Journal of International Entrepreneurship

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 85–109 | Cite as

Role of entrepreneur gender and management style in influencing perceptions and behaviors of new recruits: Evidence from the Islamic Republic of Iran

  • Vishal K. Gupta
  • Golshan Javadian
  • Nazanin Jalili


Entrepreneurs face considerable challenges in attracting prospective recruits and managing them in the absence of established norms and traditions. This research examines how gender and management styles of entrepreneurs impact new recruits’ attitudes including their cognitions, affect, and behaviors in new ventures. Results of two experimental studies conducted in the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrate that women entrepreneurs are reacted to less negatively and considered more effective when they use directive management style. In addition, women entrepreneurs who employ directive style elicit superior performance from new recruits compared to those who rely on participative style. Management style does not appear to matter for attitudes towards men entrepreneurs. Implications and future research directions are discussed.


Gender Management style Entrepreneurship 


  1. Alksnis C, Desmarais S, Curtis J (2008) Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: is “women’s” work valued as highly as “men’s”? J Appl Soc Psych 38:1416–1441Google Scholar
  2. Amit R, Glosten L, Muller E (1993) Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship research. J Manag Stud 30(5):815–834Google Scholar
  3. Arvey RD, Campion JE (1982) The employment interview: a summary and review of recent research. Pers Psych 35:281–322Google Scholar
  4. Avolio BJ, Bass BM (1988) Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond. In: Hunt JG, Baliga BR, Dacher HP, Schriesheim CA (eds) Emerging leadership vistas. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 29–50Google Scholar
  5. Baron RA, Byrne D (1977) Social psychology—understanding human interaction, 2nd edn. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron RA (2003) Human resource management and entrepreneurship: some reciprocal benefits of closer links. Hum Resour Manag Rev 13(2):253--256Google Scholar
  7. Baron RA, Markman GD, Hirsa A (2001) Perceptions of women and men as entrepreneurship: evidence for differential effects of attributional augmenting. J App Psych 86:923–929Google Scholar
  8. Baron RA (2008) The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Acad Manag Rev 33:328–340Google Scholar
  9. Baron RA, Markman GD, Bollinger M (2006) Exporting social psychology: effects of attractiveness on perceptions of entrepreneurs, their ideas for new products, and their financial success. J Appl Soc Psych 36:467–492Google Scholar
  10. Bass BM (1981) Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: a survey of theory and research, revth edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Bass BM, Avolio BJ (1993) Transformational leadership: a response to critiques. In: Chemers M, Ayman R (eds) Leadership theory and research: perspectives and directions. Academic, San Diego, pp 49–80Google Scholar
  12. Bass BM, Bass R (2009) The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. Free Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  13. Bellou V (2011) Do women followers prefer a different leadership style than men? Int J Hum Resour Manag 22(13):2818–2833Google Scholar
  14. Berger J, Ridgeway CL, Fisek MH, Norman RZ (1998) The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociolog Rev 63(3):379–405Google Scholar
  15. Berkowitz L, Donnerstein E (1982) External validity is more than skin deep: some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. Am Psychol 37:245–257Google Scholar
  16. Bigelow L, Lundmark L, Parks JM, Wuebker (2013) Skirting the issues: experimental evidence of gender bias in IPO prospectus evaluations. J of ManagGoogle Scholar
  17. Breckler SJ (1984) Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. J Pers Soc Psych 47(6):1191Google Scholar
  18. Box M, Segerlind TL (2011) Founding team gender structure and the effects of spouse teams on new venture success in Sweden. 56th Annual ICSB Conference, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  19. Breugst N, Domurath A, Patzelt H, Klaukien A (2012) Perceptions of entrepreneurial passion and employees’ commitment to entrepreneurial ventures. Entrep Theory Pract 36:171–192Google Scholar
  20. Brundin E, Patzelt H, Shepherd DA (2008) Managers’ emotional displays and employees willingness to act entrepreneurially. J Bus Venturing 23:221–243Google Scholar
  21. Burke MJ, Brief A, George J, Roberson L, Webster J (1989) Measuring affect at work: confirmatory analyses of competing mood structures with conceptual linkage to cortical regulatory systems. J Pers Soc Psych 57:1091–1102Google Scholar
  22. Byrne DE (1971) The attraction paradigm, Vol. 11, Academic PrGoogle Scholar
  23. Cardon MS, Stevens CE (2004) Managing human resources in small organizations: what do we know? Hum Resour Manag Rev 14:295–323Google Scholar
  24. Cardon MS, Wincent J, Singh J, Drnovsek M (2009) The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Acad Manag Rev 34:511–532Google Scholar
  25. Carli LL (1999) Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. J Soc Issues 55:81–99Google Scholar
  26. Chiles TH, Bluedorn AB, Gupta VK (2007) Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Org Stud 28(4):467–493Google Scholar
  27. Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST (eds) The handbook of social psychology, vol 2. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 151–192Google Scholar
  28. Claes MT (1999) Women, men and management styles. Int Labour Rev 138(4):431–446Google Scholar
  29. Cohen F, Solomon S, Maxfield M, Pyszczynski T, Greenberg J (2004) Fatal attraction: the effects of mortality salience on evaluations of charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders. Psych Scien 15(12):846–851Google Scholar
  30. Colquitt JA (2008) Publishing laboratory research in AMJ—a question of when, not if. Acad Manag J 51:616–620Google Scholar
  31. Conger JA, Kanungo RN (1987) Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Acad Manag Rev 12:637–647Google Scholar
  32. Dastmalchian A, Javidan M, Alam K (2001) Effective leadership and culture in Iran: an empirical study. App Psychology 50(4):532–558Google Scholar
  33. Delmar F, Shane S (2003) Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? Strategic Manag J 24:1165–1185Google Scholar
  34. Dezsö CL, Ross DG (2012) Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Manag J 33(9):1072–1089Google Scholar
  35. Eagly AH, Carli LL (2003) Finding gender advantage and disadvantage: systematic research integration is the solution. Leadersh Q 14(6):851–859Google Scholar
  36. Eagly AH, Johnson BT (1990) Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bull 108(2):233Google Scholar
  37. Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC (2001) The leadership styles of women and men. J Soc Iss 57:781–797Google Scholar
  38. Eagly AH, Makhijani MG, Klonsky BG (1992) Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bull 111:3–22Google Scholar
  39. Eisenhardt KM (2004) Five issues where groups meet time. In: Blount S (ed.) Time in groups (research on managing groups and teams, volume 6), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 267–283Google Scholar
  40. England P (2001) Gender and feminist studies. Int Encyclopedia Soc Behav Scis 9:5910–5915Google Scholar
  41. England P, Allison P, Wu Y (2007) Does bad pay cause occupations to feminize, does feminization cause bad pay, and how can we tell from longitudinal data? Soc Sci Res 36(3):1237–1256Google Scholar
  42. Ensley MD, Pearson AW, Amason AC (2002) Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. J Bus Venturing 17(4):365–386Google Scholar
  43. Fleishman EA, Coons AE et al (1957) A leadership behavior description for industry. In: Stogdill RM (ed) Leader behavior: its description and measurement. The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  44. Fondas N (1997) Feminization unveiled: managerial qualities in contemporary writings. Acad Manag Rev 22:257–283Google Scholar
  45. Foo MD, Uy M, Baron R (2009) Affect and entrepreneurial efforts. J App Psych 94(4):1086–1094Google Scholar
  46. Foo MD, Wong P, Ong A (2005) Do others think you have a viable business idea? Team diversity and judges’ evaluation of ideas in a business plan competition. J Bus Venturing 20(3):385–402Google Scholar
  47. Ghoshal S (2006) Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad Manag Learn Educ 4:75–91Google Scholar
  48. Godwin LN, Stevens CE, Brenner NL (2006) Forced to play by the rules? Theorizing how mixed-sex founding teams benefit women entrepreneurs in male-dominated contexts. Entrep Theory Practice 30:623–642Google Scholar
  49. Greene FJ, Han L, Marlow S (2011) Like mother, like daughter? Analyzing maternal influences upon women’s entrepreneurial propensity. Entrep Theory Pract 37(4):687–711Google Scholar
  50. Gunkel M, Lusk EJ, Wolff B, Li F (2007) Gender‐specific effects at work: an empirical study of four countries. Gender Work Org 14(1):56–79Google Scholar
  51. Gupta V, Surie G, Javidan M, Chhokar J (2002) Southern Asia cluster: where the old meets the new. J World Bus 37:16–27Google Scholar
  52. Gupta VK, Turban D, Bhawe NM (2008) The effect of gender stereotype assimilation and reactance on entrepreneurial intentions. J App Psychology 93:1053–1061Google Scholar
  53. Gupta VK, Turban (2012) Evaluation of new business ideas: do gender stereotypes play a role? J Managerial Issues 24(2):140–15Google Scholar
  54. Gupta VK, Turban DB, Pareek A (2013) Differences between men and women in opportunity evaluation as a function of gender stereotypes and stereotype activation. Entrep Theory Practice 37(4):771–778Google Scholar
  55. Haslam SA, Ryan MK (2008) The road to the glass cliff: differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. Leadersh Q 19:530–546Google Scholar
  56. Hayton JC (2005) Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: a review of empirical research. Hum Resour Manag Rev 15:21–41Google Scholar
  57. Heilman ME, Okimoto TG (2007) Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. J App Psychology 92(1):81–92Google Scholar
  58. Heilman ME, Chen JJ (2003) Entrepreneurship as a solution: the allure of self-employment for women and minorities. Hum Resour Manag Rev 13(2):347–364Google Scholar
  59. Hmieleski KM, Ensley MD (2007) A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. J Orgl Beh 28:865–889Google Scholar
  60. Hisrich R, Langan-Fox J, Grant S (2007) Entrepreneurship research and practice: a call to action for psychology. Am Psychol 62(6):575Google Scholar
  61. Hitt MA, Biermant L, Shimizu K, Kochhar R (2001) Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective. Acad Manag J 44(1):13–28Google Scholar
  62. Hitt MA, Bierman L, Uhlenbruck K, Shimizu K (2006) The importance of resources in the internationalization of professional service firms: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Acad Manag J 49(6):1137–1157Google Scholar
  63. Hofstede G (2006) What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. J Int Bus Stud 37(6):882–896Google Scholar
  64. Howell JM, Frost PJ (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organ Behav and Hum Decis Processes 43:243--269Google Scholar
  65. Ilgen DR (1986) Laboratory research: a question of when, not if. In: Locke EA (ed) Generalizing from lab to field settings. Heath, Lexington, pp 257–267Google Scholar
  66. IRIN (2003) Iran: special report on the changing role of women,¼19625, Accessed 16 May 2013
  67. Javadian G, Addae IY (2013) The impact of bureaucracies and occupational segregation on participation of Iranian women in the workforce. Equal, Divers Incl: An Int J 32(7):654–670Google Scholar
  68. Jennings JE, Brush CG (2013) Research on women entrepreneurs: challenges to (and from) the broader entrepreneurship literature? Acad Manag Annals 7(1):661–713Google Scholar
  69. Johnson MJ, Pajares F (1996) When shared decision-making works: a three-year longitudinal study. American Educ Research J 33:599–627Google Scholar
  70. Kahai SS, Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ (1997) Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Pers Psychol 50(1):121–146Google Scholar
  71. Kahai S, Sosik J, Avolio B. (2004) Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Groups & Organ Manag, 29(1):67--105Google Scholar
  72. Katz D, Stotland (1959) A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure and change. In: Koch S (ed) Psychology. A study of a science, vol 3. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 423–475Google Scholar
  73. Katzenbach JR, Smith DK (1993) The wisdom of teams: creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  74. Kelley DJ, Singer S, Herrington MD (2012) The global entrepreneurship monitor: 2011 global report. Babson College, BostonGoogle Scholar
  75. Kirkbride P (2006) Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in action. Ind Comm Training 38(1):23–32Google Scholar
  76. Knight GA, Cavusgil ST (2004) Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. J Int Bus Stud 35(2):124–141Google Scholar
  77. Leung A, Zhang J, Wong PK, Foo MD (2006) The use of networks in human resource acquisition for entrepreneurial firms: multiple “fit” considerations. J Bus Venturing 21:664–686Google Scholar
  78. Levy S (1994) Insanely great. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  79. Lewis MW, Welsh MA, Dehler GE, Green SG (2002) Product development tension: exploring contrasting styles of project management. Acad Manag J 45:546–564Google Scholar
  80. Lindsley DH, Brass DJ, Thomas JB (1995) Efficacy-performance spirals: a multilevel perspective. Acad Manag Rev 20:645–678Google Scholar
  81. Lipman-Blumen J. (1996) Women in corporate leadership: reviewing a decade’s research: executive summary. Claremont Graduate University, Institute for Advanced Studies in Leadership, Peter F. Drucker Graduate School of ManagementGoogle Scholar
  82. Low MB (2001) The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose. Entrep Theory Practice 25(4):17–25Google Scholar
  83. Marlow S (2002) Women and self-employment: a part of or apart from theoretical construct? Int J Entrep Innovation 3(2):83–91Google Scholar
  84. Marlow S, McAdam M (2012) Analyzing the influence of gender upon high‐technology venturing within the context of business incubation. Entrep Theory Practice 36(4):655–676Google Scholar
  85. Marlow S, Patton D (2005) All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrep Theory Practice 29:717–735Google Scholar
  86. Minniti M (2009) Gender issues in entrepreneurship. Found Trends Entrep 5(7–8):497–621Google Scholar
  87. Mintzberg H, Waters JA (1982) Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm1. Acad Manag J 25(3):465–499Google Scholar
  88. Mitchell T, Smyser C, Weed S (1975) Locus of control: supervision and work satisfaction. Acad Manag J 18:623–631Google Scholar
  89. Murphy SE, Fiedler FE (1992) Cognitive resource theory and utilization of the leader’s and group member’s technical competence. Leadersh Q 3:237–255Google Scholar
  90. Newton-Small J. (2013) Women are the only adults left in Washington. TIME, Oct 16 Google Scholar
  91. Offerman LR, Kearney CT (1988) Supervisor sex and subordinate influence strategies. Personality Soc Psych Bull 14:360–367Google Scholar
  92. Paludi MA, Strayer LA (1985) What’s in an author’s name? Differential evaluations of performance as a function of author’s name. Sex Roles 12(3–4):353–361Google Scholar
  93. Prentice DA, Carranza E (2002) What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psych Women Q 26(4):269–281Google Scholar
  94. Pescosolido AT (2002) Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. Leadership Q 13:583–599Google Scholar
  95. Petit V, Bollaert H (2012) Flying too close to the sun? Hurbis among CEOs and how to prevent it. J Bus Ethics 108(3):265–283Google Scholar
  96. Pettigrew AM (1979) On studying organizational cultures. Admin Sci Q 24(4):570–581Google Scholar
  97. Pugh M, Wahrman R (1983) Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: do women have to be better than men? American J Sociology 88:746–762Google Scholar
  98. Rahim MA, Afza M (1993) Leader power, commitment, satisfaction, compliance, and propensity to leave a job among U.S. accountants. J Soc Psychology 133:611–625Google Scholar
  99. Rahim MA (1989) Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction with supervision: evidence from a national sample of managers. J Manag 15:545–557Google Scholar
  100. Rahim MA, Kim NH, Kim JS (1994) Bases of leader power, subordinate compliance, and satisfaction with supervision: a cross-cultural study of managers in the U.S. and S. Korea. Int J Org Analysis 2:136–154Google Scholar
  101. Randal, AE (2002) Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender composition and work group conflict. J Organ Behav 23:749--766Google Scholar
  102. Ranft AL, O’Neill HM (2001) Board composition and high-flying founders: hint of trouble to come? Acad Manag Exec 15(1):126–138Google Scholar
  103. Razavi SM, Reza MZ, Faghih N, Ahmadpur M, Kordnaeij Farsi JY, Sarfaraz (2012) GEM Iran 2008 report. Babson College, BostonGoogle Scholar
  104. Ridgeway CL (2001) Gender, status, and leadership. J Soc Iss 57:637–655Google Scholar
  105. Ruzzier M, Hisrich RD, Antoncic B (2006) SME internationalization research: past, present, and future. J Small Bus Entrep Develop 13(4):476–497Google Scholar
  106. Saavedra R, Earley PC, Van Dyne L (1993) Complex interdependence in ask performing groups. J App Psych 78:61–72Google Scholar
  107. Sagie A, Zaidman N, Amichai-Hamburger Y, Te’eni D, Schwartz D (2002) An empirical assessment of the loose-tight leadership model: quantitative and qualitative analyses. J Org Behav 23:303–320Google Scholar
  108. Schaubroeck J, Lam SK, Cha S (2007) Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. J Appl Psychology 92(4):1020–1030Google Scholar
  109. Shaver KG (1977) Principles of social psychology. Winthrop, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  110. Smith MB (1947) The personal setting of public opinions: a study of attitudes toward Russia. Public Opinion Q 11:507–523Google Scholar
  111. Snavely WB, McNeill JD (2008) Communicator style and social style: testing a theoretical interface. J Leadersh Org Stud 14(3):219–232Google Scholar
  112. Somech A (2006) The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. J Manag 32:132–157Google Scholar
  113. Somech A, Wenderow M (2006) The impact of participative and directive leadership on teachers’ performance: the intervening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and leader-member exchange. Educational Administration Q 42(5):746–772Google Scholar
  114. Stangler D, Kedrosky P (2011) Exploring firm formation: why is the number of new firms constant? doi:10.2139/ssrn.1585380, Accessed 14 July 2013
  115. Stephan WG, Ybarra O, Morrison K (2009) Intergroup threat theory. TD Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  116. Streb C, Gupta VK (2011) Methodology of entrepreneurship research in a radical subjectivist paradigm. In: Raposo M, Smallbone D, Balaton K, and Hortovanyi L (Eds). Entrepreneurship, growth and economic development: frontiers in European entrepreneurship research. Cheltanham Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 262–288Google Scholar
  117. Stogdill RM (1963) Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire: form XII. Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  118. Taylor SE (1991) Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events. The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psych Bull 110:67–85Google Scholar
  119. Thomas-Hunt MC, Phillips KW (2003) Managing teams in the dynamic organization: the effects of revolving membership and changing task demands on expertise and status in groups. Lead and Manag People in the Dynamic Org: 115–133Google Scholar
  120. Totterdell P (2000) Catching moods and hitting runs: mood linkage and subjective performance in professional sports teams. J of Appl Psych 83:848–885Google Scholar
  121. Totterdell P, Kellett S, Teuchmann K, Briner RB (1998) Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. J Personality Soc Psychology 74:1504–1515Google Scholar
  122. Triandis HC (1994) Culture and social behavior. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  123. Trevino LK, Brown M, Hartman LP (2003) A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Hum Relations 56(1):5–37Google Scholar
  124. Turkington CA (1996) Reflections for working woman. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  125. van Engen ML, Leeden R, Willemsen TM (2001) Gender, context and leadership styles: a field study. J Occupational Org Psychology 74(5):581–598Google Scholar
  126. Wagner DG, Berger J (1997) Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: status expectation accounts. Sociol Perspect 40:1–32Google Scholar
  127. Waters M (1989) Patriarchy and viriarchy: an exploration and reconstruction of concepts of masculine domination. Sociology 23:193–211Google Scholar
  128. Wes C (1984) When the doctor is a lady: power, status and gender in physician-patient encounters. Symb Interact 7(1):87–106Google Scholar
  129. Wrightsman LS, Deaux K (1981) Social psychology in the 80s, 3rd edn. Brooks/Cole, MontereyGoogle Scholar
  130. World Bank (2010) World development indicators. World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vishal K. Gupta
    • 1
  • Golshan Javadian
    • 2
  • Nazanin Jalili
    • 3
  1. 1.School of ManagementState University of New YorkBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.Morgan State UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Qazvin Islamic Azad UniversityQazvinIran

Personalised recommendations