Skip main navigation
Articles

We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding

Published Online:20 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1215

Abstract

Male entrepreneurs are known to raise higher levels of funding than their female counterparts, but the underlying mechanism for this funding disparity remains contested. Drawing upon regulatory focus theory, we propose that the gap originates with a gender bias in the questions that investors pose to entrepreneurs. A field study conducted on question-and-answer interactions at TechCrunch Disrupt New York City during 2010 through 2016 reveals that investors tend to ask male entrepreneurs promotion-focused questions and female entrepreneurs prevention-focused questions, and that entrepreneurs tend to respond with matching regulatory focus. This distinction in the regulatory focus of investor questions and entrepreneur responses results in divergent funding outcomes for entrepreneurs whereby those asked promotion-focused questions raise significantly higher amounts of funding than those asked prevention-focused questions. We demonstrate that every additional prevention-focused question significantly hinders the entrepreneur’s ability to raise capital, fully mediating gender’s effect on funding. By experimentally testing an intervention, we find that entrepreneurs can significantly increase funding for their startups when responding to prevention-focused questions with promotion-focused answers. As we offer evidence regarding tactics that can be employed to diminish the gender disadvantage in funding outcomes, this study has practical as well as theoretical implications for entrepreneurship.

REFERENCES

  • Adler R. D. 2001. Women in the executive suite correlate to high profits. Harvard Business Review, 79: 131–137. Google Scholar
  • Alsos G. A., & Ljunggren E. 2016. The role of gender in entrepreneur–investor relationships: A signaling theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41: 567–590. Google Scholar
  • Amex. 2016. The 2016 state of women-owned businesses report. New York, NY: American Express OPEN. Retrieved from http://www.womenable.com/content/userfiles/2016_State_of_Women-Owned_Businesses_Executive_Report.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Anna A. L., Chandler G. N., Jansen E., & Mero N. P. 2000. Women business owners in traditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 279–303. Google Scholar
  • Bachher J. S., & Guild P. D. 1996. Financing early-stage technology-based companies: Investment criteria used by investors. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 96. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Guild/publication/256420976_Financing_early_stage_technology_based_companies_investment_criteria_used_by_investors_Frontiers_of_Entrepreneurship_Research/links/00b7d52305d3776f78000000.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Balachandra L., Briggs A. R., Eddleston K., & Brush C. 2013. Pitch like a man: Gender stereotypes and entrepreneur pitch success. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 33: Article 2. Retrieved from http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol33/iss8/2. Google Scholar
  • Bates D., Maechler M., Bolker B., & Walker S. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4. R Package version 1(7) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://rdrr.io/cran/lme4/. Google Scholar
  • Baum J. A., & Silverman B. S. 2004. Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 411–436. Google Scholar
  • Bird B., & Brush C. 2002. A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26: 41–66. Google Scholar
  • Blau F. D., & Kahn L. M. 2017. The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55: 789–865. Google Scholar
  • Boden R. J., & Nucci A. R. 2000. On the survival prospects of men’s and women’s new business ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 347–362. Google Scholar
  • Bowen J. D., Winczewski L. A., & Collins N. L. 2016. Language style matching in romantic partners’ conflict and support interactions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36: 262–286. Google Scholar
  • Braunstein E. 2008. The feminist political economy of the rent-seeking society: An investigation of gender inequality and economic growth. Journal of Economic Issues, 42: 959–979. Google Scholar
  • Brennan N., & McCafferty J. 1997. Corporate governance practices in Irish companies. Irish Business and Administrative Research, 18: 116–135. Google Scholar
  • Briscoe F., & Joshi A. 2016. Bringing the boss’s politics in: Supervisor political ideology and the gender gap in earnings. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1415–1441. Google Scholar
  • Brockner J., & Higgins E. T. 2001. Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 35–66. Google Scholar
  • Brockner J., Higgins E. T., & Low M. B. 2004. Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 203–220. Google Scholar
  • Brooks A. W., Huang L., Kearney S. W., & Murray F. E. 2014. Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111: 4427–4431. Google Scholar
  • Brush C., Carter N., Gatewood E., Greene P. G., & Hart M. M. 2001. An investigation of women-led firms and venture capital investment (Report to the United States Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, and the National Women’s Business Council). Duxbury, MA: CB Associates. Retrieved from https://www.nwbc.gov/sites/default/files/womenledfirms_vcinvestment01.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Brush C. G., Carter N. M., Gatewood E. J., Greene P. G., & Hart M. 2004. Gatekeepers of venture growth: The role and participation of women in the venture capital industry (Insight report). Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.dianaproject.org/Data/publications/publicationsfordow/gatekeepersofventu/gatekeepers_of_venture_growth.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Buhrmester M., Kwang T., & Gosling S. D. 2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6: 3–5. Google Scholar
  • Burton M. D., Sørensen J. B., & Beckman C. M. 2002. Coming from good stock: Career histories and new venture formation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 19: 229–262. Google Scholar
  • Carter N. M., Williams M., & Reynolds P. D. 1997. Discontinuance among new firms in retail: The influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 12: 125–145. Google Scholar
  • Cesario J., & Higgins E. T. 2008. Making message recipients “feel right”: How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19: 415–420. Google Scholar
  • Chen X. P., Yao X., & Kotha S. 2009. Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists’ funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 199–214.Link , Google Scholar
  • Clark C. 2008. The impact of entrepreneurs’ oral “pitch” presentation skills on business angels’ initial screening investment decisions. Venture Capital, 10: 257–279. Google Scholar
  • Clarke D. D. 1983. Language and action: A structural model of behaviour. London, England: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar
  • Cliff J. E. 1998. Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 523–542. Google Scholar
  • Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: 20–26. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  • Coleman S., & Robb A. 2009. A comparison of new firm financing by gender: Evidence from the Kauffman Firm Survey data. Small Business Economics, 33: 397–411. Google Scholar
  • Connell H. S. 1984. NLP techniques for salespeople. Training and Development Journal, 38: 44–46. Google Scholar
  • Cook A., & Glass C. 2014. Women and top leadership positions: Towards an institutional analysis. Gender, Work and Organization, 21: 91–103. Google Scholar
  • Cooper A. C., Gimeno-Gascon F. J., & Woo C. Y. 1994. Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9: 371–395. Google Scholar
  • Crowe E., & Higgins E. T. 1997. Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69: 117–132. Google Scholar
  • Cumming D., Leung T. Y., & Rui O. 2015. Gender diversity and securities fraud. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1572–1593.Link , Google Scholar
  • Dezsö C. L., & Ross D. G. 2008. “Girl power”: Female participation in top management and firm performance (Working paper). College Park, MD; New York, NY: University of Maryland, Columbia Business School. Retrieved from http://www.en.cams.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/files/girlpower1.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Dezsö C. L., & Ross D. G. 2012. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1072–1089. Google Scholar
  • Dixon R. 1991. Venture capitalists and the appraisal of investments. Omega, 19: 333–344. Google Scholar
  • Du Rietz A., & Henrekson M. 2000. Testing the female underperformance hypothesis. Small Business Economics, 14: 1–10. Google Scholar
  • Eagly A. H., & Carli L. L. 2003. The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 807–834. Google Scholar
  • Eddleston K. A., Ladge J. J., Mitteness C., & Balachandra L. 2014. Do you see what I see? Signaling effects of gender and firm characteristics on financing entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40: 489–514. Google Scholar
  • Eggers J. P., & Kaplan S. 2009. Cognition and renewal: Comparing CEO and organizational effects on incumbent adaptation to technical change. Organization Science, 20: 461–477. Google Scholar
  • Faccio M., Marchica M.-T., & Mura R. 2016. CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 39: 193–209. Google Scholar
  • Fairlie R. W., & Robb A. M. 2009. Gender differences in business performance: Evidence from the Characteristics of Business Owners survey. Small Business Economics, 33: 375–395. Google Scholar
  • Feeney L., Haines G. H., Jr., & Riding A. L. 1999. Private investors’ investment criteria: Insights from qualitative data. Venture Capital, 1: 121–145. Google Scholar
  • Förster J., Higgins E. T., & Idson L. C. 1998. Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 1115–1131. Google Scholar
  • Franke N., Gruber M., Harhoff D., & Henkel J. 2008. Venture capitalists’ evaluation of start-up teams: Trade-offs, knock-out criteria, and the impact of VC experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32: 459–483. Google Scholar
  • Freitas A. L., & Higgins E. T. 2002. Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13: 1–6. Google Scholar
  • Gamache D. L., McNamara G., Mannor M. J., & Johnson R. E. 2015. Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1261–1282.Link , Google Scholar
  • Gephart R. P., & Wolfe R. A. 1989. Qualitative data analysis: Three microcomputer-supported approaches. Academy of Management Proceedings, 8: 382–386. Google Scholar
  • Gladstone D., & Gladstone L. 2002. Venture capital handbook: An entrepreneur’s guide to raising venture capital (rev. ed.). London, England: FT Press. Google Scholar
  • Gonzales A. L., Hancock J. T., & Pennebaker J. W. 2009. Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37: 3–19. Google Scholar
  • Gorbatai A. D., & Nelson L. 2015. Gender and the language of crowdfunding. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1: 15785. Google Scholar
  • Gorman M., & Sahlman W. A. 1989. What do venture capitalists do? Journal of Business Venturing, 4: 231–248. Google Scholar
  • Greenberg J., & Mollick E. R. 2016. Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 341–374. Google Scholar
  • Greene W. H. 2008. Econometric analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  • Greene P. G., Brush C. G., Hart M. M., & Saparito P. 2001. Patterns of venture capital funding: Is gender a factor? Venture Capital, 3: 63–83. Google Scholar
  • Haque M. 2016. NVCA yearbook. Retrieved from: https://nvca.org/wp-content/uploads/delightful-downloads/2016/11/NVCA-2016_Final.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Hazen T. 2016. Securities regulation in a nutshell. St Paul, MN: West Academic. Google Scholar
  • Heilman M. E., & Chen J. J. 2003. Entrepreneurship as a solution: The allure of self- employment for women and minorities. Human Resource Management Review, 13: 347–364. Google Scholar
  • Hekman D. R., Johnson S., Foo M.-D., & Yang W. 2017. Does diversity-valuing behavior result in diminished performance ratings for nonwhite and female leaders? Academy of Management Journal, 60: 771–797.Link , Google Scholar
  • Higgins E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. The American Psychologist, 52: 1280–3000. Google Scholar
  • Higgins E. T. 1998. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30: 1–46. Google Scholar
  • Higgins E. T. 2000. Making a good decision: Value from fit. The American Psychologist, 55: 1217–1230. Google Scholar
  • Higgins E. T. 2005. Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14: 209–213. Google Scholar
  • Higgins E. T., & Cornwell J. F. 2016. Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment and decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136: 56–67. Google Scholar
  • Higgins E. T., & Spiegel S. 2004. Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. In R. F. BaumeisterK. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications: 171–187. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
  • Holsti O. R. 1969. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  • Hsu D. H. 2007. Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36: 722–741. Google Scholar
  • Hsu D. H., & Ziedonis R. H. 2008. Patents as quality signals for entrepreneurial ventures. Academy of Management Proceedings, 8: 1–6. Google Scholar
  • Huang L., Frideger M., & Pearce J. L. 2013. Political skill: Explaining the effects of nonnative accent on managerial hiring and entrepreneurial investment decisions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 1005–1017. Google Scholar
  • Huang L., & Knight A. P. 2017. Resources and relationships in entrepreneurship: An exchange theory of the development and effects of the entrepreneur–investor relationship. Academy of Management Review, 42: 80–102.Link , Google Scholar
  • Hughes K. D. 2006. Exploring motivation and success among Canadian women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 19: 107–120. Google Scholar
  • Jehn K. A., & Doucet L. 1997. Developing categories for interview data: Consequences of different coding and analysis strategies in understanding text—Part 2. Field Methods, 9: 1–7. Google Scholar
  • Jennings J. E., & Brush C. G. 2013. Research on women entrepreneurs: challenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature? The Academy of Management Annals, 7: 663–715.Abstract , Google Scholar
  • Johnson R. E., Lanaj K., Tan J. A., & Chang C.-H. 2012. Putting our trust in fairness: Justice and regulatory focus as triggers of trust and cooperation. In L. L. NeiderC. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Research in management, vol. 9: 1–28. Hartford, CT: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
  • Johnson R. E., & Steinman L. 2009. Use of implicit measures for organizational research: An empirical example. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41: 202–212. Google Scholar
  • Joshi A., Son J., & Roh H. 2015. When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1516–1545.Link , Google Scholar
  • Kark R., & Van Dijk D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self- regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32: 500–528.Link , Google Scholar
  • Khan A. M. 1987. Assessing venture capital investments with noncompensatory behavioral decision models. Journal of Business Venturing, 2: 193–205. Google Scholar
  • Khan W. A., & Vieito J. P. 2013. CEO gender and firm performance. Journal of Economics and Business, 67: 55–66. Google Scholar
  • Kirsch D., Goldfarb B., & Gera A. 2009. Form or substance: The role of business plans in venture capital decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 487–515. Google Scholar
  • Klaus K. 1980. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
  • Krishnan H. A., & Park D. 2005. A few good women—on top management teams. Journal of Business Research, 58: 1712–1720. Google Scholar
  • Krishnan G. V., & Parsons L. M. 2008. Getting to the bottom line: An exploration of gender and earnings quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 78: 65–76. Google Scholar
  • Lanaj K., Chang C. H., & Johnson R. E. 2012. Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138: 998–1034. Google Scholar
  • Leslie L. M., Mayer D. M., & Kravitz D. A. 2014. The stigma of affirmative action: A stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 964–989.Link , Google Scholar
  • Loscocco K. A., Robinson J., Hall R. H., & Allen J. K. 1991. Gender and small business success: An inquiry into women’s relative disadvantage. Social Forces, 70: 65–85. Google Scholar
  • MacMillan I. C., Zemann L., & Subbanarasimha P. N. 1987. Criteria distinguishing successful from unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of Business Venturing, 2: 123–137. Google Scholar
  • Manolova T. S., Brush C. G., & Edelman L. F. 2008. What do women entrepreneurs want? Strategic Change, 17: 69–82. Google Scholar
  • Marks K. H., Robbins L. E., Fernandez G., & Funkhouser J. P. 2005. The handbook of financing growth: Strategies and capital structure, Vol. 179. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
  • Marom D., Robb A., & Sade O. 2015. Gender dynamics in crowdfunding (Kickstarter): Evidence on entrepreneurs, investors, deals and taste-based discrimination. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2442954. Google Scholar
  • Menzies T. V., Diochon M., & Gasse Y. 2004. Examining venture-related myths concerning women entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9: 89–107. Google Scholar
  • Meyer G. D., Zacharakis A. L., & De Castro J. 1993. A postmortem of new venture failure: An attribution theory perspective. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 17: 256–269. Google Scholar
  • Mitteness C., Sudek R., & Cardon M. S. 2012. Angel investor characteristics that determine whether perceived passion leads to higher evaluations of funding potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27: 592–606. Google Scholar
  • Mollick E. 2013. Swept away by the crowd? Crowdfunding, venture capital, and the selection of entrepreneurs (Wharton working paper). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2239204. Google Scholar
  • Morris R. 1994. Computerized content analysis in management research: A demonstration of advantages and limitations. Journal of Management, 20: 903–931. Google Scholar
  • Morris M. H., Miyasaki N. N., Watters C. E., & Coombes S. M. 2006. The dilemma of growth: Understanding venture size choices of women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 44: 221–244. Google Scholar
  • Nadkarni S., & Barr P. S. 2008. Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1395–1427. Google Scholar
  • Nancarrow C., & Penn S. 1998. Rapport in telemarketing: Mirror, mirror on the call? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16: 12–21. Google Scholar
  • Niederhoffer K. G., & Pennebaker J. W. 2002. Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21: 337–360. Google Scholar
  • O’Connor J., & Seymour J. 2011. Introducing NLP: Psychological skills for understanding and influencing people. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press. Google Scholar
  • Orser B. J., & Foster M. K. 1994. Lending practices and Canadian women in micro-based businesses. Women in Management Review, 9: 11–19. Google Scholar
  • Orser B. J., Riding A. L., & Manley K. 2006. Women entrepreneurs and financial capital. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 643–665. Google Scholar
  • Peni E. 2014. CEO and chairperson characteristics and firm performance. Journal of Management and Governance, 18: 185–205. Google Scholar
  • Pennebaker J. W., Booth R. J., & Francis M. E. 2007. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: LIWC. Google Scholar
  • Pitchbook & National Venture Capital Association. 2016. Pitchbook–NVCA 4Q 2016 venture monitor. Retrieved from https://files.pitchbook.com/pdf/4Q_2016_PitchBook_NVCA_Venture_Monitor.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Plessner H., Unkelbach C., Memmert D., Baltes A., & Kolb A. 2009. Regulatory fit as a determinant of sport performance: How to succeed in a soccer penalty-shooting. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10: 108–115. Google Scholar
  • Poindexter J. B. 1975. Efficiency of financial markets: Venture capital case (Doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York. Google Scholar
  • Pollack J. M., Rutherford M. W., & Nagy B. G. 2012. Preparedness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of new venture funding in televised business pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36: 915–939. Google Scholar
  • Preacher K. J., & Hayes A. F. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36: 717–731. Google Scholar
  • Preacher K. J., & Hayes A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879–891. Google Scholar
  • Ramey C. 2016, February 29. Women-founded startups in New York City are increasing. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/female-startups-in-new-york-city-are-increasing-1456792282. Google Scholar
  • Rea R. H. 1989. Factors affecting success and failure of seed capital/start-up negotiations. Journal of Business Venturing, 4: 149–158. Google Scholar
  • Richardson B. H., Taylor P. J., Snook B., Conchie S. M., & Bennell C. 2014. Language style matching and police interrogation outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 38: 357–366. Google Scholar
  • Riquelme H., & Rickards T. 1992. Hybrid conjoint analysis: An estimation probe in new venture decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 7: 505–518. Google Scholar
  • Robb A. M. 2002. Entrepreneurial performance by women and minorities: The case of new firms. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7: 383–397. Google Scholar
  • Rogan R. G. 2011. Linguistic style matching in crisis negotiations: A comparative analysis of suicidal and surrender outcomes. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11: 20–39. Google Scholar
  • Roure J. B., & Keeley R. H. 1990. Predictors of success in new technology-based ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 201–220. Google Scholar
  • Ruef M., Aldrich H. E., & Carter N. M. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68: 195–222. Google Scholar
  • Schubert R. 2006. Analyzing and managing risks: On the importance of gender differences in risk attitudes. Managerial Finance, 32: 706–715. Google Scholar
  • Sexton D. 1989. Growth decisions and growth patterns of women-owned enterprises. In O. HaganC. RivchunD. L. Sexton (Eds.), Women-owned businesses: 135–150. New York, NY: Praeger. Google Scholar
  • Shane S., & Cable D. 2002. Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48: 364–381. Google Scholar
  • Shane S., & Stuart T. 2002. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48: 154–170. Google Scholar
  • Shepherd D. A. 1999. Venture capitalists’ assessment of new venture survival. Management Science, 45: 621–632. Google Scholar
  • Shepherd D. A., & Zacharakis A. 2002. Venture capitalists’ expertise: A call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback. Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 1–20. Google Scholar
  • Smith N., Smith V., & Verner M. 2006. Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55: 569–593. Google Scholar
  • Stengel G. 2013, November 20. Want venture capital? Here are 10 must-haves. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/geristengel/2013/11/20/want-venture-capital-here-are-10-must-haves/. Google Scholar
  • Stuart T. E., Hoang H., & Hybels R. C. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 315–349. Google Scholar
  • Stuart T., & Sorenson O. 2003. The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32: 229–253. Google Scholar
  • Stuart T. E., & Sorenson O. 2007. Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 211–227. Google Scholar
  • Summerville A., & Roese N. J. 2008. Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality, 42: 247–254. Google Scholar
  • Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell L. S. 2007. Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Google Scholar
  • Tajfel H. 1981. Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. TurnerH. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior: 144–167. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  • Tinsley H. E., & Weiss D. J. 2000. Interrater reliability and agreement. In H. E. TinsleyS. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling: 95–124. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  • Tversky A., & Kahneman D. 1975. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. WendtC. A. Vlek (Eds.), Utility, probability, and human decision making: 141–162. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. Google Scholar
  • Tyebjee T. T., & Bruno A. V. 1981. Venture capital decision making: Preliminary results from three empirical studies. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research: 281–320. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Google Scholar
  • Tyebjee T. T., & Bruno A. V. 1984. A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management Science, 30: 1051–1066. Google Scholar
  • Ueda M. 2004. Banks versus venture capital: Project evaluation, screening, and expropriation. The Journal of Finance, 59: 601–621. Google Scholar
  • United States Department of Labor. 2015. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2015/cpsaat18.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Verheul I., & Thurik R. 2001. Start-up capital: Does gender matter? Small Business Economics, 16: 329–346. Google Scholar
  • Weber R. P. 1990. Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
  • Werth L., & Foerster J. 2007. How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37: 33–51. Google Scholar
  • Wickham P. A. 2003. The representativeness heuristic in judgements involving entrepreneurial success and failure. Management Decision, 41: 156–167. Google Scholar
  • Yang T., & Aldrich H. E. 2014. Who’s the boss? Explaining gender inequality in entrepreneurial teams. American Sociological Review, 79: 269–287. Google Scholar
  • Zacharakis A. L., & Shepherd D. A. 2001. The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists’ decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 311–332. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
  Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
© 2025 Academy of Management
Powered by Atypon® Literatum