Gender and entrepreneurial propensity: risk-taking and prosocial preferences in labour market entry decisions

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine gender differences in risk-taking and prosociality through a hypothetical labour market entry choice experiment. Design/methodology/approach To explore differences between male and female subjects by risk levels and framing effects, a labour market entry choice task that manipulated risk conditions was administered to business school students whereby subjects chose between a managerial job at a company, starting a commercial business or starting a social enterprise. The experimental design isolated and tested the influence of the type of value creation, risk propensity and framing effects. The results were then statistically analysed to test for significant differences between the two gender groups. Findings Results indicate that in low-risk conditions women prefer the prosocial entrepreneurial option while men opt for purely commercial entrepreneurial activities. As risk increases, differences between men and women initially converge and then reverse under conditions of extreme risk, where men select the social entrepreneurial choice at a higher rate than women. Research limitations/implications The research was conducted within the single country context of Peru and carried out using a specific subset of potential entrepreneurs (i.e. business school students). Second and related, the experimental labour entry task was hypothetical. Whether decisions would hold if business school students faced an actual occupational choice remains open to further investigation. Practical implications The practical implication of the paper suggests that Peruvian business school students react differently towards potential labour market opportunities depending on their gender. Perhaps, because of gender biases common in the Latin American context, women appear to respond more positively to low-risk prosocial opportunities. However, as risk increases, contextual factors appear to become less important and reveal core sets of prosocially anchored men and commercially anchored women. Originality/value This research provides new insights into risk-taking and prosocial differences between men and women facing labour entry decisions, especially in a developing country context with strong gender norms, and is particularly useful to those with an interest in entrepreneurial propensity and in the identification and development of entrepreneurial women.

Resilience, Leadership and Female Entrepreneurship within the Context of SMEs: Evidence from Latin America

“…On the other hand, some works underline that female leadership could be a limiting factor for the fulfillment of business objectives [66,67] and that the exercise of their functions could assume negative traits. Other researchers, such as [68], emphasize instead the positive perception related to female leadership, which is characterized by personal security, independence, altruism, the entrepreneurial woman capable of creating change, and the ability to transform work into a vocation.…”

Prominent factors of etrepreneurial self-efficacy in West Java: comparison between men and women entrepreneur

“…Risk propensity relationship has a positive effect and correlates with entrepreneurial activities (Kaldana and Ruzzier 2012). In other research by (Reichert, Bird and Farber 2021) indicate that in normal or low-risk situations, women entrepreneurs doing businesses for social purposes. While male entrepreneurs doing businesses with commercial purposes, in extreme situation, male entrepreneurs prefer doing business with social purposes.…”

The mediating role of entrepreneurial intention between creativity and social innovation tendency

“…By applying variable age as a proxy for the academic community, professors and researchers were found to demonstrate less entrepreneurial behaviour, but are more motivated towards social innovation initiatives than students. Such low entrepreneurial intention evidenced in professors and/or researchers can be explained, to a certain extent, by higher levels of risk aversion among this group, as well as a higher opportunity cost to initiating new projects (Reichert et al , 2021).…”