

industry, because “men are not so interested in emotions. They want to talk facts and not

emotions” (I2). Furthermore, it seems to be associated with weakness, as it does not belong to

the men’s world (I3). Also, I4 concluded:

"I think the further you climb the leading ladder, the more you need to hide it"; "because

employees would like to see security. They would like to feel safe, and a certain vulnerability

would make them feel insecure, and that's what you like to avoid".

These findings are in line with Farrukh et al.’s (2016) result, that emotional stability is

imperative for intrapreneurs (Ibid.; García-Cabrera & García-Soto, 2009).


FIGURE 7: BIG FIVE

4.3.2 OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

As literature revealed that assertiveness, competence, communicational/rhetoric skills,

stubbornness, perseverance, and self-confidence are not linked to the big 5 personality traits

(Ames & Flynn, 2007), they have been recognised as additional characteristics in this section.

The results demonstrate that 80% of intrapreneurs and 50% of leaders evaluated competence

and expertise as one of the most important traits female family intrapreneurs need to possess.

I4 explained that competence allows women to assert themselves. Also, I1 finds it decisive to

have a proper education to demonstrate expertise. On the other hand, female managers

particularly emphasised social competence, which includes the ability to make decisions and

communicate them probably (M4). In this context, literature linked assertiveness to

competence, as assertive individuals are perceived as more competent and likeable (St

Lawrence et al., 1985). 60% of female intrapreneurs assume assertiveness as an incisive

interpersonal characteristic. Women relate the trait to steadfastness within negotiations and

meetings. However, the most essential characteristic for female managers is self-confidence. In

this regard, the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) applies insofar that women seem to

judge their capabilities according to their sense of achievements. M2 argued that strong

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

I

M

I

M

I

M

I

M

IEX

TRA

VERS

ION

CO

NSC

IEN

TIO

US-

NES

SO

PEN

NESS

TO

EXPE

RIE

NCE

AG

REEA

BLE-

NES

SN

EUR

OTI

CISM

IMPORTANCE

IMPORTANT NEITHER IMPORTANT NOR UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT


confidence facilitates persuasiveness. Further, it enhances problem identification and

unambiguous statement communication. M1 finds it easier to deal with stereotypes and

discrimination through her self-confidence. Likewise, intrapreneurs find self-confidence very

important and learned to position themselves already in childhood by growing up with brothers

(I2), or during the studies (I5). Further, I4 connects good appearance and self-esteem with well-

grounded communication. She finds it important to communicate probably, especially as “men

think different than women”. Therefore, women need to clearly articulate their intent. In

addition, I1 elucidated, “I prepare myself a lot and come up with convincing arguments”,

before any important meeting. She stated that preparation affects negotiations and sales

outcomes. Nevertheless, communication needs to be honest and build on trust, which demands

keeping promises.

Female managing partners indicated stubbornness and perseverance, as well as psychological

understanding, to be additional characteristics, important for their role as women. A small

percentage also emphasised the relevance of sophistication, flexibility, and a sense of duty.

Female intrapreneurs further identified passion as an important ability for their position.

Along with different skills and capabilities, past experiences and personal knowledge can be

connected to intrapreneurship (Urbano et al., 2013; Guerrero & Pena-Legazkue, 2013, as cited

in Neessen, 2019). Refereeing to interviewees’ personal experience and knowledge, 55%

attended university and 45% finished high school. In this regard, all intrapreneurs reached their

intrapreneurial position with experience/competence, either through prior work experience, or

developed personality traits, characteristics, and attitudes.


4.3.3 ATTITUDES

FIGURE 8: INTRAPRENEURIAL ATTITUDES (NEESSEN ET AL., 2019)

Attitudes, such as motivation, satisfaction and relationship with the organisation are likely to

impact female’s intention to act intrapreneurial (FIGURE 8). In this regard, females realised

that assertiveness strongly depends on their attitude, as M6 explained, even if she likes her job,

negative properties could always be improved because “you can work on everything”.

However, it is important to have an internal locus of control, which by definition “is the degree

to which the individual perceives that the reward follows from, or is contingent upon, his own

behaviour” (Rotter, 1966, p. 1). Also, female family intrapreneurs and current managers

emphasised the importance to start without prejudices and a positive intention, namely an “I-

can -do- it-at-least-as-good-as-men” (M5) attitude. In this context, strong attitudes are proven

to motivate and have an impact on behaviour (Krosnick & Petty, 1995).

On the other hand, M1 explained that “you need to think like a man” to the extent that she has

a “do-it-on-her-own” attitude and is a resilient person. She justifies that by “having grown a

thick skin within the last years”, which is in line with research, as male-dominated industries

still require females to adopt male traits (Biju & Pathak, 2020). In general, females might be

able to develop their attitude through decisive events, as M1 argued that major lows, required

her to adapt her attitude.

Furthermore, intrapreneurs seem to have a decisive motivational need for continuity and

belonging. I3 reflected that her grandfather and father inspired her to not give up that fast –

“You know that you are doing it for you and some day you will lead the company. Therefore,

ATTITUDES

INTENTION

SATISFACTION

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE

ORGANISATION

MOTIVATION


it’s energy, which is not wasted because it comes back one day”. The identification with the

family firm might connect family member values and family values (Sudaramurthy & Kreiner,

2008). Also, I5 explained that motivation is “family bonded” and correlates to what she learned

by growing up. The company adopted a central position in her life, especially as her father was

rarely at home or late for major family events (birthday, Christmas). Moreover, intrapreneurs

main motivation refers to having an impact (I2), passion for technique (I5) and the

implementation of their own ideas on the market. On the other hand, female managers draw

motivation from lows, success and their “pighead” (M4).

Additionally, the relationship with the family business seems to be of emotional nature, as I3

witnessed her grandfather and father working for the company. Overall, daughters’ attitudes

seem to be strongly influenced by the relationship with their dad (TABLE 4). It appears that

daughters are already required to assert themselves at an early age. This is in accordance with

Barnes (1988) findings, as fathers are likely to place pressure on daughters. Consequently,

daughters could have the intrinsic need to prove their father adequacy and competence. Further,

participants reflected on growing up as independent individuals, which allowed them to handle

life situations on their own. This trait might, on one hand, relate to the high priority of the

business within the family (Collins & Moore, 1964). On the other side, challenging, yet

supportive environments are proven to foster children’s need for achievement (McClelland,

1965), which is an incisive intrapreneurial trait in regard to goal mastery (Di Fabio, 2014).

Therefore, managers and intrapreneurs seem to be autonomous. The latter is supported by

statements such as “I do not need a man when my washing machine does not work” (I5) or “I

change the light bulbs on my own” (M1).

TABLE 4: FATHER RELATION

M1 “My father was a very resolute person, where and I needed

to earn respect, but that worked very fast.”

I3 “I think it is hard for my father to accept me as a boss”;

“I always need to fight”

I5 “There were a lot of weekends my father was not at home,

many birthdays or Christmas evenings he was late, that’s

how I grew up”; “As I chose my studies the only comment,

I got from my father, wasn’t that it is not a female program,

but that it is going to be hard work.”


On the contrary, females felt particularly supported by female family members, brothers, or

husbands in the firm (TABLE 5). Especially, mothers or grandmothers in the family firm

seemed to act as role models for females, as they felt supported and inspired. Further, growing

up with male siblings allowed women to learn assertiveness and conflict management early

because conflicts are as common as a collaboration among siblings (Reit, 1985; Zaleznik, 1966;

Friedman, 1991). Also, in line with research (Poza & Messer, 2001), relationships with the

CEO/husband foster spouse’s leadership roles. Hence, assertiveness in male-dominated

industries might depend on the support females receive from their husband. Furthermore,

mentorship seems to play an important role, as females felt to have developed their skillsets

through the given feedback of family members (I4). This is in accordance with Dumas (1990)

result, as the most “natural” mentor in family firms for females seems to be the father, who

allows them to develop their full potential for the family and the business.

TABLE 5: FAMILY MEMBER RELATION

M2 “Because my husband gave me tasks, which I needed to

solve on my own – what would I do here and what would I

do there. This brought me self-confidence.”

M6 “When a family business is managed by three women,

actually we are my two aunts and me, my brother and my

father, we are the majority, then you have different

approach”

I1 “My husband allowed me to do things, rather he wished

that”

I2 “I have a good relationship with my brothers”

I4 “Especially because of my mother and my grandma I feel

very happy”


5.0 DISCUSSION This chapter will interpret and discuss the findings by comparing them to the existing literature

on intrapreneurship within FB and gender theories. Subsequently, it will answer the research

question.

5.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION Female positions in FB have progressively developed over the years, wherefore women are

likely to assume different roles (Aronoff, 1998). In this regard, qualitative data revealed that

females are not “structurally invisible” anymore, in opposition to Dumas (1992) and

Salganicoff (1990) findings. However, women managers and intrapreneurs in male-dominated

industries still encounter highly gendered roles (Watts, 2007). The traditional female role of the

secretary is still dominantly present, as the majority of participants entered the family business

through the administrative and accounting department (Dumas, 1992; Vera & Dean, 2005; Poza

& Messer, 2001). On the other hand, an increasing percentage did enter a “higher” position

because of their technical education and experiential background. It is important to mention,

that only females, which studied technically oriented subjects (i.e., engineering, architecture),

or gathered significant work experience, were able to enter in relating positions. The findings

of this thesis contradict Curimbaba’s (2002) statement, as daughters have the opportunity for

formal education, as well as professional opportunities within the FB. Also, daughters have not

been seen as “temporary additions” (Martin, 2001; p. 224), but as loyal employees, which are

willing to contribute more, as they feel to work for them and their family (Vera & Dean, 2005).

In this context, family firms tend to provide job rotation or internships, which allow females to

experience different departments, develop their skillsets and ultimately work, according to their

capabilities and preferences. Hereinafter, they seem to be prepared for potential leadership

positions. The findings are in line with Dumas (1990), as FB provide females with an

environment to exploit their potential. In this respect, the firm’s social capital refers to available

resources, intrapreneurs obtain for value creation and work performance. Consequently, family

firms and their social capital might be connected to familiness, as women’s social and emotional

needs refer to belonging (Pearson et al., 2008).

Nevertheless, male-dominated industries still present gender-specific limitations, as females

feel “exotic”, a “physical spectacle”, or required to prove and position themselves to gain

recognition (Watts, 2007) markedly more than males. FB offer females an entry ticket into


male-dominated industries (Cole,1997) and help women to position themselves on behalf of

their company (Vera & Dean, 2005). The name of the company appears to prevail over gender

classifications. Although the name provides women acceptance, as they are directly or

indirectly related to the company owner, it does not automatically entail competence

recognition. Further, outcomes demonstrated that female managing partners felt slightly more

visible than female intrapreneurs. Based on these results, intrapreneurs seem to not necessarily

perform in public, in opposition to leaders.

As “family business is the business of relationships” (Hoover & Hoover, 1999, p. 1), those form

the core element of the firm. Hence, family relationships provide a “fruitful training ground”

for female’s interaction with external and internal partners. In general, it prepares women for

leadership, as they have natural family mentors (Dumas, 1990; Songini & Dubini 2003; Songini

& Gnan, 2009). FB with higher women’s involvement in governance and management roles

appear to offer more support for females (Kilkolly-Proffit, 2013). This fosters the internal

development of human capital (Lepak & Snell, 1999) and might offer a competitive advantage

(Barney, 2001).

In addition, females face internal and external challenges. These challenges seem to be related

to fixed anchored routines within the company and the industry (Watts, 2007). Moreover, the

business structure and culture have an impact on female’s visibility (Curimbaba, 2002) and

encountered barriers, as well as the glass ceiling. Data of this study revealed that “glass ceiling”

in family SME’s seems to only exist on a slightly distinct level (Songini & Gnan, 2009), albeit

resulting out of the daughter-father relationship. Entrepreneurial involvement of females

appears to break the glass ceiling, as women are actively involved (Songini & Gnan, 2014) and

learn to assert themselves. Furthermore, family-owned SMEs might provide females

opportunities to attain a position on the board of directors (Songini & Gnan, 2009). Results

demonstrate that internal challenges can be referred to family and business balance,

relationships with employees and communication. In this regard, FB allow women to flexibly

structure their work schedule but make it more difficult to separate family and business, as the

family is involved. Hereby, it is of no rare occurrence to talk about business during lunch.

Overall, the father-daughter relationship still seems to present major challenges for the

daughter, based on fathers’ generational perspectives on leadership roles. The work-family

conflict (Cole, 1997) considers females roles and degree of responsibility (Dumas, 1992), as

older generations seem to hold stronger stereotypical biases than younger generations

(Radvansky et al., 2010). In this context, data demonstrated that the male breadwinner model

and the female care-taking aspect seem to be strongly embedded in the business culture.


The cultural bias includes traditional female and male roles and might be the reason why

successors are rarely females but rather sibling partnerships. On a macro level, societal and

cultural expectations towards women are often reflected and consciously or unconsciously

perpetuated in family firms (Hollander & Bukowitz 1990; Salganicoff 1990). Therefore, sibling

partnership might be a result of societal attitudes. Furthermore, investigated females

encountered stereotypical behaviour from employees, as women are required to position and

prove themselves (Songini & Gnan, 2014) at the beginning of their career. In this regard,

females encounter classifications as “daddy’s girl” or “wannabe boss” (Dumas, 1989; 1992).

Nevertheless, psychological barriers could affect women to the extent, they relate to

stereotypical gender roles, and position themselves accordingly (Damaske, 2011).

Also, data revealed that separation of business and private life is very important, especially as

it could create precarious situations for females. Moreover, friendships with employees outside

of the company are possible. Data revealed that internal communication between family

members and employees needs to be clearly framed, as tolerance and recognition depend on it.

Females, which communicate with confidence and follow one line, might have a higher

assertiveness level.

The main examined challenges from external relationships refer to competence & negotiations

and sexual harassment. Sexual harassment seems to be normalized within gender interaction

(Firestone & Harris, 2003; Watts, 2007). Further, it is an exercise of power over another person.

Sexual harassment is still present in male-dominated industries, where men dominate positions

of power (Gutek & Morasch, 1982). Resulting from the interviews, females encountered sexual

harassment primarily concerning suppliers and negotiations. In general, women stated to have

become used to discriminating comments, which might imply a conscious or unconscious

adaptation of male characteristics, as females with high femininity are less likely to tolerate

harassment (Powell, 1986; Russell & Trigg, 2004).

On the other hand, female family intrapreneurs might still be overseen by clients and suppliers,

at the beginning (Cole, 1997). In particular, competence recognition is a barrier, women

encounter when the family firm relation has not been introduced beforehand. In this context,

FB seem to offer females support for external acceptance but no security for sexual harassment.

Hereby, sex-role spill over is a “carryover into the workplace of gender-based expectations for

behaviour” (Gutek & Morasch, 1982, p. 58). This might happen in the case of gender identity,

as people are categorised as male or female first. Traditionally, females are still required to take

on “male success criteria’s, to climb up the career ladder”, especially daughters from their dad

(Britton, 1999). Findings demonstrated that female intrapreneurs and leaders share personality


traits and characteristics, which are classified as masculine, viz. assertiveness. Also,

intrapreneurship is said to be a male activity (Biju & Pathak, 2020), expected by leaders.

Females are required to assume masculine traits such as working longer hours (Cha, 2013;

Lewis-Enright et al., 2009), which further seems to derive from their family responsibility, as

well as their fathers. Moreover, interviewees classified the ability to strategically rationalise as

a masculine way of thinking. Specifically, at the beginning women found it challenging to not

“behave like men” (Ibid.). Gender theory identifies traditional masculine behaviour within the

construction industry as coercive for women to face different forms of male identity (Liff,

2015). Notably, gender-specific characteristics can be linked to gender role identity. The latter

still represents a significant issue within the industry (Prescott et al., 2011). Although male

traits seem to characterise intrapreneurship and leadership, as well as disadvantage women to

assume corresponding positions (Adachi & Hisada, 2016), FB seem to support females in this

matter.

According to Neessen et al. (2019), intrapreneurial behaviour can be identified by

intrapreneurial characteristics and attitudes. In general, data demonstrated that openness to

experience and conscientiousness are collectively perceived as the most important personality

traits for intrapreneurs. If a female is proactive, she has a desire to improve the business and

exploit opportunities (Campopiano et al., 2017). Conscientiousness seems to be specifically

important for female intrapreneurs, as the fault tolerance rate is perceived lower than for men.

Consequently, women work harder and more detailed-oriented to prove themselves. Also,

agreeableness resulted to be important for female family intrapreneurs. However, females

emphasised to compromise solely in case of necessity but still follow a clear objective, as it

might affect their steadfastness. On the other hand, an excessive expression of emotions is

perceived as inappropriate in male-dominated industries (Gutek & Morasch, 1982), as well as

for intrapreneurship (Ronen, 2010). Participants of this study perceived themselves as rather

extraverted, which appeared to support their ability to position and assert themselves.

Respectively, assertiveness and self-confidence cannot be linked to the Big Five personality

traits (Ames & Flynn, 2007). In regard to assertiveness, females might face a social cost

(Bowles et al., 2007), mainly because stereotypical classifications seem to associate

aggressiveness with assertiveness. According to Mathison and Tucker (1982), men are more

likely to be publicly assertive, while females are interpersonally assertive in private situations.

The interviews revealed that female family intrapreneurs and leaders consider competence and

expertise, assertiveness, and self-confidence as important characteristics for their position. In

literature, self-confidence has been frequently associated with self-efficacy. The latter has been


proven to influence entrepreneurial behaviour, thus intrapreneurship (Di Fabio, 2014; Hanson,

2017). In this regard, women might have an advantage by growing up with the family firm.

Participants stated, asserting themselves against male family members, helped them being

prepared for the male-dominated industry. This is in line with the literature, as assertiveness

might emerge out of childhood experiences (Kepner, 1983). Additionally, rhetorical skills

seem to be important in regard to assertiveness, as men communicate differently than females.

On the other hand, attitudes impact intrapreneurial behaviour, as far as motivation, satisfaction

and the relationship with the firm affect intention (Neessen et al., 2019). In this context,

participants seem to have majorly adopted male traits and developed a larger tolerance line,

considering internal and external barriers. Furthermore, females are motivated by business’s

continuity, belonging and passion to realise their own ideas. The findings can be linked to

ethical and intrinsic motivation (Akhmedova et al., 2019), which fosters females’ proactive

behaviour and might help them obtain higher managerial positions. Moreover, women’s

attitudes can be connected to the relationship with the family members and the business. Hence,

females seem to have developed a strong family firm and organisational identity, as they are

aware of their belonging.

To conclude, as women seemed to possess intrapreneurial characteristics, they might also

possess more masculine characteristics, which qualify them for succession, viz. potential

leadership positions (Sharma, 2004). This study found that female family intrapreneurs and

leaders experience is influenced by the organisational level of the family business, as well as

the individual level. Both levels are further influenced by human and social capital, which seem

to foster females’ capabilities. Overall, it has been found that “gender is the effect of social

definitions” (Alvesson & Billing, 2014, p.3) and can be altered by human action (Ibid.).

5.2 ANSWER TO THE RESEARCH QUESTION Female family intrapreneurs professional life experience depends mainly on the organisational

and individual level (FIGURE 2). As women join FB, they enter from a relational level and are

already familiar with the company. Women grow up with the firm and have a direct or indirect

relation to the owner/founder. Their experience largely depends on the structural and cultural

environment of the family business, which further depends on the personal values of the owner,

as well as the family. In this respect, entering the business implies sharing the family value

system within an extended family. The relationship with family members appears to incisively

influence females work ethic, emotional connection, as well as future orientation. Once they


enter, they rarely leave. However, women seem to face internal and external barriers regarding

family business relationships. Internally, females face family and business balance issues,

communication, and employee relationship barriers. Especially, the daughter-father relation

seems to present a major challenge. Fathers might be perceived as resolute, demanding, and

critical towards daughters, which requires women to disprove the “daddy’s girl” image, also in

respect of employees. Females need to assert themselves in front of their fathers and employees,

as they demand competence and business continuation. Yet, mother and brother relationships

appeared to provide positive career support. Also, communication and language skills are

important cultural related traits, which could present barriers if rudimentarily regulated.

Externally, females seem to encounter sexual harassment, negotiation, and competence

recognition issues. Even though the family culture might internally counteract sexual

harassment, women still encounter discrimination within negotiations and external

relationships. In this context, societal gender roles seem to be still present in male-dominated

industries and might cause insecurities for females. Stereotypes can be extensively affected by

social power entities and education. Hence, women find themselves in conflict with adapting

traditional masculine traits, such as assertiveness and an ambitious work ethic, to position

themselves. Assertiveness is a masculine trait (Achtenhagen et al., 2018), which according to

the findings relates to competence/expertise, self-confidence/self-efficacy, and internal locus.

Female intrapreneurs seem to mainly need two personality traits, viz. openness to experience

and conscientiousness. Openness to experience is the “product of novel and unfamiliar ideas”

(Farrukh et al., p. 602). As a consequence, females with a high level of openness are more prone

to generate unconventional and innovative ideas (George & Zhou, 2001; as cited in Farrukh et

al., 2016). The findings of this thesis further correspond to Carland & Carland’s (2015) result,

that female entrepreneurs have a noticeably higher innovation preference than female leaders.

Furthermore, corporate entrepreneurs emphasised conscientiousness as imperative, which

contradicts Farrukh et al.’s (2016) findings. Also, agreeableness has been assessed as rather

important but does not entail compromising the overall direction, as it could weaken female’s

assertiveness level. Although none of the respondents identified themselves as introverted, they

did not find extraversion a required prerequisite for their position. Moreover, females work

motivation is linked to the emotional connection with family members and appears to positively

affect female intrapreneurs’ attitudes regarding work performance. Also, female employees

experience and advancement is influenced by the family and specifically, their “natural” family

mentors (Dumas, 1990), which help women develop assertiveness, by enhancing social and

human capital.


6.0 CONCLUSION This part summarizes the findings of female family intrapreneurs in male-dominated industries,

based on the conducted interviews. Furthermore, limitations and recommendations for future

research within the field of women intrapreneurs in family firms are formulated.

6.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This master’s thesis critically examines female intrapreneurs and managers in FB, which

operate in male-dominated industries. After the introduction, a literature review about family

firms in male-dominated industries, build on gender/feminist theory and female roles provided

research insights. Consecutively, an overview on female family intrapreneurship, linked to the

“framework of intrapreneurship” (Neessen, 2019) demonstrated already investigated

stereotypes, obstacles, as well as gender characteristics in the context of family intrapreneurship

and male-dominated industries. Despite the broad literature insights, little evidence about

female family intrapreneurs in male-dominated industries is available. Based on this significant

research gap, an empirical study has been elaborated and 11 interviews were conducted. The

corresponding findings have been presented and discussed in chapter 4 and 5.

Although the family enterprise provides work flexibility, trust and an industry entry ticket,

females still face internal and external family business relationship challenges. By investigating

intrapreneurial attitudes, personality traits and other characteristics, the intrapreneurial

behaviour of females, as well as the assertiveness level have been analysed from an individual

and organisational level.

To conclude, the main findings are: (1) Female family intrapreneurs have a visible role within

the company and the male-dominated industry. (2) The main barriers within the firm refer to

family and business balance, communication, and employee relationship. (3) Women encounter

major challenges within external relationships in respect to competence/negotiations, and

sexual harassment. (4) These barriers might be rooted within social groups, education, and

traditional gender roles. (5) Female family intrapreneurs operate in the name of the company

and receive support from the family business regarding work flexibility (job-rotation, childcare

& family), trust (freedom and support) and an industry entry ticket. (6) From an individual

level, females emphasised the importance of openness to experience, conscientiousness, and

agreeableness for their job. (7) Assertiveness has been linked to social competence/expertise,

self-confidence/self-efficacy, and communicational/rhetoric skills. (8) Intrapreneurial attitudes


are mainly linked to ethical and intrinsic motivation, based on firm continuity and

belongingness.

The subsequent chapters will discuss limitations and future research areas, as well as practical

implications.

6.2 LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Hereinafter, encountered limitations, as well as possible research areas will be presented.

First and foremost, one limitation considers the sample size. Despite the rich and profound

insights of the 11 interviews, more data could help amplify and deepen the understanding of

female family intrapreneurs work life. Moreover, as all interviews have been conducted in a

region in northern Italy, country-specific differences have not been considered. Also, the

interviews have been conducted by one researcher, which might have an impact on the quality

(Flick, 2009), as they are likely to be subject to personal biases and idiosyncrasies.

During the conduct of this master’s thesis, further research gaps appeared, as the lived

professional experience of female intrapreneurs has not been fully explored. Future research

should: (1) Compare female intrapreneurs’ work experiences within non-family businesses and

other industries, to derive collective conclusions and differences. (2) Investigate female

intrapreneurial self-capital development regarding “growing up” with the family firm, as well

as assertiveness and harassment tolerance. (3) Analyse the impact of job rotation on females

positions and competence in family firms, as well as the succession preparation. (4) Examine

generation-specific insights on gender roles in male-dominated industries to determine potential

advancements within the society. (5) Explore gender biases in male-dominated industries, as

well as intrapreneurial activities within FB of male-dominated sectors from a male perspective.


7.0 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The final section provides a critical overview and specifies implications regarding gender

integration in FB, companies in male-dominated industries, as well as the educational system,

based on the conducted interviews and literature. This section is based on FIGURE 7.

As literature derived a connection of females’ experiences in FB with issues women encounter

in the business world (Salganicoff, 1990), the following implications might find wider

application.

The global phenomena of gender biases are rooted within social power structures (Bussey &

Bandura, 1984). Those structures classify men and women, according to their gender. In

general, as visible in FIGURE 7, stereotypes are rooted within social groups (family, industry,

society).

As Richardsen et al. (1999) revealed, women experience work-family conflicts as a lack of

company support. Their study demonstrated that females, who encountered high levels of role

conflict and work-family pressure, suffered more from exhaustion and restricted life

satisfaction. Therefore, company support (i.e., training, development incentives) is imperative

for female’s life satisfaction and health status, as it curbs stress (Richardsen et al., 1999). In this

context, company support is engrained within the family and business culture.

Yet, despite the offered training opportunities, participants of this study felt discriminated by

their obligation to attend female leadership and management training. Gender-specific training

might devaluate women beforehand, as males appear to be classified automatically for equal

positions (M3). Also, male-dominated, or female-dominated industries seem to exclude the

opposite gender per se. In this regard, a clear company vision and mission statement might help

transmit concrete values. These values set the tolerance framework of the business and are

extensively influenced by the leader/founder of the firm. Structural congruence between family

and business is required from the business system, as it represents the family hierarchy (Barnes

1988). Otherwise, tension and rivalry can affect family dynamics and endanger business

performance and survival (Stewart and Danes, 2001).

Considering external relationships (suppliers/clients), education seems to have an important

impact on discrimination, as research revealed that teachers, who create bias within classrooms,

impact students to accept that created bias (ECU, 2019). Additionally, the UN communicated

“education as the pathways towards gender equality” (Karam, n.d.). Therefore, it is important


to emphasise the relevance of UNESCO’s SDG 4 and SDG5 educational goals to “achieve

gender equality and empower all women and girls” (UNESCO, n.d.). However, gender equality

should not only consider equal opportunities but equal and objective evaluation systems,

especially as education has been perceived as a possibility for women to break the glass ceiling

(Simpson, 2006) and gender roles.

The following bullet points include required action steps:

(1) GENDER EQUAL EDUCATION

Gender equality can be achieved by changing the educational system, as most

stereotypes are accepted as the norm when taught in school. This further reflects

discrimination within our society. To break societal norms, it is necessary to tackle the

problem within social power structures and adapt the value system.

(2) COMPANY STRUCTURE AND CULTURE

The data demonstrated that the founders/owners’ values have an impact on the company

culture, which further affects the behaviour of followers. As stated by Dyer (1988),

leaders are rarely aware of their behavioural impact on the company culture. Gender

equality can be reached by adjusting stereotypical mindsets from the top. This does not

imply that female’s presence in organisational administrative boards automatically lead

to gender policy development (Hearn and Piekkari, 2005). It requires clear values of

mutual respect and competence recognition. The latter can be reached by leaders’ self-

awareness, or appointed change agents (Dyer, 1988).

(3) EQUAL LEADERSHIP COURSES

It is important to foster the interaction of men and women within training, as they might

work together in business. Therefore, leadership training should not be gender-specific,

but rather team or company based. Also, men should be informed about societal

stereotypes and gender biases, as these might be unconsciously present.


(4) LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION TRAINING

As both genders seem to communicate differently, which is likely to lead to

misunderstandings, communication training might provide promising opportunities.

The latter could enhance social communication and collaboration between both genders

but also positively influence the organisational culture and ultimately firm performance.

(5) CREATING MIXED NETWORKS

Industry networks are very important for businesses but also for company members. In

this regard, gender-specific networks seem useful for experience exchanges but not as

effective for counteracting stereotypical clichés. Therefore, mixed networks appear to

offer females more access to male-dominated industries, as well as male and female

contacts.


REFERENCES Achtenhagen, L., Haag, K., Welter, F. (2018). The role of gender in family-business research.

Routledge Frontiers of Business Management, ISBN: 978-1-138-29861-3 Adachi, T., Hisada, T. (2016). Gender differences in entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: an

empirical analysis. Small Bus Econ, DOI 10.1007/s11187-016-9793-y Akhmedova, A., Cavallotti, R., Marimon, F. Campopiano, G. (2019). Daughters’ careers in

family business: Motivation types and family-specific barriers. Journal of Family Business Strategy; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.100307

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes,50,179–211 Alcoff, L. M. (2000) Phenomenology, Post-structuralism, and Feminist Theory, on the Concept

of Experience. Fischer, L. Embree, L. (Eds). Feminist Phenomenology. p. 17-38. Kluwer Academic Publishers

Alvesson, M. (1993). Cultural perspectives on organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. Alvesson, M., Billing, Y.D. (2009). Understanding Gender and Organizations. Different

Perspectives on Gender. Sage Books – Different Perspectives on Gender. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280133.n2

Alvesson, M. (2013). Understanding organizational culture (2nd ed.). London, England: Sag Alvesson, M., Billing, Y.D. (2014). Understanding Gender and Organizations. Masculinities,

Femininities and Work. Perspectives on Gender. Sage Books – Different Perspectives on Gender. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280133.n4

Ames D.R., Flynn, F.J. (2007). What breaks a leader: the curvilinear relation between

assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307-324. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307

Anonym. (2019). How does gender affect educational opportunity? ECU. Retrieved from:

https://studyonline.ecu.edu.au/blog/how-does-gender-affect-educational-opportunity (10/05/2020)

Aronoff, C. E., 1998. Megatrends in family business. Family Business Review, 11(3): 181-185. Atuahene-Gima, K., Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market

orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science, 12(1), 54–74.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.

Psychological Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 191-215, doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191


Barnes, L. B. (1988). Incongruent hierarchies: Daughters and younger sons in company CEOs. Family Business Review, 1(1), 9–22.

Barnes, L B., Kaftan, C. (1990). Organizational transitions for indi-viduals, families and

work groups. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baron, R.A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management

Review, 33, 328–340. Barrett, M., Moores, K. (2009). Fostering women's entrepreneurial leadership in family firms:

ten lessons. Management Online Review, Online 1-11. Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The interface between intrapsychic and interpersonal processes:

Cognition, emotion, and self as adaptations to other people. American Psychological Association.

Becker, S.O., Fernandes, A., Weichselbaumer, D. (2019). Discrimination in hiring based on

potential and realized fertility: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Labour Economics, 59, 139-152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.04.009

Bernstein, E. (2015). Why Introverts Make Great Entrepreneurs. The Wall Street Journal. Biju, R., Pathak, A.A. (2020). Helping women intrapreneurial leaders flourish: appreciating

emotional labor. Development and learning in organizations: an international journal; DOI: 10.1108/DLO-02-2020-0049

Bowles, H. R., Babcock L, Lai L. (2007). Social Incentives for Gender Differences in the

Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: Sometimes It Does Hurt to Ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103 (1): 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001.

Britton, Dana M. (1999). Cat fights and gang fights: Preference for work in a male-dominated

organization. The Sociological Quarterly, 40 (3): 455-474. Brush, C. (1992). Research on women business owner: Past trends, a new perspective and future

directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(4), 5-30

Burke, R. J. (1996). Work experiences, stress and health among managerial and professional women. In M. A. Schabraca, J. A. M. Winnubst, and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of Work and Health Psychology (pp. 205-230). New York: John Wiley.

Bussey, K., Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1292–1302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1292

Cabrera-Suárez, M.K., Déniz-Déniz, M.d.l.C., Martín-Santana, J. (2014). The setting of non-

financial goals in the family firm: The influence of family climate and identification. Journal of Family Business Strategy, Volume 5, Issue 3, p. 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.05.003


Cameron, K., Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. New York: Addison-Wesley Series.

Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., Rinaldi, F. R., Sciascia, S. (2017). Women’s involvement in

Family Firms: Progress and Challenges for Future Research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(4): 200-212. DOI:10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.09.001

Campuzano, M.V. (2019). Force and Inertia: A Systematic Review of Women’s Leadership in

Male-Dominated Organizational Cultures in the United States. Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 18(4) 437-469.

Carland, J.A.C., Carland, J.W. (2015). An Empirical Investigation into the Distinctions

Between Male and Female Entrepreneurs and Managers. International Small Business Journal 9, 3,

Carney, M. (2005). Corporate Governance and Competitive Advantage in Family-Controlled

Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00081.x

Carrier, C. (1997). Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Cesaroni, F.M., Sentuti, A. (2015). Family Business Succession: A Female Perspective. RENT

XXIX - Entrepreneurship Society – A Platform for New Solutions to Old Problems. At: ZAGREB - Croatia

Chilton, G., Leavy, P. (2014). Art-Based Research Practice: Merging Social Research and the

Creative Arts. Leavy, P. (Eds). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. p. 381-399. Oxford Univ. Press

Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J., Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the Family Business by Behavior.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., Rau, S. B. (2012). Sources of heterogeneity in family

firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1103–1113. Cha, Y. (2013). Overwork and the persistence of gender segregation in occupations. Gender &

Society, 27, PsycARTICLES database. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891243212470510 Clark-Ibáñez, M. (2004). Framing the Social World With Photo-Elicitation Interviews.

American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47. No. 12, p 1507-1527. Cockburn, C. (1985). Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men, and Technical Know-How.

London: Pluto Press

Collins, O. F., Moore, D. G. (1964). The enterprising man. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Cole, P.M. (1997). Women in family business. Family Business Review, 10(4), 353–371


Cole, P.M., Johnson, K. (2007). An Exploration of Successful Copreneurial Relationships Postdivorce. Family Business Review, vol. xx, no. 3, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00093.x

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Cooper, M.J., Upton, N., Seaman, S. (2005), Customer relationship management: a

comparative analysis of family and non-family business practices, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 242-56.

Curimbaba, F. (2002). The Dynamics of Women’s Roles as Family Business Managers. Family

Business Review, vol. XV, no. 3; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00239.x Daly, M. (1984). Pure lust. Elemental feminist philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press Damaske, S. (2011). A ‘Major Career Woman?’ How women develop early expectations

about work. Gender and Society, 25(4), 409–430. Dawley, D., Hoffman, J.J., Smith, A.R. (2004). Leader succession: does gender matter? The

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 25 No. 8, 2004, pp. 678-690, DOI 10.1108/01437730410565004

De Richoufftz, O. (2016). Family Intrapreneurship’: A Concept Whose Time Has Come.

Retrieved from: https://familyenterprisefoundation.org/resources/resources/blog/articles/2016/october/family-intrapreneurship-a-concept-whose-time-has-come/ (accessed, 12.04.2021)

Di Fabio, A. (2014). Intrapreneurial self-capital: a new construct for the 21st century. Journal

of employment counselling, Volume 51; DOI: 10.1002/j.2161-1920.2014.00045x Dhiman, B., Kaur, H. (2001). Why women want to entre intro family business? Zenith,

International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research, Vol. 1, Issue 1., p. 18-28

Di Toma, P., Montanari, S. (2010). The Definitional Dilemma in Family Business Research:

Outlines of an Ongoing Debate. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 2(3/4): 262-275. DOI:10.1504/IJEV.2010.037112

Dumas, C. (1989). Understanding of father–daughter and father–son dyads in family-

owned businesses. Family Business Review, 2(1), 31-46 Dumas, C. (1990). Preparing the new CEO: Managing the father–daughter succession process

in family businesses. Family Business Review, 3(2), 169-181 Dumas, C. (1992). Integrating the daughter into family business management.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41–47. Dumas, C. (1998). Women’s pathways to participation and leadership in the family-owned

firm. Family Business Review, 11(3), 219-228


Duygulu, E., Kurgun, O.A. (2009). The effect of managerial entrepreneurship behavior on

employee satisfaction: Hospitality managers' dilemma. African Journal of Business Management, Vol.3 (11), pp. 715-726,

Dyer Jr., W. G. (1986). Cultural change in family firms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Dyer Jr., W. G. (1988). Culture and Continuity in Family Firms. Family Firm Institute, Inc.

Retrieved from: https://cdn.ymaws.com/ffi.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/best_of_fbr_english/bestoffbrii_dyer_cultureandc.pdf

Dyer, W. G. (1986). Cultural change in family firms: Anticipating and managing business and

family transitions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Eagly, A. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, v. 31, p. 1-12 Eagly, A.H., Carli, L. (2003), The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 807-35. Eagly, A. H., Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. Easterby-Smith M., Thorpe R., Jackson, P., (2015). Management and business research,

London: sage. EFBN. (2009). European Family Business Network Datapoints. Retrieved from:

http://www.europeanfamilybusinesses.eu/ (accessed, 21.12.2020) Ellis, R J., Taylor, N.T., (1987), "Specifying Entrpreneurship," in N.C., Churchill, J.A.,

Hornaday, B.A., Kirchhoff, O.J., Krasner, and K.H., Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 527- 541, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.

Elsbach, K.D., Pieper, T.M. (2019). How psychological needs motivate family firm

identifications and identifiers: A framework and future research agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy 10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.100289

Ely, R.J. (1995). The Power in Demography: Women's Social Constructions of Gender Identity

at Work. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No.3 Faraudello, A., Songini, L., Pellegrini, M., Gnan, L. (2018). The role of women as entrepreneurs

in family business. V., Ratten, L-P., Dana, V., Ramadani (Eds). Women Entrepreneurship in Family Business, pp.73-100. Routledge Frontiers of Business Management: London

Farrukh, M.,Ying, C., Mansori, S. (2016). Intrapreneurial behavior: an empirical

investigation of personality traits. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 597-609.


Firestone, J.M., Harris, R.J. (2003). Perceptions of Effectiveness of Responses to Sexual Harassment in the US Military, 1988 and 1995, Gender, Work and Organization (10)1: 42–64.

Fisher, L. (2000). Phenomenology and Feminism: Perspectives on their Relation. Fischer, L.

Embree, L. (Eds). Feminist Phenomenology. p. 39-56. Kluwer Academic Publishers Fletcher, D., Melin, L., Gimeno, A. (2012). Culture and values in family business – A review

and suggestion for future research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3, 127-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.06.001

Flick, Uwe (2009), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, London: Sage. Friedman, S.D. (1991). Sibling Relationships and Intergenerational Succession in Family

Firms. Family Business Review, 4(1). doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.1991.00003.x Frishkoff, P.A., Brown, B.M. (1993). Women on the Move in Family Business. Business Horizons, Vol. 36, Issue 2. García-Cabrera, A.M., García-Soto, M.G., (2009), A Dynamic Model of Technology-based

Opportunity Recognition, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.167-190 Gersick, K. E., Lansberg, I., Desjardins, M., Dunn, B. (1999). Stages and transitions: managing

change in the family business. Family Business Review, 12(4): 287-297. Gillis-Donovan, J., Moynihan-Bradt, C. (1990). The power of invisible women in the family

business. Family Business Review, 3(2), 153-167. Globocnik, D, Salomo, S. (2015). Do formal management practices impact the emergence of

bootlegging behavior? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(4), 505–521 Godfrey, J. (1992). Our wildest dreams: Women entrepreneurs making money, having fun,

doing good. New York: HarperCollins Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An Alternative „Description of Personality”: The Big-Five Factor

Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 6, 1216-1229 Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist,

48, 26-34. Graneheim, U.H., Lindgren, B.-M., Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in

qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today 56, 29–34 Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in

predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 48–58.

Greer, M.J., Greene, P.G. (2003). Feminist theory and the study of entrepreneurship. Butler,

J.E. (Eds.) New Perspectives on Women Entrepreneurs. pp. 1-25, Information Age Publishing Inc. f


Grover, V. K. (2015). Second generation gender bias: Invisible barriers holding women back

in organizations. International Journal of Applied Research, 1(4): 1-4. Gundry, L. K., Ben-Yoseph, M. (1998). Women Entrepreneurs in Romania, Poland, and the

United States: Cultural and Family Influences on Strategy and Growth. Family Business Review, 11(1), 61–73. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.1998.00061.x

Gutek, B.A., Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-Rations, Sex-Role Spillover, and sexual Harassment of

Woman at Work. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 55-74 Habbershon, T.G., Williams, M., MacMillan, I. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family

firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–465. Hall, A., Melin, L., Nordqvist, M. (2001). Entrepreneurship as radical change in the family

business: Exploring the role of cultural patterns, Family Business Review, 14(3), 193– 208.

Hall, G. (2014). Photography as a Research Method. Leavy, P. (Eds). The Oxford handbook of

qualitative research. p. 381-399. Oxford Univ. Press Handler, W. (1991). Key interpersonal relationships of next-generation family members in

family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(3), 21– 32.* Hanson, J. (2017). Exploring relationships between K-12 music educators' demographics,

perceptions of intrapreneuring, and motivation at work. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(3), 309–327

Haupt, T., Madikizela, K. (2009). Why do South African Women choose careers in

construction. Acta Structilia, 16(2), 46-68. Hearn, J., Piekkari, R. (2005). Gendered Leaderships and Leaderships on Gender Policy:

National Context, Corporate Structures, and Chief HumanResources Managers in Transnational Corporations, Leadership 1(4): 429–54

Heilman, M. (2001). Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s

ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, v. 57, n. 4, p. 657-674 Hisrich, R.D., Brush, C.G. (1983). The woman Entrepreneur: Implication of family,

educational, and occupational experiences. In J. Hornaday, J.A. Timmons, & K.H Vesper (Eds), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 255-270). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Ho, W.-H., Chang, C. S., Shih, Y.-L., Liang, R.-D. (2009). Effects of job rotation and role stress

among nurses on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. BMC Health Services Research, 9(1), 8.

Hollander, B.S., Bukowitz, W.R. (1990). Women, Family Culture, and Family Business.

Family Business Review, Volume 3, Issue 2, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1990.00139.x


Holm, G. (2014). Photography as a Research Method. Leavy, P. (Eds). The Oxford handbook

of qualitative research. ISBN: 9780199811755 Honig, B. (2001). Learning Strategies and Resources for Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(1), DOI:10.1177/104225870102600102

Hoover, E. A.,Hoover, C. L. (1999). Getting along in family business: The relationship intelligence handbook. New York: Routledge.

Hoy, F., Verser, T. G., (1994). Emerging Business, Emerging Field: Entrepreneurship and the Family Firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practices, Volume: 19 issue:1, p. 9-23, https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401900101

Hubler, T. M. (2009). The soul of family business. Family Business Review, 22(3), 254– 258.

Hunzaker, M. B. F. (2014). Making sense of misfortune: Cultural schemas, victim redefinition, and the perpetuation_of_stereotypes._Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(2), 166-184. doi:10.1177/0190272514521219

Hwang, K.-H. (1990). MODERNIZATION OF THE CHINESE FAMILY BUSINESS. International Journal of Psychology, Volume 25, Issue 3-6, p. 593-618, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599008247915.

Jabeen, F., Katsioloudes, M. (2015). Is family the key? Exploring the motivation and success

factors of female Emirati entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Vol. 25, No.4, DOI: 10.1504/IJESB.2015.070214

Jain, R., Ali, S.W. (2013). Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Marketing Orientation and Attitude Orientation of Indian Entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, vol 22, issue 1, 71-95

Jain, R., Ali, S.W., Kamble, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial and Intrapreneurial Attitudes: Conceptualization, Measure Development, Measure Test and Model Fit, Management and Labour Studies 40(1&2) 1–21. DOI: 10.1177/0258042X15601529

Jandeska, K.E., Kraimer, M.L. (2005). Women’s perceptions of organizational culture, work

attitudes, and role-modelling behaviours. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18:461–478.

Jimenez, R.M. (2009). Research on Women in Family Firms. Current Status and Future Directions. Family Business Review, Volume 22, Number 1, 53-64. DOI: 10.1177/0894486508328813

John, O. P., Srivastava, S. (1999). ‘‘The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives”. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, pp. 102–38

Jovchelovitch, S.; Bauer, Ma. W. (2000). Narrative interviewing. London: LSE Research

Online.


Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Judge, T.A. Erez, A. Bono, J.E., Thoresen, C.J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 303-31

Kammerlander N., De Massis A. (2020). Frequently asked questions in qualitative family

business research and some guidelines to avoid risky path. In De Massis A., Kammerlander N. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Family Business. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Glos, UK.

Knapp, S., Handelsman, M., Gottlieb, M.C. (2013) The Dark Side of Professional Ethics. Professional Psychology Research and Practice. 44(6):371. DOI:10.1037/a0035110

Karam, A. Education as the Pathway towards Gender Equality. UN. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/education-pathway-towards-gender-equality (accessed, 10/05/2020)

Karataş-Özkan, M., Erdog!an, A., Nicolopoulou, K. (2011). Women in Turkish family

businesses: Drivers, contributions and challenges. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 11(2) 203-219; DOI: 10.1177/1470595811399189

Kellermanns, F.W., Eddleston, K.A. (2006). Corporate Entrepreneurship in Family Firms: A

Family Perspective. Baylor University; 1042-2587; Vol. 30, Issue 6, Kepner, E. (1983). The Family and the Firm: A Coevolutionary Perspective. American

Management Associations. Kilkolly-Proffit, M. (2013). Socialisation of daughters in women-led family businesses,

University of Auckland Business Review, 16(1), 6-15. Khan, B.Z., (2016). Invisible Women: Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Family Firms in

Nineteenth-Century France. The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 76(1), pages 163-195.

Koerner, A.F.,Fitzpatrick, M.A. (2004), “Communication in intact families”, in Vangelisti,

A.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Family Communication, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 177-195.

Krosnick, J. A., Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (Vol. 4, pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., Hornsby, J.S. (1990). Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 49–58.

Lepak, D. P., Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human

capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 31– 48.


Lerner, M., Malach-Pines A. (2011). Gender and culture in family business: A ten-nation study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 11(2) 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595811399190

Levesque-Lopeman, L. (2000). Listen and You Will Hear: Reflections on Interviewing from a

Feminist Phenomenological Perspective. Fischer, L. Embree, L. (Eds). Feminist Phenomenology. p. 103-132. Kluwer Academic Publishers,

Lewis-Enright, K., Crafford, A., Crous, F. (2009). Towards a workplace conducive to the career

advancement of women. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 9 pages. Liff, S. (2015). Review article: Machinery of dominance. Capital & Class. Retrieved from:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030981688703200111 (accessed 15.12.2020)

Linneberg, M.S., Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the novice.

Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 259-270.

Lumpkin, G., Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academic Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–451.

Lyman, A., Salganicoff, M., Hollander, B. (1985). Women in family business: an untapped resource. In C.E. Aronoff & J.L. Ward (Eds.), Family business sourcebook. Detroit: Omnigraphics.

Maier, V., Pop Zenovia, C. (2011). Enterpreneurship vs. Intrapreneurship. Review of International Comparative Management, Volume 12, Issue 5

Marchisio, G., Mazzolam P., Sciascia, S., Miles, M., Astrachan, J. (2010). Corporate venturing

in family business: The effects on the family and its members. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, https://doi.org/10.1080/08985621003726168

Marler, L. E., Stanley, L. J. (2018). Commentary: who are your friends? The influence of

identification and family in-group and out-group friendships on nonfamily employee OCB and deviance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(2), 310–316.

Marlow, S., Patton, D. (2005). All Credit to Men? Entrepreneurship, Finance, and Gender.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 717–735.

Marshack, K.J. (1994). Copreneurs and dual-career couples: are they different? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, volume 1 number 19, pp. 49-69.

Martin, P., & Barnard, A. (2013). The experience of women in male-dominated occupations: A constructivist grounded theory inquiry. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2 SPL). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1099


Martinsen, B., Haahr, A., Dreyer, P.S., Norlyk, A. (2013). The Significance of Gender in Phenomenological Nursing Research . Phenomenology & Practice, Volume 7, No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Mathison, D., Tucker, R. (1982). Sex differences in assertive behavior: A research extension. Psychological Reports. 51, 9 13-948.

Mathur-Helm, B. (2006). Women and the glass ceiling in South African banks: an illusion or reality? Women in Management Review, 21(4), 311–326.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement motivation can be developed. Harvard Business Review, 7-16, 20-24.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. (1985). Openness to experience. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones, Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1, pp. 145-172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

McCrae, R. R., John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.

Melin, L., Nordqvist, M. (2007). The reflexive dynamics of institutionalization: The case of the family business. Strategic Organization, 5(3): 321-333, DOI:10.1177/1476127007079959

Memili, E., Eddleston, K.A., Kellermanns, F.W., Zellweger, T. M., Barnett, T. (2010). The critical path to family firm success through entrepreneurial risk taking and image. Journal of Family Business Strategy 1, 200-209. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.10.005

Menges, J. I., Tussing, D. V., Wihler, A., Grant, A. M. (2017). When Job Performance is All

Relative: How Family Motivation Energizes Effort and Compensates for Intrinsic Motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 60 (2), 695-719. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5465/amj.2014.0898

Merino, F., Monreal-Perez, J., Sanchez-Marin, G. (2015). Family SMEs’ internationalization: Disentangling the influence of familiness on Spanish firms’ export activity. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1164-1184.

Mittal, V. & Ross, W.T. (1998). The impact of positive and negative affect and issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(3), 298–324.

Monnavarian, A., Ashena, M. (2009). Intrapreneurship: the role of social capital – empirical evidence and proposal of a new model of intrapreneurship and its relationship with social capital. Business strategy series. Vol. 10. No. 6. DOI 10.1108/17515630911005673

Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational

Advantage, The Academy of Management Review 23(2), DOI:10.2307/259373 Neessen, P.C.M., Caniëls, M.C.J., Vos, B., de Jong, J.P. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee:

toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International


Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 15:545–571 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0552-1

Nelton, S. (1999). Why women are chosen to lead: Women are leading more companies.

Nation’s Business, 87(4), 48-51 Nikina, A., Shelton, L.M., Leloarne, S. (2015). An examination of how husbands, as key

stakeholders, impact the success of women entrepreneurs, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(1), 38-62

Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., Eby, L. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1057–1087. Nordhaug, O. (1993). Human capital in organizations: Competence, training, and learning.

Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Nordqvist, M. (2005). Familiness in top management teams: Commentary on “An exploratory

comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: Cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 285–291.

Nordqvist, M., Hall, A., Melin, L. (2009). Qualitative research on family businesses: The relevance and usefulness of the interpretative approach. Journal of Management & Organization, Volume 15, Issue 3, 294–308.

Nordqvist, M. & Melin, L. (2010). Entrepreneurial families and family firms, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3), 1–29

Nordqvist, M., Sharma, P., Chirico, F. (2014). Family firm heterogeneity and governance: A configuration approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 192–209.

Oakley, A. (1973). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.

Oberg, H, Bell, A. (2012). Exploring phenomenology for researching lived experience in Technology Enhanced Learning. ISBN 978-1-86220-283-2

Orozco Collazos, L.E., Botero, I.C., Vergara, M.P.L. (2018). When do women make a difference in the family firm?: understanding the Latin American context. Ratten, L-P., Dana, V., Ramadani (Eds). Women Entrepreneurship in Family Business, pp.73-100. Routledge Frontiers of Business Management: London

Palalic, R., Ramadani, V., Dana, L.-P., Ratten, V. (2018). Gender Entrepreneurial Leadership

in Family Businesses: A Case Study from Bosnia & Herzegovina. V., Ratten, L-P., Dana, V., Ramadani (Eds). Women Entrepreneurship in Family Business, pp.73-100. Routledge Frontiers of Business Management: London

Palmer, C., Bolderstone, A. (2006). A Brief Introduction to Qualitative Research. The Canadian

Journal of Medical Radiation Technology


Peabody, D., Goldberg, L.R. (1989). Some Determinants of Factor Structures From Personality-Trait Descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57, No. 3, 552-567

Pearson, A. W., Carr, J. C., Shaw, J. C. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital

perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 949–969. Pinchot, G. (1985). Introducing the ̀ entrepreneur' [product management]. IEEE Spectrum, vol.

22, no. 4, pp. 74-79, doi: 10.1109/MSPEC.1985.6370622

Ponthieu, L.D., Caudill, H.L. (1993). Who’s the boss? Responsibility and decision making in copreneurial ventures. Family Business Review, volume 6 number 1, pp. 3-17.

Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects of sex-role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 14, 9–19.

Poza, E.J., Messer, T. (2001). Spousal Leadership and Continuity in the Family Firm. Family Business Review, vol. XIV., no. 1

Radvansky, G. A., Copeland, D. E., Hippel, W. V. (2010). Stereotype activation, inhibition,

and aging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 51-60. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.010

Reed, B.G. (1983), “Women leaders in small groups: social-psychological perspectives and

strategies”, Social Work with Groups, Vol. 6, pp. 35-42.

Reit, S. (1985). Sibling Rivalry. New York: Ballantine

Richardsen, A.M., Burke, R.J., Mikkelsen, A. (1999). Job pressures, organizational support, and health among Norwegian women managers. International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 6, Issue 3, p. 167-177

Roberts, B.W., Harms, P.D., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E. (2007). Predicting the

Counterproductive Employee in a Child-to-Adult Prospective Study. Management Department Faculty Publications. 45.

Ronen, S. (2010). Determinants of intrapreneurship among high-tech engineers. In A. Malach-

Pine & M. F. Özbilgin (Eds.), Handbook of research on high-technology entrepreneurs (pp. 233–251). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgard.

Rosenblatt, P.C., de Mik, L., Anderson, R.M., Johnson, P.A. (1985) The Family in Business.

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Rowe, B.R., Hong, G.S. (2000). The role of wives in family businesses: the paid and unpaid

work of women. Family Business Review, volume 13 number 1, pp. 1-13.


Russell, B.L., Trigg, K.Y. (2004). Tolerance of Sexual Harrassment: An Examination of Gender Differences, Ambivalent Sexism, Social Dominance, and Gender Roles. Sex Roles, Vol. 50, Nos. 7/8

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in

motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guildford Press. Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications Ltd. Salganicoff Matilde. (1990). Women in Family Businesses - Challenges and Opportunities.

Family Business Review vol.III., no. 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1990.00125.x

Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational

Dynamics, 12(1), 13–28. Schein, E. H. (1995). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Family

Business Review, 8(3), 221–238. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. John Wiley & Sons. 3rd Edition.

Sciascia, S., Bettinelli C. (2013). CORPORATE ENTERPRENEURSHIP IN FAMILY

BUSINESSES: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE RESEARCH. Management, vol. 16, no.

4,

Schrodt, P., Witt, P.L., Messersmith, A.S. (2007). A meta-analytical reviews of family communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 248-269.

Simms, E.M., Stawarska, B. (2013). Feminist phenomenology. Janus Head, 6 Simpson, R. (2006). Masculinity and management education: feminizing the MBA. Academy

of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 182-193. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources,

management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.

Shantz, A., & Wright, K. (2011). Networking with boundary spanners: a quasi-case study on

why women are less likely to be offered an engineering role. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(3), 217–232.

Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and

directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17 (1), 1-36; Smith, D.E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: a feminist sociology, Boston:

Northeastern University Press.


Smith, D.W. (2011). Phenomenology. In: Zalta EN (eds), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Stanford University, Stanford

Smythe, J., Sardeshmukh, S. R. (2013), Fathers and daughters in family business. Small

Enterprise Research, 20(2): pp. 98-109. Songini, L., Dubini, P. (2003). Glass ceiling in SMEs: when women are in command.

Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Washington, Seattle, August Songini, L., Gnan, L. (2009). Women, glass ceiling, and professionalization in family SMEs,

A missed link, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.497–525.

Songini,L., Gnan, L. (2014) ‘The glass ceiling in SMEs and its impact on firm managerialisation: a comparison between family and non-family SMEs’, Int. J. Business Governance and Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 170-102

Steel, P., Schmidt, J.A., Shultz, J. (2003). Refining the Relationship Between Personality and Subjective Well-Being. Psychological Bulletin 134(1):138-61. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138

St Lawrence, J. S., Hansen, D. J., Cutts, T. F., Tisdelle, D. A., Irish, J. D. (1985). Situational context: Effects on perceptions of assertive and unassertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 16(1), 51-62.

Stewart, C.C.,Danes, S.M. (2001). Inclusion and control in resort family businesses: a

developmental approach to conflict, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 293-319.

Stock, G.N., McFadden, K.L., Gowen, C.R. (2007). Organizational culture, critical success

factors and the reduction of hospital errors. International journal of production economics, 106, 368-392, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.07.005

St. Pierre, E., Jackson, A.Y. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis After Coding. Sage Publications

Ltd., Vol. 20(6) 715-719 Stumpfegger, E. ( 2015). Phenomenological Approach: From Research Philosophy to Research

Design. Social Identity and Financial Investment Decisions, pp.49-74, DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-17978-0_3

Sturges, J. (1999). What it means to succeed: Personal conceptions of career success held by

female and male managers at different ages. British Journal of Management, 10, 239–252

Sudaramurthy, C., Kreiner, G.E. (2008). Governing by Managing Identity Boundaries: The

Case of Family Businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32, Issue 3, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00234.x

Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Tech- nique for Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM).


Therdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Tech- nique for Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management. Volume 5, Issue 2, 2016

Tulin, M., Lancee, B., Volker, B. (2018). Personality and Social Capital. Social Psychology

quarterly, Vol. 81(4), 295-318, DOI: 10.1177/0190272518804533 UNESCO. (n.d.). Education and gender equality. Retrieved from:

https://en.unesco.org/themes/women-s-and-girls-education (accessed 01.05.2021) U.S. Department of Labor Women’s Bureau. (2014). Nontraditional occupations for women in

2014 (Data file) Vallejo, M. C. (2008). Is the culture of family firms really different? A value-based model for

its survival through generations. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 261–279. Vecchio, R.P. (2002). Leadership and the gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13,

pp. 643-72. Voydanoff, P. (1990). Economic distress and family relations: a review of the eighties. Journal

of Marriage and the family, volume 52 number 4, pp. 1099-1115. Wang, C. (2010). Daughter exclusion in family business succession: a review of the literature.

Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31(4): 475-484. Wang, Q., Bowling, N., Eschleman, K. J. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of work and

general locus of control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (4), 761-768 Watts, J. H. (2007). Porn, pride and pessimism: Experiences of women working in professional

construction roles. Work, Employment and Society, 21(2), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017007076641

Wernet, A. (2014). Hermeneutics and Objective Hermeneutics. Flick U. (Eds). Qualitative Data

Analysis. Sage Publications Ltd. Whyte, D. (1994). The heart aroused: Poetry and the preservation of the soul in corporate

America (1st ed.). New York: Currency Doubleday. (p. 307). Zahra, S.A., Hayton, J.C., Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in Family Vs. Non-Family

Firms: A Resource-Based Analysis of the Effect of Organizational Culture. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28(4): 363-381, DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00051.x

Zaleznik, A. (1966). A Human Dilemmas of Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K.A. (2012). Building a Family Firm Image:

How Family Firms Capitalize on Their Family Ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy 3(4). 239-250. DOI:10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.10.001


APPENDIX APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDLINE


APPENDIX B: CODING GUIDLINE

C1A: Female Roles

Defining women's relation to the owner: daughter, wife, sister, niece, grandchild, as well as the educational and work experience. Specifying the entry position, personal development and career advancement in the family business.

"Then my mum and my uncle noticed my situation and the marketing position became vacant in our family business, which was a part-time position at that time. And then they asked me if I would be interested. That was a funny situation because I did not expected it and of course I felt flattered"

C1B: Degree of visibilityFemales degree of visibility/invisibility as family intrapreneurs in male-domianted industries with Photo eliciation.

"Visibile, simply because your are exotic, I would say"

C1C: Family business relationships

Reflection on external relationships (clients,suppliers) and internal relationships (employees, family members) and detailed elaboration of potential gender-discrimination. Insights regarding challenges and stereotypes women face within the family business and male-dominated industries, as well as perceived disadvantages in comparision to non-family businesses.

"And as a woman once more - At that time I was the first female engineer in our family business. Luckily we are more now. And therefore I needed to prove that I was able to operate new installations, that I could travel alone somewhere in the world. That was, my collegues looked strangely at me, like she won't be able to do so"

C2A: Company structureHow is the firm hierarchically structured and ruled. What do the succession plans look like.

“The organisational chart of a medium-sized company does not really matter. Itis not really internal, in-house youactually communicate it. Particularly, infamily firms, the organisational chartexists just on paper because thestructures are very clear.”

C2B: Company cultureWhat are the shared values within the family business and how do they affect the firm.

"Hm, I believe in our family firm we have, we have amazing values. We have the value of RESPECT, we have the value WE, we have the value ECONOMICAL, we have the value DOWN-TO-EARTH and we have the value CURIOSITY (…). he value WE, you know, simply means that we work together on topics, that everybody is free to state his/her opinion. That everybody is important when he/she says his/her opinion. I think that helped me a lot and that's why I believe that in a family firm you are a big family"

C2C: Company support & barriers

What are the benefits females have and which kind of support do they get from the firm, compared to non-family firms and what are the major barriers within the company.

"Yes, I would say, the biggest advantage is simply, you will, when you are inside, you have the back of the family and you will be automatically, people have to accept you."

C3A: Personality TraitsImportance and possession of Goldman's Big Five for a female intrapreneur.

"That is something I can fully identify myself with. I am very conscientious and I believe, it is very important in the job"

C3B: Characteristics

Further traits and abilities women estimate as necessary for their job, regarding their past experience and how they developed them.

"Assertiveness, in any case (…) you shouldn't give by easily and stand by your opinion, also when men are stating that it is different. I don't give by, just because I am a woman, I can say what I think anyways. Assertiveness is very important and of course also knowledge. That you know what you do is very important (...). I think, i grew up with my two brothers and got it from when I was a child. "

C3C: AttitudesWhat is female intrapreneurs' motivation, satisfaction level and intention, as well as the personal relationship to the FB. “You need to think like a man”

C4A: Critical viewpoints Critical description of female intrapreneurs' experience.

"Partially you are tempted to change your personality because as a woman you aren't hard and aim for confrontation as men"

C4B: Advice Training recommendations and suggestions for change

You can train assertiveness when you work on yourself, through competence and self-confidence. That does not mean been being full of yourself, but in general it means for men and women, when you are convinced of something, you need to push it through

C1: Females professional life

C2: Organisational level

C3: Individual level

C4: Pieces of advice

MAIN CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY DESCRIPTION / CODING RULE EXAMPLE


APPENDIX C1: LITERATURE TABLE - FAMILY BUSINESSES IN MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES

AUTHOR PUBLICATION YEAR TITLE SUMMARY KEY FINDINGS

Barrett, M.A.,

Moores, K. 2009

Women in family

business leadership

roles: Daughters on

the stage

Qualitative research 16 interviews (13 - data saturation): New and established

Family Businesses (FB) demand leadership and entrepreneurial input; women are less often systematically groomed for leadership - disrupted learning phases,

learning presence supports successful leadership

Campopiano, G., De

Massis, A., Rinaldi,

F. R., Sciascia, S. 2017

Women’s

involvement in

Family Firms:

Progress and

Challenges for

Future Research

Three level framework: firm, family and individual level; Four types of women's involvement: enterpreneurial entry (starting business with husband), succession,

career dynamics (progressive involvement - glass ceiling), presence (women, who

have already entered FB)

Cesaroni, F.M.,

Sentuti, A. 2015

Family Business

Succession: A

Female Perspective

Qualitative research- interviews with 9 daughter: daughters can join FB with

different roles (responsibilities, autonomy, duties, decision-making power), not

all daughters who aspire to family business leadership can actually fulfill this role

(leadership and managerial roles); not all daughters are interested in taking on the

leadership of the family business (ambition of daughter); daughters profil 1. Leaders by choice (leadership as own fulfillment, goal achievement; strong

interest in FB, support of parents, solid preparation), 2. compelled leader (nned

of FB continuity, pushed to become leaders, strong sense of loyalty), 3. Manager by choice (task roles limited to corporate functions, not the protagonist of the

company, together with other family memembers), 4. Compelled manager (forced to be content with minor role, responsible for particular area, accepted

parents choice) =every daughter is moved by personal motivations/expectations/ambitions and wishes - every profile is different, the

context of family and business can be seen as balance btw the will of holding a

specific role and the opportunity to effectively assume one

Chua, J.H.,

Chrisman, J.J.,

Sharma, P. 1999

Defining the Family

Business by

Behavior

Quantitative research (2 mailing questionaires =453 firms): "Results strengthen

our contention that vision, intentions, and behavior are what should be used to distinguish family business from all others"

Curimbaba, F. 2002

The Dynamics of

Women’s Roles as

Family Business

Managers

Qualitative research- interviews with 12 daughters in FB: "heir's visibility was

related to both the number of men in the nuclear and extended families and the

birth order", large difference between daughters in small and large family firms; 3 groups: Professional heiresses (women at mature companies with reasonable

number of family men, they get job offers because they are professionals, but they

exclude themselves from succession - seperate own destiny from that of FB -

manager), Invisible heiresses (part of large nuclear families with large number of

men, no clear preperation for FB, women could account. for their professional or

personal choices, more focused on job with ability to leave and come back

whenever they wished- heir); Anchors ( families with more women, worked early

on in FB, FB was put ahead of their personal lives, had considerable room to

maneuver at the company - enterpreneur); Role dynamics: study assumes

positions of women in FB could change, power is fluid and exercised through

relationships, invisible daughter could gain significance in situations of

change/death; professionals could shit towards the anchor group or decrease

visibility, = however, women are still last option for succession, "As women continue to see themselves as invisible, they limit both women and men to rigid roles"

Dumas, C. 1998

Women’s

Pathways to

Participation and

Leadership in the

Family-Owned

Firm

Quantitative research - 702 women in FF: "Women are a strong presence in family-

owned firms", but did non have substantial ownership, "being the CEO's daughter

played a central role in the positon held", the majority of respondants held

positions of responsibility, only 2.9% were employees (secretaries ect), Pathways to Participation: started her own business, started at the lowest level and worked

her way up to higher levels of responsibility, immediately began in a management

postion, worked on special projects assigned by the founder. These women

assessed the family business using 3 categories of vision: reactive (see business in

utilitarian terms, just doing her job - mean of making a living), proactive (clear

picture of business and awareness of change needed) and evolving (sees potential,

but self-esteem and great awareness are required to shape the business)



Gillis-Donovan, J. Moynihan-Bradt, C. 1990

The Power of Invisible Women in the Family Business

Invisibile women: "These are women who have varying degrees of physical visibility in the place of business, from daily presence to total absence, but who share a lack of acknowledgement title, and compensation" - Social Forces: "Invisibility usually grows out of families' accommodating the rewards and sanctions of prevailing social forces". Family Forces

Kepner, E. 1983

The Family and the Firm: A Coevolutionary Perspective.

"On the other hand, a family is in the business of caring for and developing people; its boundaries are sustained by face- to-face contact, and membership in that system is by blood, not through criteria of competence." Purpose of family: belonging needs; intimacy needs (respect and valuation); identity and autonomy needs (distinction of everyone else); spouse subsystem (symmetrical, complementary and reciprocal relationship); management of conflicts is prescribed by spouse relationship; "the health of both the individual and the system is affected more by how it manages and adapts to forces that impinge on it rather than by what it has to manage"; information leads to reduction of uncertainty

Jimenez, R.M. 2009

Research on Women in Family Firms Current Status and Future Directions

Obstacles: Women's Invisibility - women FB face similar issues than other businesswomen; women often take roles in the background (assistants…); Emotional leadership - women as caretaker for family and business, transmission of values ( "mother teaches children to love the company"), Succession and Primogeniture - "women did not see work in family firm as a professional career", 90% of women see occupation in FB as temporary, constant resistance from brother and father, women must settle for another role in FB; Positive Aspects: Professional Career in the Family Firm - women were able to work effectively with their fathers, FF offer flexible schedules, job security, supportive environment ect. , it is an ideal environment for leadership preparation with a natural coach/mentor (father), they offer women real opportunities to reach the highes postions in business, women with the right skills are more likly to be considered for managerial roles, Running the family firm - women must have great efforts to prove ability to run the firm, when daughters have previous experience outside the FB -> credibility is greater, father needs to define position precisely, women leaders are less authoritarian and more participative and concerned about relationship building

Martin, P., Barnard, A. 2013

The experience of women in male-dominated occupations: A constructivist grounded theory inquiry

"Discrimination and bias seem to be the predominant challenges women face, whether they are evident in formal policies and tangible resources or in covert aspects of the organisational culture that reflect debilitating stereotypes and male resistance"; lack of visible and tangible empowerment in organisations; "Covert discriminatory behaviour manifests in stereotypical male-female gender roles and expectations that permeate the work place"; masculine culture -> discriminatory organisational structure/work roles; women seemd to have negative perceptions about their competence -> lack of self-confidence and competence; culturally prescribed duties; two contradictory female behaviours: adopting male characteristics, retaining femininity; mentoring is vital for women in male-dominated occupations;

Poza, E.J., Messer, T. 2001

Spousal Leadership and Continuity in the Family Firm

Qualitative research with 11 spouses: "spouses assume different leadership functions depending on their relationship to the CEO", three challenges are linked to leadership role: perception of need /relationship btw CEP and next generation; spouse's ability to perform needed leadership role, availability to perform communications-promoting and trust-enabling functions = many spouses operate from multiple roles; 6 functional or role types emerged: Jealous Spouse (family has to compete with business), Chief Trust Officer (providing the glue that keeps family together, they act as mediators -> "trust catalysts"), Business Partner/ Copreneur (lineal descendents of the owning family) Vice President of HR/ Finance and Facilities (trusted employee, promotes culture of secrecy in family, the Senior Advisor & Values Keeper (what the business means + what it stands for, relationship problem solver -> intangible crowssovers btw family and business), Free Agent (independent women, which stay out of business, but advice)

Watts, J.H. 2007 Porn, pride and pessimism: experiences of women working in professional construction roles

In engineering (civil, mechanical, chemical, electrical and structural) men still dominate the field; Civil engineering includes architecture, surveying and building engineering; feminist post-structuralist framework by Walby has been used; in male-dominated industries women have no history in professional roles so men's work approach is considered as the norm; "Women working in construction find themselves forced to move between these various forms of masculine identity" Qualitative research: 31 women civil engineers in UK; interviews showed how sexual harassment, safety and personal dignity are linked to each other; "the subculture of construction sites was experienced by most of the women in negative ways mainly because they were highly visible and usually the sole woman" -> visibility as key issue; Pride in their work drove women but has been also negatively affected by lack of pubblic recognition; "humour is often the strategy of choice in subjecting women to cultural and personal assault in the setting of the building site "; various forms of inappropriateness (cloths, make-up -> deter predatory male behaviour); "However,moving between the contradictions of on one level being a physical spectacle, tobeing ignored and culturally invisible on another, created particular anxieties"


APPENDIX C2: LITERATURE TABLE - FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS


Akhmedova, A.

Cavallotti, R.,

Marimon, F.

Campopiano, G. 2019

Daughters’ careers

in family business:

Motivation types

and family-specific

barriers

Qualitative and quantitative approach (397 daughters in FB): Daughters classified

as - No barriers; "leads us to suggest that a fraction of daughters who join the

family business are taking an ethical stand and are driven by the intention to act in

the best interest of the business, family, customers, suppliers, and society";

Challengers; daughters are perceived as tough -> want to experience satisfaction

from autonomy; "intrinsic and ethical motivation cluster together as a pathway

to high positions more often then the other two"; daughters join FB because it fits

their career interest; Rationals: daughters balance the interests of the company,

employees, clients, and partners, as well as their personal interests; they want to

help family; as well as have flexibility

Biju, R. Pathak, A.A. 2020

Helping women

intrapreneurial

leaders flourish:

appreciating

emotional labor

Female leaders are excpected to be intrapreneurial; the latter it is traditionally

said to be a male activity -> qualitative research: "intrapreneurs are expected to

have masculine characteristics" (high risk-taking, aggression, boldness,

dominating behavior, logical thinking..); therefore men are expected to be natural intrapreneurs; interviewed women struggled to be perceived and accepted as intrapreneurs -> to fit into this frame of masculinity = requires them to deliberatly projecting or faking masculine characteristics/ "suppressed their

natural feminity, and tried to behave like men"; suppressing emotions is a stress

situation, which could lead to a burnout; "intrapreneurial attempts of women

leaders often results in failure and discontent", which proves stereotypes;

Organizations can help women leaders by: sensitization (about stereotypes,

valuing feminin and masculin traits); training (coping with emotional labor, using

empathy and EI tools; training on strategy -> conflict management); sharing and

communication (sharing platforms, share their stories and help other females);

self-support groups; mentorship by experienced women intrapreneurs

Cole, M. Patricia 1997

Women in Family

Business

Qualitative research concidering the following relationships: two mother-son,

four wife-husband, two daughter-father, four sister-brother. Findings grouped

into 4 categories related to gender issues: invisability (of women in the family

business) - ignorance of women's professional abilities, specifically in relation

with customers, salespersons or non-family business people; Differences between Men and Women - Women are perceived as dependent and concerned

for others (peacekeepers or mediators), men more independent - "females tend to

be more inquisitive in terms of how a decision will affect the broader perspective"

(women seem more concerned what everybody is doing, while men are

concenered about themselves); Glass Ceiling and Succession - "Because they are

female, they do not advance as quickly as men and remain in lower level

positions", "small chances to run the company because of the primogeniture rule"

- this is not valid anymore, women like to put husband's in the boss positions,

especially for public image + "women's status at work did not always reflect their

offical positions" (invisible leadership positions); Motherhood and Child Care - both roles create conflicts (they partially come from the father), women tend to

balance family and business life better

Di Fabio, A. 2014

Intrapreneurial self-

capital: a new

construct for the

21st century

"Intrapreneurial self-capital is defined as the positive self-evaluation of the self-

concept characterized by one’s own ability to be committed, to identify

significant objectives, to feel in control over life events, to creatively solve

problems, to change constraints into resources, to develop one’s own skills, to

apply decision-making skills to every aspect of life, and to make decisions carefully

and rationally."; 7 constructs: Core self-evaluation (self-esteem, lovus of control,

absence of pessimism); hardiness construct (resistance to fully engage in all

aspects of life- commitment, control, challenge); creative self-efficacy (linked to

performance); resilience (deal with adversity in adaptive ways- deal with setbacks

ect); goal mastery (achieve the best level for each task, continous skill

development); decisiveness (self-determination in decision-making); Vigilance

(careful & rational rearching for relevant information before decision-making)

Quantitative research - 172 Italian high school students (external variable

scholastic success), the constructs cover ISC

Di Fabio, A.

Saklofske, D.H. 2019

The Contributions

of Personality

Traits and

Emotional

Intelligence to

Intrapreneurial Self-

Capital: Key

Resources for

Sustainability and

Sustainable

Development

Quantitative research - 206 Italian university students: personality traits together

with EI are predictors of Interpreneurial self capital (ISC); people with higher ISC

see themselves as less neurotic/ more able to control emotions; extraversion and

conscientiousness are also linked to ISC - interpreneurial individuals are more

extraverted, as well as persevering and scrupulous; people with higher ISC

describe themselves as more confident in social interactions, have good listening

and communication abilities



Farrukh, M., Ying, C.W., Mansori, S. 2016

Intrapreneurial behavior: an empirical investigation of personality traits

Quantitative research in institutions (306 professors..): Extraversion is positively related to Intrapreneurial behaviour, (full of energy, enthusiasm, proactively addressing problems ->improve creative thinking and performance), Agreeableness is negatively linked to Intrapreneurial behaviour (agreeableness might hinder people to express different ideas); negative relationship of consciousness and Intrapreneurial behaviour (consciousness is linked to high job satisfaction); positive relationship between emotional stability and IB (less neurotisism is an important trait for enterpreneurship); Openness to experiences is positively linked to IB (challenging the status quo through risk taking and innovation)

Gardinier, M., Tiggermann, M. 1999

Gender differences in leadership style, job, stress and mental health in male-and female dominated industries

Gender stereotypes (masculine - achievement; feminine- relationsships); quantitative research with 120 mangers (60 male-dominated industry - 30 f/30 m; 60; 60 female-dominated industry - 30f/30m; main difference of women / men having different leadership styles (women= interpresonal oriented in female-oriented business; no major difference in male-dominated industries; mental ill health: managers in male-domianted industries reported worse psychological health compered to female-domianted ones // no gender difference here; "women in male-dominated industries reported worse mental health when they utilized an interpersonally oriented leadership style, unlike the men, who reported better mental health when they utilized such a style"; women in male-industries were equally interpersonally oriented, in female-industries they were more interpersonally oriented = "when men dominate numerically within an organization, the tendency for women to lead with an interpersonally oriented style decreases" (Eagly, Johnson, 1990); women in male-industries were more task oriented, in female-industries exists no difference; women reported higher job stress; also higher impact of discrimination on women in male industries;

Marchisio, G., Mazzolam P., Sciascia, S., Miles, M., Astrachan, J. 2010

Corporate venturing in family business: The effects on the family and its members

Qualitative research with 27 interviews + creation of three case vignettes: ALPHA- BETA -GAMMA; at individual level process by which corporate venture (CV) initiatives are incorporated may have effects on incumbents (senior firm generation) - but they benefit from them: monitor children's entrepreneurial skills on a small/low risk venture, objectively appreciate their children's learning abilities, identify the NGFM's strengths and weaknesses to define potential leadership roles inside the core business; education aquired through CV was beneficial for the core business; "CV may increase the NGFMs' human capital and reduce the NGFMs' effective commitment"; "juniors had the opportunity to develop and strenghten their mangerial skills, to develop their decision-making ability, shape a more entrepreneurial mindset, develop self-esteem, to gain credibility and legitimacy and to nurture their motivation" (amplifying personal business interests); next generation involvement in CV initiatives may reduce affective commitment, which on the contrary is necessary for succession; "reducing family cohesion may decrease effective contribution of CV initiatives to the growth of wealth in FBs" - 2 moderating factors determining CV's impact and nature: presence of a succession process and CV participation in FB strategy - NGFMs must develop critical characteristics, such as decision-making and interpersonal abilities, network & social capital, passion, innovative spirit, gain legitmacy and credibility from family and non-fam stakeholders (CV could help satisfy some of those) = CV presents a viable solution to help NGFMS to develop managerial skills as well as provide a business supporting personal lifestyle

Neessen, P.C.M., Caniëls, M.C.J., Vos, B., de Jong, J.P. 2019

The intrapreneurial employee: toward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda

Literature review based on theory of planned behaviour (TPB) - Ajzen; attitudes of intrapreneur are related to relationship with firm; characteristics that describe; intrapreneurial behaviour refer to self-efficacy; "organization can facilitate or inhibit the actions of the intrapreneur";"attitudes and behavior as antecendents of behavior"; intrapreneurship is defined by organizational and personal perspective

Songini, L., Gnan, L. 2014

The glass ceiling in SMEs and its impact on firm managerialisation: A comparison between family and non-family SMEs

Quantitative research - 313 Italian SME's (77% FF): Family firms offer a more favourable environment to remove glass ceiling; tendency of women to be in charge of operational and supportive roles.


AFFIDAVIT I hereby declare that this master thesis has been written only by the undersigned and without

any assistance from third parties. I confirm that no sources have been used in the preparation

of this thesis other than those indicated in the thesis itself.

This master thesis has heretofore not been submitted or published elsewhere, neither in its

present form, nor in a similar version.

________________________ _____________________________ Date Signature

FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED ...

Documents

Transcript of FEMALE FAMILY INTRAPRENEURS IN MALE-DOMINATED ...