Breaking Glass: Toward a Gendered Analysis of Entrepreneurial Leadership · 2016-06-30 · Entrepreneurial Leadership by Richard Harrison, Claire Leitch, and Maura McAdam Despite

Breaking Glass: Toward a Gendered Analysis ofEntrepreneurial Leadershipby Richard Harrison, Claire Leitch, and Maura McAdam

Despite recent expansion in the literature on entrepreneurial leadership, this has not beenmatched with the development of appropriate theoretical frameworks, theory building, and con-ceptual analyses, including the analysis of gender. In this paper, we provide the foundation for amore robust and extensive gendered study of entrepreneurial leadership, through a review of theentrepreneurial leadership literature and of the current debates on gender and leadership. On thebasis of this, we propose a research agenda for the gendered analysis of the rapidly expandinginterface between leadership and entrepreneurship, comprising three themes around which thefuture development of entrepreneurial leadership can be organized.

IntroductionGlass, transparent yet impermeable, whether

as ceiling (Mattis 2004; Morrison, White, andVan Velsor 1987) or walls (Weidenfeller 2012;Wellington, Kropf, and Gerkovich 2003), is oneof the most powerful and resonant metaphorsof contemporary feminist discourse. Breakingglass encapsulates the call for action, thepractice of critique against the orthodoxy(Drakopoulou Dodd 2014), the overthrow of thestructures and constraints that preclude gender,and other, equality in both leadership (Reger2007) and entrepreneurship (DrakopoulouDodd 2014). Within the emerging domain ofentrepreneurial leadership research, we arguein this paper that gender issues have been rarelyacknowledged. Our aim, therefore, is to high-light the role of gender in entrepreneurial lead-ership by building upon the more extensive

gender debates in the entrepreneurship andleadership disciplines. Our contribution is thedevelopment of a research agenda for agendered analysis of entrepreneurial leadership.In so doing, we review the definition and con-ceptualization of the term, before summarizingthe elements of a gendered perspective whichhighlights the embedded masculinity of theentrepreneurial leadership domain. Further, wefollow Patterson, Mavin, and Turner’s (2012)argument that due to this embedded masculin-ity, entrepreneurial leadership is gender blind,gender neutral and gender defensive: genderblind, in that mainstream management theory ismore accurately labeled “male stream,” becauseit fails to recognize the relationship betweenmanagement and gender (Wilson 1996); genderneutral, in that “the sex of the actor is irrelevantin how the behavior is understood, perceivedand experienced by leaders and followers”

Richard Harrison is professor in the Business School at the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.Claire Leitch is professor of Management Learning and Leadership at the Lancaster University Management

School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.Maura McAdam is senior lecturer in the Queen’s University Management School at the Queen’s University,

Belfast, UK.Address correspondence to: Claire Leitch, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University,

Room C39 Charles Carter, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK. E-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Small Business Management 2015 53(3), pp. 693–713

doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12180

HARRISON, LEITCH, AND MCADAM 693

mailto:[email protected]

(Fletcher 2004, p. 654), and gender defensive,in behaving in a way such as to protectgender identity (maleness and/or femaleness)(Goldberg 1987).

It is important to challenge prevailinggendered assumptions and conceptions(Broadbridge and Simpson 2011; Orser, Elliott,and Leck 2011), “to understand how genderedlanguage has permeated constructions of entre-preneurial leadership providing a gender con-sciousness to this developing area” (Patterson,Mavin, and Turner 2012, p. 396). This is impor-tant for three reasons. First, from an intellectualperspective, the adoption of a gendered lensaddresses issues concerning diversity, thegeneralizability of findings and the inclusivityof theories (Ayman and Korabik 2010). Second,understanding how women experience entre-preneurial leadership can inform strategicpolicy decisions and initiatives to increase thesupply of female entrepreneurial leaders suchas tailored leadership development programs(Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen2003). Third, there is a danger that entrepre-neurial leadership, like other new post-heroicmodels of leadership (which emphasize collab-orative, relational, and interdependent behav-iors), may be co-opted into the mainstreamdiscourse due to an incongruence with the pre-vailing individualistic, meritocratic perspectivewhich underpins traditional approaches(Collinson 2005; Fletcher 2004). In the remain-der of this paper, we review the entrepreneur-ial leadership literature, summarize key themesin the gendered analysis of leadership not yetacknowledged in the entrepreneurship-basedliterature, and develop a research agenda basedon the application of these ideas in entrepre-neurial leadership.

Entrepreneurial LeadershipEven though 20 years has passed since com-

mentators first advocated integrating the twodomains of entrepreneurship and leadership(Gartner, Bird, and Starr 1992; Harrison andLeitch 1994; Miller and Friesen 1984; Patterson,Mavin, and Turner 2012), entrepreneurial lead-ership as an emerging field remains atheoretical,lacks definitional clarity and appropriate tools toassess its characteristics and behaviors (Leitch,McMullan, and Harrison 2012; Renko et al.2015). Previous researchers have identified par-allels in the development of research in bothentrepreneurship and leadership, including anearly focus on traits and personality attributes

and conceptual overlaps such as vision, influ-ence, leading innovative/creative individuals,and planning (Coglister and Brigham 2004;Renko et al. 2015; Vecchio 2003), from whichboth fields might derive reciprocal benefits(Daily, McDougall, Covin, and Dalton 2002;Gupta, McMillan, and Surie 2004; Jensen andLuthans 2006).

In considering entrepreneurial leadership asthe common ground between entrepreneur-ship, on the one hand, and leadership, on theother, there are two diametrically opposedviews on their relationship. For Vecchio (2003),there is nothing distinctive about entrepreneur-ial leadership and it is appropriate, therefore,simply to extend existing leadership researchinto entrepreneurship: in other words, entre-preneurship is merely seen as a sub-domain ofleadership. By contrast, from an entrepreneur-ial perspective Kuratko (2007) has suggestedthat leadership should be considered a con-stituent of the field in that an entrepreneurialmind-set and behaviors are essential for effec-tive leadership: entrepreneurship becomes theessence of leadership. Our understanding ofentrepreneurial leadership rejects the absolut-ism of both of these positions. Rather, entre-preneurial leadership exists at the nexus ofentrepreneurship and leadership (Coglister andBrigham 2004). Within this interface thereremains considerable diversity in approach,reflected in the absence of any agreed defini-tion of entrepreneurial leadership (Table 1). Acommon thread running through the majorityof these definitions is their focus on the traits,characteristics, and behaviors of entrepreneur-ial leaders and leadership in terms that are veryclearly rooted in the entrepreneurial literature.

This suggests that the entrepreneurial lead-ership literature to date is primarily character-ized by an internal, intra-organizational focusand by a strong disciplinary orientation. Thisprovides the basis for our categorization of theentrepreneurial leadership literature along twodimensions. The first of these is orientation,in which we distinguish between internallyfocused studies on the traits, characteristics,and behaviors of entrepreneurial leaders andexternally focused studies focused on thebroader external domains and contexts withinwhich entrepreneurial leadership is observed.The second dimension is the disciplinary basisof the research, where we distinguish betweenstudies which are grounded explicitly in one orother disciplinary traditions (fragmented) and

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT694

Table 1Evolving Definitions of Entrepreneurial Leadership

Cunningham andLischeron (1991)

Entrepreneurial leadership involves setting clear goals, creatingopportunities, empowering people, preserving organizationalintimacy, and developing a human resource system.

Ireland, Hitt, andSirmon (2003)

Entrepreneurial leadership entails the ability to influence others tomanage resources strategically in order to emphasize bothopportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviors.

Coglister andBrigham (2004)

Entrepreneurial leadership involves vision, influence (on bothfollowers and a wider constituency) leadership of innovative andcreative planning and planning.

Gupta, McMillan, andSurie (2004)

Leadership that creates visionary scenarios that are used to assembleand mobilize a supporting cast of participants who becomecommitted by the vision to the discovery and exploitation ofstrategic value creation.

Thornberry (2006) Leadership requires passion, vision, focus, and the ability to inspireothers. Entrepreneurial leadership requires all these, plus amind-set and skill set that helps entrepreneurial leaders identify,develop, and capture new business opportunities.

Antonakis and Autio(2006)

Gives explicit consideration to the context as a mediator betweenentrepreneurial leadership behaviors and task entrepreneurial taskoutcomes.

Chen (2007) Greater response to new market opportunities through new businesscreation.

Kuratko (2007) Entrepreneurial leadership is a unique concept combining theidentification of opportunities, risk taking beyond security andbeing resolute enough to follow through.

Darling, Gabrielsson,and Seristo (2007)

Attention through vision, meaning through communication and trustthrough positioning, confidence through respect.

Surie and Ashley(2008)

Leadership capable of sustaining innovation and adaptation in highvelocity and uncertain environments.

Roomi and Harrison(2011)

Entrepreneurial leadership is a fusion of two constructs; having andcommunicating the vision to engage teams to identify, developand take advantage of opportunity in order to gain competitiveadvantage.

Greenberg,McKone-Sweet, andWilson (2011)

Entrepreneurial leaders are individuals who, through anunderstanding of themselves and the contexts in which theywork, act on and shape opportunities that create value for theirorganizations, their stakeholders, and the wider society.

Leitch, McMullan, andHarrison (2012)

Entrepreneurial leadership is the leadership role performed inentrepreneurial ventures, rather than in the more general sense ofan entrepreneurial style of leadership.

Renko et al. (2015) Entrepreneurial leadership entails influencing and directing theperformance of group members toward the achievement oforganizational goals that involve recognizing and exploringentrepreneurial opportunities.

Source: Adapted from Renko et al. (2015, p. 41).


those which emphasize a more integratedmulti- or interdisciplinary perspective. Thesetwo dimensions then provide the basis forlocating four categories of entrepreneurial lead-ership literature (Figure 1). In so doing, and toavoid confusion, we adapt the terminology pre-sented in Roomi and Harrison (2011).

As we have already seen from the definitionsin Table 1 most of the current research onentrepreneurial leadership has a fragmenteddisciplinary basis. The first group of these com-prises a set of discipline-based studies, whichare primarily descriptive rather than analyticalor explanatory, and look at entrepreneurshipand leadership as separate constructs. Secondand in the same tradition, there is an extensivebody of literature that builds on the psychologi-cal approach to entrepreneurship, focusing inparticular on the traits and behaviors of “entre-preneurial leaders.” There are far fewer studiesextant that adopt a more integrated disciplinarybasis for entrepreneurial leadership research.

However, this is beginning to change, and wecan see the emergence of a small number ofholistic approaches focused on the internalintrinsic elements of entrepreneurial leader-ship. These are complemented by a number ofcontextually-based studies which look more atthe processes through which entrepreneurialleadership develops and the circumstancesassociated with its emergence.

For us, as in entrepreneurship more gener-ally, it is impossible to discuss entrepreneurialleadership separate from the context withinwhich it is demonstrated (Watson 2013a,2013b; Welter 2011; Zahra and Wright 2011),not least in view of the false dualism betweenindividual and context (Spedale and Watson2014) and because context differentially bothprovides opportunities and constrains theactions of individuals through spatial and insti-tutional norms (Welter, de Bruin, and Brush2014). If psychological entrepreneurial leader-ship research asks “who are you?” (traits) and

Figure 1A Typology of the Literature on Entrepreneurial Leadership

ORIENTATION

Internal

External

DISCIPLINARY BASIS

Fragmented Integrated

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Brockhaus, 1982; Nicholson, 1988; Ensley et al., 2006a, 2006b; Gupta et al., 2004; Antonakis and Autio, 2006; Renko et al., 2013; Covin and Slevin, 2002; Daily et al., 2002

HOLISTIC

Yang, 2008; Nahavandi, 2002; Surie and Ashley, 2007; Robinson et al., 2006; Kuratko, 2007; Greenberg et al., 2011; Thornberry, 2006

DISCIPLINARY

Coglister and Brigham, 2004; Fernald et al., 2005; Vecchio, 2003; Renko et al., forthcoming; Roomi and Harrison, 2011; Patterson et al., 2012; Miller and Friesen, 1984; Gartner et al., 1992; Ireland et al., 2003; Baum, Locke, and Kirkpatrick, 1998;Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991; Darling et al., 2007

CONTEXTUAL

Antonakis and Autio, 2006; Eyal and Kark, 2004; Swiercz and Lydon, 2002; Chen, 2007; Harrison and Leitch, 1994; Henry et al., 2003; Autio, 2013; Cohen, 2004; Gibb, 1993; Jensen and Luthans, 2006; Leitch et al., 2012


disciplinary research asks “what do you do?”(behaviors), contextual research asks “wheredo you do it?” and recognizes that the nature ofentrepreneurial leadership itself is constitutedby, not independent, of its context (Due Billingand Alvesson 2000; Leitch, McMullan, andHarrison 2012). This is to acknowledge thatthere is something distinctive about the entre-preneurial context, in terms of ambiguity, risk,uncertainty, innovation, environmental dyna-mism and volatility, organizational size, andnewness (Autio 2013; Chen 2007; Leitch,McMullan, and Harrison 2009; Surie and Ashley2008). Context matters, therefore, in the studyof entrepreneurial leadership and concepts,frameworks and modes of analysis that areappropriate and effective in one domain maynot be so in another. As such, it is inappropri-ate to apply leadership theories which havebeen developed in a large corporate context inthe entrepreneurial domain.

Given that gender is socially constructed andactively produced through participation incontextualized social activities such as entrepre-neurial leadership (Patterson, Mavin, andTurner 2012), and in view of the extensiveliterature on gender in both entrepreneurshipand leadership, it is surprising that across all ofthese categories of entrepreneurial leadership,the one common theme that unites them is theabsence of a substantive engagement withgender. Accordingly, in the remainder of thispaper we focus on how approaches to theanalysis and practice of entrepreneurial leader-ship can be developed in light of contemporarydiscussions of the role of gender in leadershipresearch.

Leadership, Masculinity,and Femininity

The role of gender in leadership has been thesubject of considerable and growing attention inleadership studies. In this section we brieflyreview some of the salient contributions to thisdebate as the basis for developing a genderedanalysis of entrepreneurial leadership. Reflect-ing broader debates such as those within CriticalManagement Studies, we recognize that genderstands as a proxy for femininity (Ashcraft 2011).As Kelan (2009, p. 166) remarks, gender “sticks”to women in a very specific, and indeed,gendered manner, supporting the notion thatmasculinity is the default needing no explana-tion or rational defense. Oakley (1972) is cred-ited with first drawing distinctions between sex

as a biological category and gender as a socialconstruction of feminine and masculine charac-teristics, which are then crudely mapped ontomales and females (Holmes 2007). Throughthe separation of biological sex and sociallyascribed gendered roles, Oakley (1972) demon-strated how the latter acts as a socio-economicvalorization process which devalues character-istics associated with the feminine. Accordingly,those associated with masculinity are affordedgreater respect, legitimacy, and authoritywhereas those associated with femininity aresubordinated within this hierarchical binary(Bowden and Mummery 2009; Hirdman 2001).However, although there is no essentialfemininity or masculinity, gender makes us cul-turally intelligible (Butler 2004; Holmes 2007).As social actors we make sense of others interms of their ascribed gender. Thus, the notionof gendered identities is critical in order tounderstand the ontology of the constructedsubject positions ascribed to men and womenthrough ascribed masculinities and femininities(Bowden and Mummery 2009; Chasserio, Pailot,and Poroli 2014), and this provides the basisfor a gendered analysis of entrepreneurialleadership.

In recent years, the field of leadership hasshifted in focus in three significant ways as it hasbegun to move from a positivist/post-positivistmind-set emphasizing command, control, andhierarchy toward newer models more reflectiveof the economic, demographic, and competitivechanges characterizing the modern workplace(Johanson 2008; Kanter 2001). First, there hasbeen a shift in interest away from the personalcharacteristics of the leader from an individual-ized, heroic conceptualization toward leader-ship as a role incorporating interaction withsocial and organizational context (Leitch,McMullan, and Harrison 2012; Thorpe et al.2009). Second, there has been shift from viewingthe leader as comprising a set of individual traitstowards considering leadership as a collectivesocial activity (Bolden 2011). Third, there hasbeen a shift away from leadership as generic toone that recognizes its diversity in terms ofgender, ethnicity, and situational context. Theseshifts in focus provide the basis for a reconsid-eration and reprioritization of the role of genderin leadership in general and in entrepreneurialleadership in particular.

Given this it is clear that organizations andpractices built on “a nineteenth-century mixtureof beliefs from patriarchal visions of the world,


militarism, theories of social Darwinism andthe metaphor of the machine bequeathed byNewtonian physics” (Rao and Kelleher 2000,pp. 74–75) are no longer applicable. However,in practice it remains the case that the symbolicuniverse of masculinity (Patterson, Mavin, andTurner 2012) has so significantly influenced thedevelopment of leadership that it is difficult toseparate leadership and men (Eagly and Carli2007), to the extent that the language of mas-culinity, leadership, and entrepreneurship areso intertwined they have become synonymous(Hearn and Parkin 1988; Schnurr 2008). Ourunderstandings of organizations, leaders, andindividual roles are grounded on genderedexpectations (Patterson, Mavin, and Turner2012, p. 398), where masculinity and men arenormalized (Calás and Smircich 1996) andwhere women learn to become leaders againsta male background (Elliott and Stead 2008).Furthermore, the practice of leadership hasbeen compounded by the fact that the majorityof research has mainly tended to be conductedin the context of Western industrialized culturewhich expounds these masculine ideals (Elliottand Stead 2008; Stelter 2002).

Gender, however, is neither fixed nor stable,but is constructed through daily interactions withothers; as a result individuals learn how to playthe part of man or woman depending on what agiven context demands or what is consideredappropriate (Goffman 1987). As a result of thisgender socialization process “we learn what itmeans to be an adult human being within oursociety” (Holmes 2007, p. 41). In fact, if individu-als do not behave appropriately with regardsto their gender this may result in them beingrejected or sanctioned (West and Zimmerman1987). Moreover, challenging gender conformitycreates “gender trouble” (Jagose 1996; Roseneil2000), as disputing the alleged “natural order”results in uncertainty and suspicion (Fiske 1989;Keltner 1995). There is considerable social,hetero-normative pressure to observe genderconformity and convention. So, despite, the com-plexity of the debate surrounding articulations ofgender, value laden social assumptions activelyshape normative behaviors and social expecta-tions (McRobbie 2009). Thus, “women,” asa biological category are subordinated bygendered ascription (Bowden and Mummery2009; Holmes 2007) but the manner in whichsuch subordination is experienced and articu-lated in relation to, and in reflection of, particularsocio-economic contexts.

As a result, in entrepreneurial leadershipthe male/female and masculine/femininedichotomy is evident, where the male/masculine is regarded as the universal, neutralsubject against which the woman/female isjudged (Ahl 2006). From a role-congruitytheory perspective, which considers how con-sistent behavior is with socially acceptedgender roles, this can clearly range from posi-tive to negative assessments (Dahlvig andLongman 2010). While new, post-heroic modelsof leadership emphasizing a collaborative, rela-tional process “are often presented as genderand, to a lesser degree, power neutral,”Fletcher (2004, p. 648) suggests instead theycan be considered to be “rooted in a set ofsocial relations in which doing gender, doingpower and doing leadership are linked incomplex ways.” In essence, as gender hasvisible and invisible components which canimpact on identity, group cohesion, and inter-personal interactions as well as access to powerand resources (Ayman and Korabik 2010) itremains necessary to challenge the dominant,masculinized frameworks and power structuresunderpinning leadership research and practice(Chin 2004).

Contemporaneous to the post-heroic modelsof leadership is the notion of feminine leader-ship which emphasizes apparently feminineattributes, attitudes, and behaviors such asan inter-personal orientation, collaboration,empathy, kindness, and more participatory andrelational leadership styles (Due Billing andAlvesson 2000; Eagly 2007; Goleman andBoyatzis 2008; Hanold 2013; Lipman-Blumen1996; Mortimer 2009). Perhaps unsurprisinglythis has been defined in “complementary andcorresponding terms to masculinity” (DueBilling and Alvesson 2000, p. 147). In part thischallenge to contemporary leadership thinkingreflects a postmodern sensibility to “uncer-tainty, movement, multiplicity of meaning, frag-mentation and indeterminancy” (Hatcher 2003,p. 392), the very conditions held to justify thedistinctiveness of entrepreneurial leadership.However, while an alternative to the prevailingperspective has been advanced, focusing solelyon a feminist approach can continue to limitour understanding by potentially perpetuatinga superficial analysis of leadership which rein-forces dualisms and stereotypes. Indeed,despite the calls for or identification of thefeminization of leadership (Gerzema andD’Antonio 2013; Wolf 2013), “leadership


positions remain populated by white males and. . . leadership is predominantly tied to mascu-line attributes” (Hanold 2013, pp. 91–92).Instead, it would be more helpful to view femi-nine leadership as a “critical concept” whichacts as a foil to the dominant masculine way inwhich leadership is currently conceptualized(Due Billing and Alvesson 2000, p. 155), per-mitting a more nuanced appreciation of acomplex construct. Nevertheless, althoughmasculine leadership has shown some signs ofdecline in recent years (Koenig et al. 2011),aspiring leaders still appear to hold feminineleadership skills in low esteem (Holt andMarques 2012).

Accordingly, although contemporary leader-ship theory has progressed from traditional mas-culine constructs to draw upon femininitiesthrough for example self-awareness, empathy,capacity for listening (Fletcher 2004) it fails tohelp move beyond dualistic thinking leavingwomen leaders trapped within their sex rolestereotype, reproducing the inequalities of thebinary (Patterson, Mavin, and Turner 2012).However, despite the rhetoric surrounding suchnew leadership styles, which have been aroundfor nearly two decades, very few organizationsactually use them; this is reflected in little or nochange in the number of women in seniorleadership positions. Indeed, the lack of fit(Heilman 2001) and role incongruity (Eagly andChin 2010; Eagly and Karau 2002; Heilman andEagly 2008), arising from this binary privilegingthe masculine continue to perpetuate diversity-based discrimination in leadership practice.Despite post-heroic leadership being presentedas gender neutral—this is not the case (Fletcher2004). In other words, the so-called feminizationof leadership is reflected in increased attentionto authenticity in its practice, to the socialcontext in which it is exercized in terms of theinextricable engagement between leaders andfollowers and to the elaboration of multiplemodels of post-heroic leadership. This review ofgender in leadership provides the backgroundto the development of a research agenda for thegendered analysis of entrepreneurial leadershipto which we now turn.

The Gendered Analysis ofEntrepreneurial Leadership:A Research Agenda

Gender in entrepreneurial leadership cannotbe considered in isolation or as generic

(Ashcraft 2011), but sits as part of a widerdiscourse of diversity (Ayman and Korabik2010; Metcalfe and Woodhams 2012). Thisdebate introduces notions of intersectionality,which suggests that previous work has beenembedded in generic racist and hetero-normative assumptions that uncritically posi-tions gender subordination as universal anddominant within the hierarchy of disadvanta-geous social ascriptions. Intersectionality as aterm originated from the work of Crenshaw(1997), who criticized mainstream feminist dis-course for being white in origin and associa-tion. It continues to be at the centre of debateslooking at power dynamics from the perspec-tive that argues interdependence betweenintersecting inequalities of gender, race, sexu-ality, age, disability, social class, religion, andnationality, in relation to subject positions andidentities (Adib and Guerrier 2003; Holvino2010). However, this “more reflexive critiquehas yet to be acknowledged as a recognizedelement of the gendered entrepreneurial dis-course” (McAdam 2012, p. 99). Nevertheless,there are signs that this is beginning to changeas interest in the application to entrepreneur-ship of concepts developed elsewhere beginsto increase (Chasserio, Pailot, and Poroli 2014;Essers 2009; Harvey 2005). As such, this is partof a wider recognition that entrepreneurship isnot a universal and timeless phenomenon but,is one which is context bound, both in thenarrow sense of the individual’s life situationand local and situational characteristics, and interms of the broader social, cultural, ethnic,institutional, and historical contexts (vanGeldern and Masurel 2012).

In considering how to extend genderresearch in the emerging area of entrepre-neurial leadership it is helpful to situate thisin the context of the history of the discussionof gender in management theory more gener-ally. In so doing, we take as a starting pointMetcalfe and Woodhams’s (2012) recentreview of new directions in gender, diversity,and organization theorizing and apply this toshaping a research agenda for entrepreneurialleadership that acknowledges and categorizesthe research done to date and identifies illus-trative research questions. This history can beconsidered as a trajectory in which themeshave risen to prominence and been sup-planted by new emphases through theprocess of critique and reconstruction. Table 2shows seven key themes in the evolution of


Table 2Themes in the Treatment of Gender in Management Theory and

Their Application in Entrepreneurial Leadership

Theme Description Key References Illustrative ResearchQuestions for

EntrepreneurialLeadership

Current Approaches in Entrepreneurial LeadershipWomen in Management Gender as a variable approach

which is descriptive andreflects inequalities due tosex difference and genderstereotypes.

In entrepreneurship there hasbeen a move away fromgender as variable approachto more feminine sensitivemethodologies.

Kanter (1977, 2001);Eagly (1987);Wajcman (1998)

How do we give womenentrepreneurial leaders voice?

Gender and OrganizationTheory

A move away from biologicalessentialism to acknowledgegender as a sociallyconstituted ongoing socialprocess.

In entrepreneurship there is anongoing transition fromliberal feminism to the socialconstruction of gender.

Calás and Smircich(1992, 1996);Acker (1990,1992); Gherardi(1995)

How do women entrepreneurialleaders develop and representthemselves as leaders?

Diversity Recognizes individual identitiesare shaped by a multitude ofdifferent characteristics suchas race, disability, culture,sexuality, class and location.

In entrepreneurship there isincreasing recognition ofintersectionality, that is, howdifferent markers of identityintersect with gender.

Cox (1994); Kandolaand Fullerton(1994); West andZimmerman(1987)

In what ways do womenentrepreneurial leaders jointlynegotiate and navigate differentmarkers of identity?

Emerging Approaches in Entrepreneurial LeadershipMicro

Social Constructionismand Critical ManagementStudies

Exploring how gender relationsand heteronormativesexuality, ethnicity and classrelations intertwine insociety’s structural andinstitutional fabric.

There is an emerging criticalawareness which challengesthe neo-liberal constructionof entrepreneurship as anemancipatory andparticipatory endeavor.

Alvesson (1998);Alvesson and DueBilling (1999);Calás and Smircich(1999); Crenshaw(1997); Puar(2005); Spicer(2011); Ahl andMarlow (2012)

What is the relationship betweenentrepreneurial leadership and thewider structural and institutionalfabric of the society in which it isembedded?

What are the implications of(in)visibility for the constructionand practice of entrepreneurialleadership?

What are the implications of glasswalls and the glass ceiling for thecareer dynamics of, andaccumulation of human and socialcapital, by women entrepreneurialleaders?

What are the implications of genderfatigue for the reinforcement ofwidely accepted leadership idealsand hence, a reduced willingnessby women to assumeentrepreneurial leadership roles?


Table 2Continued

Theme Description Key References Illustrative Research Questions forEntrepreneurial Leadership

Meso ACritical Men’s Studies

Focuses on the principles ofhegemonic masculinityunderpinning managementand organization theory andmarginalizes both womenand men who do not meetthis ideal.

Entrepreneurship is stillimplicitly based onhegemonic masculinity,archetypically represented inthe model of the heroicindividual entrepreneur.

Collinson and Hearn(1994, 1996);Connell (1995);Martin (2001);Kerfoot andKnights (1993)

What other models of entrepreneurialleadership, apart from the heroicindividual leader, can bedeveloped?

Given that gender is not justsomething that sticks to womenhow should gender research inentrepreneurial leadership reflect onboth masculinity and femininity?

Meso BRace Studies

Within the context of the civilrights movement challengesthe predominance ofneo-liberal governanceregimes.

In entrepreneurship, ethnicitycontinues to be treated as avariable rather than astructural configuration ofsociety.

Ahmed (1998, 2000);Collins (1990);Hooks (2000);Broadbridge andSimpson (2011)

How should entrepreneurialleadership address the analysis ofgender with ethnicity in aframework which transcendsneo-liberal governance regimes?

What are the implications forentrepreneurial leadership researchof the narrow and broad contextualnature of the entrepreneurialprocess?

MacroGlobal Perspectives:

- Post-colonialism- Transnationalism- Space and place

Based on critiques drawing onsocial theory and communitydevelopment of the broaderorganization processes andpower relations in thedevelopment of globalcapitalism.

Entrepreneurship is currentlycharacterized as the dynamicengine of the capitalistsystem, which is variouslydescribed as evolving, incrisis or collapsing.

Castells (2009);Escobar (1988,1995);Featherstone(1990); Harvey(2011); McNally(2011); Nader(1989); Spivak(1999)

What are the implications forentrepreneurial leadership of recentdebates about the evolution of latecapitalism in a global context?For entrepreneurial leader researchhow does critique of the “other”function as a process throughwhich women are controlled bycultures and states?

What are the implications forentrepreneurial leadership of theway in which masculine signifiersare represented in ideas about therelative place of women in society?What are the implications of thetension between the global,specifically the imposition ofWestern culture and capitalism, andthe local for the emergence of newways of doing gender inentrepreneurial leadership?

How do the gendered geographies ofspace and place, and their unevenpatters of development, opportunityand access to resources, shape thechoices and identity positions ofentrepreneurial leaders?

How do the geographies of powerconstitute the various domainswithin which genderedentrepreneurial leadership ispracticed and observed?


theorizing gender, feminism, and diversity inmanagement and organization theory. Withinentrepreneurship the first three of thesethemes have been, to a greater or lesserextent, the focus of substantial research.However, as in entrepreneurship researchmore generally, there has to date been littleengagement with the rest of these themes inthe entrepreneurial leadership literature.

At the micro level, we build on currentgender research on social constructionism,critical management studies, and inter-sectionality to identify a number of issueswhich extend contemporary entrepreneurialleadership research. At the meso level, weapply the critical social science literature onmen’s studies and race studies to examinemore comprehensively the implications ofdiversity for entrepreneurial leadership.Finally, at the macro level, we draw on con-temporary debates in critical social science toidentify three pillars that can provide a foun-dation for theoretically advancing the knowl-edge domain of entrepreneurial leadershipresearch. In the remainder of this paper werecommend a research agenda, at three levelsof abstraction, for the gendered analysis ofentrepreneurial leadership informed by thesewider contemporary discussions. Accordingly,we reflect the changes in our understanding ofleadership as already discussed, each of whichis associated with the so-called feminization ofleadership (Due Billing and Alvesson 2000;Eagly 2007; Lipman-Blumen 1996), that is theshift from leader to leadership, from leader-ship as an individual to a social/collectiveactivity and from leadership as generic to apractice grounded in diversity.

Micro Level: Social ConstructionismArising out of the masculinity/femininity lit-

erature reviewed above there are threecurrent topics in management and leadershipthat are not reflected in entrepreneurship.First, situated within the argument that thegender problem in organizations has beensolved (Lewis and Simpson 2011) (in)visibilityrefers to the revealing and concealing ofgender. We can distinguish between surface(in)visibility, the exclusion or marginalizationdue to belonging to a minority group anddeep (in)visibility, the ways in which power ismaintained through in(visibility) and taken forgranted male norms (Simpson and Lewis2005). Indeed, as we have already shown,

masculinity is taken to be the normative stan-dard, “against which difference is constructed. . . [it] never has to speak its name, never hasto acknowledge its role as an organizing prin-ciple in social and cultural relations” (Lipsitz1998, cited in Lewis 2006, p. 455). Failure tofit in with such norms results in the processof “othering” (Hearn 1996) and as “other,”women become visible in the workplace(Lewis and Simpson 2011). Women in maledominated domains can be highly visible as aresult of their gender (Stead 2013) and areoften awarded token status; however, they arefrequently invisible with regard to the author-ity and credibility required by the position(Lewis and Simpson 2011). In other words,concerns about such invisibility are groundedin lack of worth, reputation, and credibility(Tyler and Cohen 2010). Women entrepre-neurial leaders have to straddle their visibilityand invisibility (i.e., their in-group/out-groupstatus, Kanter 1977) which can result ingender switching (Bruni and Gherardi 2002)between a male and female identity toadvance their entrepreneurial leadership posi-tions (Stead 2013). If the behaviors associatedwith visibility reflect gender defensiveness,queen bee syndrome is a quest for invisibility,where women seek to blend into the mascu-linized world (Lewis 2006) and so distancethemselves from any practices, especiallyfeminine ones, that might exclude them(Lewis and Simpson 2011).

Second, as women progress up the corpo-rate ladder the barriers they encounter inten-sify relative to those faced by their malecounterparts (Baxter and Wright 2000;Hymowitz and Schellhardt 1986). For example,the glass ceiling refers to a metaphoricalbarrier encountered by suitably qualifiedwomen trying to advance within their chosenoccupations (Gupta, Turban, and Bhawe 2008;Gupta et al. 2009). Though similar, the glasswall refers to “functional segregation that pre-vents women from obtaining line and generalmanagement experience” (Mattis 2004, p. 159).So, instead of simply blocking potentialascent, the glass wall effect works laterally,preventing a woman from moving to aposition that has a promotional ladder(Weidenfeller 2012; Wellington, Kropf, andGerkovich 2003). Several features have beenattributed to the makeup of this metaphoricalglass wall, with similar traits being foundwithin the concept of the glass ceiling


(Weidenfeller 2012), including a gender paygap, exclusion from networks and groups, andharassment within the workplace. Indeed boththe glass ceiling and the glass wall arebelieved to be responsible for women’s lack ofadvancement to senior leadership positionsand their premature exit from organizations(Mattis 2004), thus reducing organizations’ability to retain suitably qualified leaders. Forthe gendered analysis of entrepreneurial lead-ership this suggests that more attention needsto be paid to the career dynamics (in bothorganizational and entrepreneurial contexts) ofwomen leaders as they seek to accumulate, orare prevented from accumulating, the humanand social capital necessary for entrepreneur-ial leadership.

Third, there is a growing argument fromindividuals (male and female) in the workplacethat they work in a gender neutral environ-ment, that they do not register gender and,accordingly, that they believe gender does notmatter. However, there is emergent evidence ofgender fatigue in the relations between indi-viduals and their working environment:women, and indeed men, are tiring of con-structing the workplace over and over again asgender neutral in spite of evidence of the factthat gender discrimination exists (Kelan 2009).Despite the complexity of the debate surround-ing articulations of gender, therefore, valueladen social assumptions based upon thebinary divide actively shape normative behav-iors (McRobbie 2009). Indeed, there is anassumption that women have somehowreached a state of equality. Apart from the paygap between men and women, it is argued,they are no longer discriminated against andhence women can be more like men in theworkplace, that is, more competitive, individu-alistic in outlook, less concerned with caringfor others and more concerned with the care ofself (Eagly and Chin 2010; Powell, Butterfield,and Parent 2002). One of the implications ofthis is that gender fatigue reinforces the per-ception that entrepreneurial leadership is pre-dominately tied to masculine attributes (Fondas1997; Guthey 2001; Hearn 2000). As such, anyattempt to activate “cultural stereotypes incon-sistent with widely accepted ideals of leader-ship . . . can undermine leadership opportunity. . . by eliciting doubts about stereotyped indi-viduals’ leadership abilities . . . [and] by makingthem personally anxious about confirmingthese doubts and, therefore, wary about taking

on leadership roles” (Eagly and Chin 2010,p. 218).

Meso Level: Diversity—Critical Men’sStudies and Race and Ethnicity Studies

There has been increasing recognition, inthe gender literature and elsewhere, ofthe need to acknowledge the implicationsof diversity for our understanding of leader-ship (Ayman and Korabik 2010). Whileintersectionality is becoming more recognizedin entrepreneurship, there is still little acknowl-edgment of how the markers of differences(Essers and Benschop 2009)—such as ethnicity,religion, education, location—intersect withgender to limit women’s engagement withentrepreneurial leadership. These markers rep-resent the diverse contexts in which male privi-lege is and can be hidden and protected: anemerging research agenda, therefore, shouldaddress how gender power in these contexts ispreserved and revealed through processes ofconceiving, exposure, and erasure (Fletcher2004; Patterson, Mavin, and Turner 2012).Given recent calls for gender research in entre-preneurship to more specifically acknowledgemasculinity (Jennings and Brush 2013), thissuggests that entrepreneurial leadershipresearch should recognize that gender is notjust something that sticks to women. In sodoing, this will draw more explicitly on thecritical men’s studies literature that recognizesthat men were being ignored in social scienceand development debates (Collinson and Hearn1994, 1996; Connell 1995; Kerfoot and Knights1993; Martin 2001). Equally, the emergence ofthe critical turn in social sciences with respectto race studies and ethnicity points to addi-tional research opportunities.

While entrepreneurship research more gen-erally has a long tradition of research intoethnic entrepreneurship, as with much of thegender research discussed above, this hasadopted “ethnicity as a variable” approach,where “ethnic” becomes a marker to define andisolate a community for study (Ram and Jones2008). However, from an intersectionality per-spective the social construction processes ofgender are complex, multifaceted, and hetero-geneous, and will vary by age, race, ethnicity,sex, life history, culture, and location. Entrepre-neurial leadership research that takes genderseriously, therefore, needs to take into consid-eration these changing contexts and changingperceptions of male and female, of masculinity


and femininity, as these are not fixed tempo-rally or spatially. Accordingly, researchers willhave to address a fundamental limitation ofentrepreneurship scholarship. James (2012) hasrecently argued that entrepreneurship scholarshave a long history of approaching the phe-nomena through the lens of problems requiringsolutions and suggests that in case of women’sentrepreneurship this problem-oriented focushas stunted our understanding of the factorsthat contribute to the flourishing of women’sentrepreneurial activity. Furthermore, thisfocus has emerged at the expense of alternativeviews of women’s entrepreneurship and theinsights these perspectives might offer (Calás,Smircich, and Bourne 2009).

Macro Level: Global PerspectivesThere have been calls for entrepreneurial

leadership to be based on a different businesslogic, maximizing common good and minimiz-ing social injustice (Greenberg, McKone-Sweet,and Wilson 2011). In responding to this, andadopting a genuinely global perspective, entre-preneurial leadership research will need tomove beyond the micro- and meso-level exten-sions that we have discussed and engage withthe macro level analysis of the structures pro-ducing inequality on the basis of difference.Given the marginalization of gender and diver-sity in academic discourse and the limitations ofWestern perspectives on gender and diversity inevaluating contemporary global, social, andorganizational change (Metcalfe and Woodhams2012, p. 124), a point hinted at, but not devel-oped, by Hughes et al. (2012), is necessary todevelop a holistic interpretation of gender,diversity and difference based around thethemes of social justice and inequality agendasas they play out in both the Global North and theGlobal South. Metcalfe and Woodhams (2012)do so by focusing on three areas—feministpost-colonial studies, transnationalism, and thegeographies of space and place—that haveimplications for theorizing and analysis indiverse territories and with diverse populations.Each of these areas is concerned with “critiquesof broader organization processes and powerrelations in the development of contemporaryglobal capitalism” (Metcalfe and Woodhams2012, p. 130): as well as social justice, rights, andequality, they focus on understanding the rela-tionship of the global to the local through multi-layered social enquiry, they address therelationships of organizations from grassroots

activism to international non-governmentalorganizations and transnational corporations,and they are concerned with the relations ofpower among these actors as they shape cultureand identity.

For post-colonial scholars the key focus is onthe inter-disciplinary analysis of how processesof decolonization have transformed and recon-figured the global social, economic, political,and cultural world order (McEwan 2001). Femi-nist post-colonial theory, in particular, has at itscore the racialization of mainstream feministtheory on the one hand and the insertion offeminist concerns into the conceptualization ofcolonialism and post-colonialism on the other(Lewis and Mills 2003). In exploring theintersectionality of race and gender against thebackdrop of challenges to Western ethnocen-trism in research, policy, and practice, feministpost-colonial theory develops a critique of thewomen of the “other” (Hale 2005; Nader 1989).This raises two questions (Hale 2005), both ofwhich will shape the conduct of globally awareentrepreneurial leadership research: how doescritique of the “other” function as a processthrough which women are controlled by cul-tures and states. And how are masculinesignifiers represented in ideas about the place ofwomen versus men as a civilization develops?

Transnationalism has become the focus of asignificant literature in the social sciences(Vertovec 2009). At its core it refers to theemergence of a new global space where indi-viduals, groups, institutions, firms, and statesinteract with each other and where the culturaland political characteristics of societies definedat the level of the nation combine with emergingmultinational or multilevel activities. In thisfocus on the multiple ties and interactionslinking institutions and individuals acrossstate borders, transnationalism complementsintersectionality (Metcalfe and Woodhams2012). As such, it addresses social and economicrestructuring, the production of hybrid dynamiccultures and identities, the growing power ofglobal capital in shaping the macro and microstructures of organizing, the role of voluntaryorganizing and capacity building in state devel-opment, and the variability of organizationaland social identities across space and time(Vertovec 2009). Within these emerging transna-tional spaces, multiple points of reference rede-fine the way in which people identify and dogender and reinforce the relationships ofgender, ethnicity, class, age, ability and skills,


and national/citizenship status. In so doing, weneed to recognize the tension between theglobal, specifically the imposition of Westernculture and capitalism, and the local, wherethere is scope for the emergence of new ways ofdoing gender in the context of entrepreneurialleadership.

Recent research in entrepreneurship isdeveloping a sensitivity to the role that geog-raphy plays, both as a contextual space withinwhich entrepreneurial activity takes place andas an influence on the nature, shape, and extentof that activity (Aldrich 2000; McCann andOxley 2012; Welter 2011). In developing aresearch agenda for entrepreneurial leadership,and in particular, for the role of gender in that,there is scope to incorporate insights from theanalysis of the gendered geographies of spaceand place within which uneven patterns ofdevelopment, opportunity, and access toresources shape the choices and identity posi-tions of individuals (Massey 1994). If genderoperates on different spatial scales and acrosstransnational spaces then the geographies ofpower, the countless processes of dominationand resistance that are the myriad entangle-ments integral to the workings of power as itplays out in across and through the manyspaces of the world (Paddison et al. 2000, p. 1),constitute the various domains within whichgendered entrepreneurial leadership can beobserved. In essence, the “geographies ofpower remind us of the need to consider spaceand place as signifiers in discriminatoryregimes and consider conditions of post-modernity in diverse geographical territories”(Metcalfe and Woodhams 2012, p. 134).

ConclusionEntrepreneurial leadership is emerging as

something distinctive, whether because of thecontextual specificities of the exercise of lead-ership in new and small rather than large cor-porations, or in the light of the changingcontext within which all organizations andinstitutions find themselves, characterizedby non-calculable uncertainty rather thanmeasureable risk (Alvarez and Barney 2005).While the topic is still evolving, there isgrowing agreement that given the disruptiveconditions leaders now face, a new mind-set forunderstanding leader and leadership develop-ment is required (Holzmer 2013). For scholarsapproaching entrepreneurial leadership from abase in entrepreneurship, and with a particular

interest in the development of a robust andnuanced analysis of the role of gender in entre-preneurial leadership, it is necessary to becomemore aware of the recent evolution of bothgender-based research (Ahl 2006) and leader-ship research in general (Antonakis and Autio2006; Harrison and Leitch 1994). Doing soopens the opportunity to develop new researchinto gendered entrepreneurial leadership incor-porating new frameworks and perspectives atmicro (the (in)visibility issue, the role ofglass walls and the implications of individualand organizational gender fatigue), meso(the critical intersectional study of masculinitiesas a gendered experience and of race and eth-nicity), and macro (feminist postcolonialism,transnationalism, and the emerging and shiftinggeographies of power, space, and place) levels.Accordingly, this will provide the basis for thedevelopment of new ways to think aboutgender and entrepreneurial leadership. In otherwords, as Jogulu and Wood (2006) haveargued, although there is an abundance of lead-ership frameworks, models, and theories, themajority of these have been developed by menand are based on male-normed assumptions.The adoption of a gendered lens addresses aclear gap in the literature of women-focusedindividual and organizational leadership theo-ries, and allows entrepreneurial leadershipscholars to address wider issues concerningdiversity, the generalizability of their findingsand the inclusivity of the theories they develop.

As our thinking and conceptualization devel-ops, researchers will have to respond to thechallenge of developing and implementing aresearch agenda sensitive to the issues ofintersectionality with respect to gender. Thiswill recognize gender as one of many interde-pendent bases for difference playing out inemerging transnational spaces and manifest indistinctively different ways across space andtime. In turn, this will pose challenges for howwe approach the practical process of leadershipdevelopment. It is increasingly clear thatleaders require significant personal, especiallypsychological, development to develop anduse more complex and inclusive worldviews(Torbert 2004). As Holzmer (2013, p. 59) hascommented, this development will only be pos-sible to the extent that leaders—male andfemale—“surrender traditional worldviews anddeeply reflect on their beliefs about both lead-ership and themselves.” In so doing, this intro-spection can support a shift to new and more


complex ways of thinking and to more inclu-sive and multi-perspective worldviews.

The challenge, for both research and prac-tice, is to recognize that the nature and basis ofleadership is changing, moving away from therecognized limitations of models viewingleaders as omniscient heroic (male) exemplarsrooted in an industrial-era command andcontrol mind-set of heroic rationality (Crevani,Lindgren, and Packendorff 2007; Grint 2010;Küpers and Weibler 2008) to a broader, morecomplex, and inclusive view where “a newleadership paradigm seems to be emergingthat is marked by an inexorable shift awayfrom one-way, hierarchical, organization-centric communication toward two-way,network-centric, participatory and collaborativeleadership styles” (McGonagill and Dörffer2010, p. 3; see also, Mabey and Morrell 2011).In responding to this so-called feminization ofleadership (Fletcher 2004), the challenge forresearch and practice is to continue to avoid thedangers of adopting a stance which is genderblind, gender neutral, and gender defensive,and to help leaders, women and men, “walk onthe path enlightening . . . walk on beyond thebroken glass.”1

ReferencesAcker, J. (1990). “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A

Theory of Gendered Organizations,” Gender& Society 4, 139–158.

——— (1992). “Gendering OrganizationalTheory,” in Gendering OrganizationalAnalysis. Eds. A. J. Mills and P. Tancred.London: Sage, 248–260.

Adib, A., and Y. Guerrier (2003). “The Inter-locking of Gender with Nationality, Race,Ethnicity and Class: The Narratives ofWomen in Hotel Work,” Gender, Work andOrganization 10(4), 413–432.

Ahl, H. J. (2006). “Why Research on WomenEntrepreneurs Needs New Directions,”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30(5),595–621.

Ahl, H. J., and S. Marlow (2012). “Exploring theDynamics of Gender, Feminism and Entre-preneurship: Advancing Debate to Escape aDead End,” Organization 19(5), 543–562.

Ahmed, S. (1998). Differences That Matter:Feminist Theory and Postmodernism. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

——— (2000). Strange Encounters: EmbodiedOthers in Post-Coloniality. London:Routledge.

Aldrich, H. E. (2000). “Learning Together:National Differences in EntrepreneurshipResearch,” in The Blackwell Handbook ofEntrepreneurship. Eds. D. Sexton and H.Landström. London: Blackwell, 5–25.

Alvarez, S. A., and J. B. Barney (2005). “HowDo Entrepreneurs Organize Firms UnderConditions of Uncertainty,” Journal of Man-agement 31(5), 776–793.

Alvesson, M. (1998). “Gender Relation andIdentity at Work: A Case Study of Masculini-ties and Felinities in an Advertising Agency,”Human Relations 51(8), 969–1005.

Alvesson, M., and Y. Due Billing (1999). KonOch Organisation [Gender and Organiza-tion]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Antonakis, J., and E. Autio (2006). “Entrepre-neurship and Leadership,” in The Psychologyof Entrepreneurship. Eds. J. R. Baum, M.Frese, and R. Baron. London: Routledge.

Ashcraft, K. L. (2011). “Knowing Work Throughthe Communication of Difference: A RevisedAgenda for Difference Studies,” inReframing Difference in OrganizationalCommunication Studies: Research, Peda-gogy, Practice. Ed. D. K. Mumby. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, 3–29.

Autio, E. (2013). “Promoting Leadership Devel-opment in High-Growth New Ventures.” Dis-cussion paper, Paris: OECD.

Ayman, R., and K. Korabik (2010). “Leadership:Why Gender and Culture Matter,” AmericanPsychologist 65(3), 157–170.

Baum, J. R., E. A. Locke, and S. A. Kirkpatrick(1998). “Longitudinal Study of the Relationof Vision and Vision Communication toVenture Growth,” Journal of Applied Psy-chology 83, 43–54.

Baxter, J., and E. O. Wright (2000). “TheGlass Ceiling Hypothesis: a ComparativeStudy of the United States, Sweden andAustralia,” Gender and Society 14(2), 275–294.

Bolden, R. (2011). “Distributed Leadership inOrganizations: A Review of Theory andResearch,” International Journal of Manage-ment Reviews 13, 251–269.

Bowden, P., and J. Mummery (2009). Under-standing Feminism. New York: Acumen.

1Taken from: Hazel O’Connor, Beyond the Breaking Glass (2002), Invisible Hands Records.


Broadbridge, R., and R. Simpson (2011). “25Years on: Reflecting the Past and Looking tothe Future in Gender and ManagementResearch,” British Journal of Management22, 470–483.

Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). “The Psychology of anEntrepreneur,” in Encyclopaedia of Entrepre-neurship. Eds. C. Kent, D. Sexton, and K.Vesper. Englewoods, NJ: Prentice Hall,39–56.

Bruni, A., and S. Gherardi (2002). “Omega’sStory: The Heterogeneous Engineering of aGendered Professional Self,” in ManagingProfessional Identities: Knowledge,Performativity and the “New” Professional.Eds. M. D. Dent and S. Whitehead. London:Routledge, 174–201.

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. London:Routledge.

Calás, M., and L. Smircich (1992). “Using the FWord: Feminist Theories and the Social Con-sequences of Organisational Research,” inGendering Organizational Analysis. Eds. A.J. Mills and P. Trancred. New Park, CA: Sage,222–232.

——— (1996). “From the Woman’s Point ofView: Feminist Approaches to OrganizationStudies,” Chapter 1.8 in Handbook of Orga-nization Studies. Eds. S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy,and W. Nord. London: Sage.

——— (1999). “Past Postmodernism? Reflec-tions and Tentative Directions,” Academy ofManagement Review 24, 649–671.

Calás, M., L. Smircich, and K. A. Bourne (2009).“Extending the Boundaries: Reframing‘Entrepreneurship as Social Change’ ThroughFeminist Perspectives,” The Academy of Man-agement Review 34(4), 552–569.

Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chasserio, S., P. Pailot, and C. Poroli (2014).“When Entrepreneurial Identity Meets Mul-tiple Social Identities: Interplays and IdentityWork of Women Entrepreneurs,” Interna-tional Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviourand Research 20(2), 128–154.

Chen, M. H. (2007). “Entrepreneurial Leader-ship and New Ventures: Creativity in Entre-preneurial Teams,” Creativity andInnovation Management 16(3), 239–249.

Chin, J. L. (2004). “Feminist Leadership: Femi-nist Visions and Diverse Voices,” Psychologyof Women Quarterly 28, 1–8.

Coglister, C. C., and K. H. Brigham (2004). “TheIntersection of Leadership and Entrepre-

neurship: Mutual Lessons to Be Learned,”The Leadership Quarterly 15, 771–779.

Cohen, A. R. (2004). “Building a Company ofLeaders,” Leader to Leader 34, 16–20.

Collins, P. (1990). Black Feminist Thought:Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics ofEmpowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Collinson, D. (2005). “Dialectics of Leadership,”Human Relations 58, 1419–1442.

Collinson, D. L., and J. Hearn (1994). “NamingMen as Men: Implications for Work, Organi-zation and Management,” Gender, Work andOrganization 1, 2–22.

——— (1996). Men as Managers, Managers asMen: Critical Perspectives on Men, Mascu-linities and Management. London: SagePublications.

Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

Covin, J. G., and D. P. Slevin (2002). The Entre-preneurial Imperatives of Strategic Leader-ship. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cox, T. (1994). Cultural Diversity in Organiza-tions. Theory, Research and Practice. SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Crenshaw, K. (1997). “Intersectionality andIdentity Politics: Learning From ViolenceAgainst Women of Colour,” in Reconstruct-ing Political Identity. Eds. M.Lyndon Shanaey and U. Narayan. UniversityPark: The Pennsylvania State UniversityPress, 178–193.

Crevani, L., M. Lindgren, and J. Packendorff(2007). “Shared Leadership: A Post HeroicPerspective on Leadership as a CollectiveConstruction,” International Journal ofLeadership Studies 3, 40–67.

Cunningham, J. B., and J. Lischeron (1991).“Defining Entrepreneurship,” Journal ofSmall Business Management 29(1), 45–62.

Dahlvig, J. E., and K. A. Longman (2010).“Women’s Leadership Development: A Studyof Defining Moments,” Christian HigherEducation 9(3), 238–258.

Daily, C. M., P. P. McDougall, J. G. Covin, andD. R. Dalton (2002). “Governance and Stra-tegic Leadership in Entrepreneurial Firms,”Journal of Management 28(3), 387–412.

Darling, J., M. Gabrielsson, and H. Seristo(2007). “Enhancing Contemporary Entrepre-neurship: A Focus on Management Leader-ship,” European Business Review 19(1),4–21.

Drakopoulou Dodd, S. (2014). “Roots Radical—Place, Power and Practice in Punk Entrepre-


neurship,” Entrepreneurship & RegionalDevelopment 26(1–2), 165–205. doi:10.1080/08985626.2013.877986.

Due Billing, Y., and M. Alvesson (2000). “Ques-tioning the Notion of Feminine Leadership:A Critical Perspective on the Gender Label-ling of Leadership,” Gender, Work and Orga-nization 7(3), 144–157.

Eagly, A. (1987). Sex Differences in SocialBehaviour: A Social Role Interpretation.Hove: Psychology Press.

Eagly, A. H. (2007). “Female Leadership Advan-tage and Disadvantage: Resolving the Con-tradictions,” Psychology of Women Quarterly31, 1–12.

Eagly, A. H., and L. L. Carli (2007). Through theLabyrinth: The Truth about How WomenBecome Leaders. Boston: Harvard UniversityPress.

Eagly, A. H., and J. Chin (2010). “Diversity andLeadership in a Changing World,” AmericanPsychologist 63, 216–224.

Eagly, A. H., and S. J. Karau (2002). “RoleCongruity Theory of Prejudice TowardFemale Leaders,” Psychological Review 109,573–598.

Eagly, A. H., M. C. Johannesen-Schmidt, and M.C. van Engen (2003). “Transformational,Transactional and Laissez-Faire LeadershipStyles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Womenand Men,” Psychological Bulletin 129, 569–591.

Elliott, C., and V. Stead (2008). “Learning forLeading Women’s Experience: Towards aSociological Understanding,” Leadership4(2), 159–180.

Ensley, M. D., K. M. Hmieleski, and C. L. Pearce(2006a). “The Importance of Vertical andShared Leadership Within New Venture TopManagement Teams,” The Leadership Quar-terly 17(3), 217–231.

Ensley, M. D., C. L. Pearce, and K. M. Hmieleski(2006b). “The Moderating Effect ofEnvironmental Dynamism on the Relation-ship between Entrepreneur LeadershipBehaviour and New Venture Performance,”Journal of Business Venturing 21(2), 243–263.

Essers, C. (2009). New Directions in PostheroicEntrepreneurship: Narratives of Gender andEthnicity. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Busi-ness School Press.

Essers, C., and Y. Benschop (2009). “MuslimBusinesswomen Doing Boundary Work: TheNegotiation of Islam, Gender and Ethnicity

Within Entrepreneurial Context,” HumanRelations 62(3), 403–423.

Escobar, A. (1988). “Power and Visibility: TheInvention and Management Development inthe Third World,” Cultural Anthropology 4,428–443.

Escobar, A. (1995) “Imaging a Post-Development Era,” in Power of Development.Ed. J. Crush. London: Routledge, 211–227.

Eyal, O., and R. Kark (2004). “How Do Trans-formational Leaders Transform Organisa-tions? A Study of the Relationship betweenLeadership and Entrepreneurship,” Leader-ship and Policy in Schools 3(3), 211–236.

Featherstone, M. (1990). Global Culture:Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity.London: Sage.

Fernald, L., G. Solomon, and A. Tarabishy(2005). “A New Paradigm: EntrepreneurialLeadership,” Southern Business Review30(2), 1–10.

Fiske, S. T. (1989). “Examining the Role ofIntent: Toward Understanding Its Role inStereotyping and Prejudice,” in UnintendedThought. Eds. J. S. Uleman and J. A. Bargh.New York: Guilford, 253–286.

Fletcher, J. (2004). “The Paradox of Post HeroicLeadership: An Essay on Gender, Poweredand Transformational Change,” The Leader-ship Quarterly 15, 647–661.

Fondas, N. (1997). “Feminization Unveiled:Management Qualities in ContemporaryWritings,” Academy of Management Review22, 257–283.

Gartner, W. B. (1988). “ ‘Who Is an Entrepre-neur?’ Is the Wrong Question,” AmericanJournal of Small Business 12(4), 11–32.

Gartner, W. B., B. J. Bird, and J. A. Starr (1992).“Acting as If: Differentiating EntrepreneurialFrom Organizational Behavior,” Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice 16(3), 13–31.

Gerzema, J., and M. D’Antonio (2013). TheAthena Doctrine: How Women (and the MenWho Think Like Them) Will Rule the Future.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gherardi, S. (1995). Gender, Symbolism andOrganizational Cultures. London: SagePublications.

Gibb, A. (1993). “Enterprise Culture and Edu-cation: Understanding Enterprise Educationand Its Links with Small Business, Entrepre-neurship and Wider Educational Goals,”International Small Business Journal 11(3),11–34.


Goffman, E. (1987). Gender Advertisements.New York: Harper and Row.

Goldberg, H. (1987). The Inner Male: Overcom-ing Roadblocks to Intimacy. Los Angeles:Wellness institute Inc.

Goleman, D., and R. Boyatzis (2008). “SocialIntelligence and the Biology of Leadership,”Harvard Business Review September, 74–81.

Greenberg, D., K. McKone-Sweet, and H. J.Wilson (2011). The New EntrepreneurialLeaders: Developing Leaders Who ShapeSocial and Economic Opportunity. San Fran-cisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Grint, K. (2010). “The Sacred in Leadership:Separation, Sacrifice and Silence,” Organiza-tion Studies 31, 89–107.

Gupta, V., I. McMillan, and G. Surie (2004).“Entrepreneurial Leadership: Developingand Measuring a Cross-Cultural Construct,”Journal of Business Venturing 19(92), 241–260.

Gupta, V. K., D. B. Turban, and N. M. Bhawe(2008). “The Effect of Gender StereotypeActivation on Entrepreneurial Intentions,”Journal of Applied Psychology 93(5), 1053–1061.

Gupta, V. K., D. B. Turban, S. A. Wasti, andA. Sikdar (2009). “The Role of Gender Typesin Perceptions of Entrepreneurs and Inten-tions to Become an Entrepreneur,” Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice 33(2), 397–417.

Guthey, E. (2001). “Ted Turner’s CorporateCross-Dressing and the Shifting Images ofAmerican Business Leadership,” Interna-tional Journal of Business History 2, 111–142.

Hale, S. (2005). “Transnational Gender Studiesand the Mitigating Concept of Gender in theMiddle East and North Africa,” CulturalDynamics 21, 133–152.

Hanold, M. (2013). “(De/Re)ConstructingLeading Bodies: Developing Critical Atti-tudes and Somaesthetic Practices,” in TheEmbodiment of Leadership. Eds. L. R.Melina, G. J. Burgess, L. L. Falkman, and A.Marturano. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,89–107.

Harrison, R., and C. Leitch (1994). “Entrepre-neurship and Leadership: The Implicationsfor Education and Development,” Entrepre-neurship & Regional Development 6, 112–125.

Harvey, A. M. (2005). “Becoming Entrepre-neurs: Intersections of Race, Class and

Gender at the Black Beauty Salon,” Gender& Society 19, 789–808.

Harvey, D. (2011). The Enigma of Capital andthe Crises of Capitalism. London: ProfileBooks.

Hatcher, C. (2003). “Refashioning a PassionateManager: Gender at Work,” Gender, Workand Organization 10, 391–412.

Hearn, J. (1996). “Deconstructing the Domi-nant: Making the One(s) the Other(s),”Organization 3(4), 611–626.

——— (2000). “On the Complexity of FeministIntervention in Organization,” Organization7, 609–624.

Hearn, J., and P. W. Parkin (1988). “Women,Men and Leadership: A Critical Review ofAssumptions, Practices and Change inIndustrialized Nations,” in Women in Man-agement Worldwide. Eds. N. Alder andD. Izrali. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 17–40.

Heilman, M. E. (2001). “Description and Pre-scription: How Gender Stereotypes PreventWomen’s Ascent Up the OrganizationalLadder,” Journal of Social Issues 57, 657–674.

Heilman, M. E., and A. H. Eagly (2008).“Gender Stereotypes are Alive, Well, andBusy Producing Workplace Discrimination,”Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1,393–398.

Henry, C., F. M. Hill, and C. M. Leitch (2003).Entrepreneurship Education and Training.Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

Hirdman, Y. (2001). Genus—Om Det StabilasForanderliga (Gender—Changes of theStable). Stockholm: Liber AB.

Holmes, J. (1993). Bodies That Matter: Onthe Discursive Limits of Sex. New York:Routledge.

Holmes, M. (2007). What is Gender? London:Sage.

Holt, S., and J. Marques (2012). “Empathy inLeadership: Appropriate or Misplaced? AnEmpirical Study on a Topic That is Askingfor Attention,” Journal of Business Ethics105, 95–105.

Holvino, E. (2010). “Intersections: The Simulta-neity of Race, Gender and Social Class inOrganizations Studies,” Gender, Work andOrganization 17, 248–277.

Holzmer, D. (2013). “Leadership in the Time ofLiminality: A Framework for Leadership in anEra of Deep Transformation,” in The Embodi-ment of Leadership. Eds. L. R. Melina, G. J.


Burgess, L. L. Faulkman, and A. Marturno.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 43–64.

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminist Theory: FromMargin to Center. Cambridge, MA: SouthEnd Press.

Hughes, K., J. Jennings, C. Brush, S. Carter, andF. Welter (2012). “Extending Women’s Entre-preneurship Research in New Directions,”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36,429–442.

Hymowitz, C., and T. D. Schellhardt (1986).“The Glass Ceiling: Why Women Can’t Seemto Break the Barrier That Blocks the Formthe Top Jobs,” The Wall Street JournalMarch, 1.

Ireland, R. D., M. A. Hitt, and D. G. Sirmon(2003). “A Model of Strategic Entrepreneur-ship: The Construct and Its Dimensions,”Journal of Management Development 29(6),963–989.

Jagose, A. (1996). Queer Theory: An Introduc-tion. New York: New York UniversityBooks.

James, A. E. (2012). “Conceptualising ‘Woman’as an Entrepreneurial Advantage: A Reflex-ive Approach,” in Global Women’s Entrepre-neurship Research: Diverse Settings,Questions and Approaches. Eds. K. D.Hughes and J. E. Jennings. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar, 226–240.

Jennings, J. E., and C. G. Brush (2013).“Research on Women Entrepreneurs: Chal-lenges to (and From) the Broader Entrepre-neurship Literature?,” Academy ofManagement Annals 7(1), 663–725.

Jensen, S. M., and F. Luthans (2006). “Entrepre-neurs as Authentic Leaders: Impact onEmployees’ Attitudes,” Leadership & Organi-zation Development Journal 27(7 & 8), 646–666.

Jogulu, U. D., and G. J. Wood (2006). “The Roleof Leadership Theory in Raising the Profileof Women in Management,” Equal Opportu-nities International 25, 236–250.

Johanson, J. C. (2008). “Perceptions of Feminin-ity in Leadership: Modern Trend or ClassicComponent?,” Sex Roles 58, 784–789.

Kandola, R., and J. Fullerton (1994). Managingthe Mosaic. London: IPD.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of theCorporation. New York: Basic Books.

——— (2001). E-volve! Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Kelan, E. K. (2009). “Gender Fatigue: The Ideo-logical Dilemma of Gender Neutrality and

Discrimination in Organizations,” CanadianJournal of Administrative Sciences 26(3),197–210.

Keltner, D. (1995). “Signs of Appeasement: Evi-dence for the Distinct Displays of Embarrass-ment, Amusement and Shame,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 68, 441–454.

Kerfoot, D., and D. Knights (1993). “Manage-ment, Masculinity and Manipulation: FromPaternalism to Corporate Strategy in Finan-cial Services in Britain,” Journal of Manage-ment Studies 30, 679–697.

Koenig, A. M., A. A. Mitchell, A. H. Eagly, andT. Ristikari (2011). “Are Leader StereotypesMasculine? A Meta-Analysis of ThreeResearch Paradigms,” Psychological Bulletin137, 616–642.

Kuratko, D. F. (2007). “Entrepreneurial Leader-ship in the 21st Century: Guest Editor’sPerspective,” Journal of Leadership & Orga-nizational Studies 13(4), 1–11.

Küpers, W., and J. Weibler (2008). “Inter-Leadership: Why and How Should We Thinkof Leadership and Followership Integrally?,”Leadership 4, 443–475.

Leitch, C. M., C. McMullan, and R. T. Harrison(2009). “Leadership Development in SMEs:An Action Learning Approach,” Action Learn-ing: Research and Practice 6(3), 243–263.

——— (2012). “The Development of Entrepre-neurial Leadership: The Role of Human,Social and Institutional Capital,” BritishJournal of Management 24(3), 347–366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00808.x.

Lewis, P. (2006). “The Quest for Invisibility:Female Entrepreneurs and Their MasculineNorm of Entrepreneurship,” Gender, Workand Organization 13(5), 453–469.

Lewis, P., and R. Simpson (2011). “KanterRevisited: Gender, Power and (In)visibility,”International Journal of ManagementReviews 14, 141–158.

Lewis, R., and S. Mills (2003). Feminist Postco-lonial Theory: A Reader. London: Routledge.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). The ConnectiveEdge: Leading in an Interdependent World.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lipsitz, G. (1998). The Possessive Investment inWhiteness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univer-sity Press.

Mabey, C., and K. Morrell (2011). “Leadershipin Crisis: ‘Events, My Dear Boy, Events’,”Leadership 7, 105–117.


McAdam, M. (2012). Female Entrepreneurship.London: Routledge.

McCann, P., and L. Oxley (Eds.) (2012). Inno-vation, Entrepreneurship, Geography andGrowth. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

McEwan, C. (2001). “Postcolonialism, Feminismand Development: Intersections and Dilem-mas,” Progress in Development Studies 1,93–111.

McGonagill, G., and T. Dörffer (2010). Leader-ship and Web 2.0: The Leadership Implica-tions of the Evolving Web. Gütersloh:Bertelsmann-Stiftung.

McNally, D. (2011). Monsters of the market:Zombies, Vampires and Global Capitalism.Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

McRobbie, A. (2009). The Aftermath of Femi-nism. London: Sage.

Martin, L. (2001). “Are Women Better atOrganisational Learning? An SME Perspec-tive,” Women in Management Review 16(5–6), 287–296.

Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place and Gender.Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.

Mattis, M. C. (2004). “Women Entrepreneurs:Out From Under the Glass Ceiling,” Womenin Management Review 19(3), 153–163.

Metcalfe, B. D., and C. Woodhams (2012).“Introduction: New Directions in Gender,Diversity and Organization Theorizing—Re-Imagining Feminist Post-Colonialism,Transnationalism and Geographies ofPower,” International Journal of Manage-ment Reviews 14, 123–140.

Miller, D., and P. H. Friesen (1984). “A Longi-tudinal Study of the Corporate Life Cycle,”Management Science 30(10), 1161–1183.

Morrison, A. M., R. P. White, and E. Van Velsor(1987). Breaking the Glass Ceiling: CanWomen Reach the Top of America’s LargestCorporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Mortimer, C. (2009). “Developing a New Per-spective on Leadership Theory: From a Treeof Knowledge to a Rhizome of Contingen-cies,” Electronic Journal of BusinessResearch Methods 7, 55–65.

Nader, L. (1989). “Orientalism, Occidentalismand the Control of Women,” CulturalDynamics 2, 323–355.

Nahavandi, A. (2002). The Art and Science ofLeadership, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Nicholson, N. (1988). “Personality and Entre-preneurial Leadership: A Study of the Headsof the UK’s Most Successful IndependentCompanies,” European ManagementJournal 16(5), 529–539.

Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, Gender and Society.London: Temple Smith.

Orser, B. J., C. Elliott, and J. Leck (2011). “Femi-nist Attributes and Entrepreneurial Identity,”Gender in Management: An InternationalJournal 26(8), 561–589.

Paddison, R., C. Philo, P. Routledge, and J.Sharp (2000). “Entanglements of Power:Geographies of Domination/Resistance,” inEntanglements of Power: Geographies ofDomination/Resistance. Eds. J. P. Sharp, P.Routledge, C. Philo, and R. Paddison.London: Routledge, 1–42.

Patterson, N., S. Mavin, and J. Turner (2012).“Envisioning Female Entrepreneur: LeadersAnew From a Gender Perspective,” Genderin Management: An International Journal27(6), 395–416.

Powell, G. N., D. A. Butterfield, and J. D. Parent(2002). “Gender and Managerial Stereotypes:Have the Times Changed?,” Journal of Man-agement 28, 177–193.

Puar, J. (2005). “Queer Times, Queer Assem-blages,” Social Text 23, 121–138.

Ram, M., and T. Jones (2008). Ethnic Minoritiesin Britain. Milton Keynes: Small BusinessResearch Trust.

Rao, A., and D. Kelleher (2000). “Leadership forSocial Transformation: Some Ideas and Ques-tions on Institutions and Feminist Leader-ship,” Gender and Development 8(3), 74–79.

Reger, J. (2007). “Where are the Leaders? Music,Culture, and Contemporary Feminism,”American Behavioral Scientist 50, 1350–1369.

Renko, M., A. El Tarabishy, A. Carsrud, and M.Brännback (2015). “Understanding and Mea-suring Entrepreneurial Leadership Style,”Journal of Small Business Management53(1), 54–74. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12086.

Robinson, D. A., M. Goleby, and N. Hosgood(2006). Entrepreneurship as a Values andLeadership Paradigm. Robina, Australia:Bond University, 1–22.

Roomi, M. A., and P. Harrison (2011). “Entre-preneurial Leadership: What is It and HowShould It be Taught?,” International Reviewof Entrepreneurship 9(3), 1–44.

Roseneil, S. (2000). “Queer Frameworks andQueer Tendencies: Towards an Understand-


ing of Post Modern Transformations of Sexu-ality,” Sociological Research Online 5(3),1–19. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/3roseneil.html.

Schnurr, S. (2008). “Surviving in a Man’s Worldwith a Sense of Humour: An Analysis ofWomen Leaders’ Use of Humour at Work,”Leadership 4(3), 299–319.

Simpson, R., and P. Lewis (2005). “An Investi-gation of Silence and a Scrutiny of Transpar-ency: Re-Examining Gender in OrganizationLiterature Through the Concepts of Voiceand Visibility,” Human Relations 58(10),1253–1275.

Spedale, S., and T. J. Watson (2014). “TheEmergence of Entrepreneurial Action: Atthe Crossroads between Institutional Logicsand Individual Life-Orientation,” Interna-tional Small Business Journal 32(7), 759–776.

Spicer, A. (2011). “Critical Theories of Entrepre-neurship,” in Perspectives on Entrepreneur-ship. Eds. K. Mole and M. Ram. London:Palgrave, 149–160.

Spivak, G. C. (1999). A Critique of PostcolonialReason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Stead, V. (2013). “Learning to Deploy (Invisibil-ity): An Examination of Women Leaders’Lived Experiences,” Management Learning44(1), 63–79.

Stelter, N. Z. (2002). “Gender Differences inLeadership: Current Social Issues and FutureOrganizational Implications,” Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies 8(4),88–99.

Surie, G., and A. Ashley (2008). “IntegratingPragmatism and Ethics in EntrepreneurialLeadership for Sustainable Value Creation,”Journal of Business Ethics 81, 235–246.

Swiercz, P., and S. Lydon (2002). “Entrepre-neurial Leadership in High-Tech Firms:A Field Study,” Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal 23(7), 380–389.

Thornberry, N. (2006). Lead like an Entre-preneur: Keeping the EntrepreneurialSpirit Alive within the Corporation. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Thorpe, R., J. Cope, M. Ram, and M. Pedler(2009). “Editorial: Leadership Developmentin Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises:The Case for Action Learning,” ActionLearning: Research and Practice 6, 201–208.

Torbert, W. R. (2004). Action Inquiry: TheSecret of Timely and Transforming Leader-ship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Tyler, M., and L. Cohen (2010). “Living andWorking in Grey Areas: Gender (In)visibilityand Organisational Space,” in Revealing andConcealing Gender: Issues of Visibility inOrganizations, 27th International Congressof Applied Psychology. Eds. R. Simpson andP. Lewis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,23–38.

van Geldern, M., and E. Masurel (Eds.) (2012).Entrepreneurship in Context. London:Routledge.

Vecchio, R. P. (2003). “Entrepreneurship andLeadership: Common trends and commonthreads,” Human Resource Management13(2), 303–328.

Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. London:Routledge.

Wajcman, J. (1998). Managing Like a Man:Women and Men in Corporate Management.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Watson, T. J. (2013a). “Entrepreneurial Actionand the Euro-American Social Science Tradi-tion: Pragmatism, Realism and LookingBeyond ‘the Entrepreneur’,” Entrepreneur-ship & Regional Development 25(1–2), 16–33.

——— (2013b). “Entrepreneurship in Action:Bringing Together the Individual, Organiza-tional and Institutional Dimensions of Entre-preneurial Action,” Entrepreneurship &Regional Development 25(5–6), 404–422.

Weidenfeller, N. K. (2012). “Breaking Throughthe Glass Wall: The Experience of Being aWomen Enterprise Leader,” Human Busi-ness Review 81, 18–19.

Wellington, W., M. B. Kropf, and P. R.Gerkovich (2003). “What’s Holding WomenBack?,” Harvard Business Review 81, 18–19.

Welter, F. (2011). “Contextualising Entre-preneurship—Conceptual Challenges andWays Forward,” Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice 35(1), 165–184.

Welter, F., A. de Bruin, and C. Brush (2014).“The Gendering of EntrepreneurshipContext.” Working Paper. Institut fürMittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn 01/14.

West, C., and D. H. Zimmerman (1987). “DoingGender,” Gender and Society 1(2), 125–151.

Wilson, F. M. (1996). “Research Note:Organisation Theory: Blind and Deaf toGender?,” Organization Studies 17(5), 825–842.


http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/3roseneil.html

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/3roseneil.html

Wolf, A. (2013). The XX Factor: How WorkingWomen Are Creating a New Society. London:Profile Books.

Yang, C. (2008). “The Relationshipsamong Leadership Styles, Entrepreneurial

Orientation and Business Performance,”Managing Global Transitions 6(3), 257–275.

Zahra, S., and M. Wright (2011). “Entrepreneur-ship’s Next Act,” Academy of ManagementPerspectives 25, 67–83.


Documents

Breaking Glass: Toward a Gendered Analysis of Entrepreneurial Leadership · 2016-06-30 · Entrepreneurial Leadership by Richard Harrison, Claire Leitch, and Maura McAdam Despite