Gender Bias in Entrepreneurial Orientation Indicators Fabeya Kaygun
Student number: 11094117 Supervisor: dr. N. Ugur
Master thesis Entrepreneurship August, 2017
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine if gender bias influences study results of text-based entrepreneurial orientation indicators. As entrepreneurial orientation is becoming an increasingly important point of interest, because of its positive relationship with
organizational performance, variables affecting its measurements must be taken into account. Previous research indicated that letters to company shareholders, written by company CEOs, provide for a reliable measurement of company entrepreneurial orientation. Current study measured and analyzed the entrepreneurial orientation of 10 different US companies, based on CEO letters to shareholders. Regarding the fact that previous literature has shown that men and women differ in language discourse, current research studied two letters per firm, one written by a male CEO and one written by a female CEO. To study if gender affects text-based entrepreneurial orientation indicators, a t-test was conducted to measure if male and female CEOs significantly differ in usage of entrepreneurial orientation indicative words. Results showed empirical evidence that this gender difference exists. Future research is needed to replicate current study with a larger sample size and more heterogeneous sample, increasing the generalizability of the study.
Table of Contents 1.0. Introduction………4 1.1. Research Question………..6 2.0. Literature……….8 2.1. Entrepreneurial Orientation……….8 2.2. Gender Bias………....15
2.2.1. Importance of Gender Bias: Difference in Discourse in EO Indicators……….16
2.3. Computer-Aided Text Analysis (CATA)………...17
2.4. Measuring Entrepreneurial Orientation: Letters to Shareholders………..18
3.0. Research Methodology………..20 3.1. Sample………...20 3.2. Data Analysis……….20 4.0. Research Findings………..22 5.0. Conclusion………...25 6.0. Discussion………..26 7.0. References………..28 8.0. Appendix………37
1.0. Introduction
Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of women entering entrepreneurship, and/or occupying CEO positions (Mattis, 2004). The numbers and economic contributions of women-owned businesses continue to rise at higher rates than the national average, with even higher business formation rates since the economic recession. In 2016, it is estimated that there are roughly 11.3 million women-owned
businesses in the United States, providing employment for approximately 9 million people and generating over $1.6 trillion in revenues. The steepest increase in the number of women-owned firms is between 2007 and 2017, at an increase of 45% – compared to an increase of 9% among businesses in general. So, over the past 10 years, the amount of women-owned firms has seen a growth rate of five times faster than the national average. Comparing employment growth rates, employment in women-owned businesses has increased by 18% since the economic recession, even though overall business employment as declined by 1%. Business revenues generated by women-owned businesses have grown by 35% in this timespan, compared to an increase of 27% among all U.S. corporations. At the moment, women are the owners of 38% of U.S. businesses. High growth rates among all U.S. businesses apply only to the very largest firms. However, women-owned firms are growing all along the spectrum, mostly among those firms employing between 50 and 99 people (Coleman, 2007).
Regarding these remarkable statistics and paralleling these growth rates, the amount of research literature directed at the topic of gender differences, gender bias, and gender
discrimination in work-related circumstances has also increased. Initially, most studies focused on the demographics of female entrepreneurs and their businesses (Schwartz, 1976; Sexton and Kent, 1981), perceived obstacles to business start-ups and success (Humphries and McClung, 1981; Hisrich and O’Brien, 1982; Pellegrino and Rees, 1982; Hisrich and
Brush, 1984), and analyses of psychological characteristics and behavioral traits (DeCarlo and Lyons, 1979; Smith et al., 1984). The notion emerged that, although sharing similar
motivations, personality traits, and socio-economic backgrounds, female entrepreneurs experience gender-related discrimination in several areas, and especially by financial
institutions (Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990). This notion triggered researchers to conduct comparative analyses of male and female entrepreneurs to study and determine whether significant differences do exist (Welsch & Young, 1984), and if the perceptions and actions of financial lending officers differs towards female entrepreneurs (Birley et al., 1986; Bowman-Upton et al., 1987; Olm et al., 1988; Buttner and Rosen, 1988). These studies showed
differences to be few. The study of Buttner and Rosen (1988) caused a debate focused on the question if women are the objects of said discrimination, or the type of ventures women tend to initiate. Results from previous studies have shown that women encounter difficulties obtaining financing for their businesses because they tend to start up lifestyle rather than growth-oriented ventures (Brophy, 1989). These results imply a singular cause, but there might be a bias towards both women and the type of firm. Social researchers focusing on discerning the more subtle forms of gender bias have revealed a ‘lingering but potentially potent bias in people’s beliefs, feelings, and actions regarding women’, indicating this bias to be more profound (Myers, 1986). Other studies showed the same results regarding male and female attitudes towards female managers (Schein, 1973, 1975; Heilman And Guzzo, 1978; Donnell & Hall, 1980; Duhno, 1985; Sutton and Moore, 1985). It seems evident that gender discrimination cannot be denied and that more research in this area is necessary. To fully grasp the profoundness of gender discrimination and gender bias in society, it would be valuable to study these phenomena in specific contexts and areas. Although gender discrimination is present in many other fields than only in the business sector, such as in politics or education (Lorber, 2010; Razack, 1993), studying gender bias in these
circumstances goes beyond the scope of this paper. In this study, gender bias will be explored in the context of entrepreneurial orientation indicators. The construct of entrepreneurial orientation is an interesting subject because of a number of reasons. First, entrepreneurial orientation has become, contingent to the strategic management literature, an increasingly more important construct in entrepreneurship studies (Lyon et al., 2000; Tang, Tang, Marino, Zhang & Li, 2008). Second, scholars have found links between firm’s entrepreneurial
orientation and firm’s organizational performance (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009). Despite the growing body of literature for this construct, scholars are using different measures and conceptualizations for entrepreneurial orientation. In a study of Short et al. (2010), the construct of entrepreneurial orientation is validated using computer-aided text analysis. Current study is based on the same measurement, but critically reviews if any important factors are being left out, that may distort study results. Considering the different treatment that female entrepreneurs experience, gender makes up for a relevant focal point of interest. Studying gender biases in specific situations, such as in politics, education, or CEO positions, may lead to insights on how to promote equalizing existing gender differences. 1.1. Research Question
Short et al. (2010) have conducted a study in which they examined text analysis. Earlier, text analysis was performed based on human coding. Raters manually codified narrative texts, which makes it an intensive process that is prone to rater’s subjectivity. Short et al. (2010) suggested a new method to simplify text analysis and diminish such errors. They found that computer-aided text analysis (CATA) provides several advantages as opposed to human coding, and they studied this with entrepreneurial orientation indicators in narrative texts as an example. In a later section in this paper (section 2.4), the concept of computer-aided text analysis will be explained further. Although their study provided high construct validity in this example case, Short et al. (2010) did not take into account the gender of the
person who has written the narrative text – in this case, company CEOs (this will be
addressed and explained further in a later section of this paper (section 2.4.1)). Therefore, in light of previous literature concerning gender differences in the business world, current study aims to (partially) replicate the study of Short et al. (2010) and adding the dimension of gender to the framework. The question that arises from this inclusion is: Does gender affect text-based entrepreneurial orientation indicators? In the next sections, every aspect that is relevant to explore and test this hypothesis for current study will be addressed and described.
2.0. Literature
2.1. Entrepreneurial Orientation
As entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has been positively linked to firm performance, it is no surprise that gender biases amongst these circumstances have been receiving more attention lately (Tsui, 1984; Engelen, Gupta, Strenger, & Brettel, 2015). Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) can be defined as the strategy-marking processes and styles of firms that engage in entrepreneurial activities (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Several studies have shown that EO is a multidimensional construct, consisting of 5 factors: autonomy, competitive
aggressiveness, innovativeness, pro-activeness, and risk taking (Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin & Frese, 2009).
The fact that entrepreneurial activity represents one of the primary drivers of
economic growth, and that it accounts for the majority of new business development and job creation (Business Week, 1993), explains why an increasing number of scholars today argue that entrepreneurship is an essential feature of high-performing firms (Covin & Slevin, 1991). It is shown that, for both start-up ventures and existing firms, entrepreneurial activity
maintained throughout the pursuit of business opportunities stimulates business expansion, technological progress, and wealth creation. In the literature of entrepreneurship, numerous typologies are developed to characterize the different aspects and perspectives of
entrepreneurship (e.g., Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1986; Schollhammer, 1982; Webster, 1977). Most of these typologies differentiate types of entrepreneurship based on the individual-, organizational- or environmental level, or the combinations between them. These
categorizations have served to point out the various dimensions of entrepreneurial processes. However, these efforts have not led to any widely recognized notion on how to characterize entrepreneurship. The progress of researchers toward building and testing a broader theory of entrepreneurship is being hindered by this lack of consensus. This impediment makes it
difficult for them to study the possible relationships between entrepreneurship and other relevant variables, such as organizational performance. Current study is based on the differentiation between the concepts of entrepreneurship and ‘entrepreneurial orientation’, based on prior theory and research distinguished by Lumpkin and Dess (1996). Comparable to a distinction made in strategic management literature by Bourgeois (1980), which
differentiates between content and process, a similar distinction could be applied to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation. Along with new developments in the strategic management field, the emphasis shifted from entrepreneurial content to
entrepreneurial processes – the methods, practices, and decision-making styles that managers use to operate more entrepreneurial. For example, processes involving experimenting with new technologies, willingness to seize new product-market opportunities, and having the propensity to engage in risky ventures. The prevailing notion has been to use concepts from the strategy-making process literature to model firm-level entrepreneurship (Miller, 1983; Covin and Slevin, 1989). The five dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation are useful to characterize and distinguish essential entrepreneurial processes, which make up a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation. However, these dimensions do not represent entrepreneurship itself, which often is defined as new entry. New entry explains what entrepreneurship exists of, and entrepreneurial orientation describes how new entry is undertaken. New entry is the essence of entrepreneurship. It can be achieved by entering new or existing markets with new or existing products or services. New entry can be described as the act of launching a new business, and can be accomplished via three ways: by a start-up venture, through an existing firm, or via internal corporate venturing (Burgelman, 1983). A large, growing body of research on entrepreneurship has provided evidence for the notion that new entry is the core idea of the concept of entrepreneurship (Webster, 1977; MacMillan & Day, 1987; Sandberg & Hofer, 1987; Stuart & Abetti, 1987; Hisrich & Peters, 1989). Although the concept of
entrepreneurship as new entry is a topic not yet exhaustively explored, this paper is concerned with EO, a concept that initially emerged from the strategic management literature. EO
involves all processes, practices, and decision-making activities regarding new entry. It refers to the intentions and actions of key figures operating in a dynamic process directed at new venture creation. The five key dimensions that characterize EO are willingness to innovate and take risks, tendency to act aggressively toward competitors, propensity to act
autonomously, and proactive relative to marketplace opportunities. These dimensions are summarized in 5 factors: innovativeness, risk-taking, competitive aggressiveness, autonomy, and pro-activeness. All or some of these traits may be present when a firm wishes to engage in new entry. However, a successful new entry may also be accomplished when only some of these traits are present. Additionally, the degree to which these factors are useful predictors for the success of a new venture may be dependent on external factors, such as the industry, or internal factors, such as organizational structure or management characteristics. Prior research has suggested that the 5 dimensions of EO are interdependent (Covin & Slevin, 1989), but more recent studies have indicated that innovativeness, risk-taking, competitive aggressiveness, autonomy, and pro-activeness may vary independently, being contingent on environmental and organizational factors (Gartner, 1985; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Currently, there is still little consensus regarding the topic of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation. One of the reasons why there has been little agreement on the nature of
entrepreneurship is because the concept is used in the context of different levels of analysis. The concept is often studied on an individual level, because it is often associated with new entry of a revolutionary invention (Baumol, 2002). Some theorists also consider it to be mainly applicable to the branch of small businesses, because these small businesses make up for the majority of new job creation and economic growth (Birch, 1987; Thurik & Wennekers, 2004). Recently, the emphasis has also been put on corporate entrepreneurship as a means of
strategy and firm growth for larger firms (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990). These developments stress the importance of taking into account the levels of analyses being used in EO studies. New entry as central theme in entrepreneurship is mainly an organizational-level
phenomenon. The same applies to entrepreneurial orientation. Section 2.4.1. will elaborate on the measurement and analyses of EO in current study. Next, the 5 dimensions of
entrepreneurial orientation will be further explained. 2.1.1. The 5 Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation
Previous research has suggested that strategic decisions result from an array of
organizational processes (Hart, 1992; Rajagopalan, Rasheed, & Datta, 1993). These processes can be identified and characterized across organizations, and may encompass many aspects of an organization’s values, culture, and collective vision (Hart, 1992; Hofstede, 1990). Many researchers have attempted to identify what variables are relevant to organizational dynamics and strategic decision processes, by focusing on defining the dimensions of strategy making. Lumpkin & Dess (1996) have suggested that strategy-making processes may underlie most entrepreneurial processes, so it may be useful to include these processes in EO research.
One of the starting points for the specific dimensions of EO was the study of Miller (1983, 2011), in which he asserted that a typical entrepreneurial firm “engages in product market innovation, undertakes somewhat risky ventures, and is first to come up with ‘pro-active’ innovations, beating competitors to the punch”. Correspondingly, he applied the dimensions of innovativeness, risk-taking and pro-activeness to illustrate and test
entrepreneurship. Scholars then adopted and expanded this conceptualization (Morris & Paul, 1987; Covin & Slevin, 1989; Naman & Slevin, 1993).
As also proposed by Miller (1983) is the following explanation of the dimension of competitive aggressiveness. Competitive aggressiveness describes the idea of “beating
in head-to-head posturing to compete with other (existing) firms. The study of Dean et al. (1993) revealed that competitive aggressiveness was highly correlated with entrepreneurship across different levels of risk. The last dimension of entrepreneurial orientation, the
dimension of autonomy, refers to the tendency toward autonomous and independent action. In order to successfully launch a new venture, start-up businesses must intentionally undertake specific actions to do so (Bird, 1988). In the next subsections, the 5 dimensions of EO will be clarified.
Innovativeness
A concept that is frequently mentioned in entrepreneurship literature is innovation. Schumpeter (1934, 1942) was one of the earliest to stress the importance of innovation in the concept of entrepreneurship. Schumpeter (1942) described an economic process of what he called “creative destruction”, by which existing market structures are disrupted by the introduction of new products, creating wealth and causing a shift in resources away from existing firms to new firms, leading them to grow. The main driver to this process was entrepreneurship, as the entry of innovative “new combinations” that prompted the dynamic cycles of the economy (Schumpeter, 1934). The importance of innovativeness as a dimension for entrepreneurship became increasingly apparent.
Innovativeness refers to an organization’s tendency to be open to and support new ideas, creativity, uniqueness, and experimentation that may lead to novel products, services, or innovative research and development. Although the extent to which innovations are ‘radical’ can vary (Hage, 1980), innovativeness depicts the willingness to deviate from existing practices and to take risk beyond the current state of the art (Kimberly, 1981). Risk-taking
Another important aspect of entrepreneurship is the dimension of risk-taking. Risk-taking behaviors can be characterized in many different contexts. In the specific context of
strategy and entrepreneurship, scholars have identified three types of strategic risk: “venturing into the unknown”, “committing a relatively large portion of assets”, and “borrowing heavily” (Baird & Thomas, 1985). Venturing into the unknown captures the feeling of uncertainty and may include general types of risks such as personal, social, or psychological risk (Gasse, 1982). In terms of entrepreneurship, the financial context is important to consider as well. Financial risks refer specifically to the probability of losses in risky resource commitments. Both high financial loans and serious resource commitments are included in this
conceptualization of risk. As follows, a higher degree of entrepreneurial orientation can be predicted by a higher degree of these risk-taking behaviors. It must be noted that, to some extent, all business start-ups may be encompassed by risk-taking behaviors. So the base line of risk-taking behavior might not be at zero – no risk at all – but might start from some nominal level of ‘safe’ risks, ranging to highly risky behaviors.
Pro-activeness
The dimension of pro-activeness in entrepreneurial processes has come to attention since Penrose (1959) asserted that entrepreneurial managers foster the growth of
organizations because of their vision and imagination, which both are important for opportunistic expansion (Kor & Mahoney, 2004). Another study revealed that the best strategy for capitalizing on market opportunities is first-mover advantage (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988). The first mover has a running start on establishing branding, and generally rounds up remarkably high net profits. Thus, pro-activeness in the shape of initiative taking and seizing new business opportunities has become associated with entrepreneurship as well. A definition of pro-activeness as given in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1991: 937) describes the concept as “acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes”. Following this definition, pro-activeness may be a key element to EO, because it points to a progressive perspective, followed by innovative activities. Early
studies suggested that pro-activeness implies entrepreneurial firms to be “the first to come up with ‘proactive’ innovations” (Miller, 1983). The idea of anticipating on future market
demands is an important component of entrepreneurship. However, the idea of pioneering and being first to capitalize is rather narrowly interpreted. A venture does not always need to be first in order to be novel, fast, and anticipating. Studies have shown that the second firm to enter new markets was as pioneering as the first firm to enter that market, and that the second firm was equally likely to become successful via pro-activeness (Miller & Camp, 1985). Therefore, this paper follows the definition of pro-activeness as given by Venkatraman (1989), suggesting that pro-activeness is described by the processes aimed at anticipating on future needs by “seeking new opportunities which may or may not be related to the present line of operations, introduction of new products and brands ahead of competition,
strategically eliminating operations which are in the mature or declining stages of life cycle”. Competitive aggressiveness
The fourth dimension of entrepreneurial orientation, competitive aggressiveness, can be defined as “the propensity of a firm to directly and intensely challenge its competitors to achieve entry or improve position, that is, to outperform industry rivals in t he marketplace” (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Competitive aggressiveness is reflected by responsiveness, which may manifest itself in head-to-head posturing. Furthermore, the concept also entails a firms’ willingness to be unconventional rather than following traditional competitive methods. These unconventional methods include adopting unconventional tactics to challenge ruling industry leaders (Cooper et al., 1986), analyzing and targeting the weaknesses of relevant competitors (MacMillan & Jones, 1986), and focusing on products of high added value whilst monitoring expenses (Woo & Cooper, 1981). Correspondingly, Porter (1985) outlined three approaches for competitive aggressiveness: reconfiguration, redefining the product and its market channels, and outspending the industry leader. Competitive aggressiveness, referring to a
firms’ responsiveness directed at achieving competitive advantage, thus is an important dimension of entrepreneurial orientation. Additionally, because new businesses are more prone to failure than established firms, researchers have suggested that an aggressive attitude is important for new entrants’ survival and success (MacMillan, 1982; Porter, 1985).
Autonomy
The phenomenon of entrepreneurship arose because of pioneers who had innovative, new ideas, and commercialized those ideas. Entrepreneurs could succeed because of their autonomous way of thinking, and their decision to give up secure job positions. This also applies to individuals within organizations. Employees are given the opportunity to explore their creativity and probe novel business ideas when granted freedom within organizations. This freedom is required for entrepreneurship to occur – autonomy thus functions as an important catalyst. Therefore, the concept of autonomy is an important dimension of entrepreneurial orientation. Autonomy in firms may vary as a function of several different factors, such as company size, management style, and ownership. However, the degree of autonomy may also depend on the level of centralization or delegation within an
organizational structure, which may be related to organizational size. Scholars have studied the nature and extent of autonomy in small organizations by analyzing leadership
centralization and authority delegating in the management (Miller, 1983). It appeared that the most entrepreneurial firms had the most autonomous leaders, providing evidence for
autonomy as an important indicator for entrepreneurial orientation. 2.2. Gender Bias
Although the number of women in management positions has been growing for the last two decades, the number of women holding CEO positions in large organizations remains rather low. Previous studies have found several explanations for these statistics, including lack of line experience, inadequate career opportunities, gender differences in linguistic styles
and socialization, gender-based stereotypes, the old boy network at the top, and tokenism (Oakley, 2000). The phenomenon that women are prevented from rising to senior
management positions in large corporations, known as “the glass ceiling”, describes the transparent barrier which prevents women from ascending the corporate ladder past a certain point (Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1992). This metaphor implies to some extent that the problem arises from a singular cause. However, a study of Auster (1993) has shown that the glass ceiling is not one ceiling, but rather an aggregation of many varied pervasive forms of gender bias that often occur, both in overt and covert forms. Awareness of the statistics on female CEOs showing an underrepresentation of women in top positions in large corporations has led many organizations to revise their policies. Although gender bias remains a sensitive subject, an increasing number of firms attempt to promote more women into senior
management (Adler & Izraeli, 1994).
As briefly mentioned in the introduction, gender bias is a prominent issue in the
business sector. There is no one conclusive answer as to what underlies this phenomenon, but scholars are increasingly exposing underlying factors. In the next section it will be clarified how gender bias in the context of entrepreneurial orientation may cause methodological research issues.
2.2.1. Importance of Gender Bias: Difference in Discourse in EO Indicators
The linkage between language and gender has been a research subject for 30 years. The subject provides for a large and interdisciplinary study field, including psychological, sociological, and socio-linguistic perspectives, as well as cultural studies, communication studies, literary studies and anthropology. Earlier, research studies concerning this matter focused on whether women and men speak differently. These studies aimed to identify women and men’s speech styles and link them with gender variables. However, recent work has turned to a discursive perspective, studying the social construction of gender identity and
gender ideologies. Previous literature has been criticized for regarding gender as a
fundamental category, a property of individuals and uncomplicated variable that could be linked to various language behaviors. Later on, gender was being viewed as something one ‘does’ – an enactment, a discursive structure or a product of social interaction. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003) specified this shift as ‘the search for correlations between linguistic units and social categories of speakers to analysis of the gendered significance of ongoing talk’. The latter notion has been well studied in the gender and language literature (e.g. Holmes and Meyerhoff, 2003; Weatherall, 2002), despite a paralleling stream of publications continuing to follow the ‘gender differences’ conceptualization. These types of studies, focused on ‘sex difference’, aid to create and support presumed gender dichotomy (Crawford, 1995). Alike, publications from a constructionist perspective or regarding gender as
performance, also often make ‘gender difference’ based claims, whether implicit or explicit, about the way men perform masculinities and women perform femininities (e.g. Farris, 2000; Guendouzi, 2001; Davies, 2003). This mainly ensues because scholars ‘start out knowing the identities whose very constitution ought to be precisely the issue under investigation’ (Kulick, 1999). The fundamental question arises of ‘how to best represent and even talk about gender and language’ (Holmes and Meyerhoff, 2003), because the very process of writing about the ‘nuanced, subtle, and complex’ performances of femininities and masculinities itself can cause reproduction and maintenance of the gender order (Stokoe, 2000; Hammersley, 2001; Sidnell, 2003).
2.3. Computer Aided Text Analysis (CATA)
To increase the accuracy of text analysis, current study relied on Computer Aided Text Analysis (CATA), instead of human coding schemes. Usage of CATA has shown to enhance reliability, as it minimizes the errors resulting from human coding (e.g. human coders being prone to fatigue or inadequate coder training). Both CATA and human coding generally
measure text content via word usage (Morris, 1994). Using text analysis to study cognition is based on the assumption that the insights about the author’s mental models can be recognized through the presence or absence of certain words or concepts in a text (Carley, 1997).
Another advantage of CATA compared to human coding lies in its ability to analyze multiple texts in mere minutes with high reliability and without rater bias (Stevenson, 2011). In the latter study, it is shown that usage of CATA to measure EO of a firm significantly increases the construct validity (as opposed to human coding).
2.4. Measuring Entrepreneurial Orientation: Letters to Shareholders
To measure entrepreneurial orientation, current study makes use of a source that has been shown to be a reliable representative of this concept. A study of D’Aveni & McMillan (1990) has shown that letters to shareholders are excellent sources of managerial cognitions as they provide a means for reconstructing perceptions and beliefs of authors. Considering that letters to shareholders particularly appeared to signal major topics and themes to which managers attend (Barr, Stimpert, & Huff, 1992), using annual report texts to capture elements of top management’s beliefs, values, and ideologies seems adequate – in this case, the
elements of entrepreneurial orientation. Furthermore, research has shown that these letters are the most widely read section of the annual reports (Courtis, 1982), and that they provide a forum for the CEO to communicate thoughts on important matters that affect the organization (Goodman, 1980). Empirical evidence shows that company CEO’s actively participate in the writing process of these letters to shareholders (Amernic, Craig, & Tourish, 2007). Also, a linkage has been found between the rhetoric in these narratives and organizational actions and outcomes (Bowman, 1984; Michalisin, 2001). For example, in a study of Michalisin (2001), displays of innovativeness in the letter to shareholders were linked to firm reputation for innovation and the number of trademarks. These results provide support to the notion that
communication in the CEO letters to shareholders reflects actual firm behaviors, making them useful to research entrepreneurial orientation.
Although they did take into account the cultural differences, the difference between male and female CEO language use is being neglected. This could compromise results, considering that these analyses were based on narrative texts. Given the fact that significant gender differences have been found regarding language use (Coates, 2015), leaving this aspect out of the framework might have implications.
3.0. Research Methodology
To measure if a gender bias exists in measuring entrepreneurial orientation indicators, this study analyzed the entrepreneurial orientation of 10 U.S. based firms. Per firm, CEOs’ annual letters to company shareholders were codified and subjected to statistical analyses. For each company, two letters were compared – one letter written by a male CEO, and one letter written by a female CEO. With the aid of a statistical independent samples t-test, current study aims to examine whether significant effects exist for gender discourse in EO indicators. 3.1. Sample
The sample of current study exists of shareholder letters from CEOs of companies, based in the US. Ten companies were examined (N = 10), listed on the Fortune 500. The Fortune 500 is an annual list that ranks 500 of the largest corporations in the US by total revenue for their respective fiscal years. The list is compiled and published by Fortune Magazine and includes publicly held companies, as well as privately held companies for which revenues are publicly available. Selection of the companies for current study was based on CEO positions held by women, starting from the highest rankings. If no annual reports and thus shareholder letters were available, the next company with a (former) female CEO in the rank order was selected.
3.2. Data Analysis
To analyze if male and female CEOs differ in usage of entrepreneurial orientation indicative words in the letters written to company shareholders, shareholder letters were examined and codified by one rater. To measure the number of entrepreneurial orientation indicators per letter, Computer-Aided Text Analysis (CATA) was used. Current study made use of the coding program NVivo. NVivo is a software program in which a narrative text can be broken down into segments and codified. With this program, EO indicators were coded and counted for each shareholder letter. Later in this section will be clarified what these EO
indicators entail exactly. The amount of EO indicators within each letter was divided by the total amount of words in the letter (and multiplied by 1000), to standardize and correct for longer or shorter shareholder letters. This number yields the number of EO indicative words per thousand words in a shareholder letter. For example, firm A has an amount of 150 EO indicators and a total amount of words of 2000. Firm B has an amount of 100 EO indicators and a total amount of words of 1200. In absolute numbers, firm A shows the most EO indicators. However, when corrected for shareholder letter length, firm B shows a relatively higher amount of EO indicators (firm A: 75 out of 1000 words are EO indicative; firm B: 84 out of 1000 words are EO indicative).
The coding of entrepreneurial orientation indicators in shareholder letters was based on the word list for entrepreneurial orientation dimensions as adopted by the study of Short et al. (2010), based on Rodale’s (1978) The Synonym Finder. Of the 717 words generated by The Synonym Finder and the 43 words added by two raters in the study of Short et al. (2010), 244 words were selected by these two raters as representative of entrepreneurial orientation and were retained for their subsequent analyses. Current analyses were also based on the final word list of 244 entrepreneurial orientation indicators. The word list differentiates between the 5 dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation, and an additional category of inductively derived words. For example, the dimension of Autonomy includes entrepreneurial orientation indicative words such as ‘authority’, ‘autonomous’, and ‘independent’ (see table 1 in the Appendix for the exhaustive word list). In total, 20 CEO to shareholder letters were
examined – 10 shareholder letters from male CEOs, compared to 10 shareholder letters from female CEOs.
4.0. Research Findings
The results of the analyses will be provided in this section. An independent samples t-test was performed to compare the mean scores of the two groups – male and female CEOs. Table 2 presents the group statistics. It shows a higher mean score of number of EO indicators for the male CEO group, with a lower standard deviation and lower standard error mean than the female CEO group.
Table 2
Independent sample t-test statistics including N, means, standard deviations and standard error means
CEO Sexe N Mean
Standard Deviation Standard Error Mean Number of EO Indicators 0 (0=male) 10 28.5 5.622 1.778 Number of EO Indicators 1 (1=female) 10 21.3 6.482 2.050
Note. The number of Entrepreneurial Orientation indicators is corrected for letter length and the mean scores show the number of indicators per thousand words.
Next, table 3 (depicted below) shows the results for the independent samples t-test. Looking at the results of Levene’s test in table 3, it is shown that the significance value of this test is larger than .05 (p = .507), which means that equal variance between the two groups is assumed. Thus, the data do not violate the assumption of equal variance. Furthermore, results
show a significant p-value of p = .016 (p < .05), pointing to a significant difference between number of EO indicators for male and female CEOs.
Table 3
Independent samples t-test including Levene’s test, degrees of freedom, significance level, mean differences, standard error differences and a 95% confidence interval
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval F Sig. t df Significance level (2-tailed) Mean Difference Standard Error
Difference Lower Upper
Number of EO Indicators
Equal variances assumed
5.0. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between gender and
entrepreneurial orientation indicators in narrative texts. The research question to be answered was “does gender effect text-based entrepreneurial orientation indicators?” As previous studies have shown, CEO letters to shareholders make up for a reliable source to measure a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation (e.g., Michalisin, 2001, Short et al., 2010). However, these studies did not take into account the possible effects of CEO gender. Current paper argues that these effects should not be overlooked, as studies have shown that a difference in discourse exists for gender (e.g., Holmes & Meyerhoff, 2003, Weatherall, 2002). Consistent with earlier research on gendered discourse, current study revealed a significant effect for gender in entrepreneurial orientation indicators in narrative texts. Male CEOs use significantly more entrepreneurial orientation indicative words in the letters written to company shareholders, than female CEOs.
6.0. Discussion
Following the research methods used and tested by Short et al. (2010) a solid way to test the research question is provided. As mentioned before, the use of CATA comes with a series of advantages. Usage of CATA has shown to enhance reliability and decrease human coding errors (Short et al., 2010), aiding to the strength of the study. In light of previous literature, it was expected that a difference exists between male and female language
discourse. Specifically, it was expected that male CEOs and female CEOs differ in language discourse as measured in their letters to company shareholders. The results of this study indicated supporting evidence for this hypothesis – male CEOs used significantly more entrepreneurial orientation indicative words than female CEOs. However, the contributions of current study should be considered in light of its limitations. Although current study results showed an effect for gender in entrepreneurial orientation indicators in narrative texts, findings must be interpreted with cautiousness.
The study is subject to several limitations. The first limitation to be addressed is the limited sample size. A sample size of N =10 does not provide for a solid ground for inferences, and decreases the study’s generalizability.
The second limitation concerns the codification of shareholder letters. In this study, one rater codified these letters. Although this coding was accompanied by computer-aided text analysis, which eliminates part of the human coding errors addressed in section 2.4, research analyses are strengthened and accommodated by multiple raters. Multiple ratings offer the possibility to compare codifications and calculate the interrater reliability between these raters.
A third limitation could arise from the fact that female CEOs of the largest US corporations were studied. As these women are listed in the top firms of the US, certain predispositions must be considered. Spurious correlations could affect results for this certain
group of women - this could have implications for study results. For example, it could be that this specific group of women – female CEOs of large companies – possess certain personality traits which makes them suited for these job positions. Because of these possible
predispositions, these women might already be a more homogenous population, implying a decreased representativeness for women in general in gender studies. Furthermore, it is a possibility that the women occupying these job positions have personality traits that are more masculine than women that occupy different types of job positions. This could also potentially distort study results.
Looking at the expectations based on previous literature, this study reviewed notions of different study fields and combined them into current study, adding gender bias to the framework of Short et al. (2010). Results suggest that gender should not be left out of the framework when studying entrepreneurial orientation indicators in narrative texts, as male CEOs significantly use more entrepreneurial orientation indicative words than female CEOs.
Future research would benefit several extensions. First, a larger sample size would be of added value. The generalizability and external validity of the study would be increased. Second, a more diverse sample would diminish effects resulting from a homogeneous pool of participants. For example, female CEOs from corporations of different sizes, different
countries and different industries would add to the generalizability of the study. Based on a larger, more diverse sample, more reliable and solid inferences can be made. Third, if current study were to be replicated or extended, multiple raters instead of one rater could provide for more reliable codifications, increasing the reliability of the study. The importance of future research is emphasized by the notion that this small sized study explored and showed indications for a gender effect, and future studies could add supporting evidence to this finding.
7.0. References
Adler, N. J., & Izreali, D. N. (1994). Competitive rontiers: Women managers in a global economy. Blackwell Publishing, 3-21.
Amernic J., Craig R., & Tourish D. (2007). The transformational leader as pedagogue, physician, architect, commander, and saint: Five root metaphors in Jack Welch’s letters to stockholders of General Electric. Human Relations, 60, 1839-1872. Auster, E. R. (1993). Demystifying the Glass Ceiling: Organizational and Interpersonal
Dynamics of Gender Bias. Business and the Contemporary World, 5, 47–68. Baird, I. S., & Thomas, H. (1985). Toward a contingency model of strategic risk
taking. Academy of management Review, 10(2), 230-243.
Barr P. S., Stimpert J. L., & Huff A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 15-36.
Baumol, W. J. (2002). Entrepreneurship, innovation and growth: The David-Goliath symbiosis. The Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 7(2), 1.
Birch, D. G. (1987). Job creation in America: How our smallest companies put the most people to work.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of management Review, 13(3), 442-453.
Birley, S., Moss, C., & Saunders, P. (1986). The differences between small firms started by male and female entrepreneurs who attended small business courses. Frontiers of Small Business Proceedings, 21, 1-222.
Bourgeois, L. J. (1980). Strategy and environment: A conceptual integration. Academy of management review, 5(1), 25-39.
Bowman, E. H. (1984). Content analysis of annual reports for corporate strategy and risk. Interfaces, 14(1), 61-71.
Bowman-Upton, N., Carsud, A., & Olm, K. (1987). New venture funding for the female entrepreneur. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA., Babson College.
Brophy, D. J. (1989). Financing women-owned entrepreneurial firms. Women Owned Businesses, 55-76.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Business Week, 1993.
Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1988). Bank loan officers' perceptions of the characteristics of men, women, and successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(3), 249-258.
Carley K. M. (1997). Extracting team mental models through textual analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 533-558.
Coates, J. (2015). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. Routledge.
Coleman, S. (2007). The role of human and financial capital in the profitability and growth of women‐ owned small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(3), 303-319. Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business
ownership. Strategic management journal, 7(1), 53-68.
Courtis, J. K. (1982). Private shareholder response to corporate annual reports. Accounting & Finance, 22(2), 53-72.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic management journal, 10(1), 75-87.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm
behavior. Entrepreneurship: Critical perspectives on business and management, 3, 5-28.
Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. 7, Sage. D'Aveni, R. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Crisis and the content of managerial
communications: A study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving and failing firms. Administrative science quarterly, 634-657.
Davies, B. (2003). Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender. Hampton Press (NJ).
Dean, C. C., Thibodeaux, M. S., Beyerlein, M., Ebrahimi, B., & Molina, D. (1993). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Competitive Aggressiveness: A Comparison of US Firms
Operating in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States with US Firms in other High Risk Environments. Advances in International Comparative Management, 8, 31-54.
DeCarlo, J. F., & Lyons, P. R. (1979, August). A comparison of selected personal characteristics of minority and non-minority female entrepreneurs. Acadamy of Management, 1979(1), 369-373.
Dictionary, M. W. (1991). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from http://www.mw.com/home.html Donnell, S. M., & Hall, J. (1980). Men and women as managers: A significant case of no
significant difference. Organizational Dynamics, 8(4), 60-77.
Dubno, P. (1985). Attitudes toward women executives: a longitudinal approach. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 235-239.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge University Press.
Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1069-1097.
Chinese preschool in Taiwan. Journal of pragmatics, 32(5), 539-568.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of management review, 10(4), 696-706.
Gasse, Y. (1982). Elaborations on the psychology of the entrepreneur. Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, 57-71.
Goodman R. (1980). Annual reports serving a dual marketing function. Public Relations Quarterly, 36, 21-24.
Guendouzi, J. (2001). You'll think we're always bitching': the functions of cooperativity and competition in women's gossip. Discourse Studies, 3(1), 29-51.
Guth, W. D., & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest editors' introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 5-15.
Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations: Form, process, and transformation. John Wiley & Sons.
Hammersley, M. (2003). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: methods or paradigms?. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 751-781.
Hart, S. L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of management review, 17(2), 327-351.
Heilman, M. E., & Guzzo, R. A. (1978). The perceived cause of work success as a mediator of sex discrimination in organizations.
Hisrich, R., & Brush, C. (1984). The woman entrepreneur: Management skills and business problems.
Hisrich, R. D., & O’Brien, M. (1982). The woman entrepreneur as a reflection of the type of business. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 54.
Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (1989). Entrepreneurship: Starting. Developing, And Managing A New Enterprise, Homewood, IL: BPI, IrwinMcGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative science quarterly, 286-316.
Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (2003). Different voices, different views: An introduction to current research in language and gender. The handbook of language and gender, 1-17. Humphreys, M. A., & McClung, H. (1981). Women entrepreneurs in Oklahoma. Review of
regional Economics and Business, 6(2), 13-20.
Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of management review, 13(3), 429-441.
Kimberly, J. R. 1981. Managerial innovation. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, 1, 84-104. New York: Oxford University Press. Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. (2004). Edith Penrose's (1959) contributions to the resource‐
based view of strategic management. Journal of management studies, 41(1), 183-191.
Kulick, D. (1999). Language and gender/sexuality. In Sixth Language and Culture Online Symposium. http://www. language-culture. org/colloquia/symposia/kulick-don. Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First‐ mover advantages. Strategic
management journal, 9(S1), 41-58.
Lorber, J. (2010). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics. Oxford University Press, USA.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135-172. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation
to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of business venturing, 16(5), 429-451.
Lyon, D. W., Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2000). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research: Operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making
process. Journal of management, 26(5), 1055-1085.
MacMillan, I. C., & Day, D. L. (1987). Corporate ventures into industrial markets: Dynamics of aggressive entry. Journal of business venturing, 2(1), 29-39.
MacMillan, 1.C. and Jones, P.E. Spring 1984. Designing Organizations to Compete, Journal of Business Strategy, 4(1), l-26.
Mattis, M. C. (2004). Women entrepreneurs: out from under the glass ceiling. Women in Management Review, 19(3), 154-163.
Michalisin, M. D. (2001). Validity of annual report assertions about innovativeness: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53(3), 151-161.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management science, 29(7), 770-791.
Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873-894.
Miller, A., & Camp, B. (1986). Exploring determinants of success in corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 87-105.
Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247-259.
Morris R. (1994). Computerized content analysis in management research: A demonstration of advantages & limitations. Journal of Management, 20, 903-931.
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1992). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America's largest corporations? Basic Books.
Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic management journal, 14(2), 137-153.
Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of business ethics, 27(4), 321-334.
Olm, K., Carsrud, A., & Alvey, L. (1988). The role of networks in new venture funding for the female entrepreneur: A continuing analysis. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Pellegrino, E. T., & Reece, B. L. (1982). Perceived formative and operational problems encountered by female entrepreneurs in retail and service firms. Journal of Small Business Management (1986), 20(000002), 15.
Porter, M. E., & Advantage, C. (1985). Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and
business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 33(3), 761-787.
Rajagopalan, N., Rasheed, A. M., & Datta, D. K. (1993). Strategic decision processes: Critical review and future directions. Journal of management, 19(2), 349-384. Razack, S. (1993). Story‐ telling for social change. Gender and Education, 5(1), 55-70. Sandberg, W. R., & Hofer, C. W. (1987). Improving new venture performance: The role of
strategy, industry structure, and the entrepreneur. Journal of Business venturing, 2(1), 5-28.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 57(2), 95.
Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of applied psychology, 60(3), 340. Schwartz, E. B. (1976). Entrepreneurship-New female frontier. Journal of Contemporary
business, 5(1), 47-76.
& K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship: 209-223. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sexton, D. L., & Kent, C. A. (1981). Female executives and entrepreneurs: A preliminary comparison. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 40.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Creative destruction. Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 825. Short, J. C., Broberg, J. C., Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2010). Construct validation
using computer-aided text analysis (CATA) an illustration using entrepreneurial orientation. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320-347.
Smith, N. R., McCain, G., & Warren, A. (1982). Women entrepreneurs really are different: A comparison of constructed ideal types of male and female entrepreneurs. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 68.
Stevenson R. L. (2001). In praise of dumb clerks: Computer-assisted content analysis. In M. D. West (Ed.), Theory, method and practice in computer content analysis, 3-12. Portsmouth, NH: Greenwood.
Stokoe, E. H. (2000). IV. Toward a conversation analytic approach to gender and discourse. Feminism & Psychology, 10(4), 552-563.
Stuart, R., & Abetti, P. A. (1987). Start-up ventures: Towards the prediction of initial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 215-230.
Sutton, C. D., & Moore, K. K. (1985). Executive women-20 years later. Harvard Business Review, 63(5), 42.
Tang, J., Tang, Z., Marino, L. D., Zhang, Y., & Li, Q. (2008). Exploring an inverted U‐ Shape relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance in Chinese
ventures. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 32(1), 219-239.
growth. Journal of small business and enterprise development, 11(1), 140-149. Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1984). A role set analysis of gender differences in performance,
affective relationships, and career success of industrial middle managers. Academy of Management journal, 27(3), 619-635.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of management review, 14(3), 423-444.
Weatheral, A. (2002). Towards understanding gender and talk-in-interaction. Discourse & society, 13(6), 767-781.
Webster, F. A. 1977. Entrepreneurs and ventures: An attempt at classification and clarification. Academy of Management Review, 2, 54-61.
Welsch, H. P., & Young, E. C. (1982). Male and female entrepreneurial characteristics and behaviors: A profile of similarities and differences. DePaul University, Department of Management.
Woo, C., & Cooper, A. C. (1981). Strategies of effective low share businesses. Strategic management journal, 2(3), 301-318.
Table 1
Word list for Entrepreneurial Orientation Indicators
Entrepreneurial Orientation Dimension Content Analysis Words With Expert Validation
Autonomy At-liberty, authority, authorization, autonomic, autonomous, autonomy, decontrol, deregulation, distinct, do-it-yourself, emancipation, free, freedom, freethinking,
independence, independent, liberty, license, on-one’s-own, prerogative, directed, self-directing, self-direction, self-rule, self-ruling, separate,
sovereign, sovereignty, unaffiliated, unattached, unconfined, unconnected, unfettered, unforced, ungoverned, unregulated
Innovativeness Ad-lib, adroit, adroitness, bright-idea, change, clever, cleverness, conceive, concoct, concoction, concoctive, conjure-up, create, creation, creative, creativity, creator, discover, discoverer, discovery, dream, dream-up, envisage,
envision, expert, form, formulation, frame, framer, freethinker, genesis, genius, gifted, hit-upon, imagination, imaginative, imagine, improvise, ingenious, ingenuity, initiative, initiator, innovate, innovation, inspiration, inspired, invent, invented, invention, inventive, inventiveness, inventor, make-up,
mastermind, master-stroke, metamorphose, metamorphosis, neoteric, neoterism, neoterize, new, new-wrinkle, innovation, novel, novelty, original, originality, originate, origination, originative, originator, patent, radical, recast,
recasting, resourceful, resourcefulness, restyle, restyling, revolutionize, see-things, think-up, trademark, vision, visionary, visualize
Table 1
Word list for Entrepreneurial Orientation Indicators
Entrepreneurial Orientation Dimension Content Analysis Words With Expert Validation
Pro-activeness Anticipate, envision, expect, exploration, exploratory, explore, forecast, foreglimpse, foreknow, foresee, foretell, forward-looking, inquire, inquiry, investigate,
investigation, look-into, opportunity-seeking, proactive, probe, prospect, research, scrutinization, scrutiny, search, study, survey
Competitive Aggressiveness Achievement, aggressive, ambitious, antagonist, antagonistic, aspirant, battle, battler, capitalize, challenge, challenger, combat, combative, compete, competer, competing, competition, competitive, competitor, competitory, conflicting, contend, contender, contentious, contest, contestant, cutthroat, defend,
dog-eat-dog, enemy, engage, entrant, exploit, fierce, fight, fighter, foe, intense, intensified, intensive, jockey-for-position, joust, jouster, lock-horns, opponent, oppose, opposing, opposition, play-against, ready-to-fight, rival, spar, strive, striving, struggle, tussle, vying, wrestle
Risk Taking Adventuresome, adventurous, audacious, bet, bold, bold-spirited, brash, brave, chance, chancy, courageous, danger, dangerous, dare, daredevil, daring, dauntless, dicey, enterprising, fearless, gamble, gutsy, headlong, incautious, intrepid, plunge, precarious, rash, reckless, risk, risky, stake, temerity, uncertain, venture, venturesome, wager
Table 1
Word list for Entrepreneurial Orientation Indicators
Entrepreneurial Orientation Dimension Content Analysis Words With Expert Validation
Additional inductively derived words Advanced, advantage, commercialization, customer-centric, customized, develop, developed, developing, development, developments, emerging, enterprise, enterprises, entrepreneurial, exposure, exposures, feature, features, founding, high-value, initiated, initiatives, innovations, innovative, introductions, launch, launched, leading, opportunities, opportunity, originated, outdoing, outthinking, patents, proprietary, prospects, prototyping, pursuing, risks, unique, ventures
