1042-2587-94-183$1.

50
Copyright 1994 by
Baylor University

Gender and Ownership

in UK Small Firms
Peter Rosa
Daphne Hamilton

The emphasis on the individual "female entrepreneur" in much of the small business liter-
ature in the last decade disguises the fact that many women in business ownership are in
partnership with others, usually with men. How "gender" impinges on the process of small
business ownership has been littie studied. The paper examines gender and ownership
using evidence from a three-year study on the impact of gender on smail business man-
agement, involving interviews with 602 male and female UK business owners, drawn from
three industrial sectors. Difficulties were encountered in interpreting sex differences as
"gender" trends, owing to significant sectorai variation. Nevertheless, some marked gender
differences were identified. These referred to differential patterns of kinship with the re-
spondent; the allocation and perception of specialist roles within the business; and the fact
that female owners are less likely to be associated with more than two businesses. Overall
sole traders were in the minority in both sexes, implying that most owners shared respon-
sibility and management in some way with other owners. The paper concludes with meth-
odologlcai implications of co-ownership for the sampling and analysis of small business
owner/managers from a gender perspective.

i n July 1986 an article appeared in the business magazine Venture, entitled

"Women Entrepreneurs, the new business owners." It reported
True, women entrepreneurs are rare in a wide field of men. But startups have
swelled their number so that now the woman who heads her own company is no
longer the exception. Indeed for an ambitious and capable woman, entrepreneurship
is a sensible choice, devoid of conflict between her professional and working life (p.
33).
Implicit in this quotation is the view of the female entrepreneur as an individual owner,
pioneering new opportunities in a previously male-dominated area of economic activity,
and in control of her own enterprise. This theme is implicit in much of the academic
small business literature. Solomon and Femald (1988, p. 24) estimate that there are
some three million female-owned businesses in the United States. Their article focuses
on the characteristics of the "new phenomenon" of the female entrepreneur (p. 24).
There are many other similar studies emphasizing female individualism through identi-
fying the characteristics ofthe female entrepreneur (for example Carter & Cannon, 1991;
Brush, 1988; Birley, Moss, & Saunders, 1987; Cromie & Hayes, 1988). This preoc-
cupation with the female entrepreneur is rooted in the debate of whether proprietorship
represents an opportunity of liberation for women, or whether it is yet another form of
subordination of women in an exploitative capitalist system in which proprietorship
"promises autonomy, but in fact offers serfdom" (Bechofer, quoted by Goffee & Scase,
1983. p. 641).

Spring, 1994 11
 The positive role of proprietorship for women relies on the idea that in the capitalist
system, members of economically and socially deprived groups can " e s c a p e " depriva-
tion through business ownership, which provides opportunities for self-determination
through owning and controlling resources, and through an increased ability to flexibly
interface work and domestic life (Goffee & Scase, 1983, p. 626). By exploiting social
and economic conditions in the 1970s and 1980s it has been easier for women to aspire
to self-determination through proprietorship. Prominent, successful female entrepre-
neurs have not only bettered their own lives, but have made a dramatic impact on the
perception of women in society as a whole. As Goffee and Scase put it, "female
entrepreneurs have a symbolic importance which implicitly questions popular concep-
tions of the position of women in society" (p. 627).
On the negative side, proprietorship could be seen as supporting capitalist institu-
tions which "sustain the dominance of men over women"; and as reinforcing economic
deprivation of women in employment, from whose ranks the entrepreneurs often come
(Goffee & Scase, 1983, p. 627). Moreover, as these authors show in their analysis of
case studies, subordination does not necessarily cease with proprietorship. The influence
of husbands and male relatives can undermine the quest for self-determination. Many
female proprietors may feel that they "have failed to obtain full legitimacy and credi-
bility as proprietors" as a result of experiences in dealing with bank and business-
support officials, customers, suppliers, and clients.
A researcher's views on this debate may be fundamental to the way in which
"ownership" is treated in a study. A belief in the benefits of proprietorship for women
tends to stress "individuality." The struggle for self-determination through proprietor-
ship is a personal one, to be undertaken alone. It is an exploration of "self" rather than
a competitive " g a m e . " Likewise business success is inseparable from the achievement
of the female entrepreneur who owns and manages the business. The rewards are the
consequences of her struggle and achievement. This line of argument tends to be un-
dermined by co-ownership, especially if the co-owner is male. Consequently there tends
to be little consideration of this comphcation in the literature where the female entre-
preneur is the focus of interest.
If a researcher takes a less unidimensional view of proprietorship, then the concept
ofthe "lone female entrepreneur" is perhaps too limited. A woman in business is not
an island, even if a sole legal owner, and cannot "escape" from the wider society. The
social conditions that reinforce gender inequalities may impinge on her business and
personal life at several levels (Hamilton, Rosa, & Carter, 1992). These may wel! be
manifest in the types of relationships she has with others in both the business and
domestic domains. In this scenario, the analysis of co-ownership is vital in our attempts
to study gender from a more holistic perspective (Hamilton, 1990). The preoccupation
with "individualism" in entrepreneurial and small business studies has disguised the
potential complexity of small business ownership, a complexity compounded by the
influence of gender. Large numbers of small businesses are partnerships. Partnerships
may comprise: Married couples; Non-married couples; With relatives; With non-
relatives; With relatives and non-relatives; Single sex; Mixed sex.
Where partnerships comprise both men and women, gender roles and relationships
can be potentially extremely intricate. Sole traders are not necessarily on their own
either. Many have domestic partners that contribute significantly to tbe business even
though they may not be legal co-owners (Goffee & Scase, 1983; Meijer, Braaksma, &
Van Uxem, 1986; Meittinen, 1986). Even single people with no domestic partner con-
tributing to the business may have father, mother, sisters or brothers contributing.
The question of "ownership" is thus fundamental in any study of gender and small
business management. It is an area we know little about, because previous studies, by

12 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

focusing on "female entrepreneurs" alone, have tended to avoid the issues raised by
co-ownership. By focusing on "females" or "women," moreover, males have been
relegated to a functional research role as "controls," or represented as examples of
gender antagonists (e.g., the interfering or hostile husband). Consequently even less is
known about male business ownership, and the way women and men interact as business
co-owners. Because so little is known, we regard it as important to find out what small
business ownership empirically looks like. Until this is done, it is perhaps premature to
address theoretical debates in detail.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ownership is one element in a study of gender in small business management

drawing to its close at the University of Stirling. Over six hundred owner/managers have
been interviewed, using a structured questionnaire comprising over 100 questions (some
650 variables). Each interview took approximately an hour. The sample is a random
statistical "quota" sample, half male and half female. It was also stratified by sector.
One third are from the textile and clothing sectors; one third from business services; and
one third from hotel and catering. The sectors were limited to enable us to control for
sectoral effects in evaluating gender relationships. For contacted businesses that had
more than one owner., procedures were devised and implemented to randomly determine
whether a male or female owner should be interviewed. In co-owned businesses, only
one owner/manager was interviewed.
Included in the questions on ownership were details on other owners in the business
(sex of other owner; when met; whether they are active; their managerial roles). Similar
questions were also asked about owners that had left the business.
Identifying gender relationships using statistical analysis is a deceptively simple
process. A "gender" relationship is usually deemed to exist if a statistically significant
difference between male and female respondents is found for a given variable. All this
really tells us, however, is whether a statistically significant "sex difference" exists. A
sex difference may indeed correspond to a genuine "gender" difference, that is, one
which is attributable to the action of socially determined forces that differentiate the
sexes. Alternatively, a significant sex difference may merely reflect the influence of
specific economic forces. The most important of these are sectoral factors (see Hamil-
ton, Rosa, & Carter, 1992). It is possible that most apparent gender differences at an
aggregate level may be explicable in terms of underlying trends of sectoral variation. To
give a hypothetical example, at an aggregate level women could appear to be signifi-
cantly more likely to own a business in partnership with a spouse than men are. A
universal gender explanation is implied. If, however, female respondents are clustered
in sectors where married couples are a dominant form of ownership (for example hotel
and catering), and men are not, then the difference at the level of the total sample merely
reflects the sampling imbalance, rather than a genuine gender-related trend.
Our decision to obtain an equal quota sample for three industrial sectors has reduced
the sectoral problem. Unfortunately, however, there is still considerable variation in
markets within each of our chosen sectors (for example a respondent owning a business
in the business services sector could be a solicitor, accountant, employment agent, a
provider of typing services and so on). The analysis that follows, therefore, will con-
sistently examine sex differences in relation to sectoral trends.
In spite of procedures to maximize randomness in selecting quotas, employing a
quota sample still means that the sample is not randomly drawn in a strict sense. Results
and statistical tests of significance cannot be interpreted in the conventional way, as

Spring, 1994 13
population estimates (Moser & Kalton, 1971, pp. !27fO. In this study, however, we are
not trying to estimate population parameters. We feel that any such attempt is (arguably)
meaningless in the context of small business proprietorship, due to the considerable
sectoral variation just outlined. The probability of any two geographical areas having the
same sectoral blend of businesses, and of key personal factors such as social class
origins, ethnicity, and capital ownership negated any attempt at matched sampling too.
Rather, the onus is on deciphering the nature of relationships with gender in tbe business
context. Tests of significance are used instead as surrogate guides for assessing strengths
of relationship. Nevertheless our confidence in the approximate representativeness ofthe
sample obtained was considerably enhanced on observing consistent similarities when
statistical results were compared between those based on the first 340 respondents and
those based on the remaining 262.
Statistical significance is tested through chi square. Tbis is usually based on the
overall table. Where a significant "separate effect" is recorded in a table, this means
that the chi square was performed for that row versus all other categories pooled.

RESULTS ,,

The results summarized in Table 1 indicate that a majority of businesses were

co-owned (61%), and that a significant minority of businesses (41%) were of mixed-sex
ownership. Both male and female single-sex partnerships were relatively uncommon.
The most interesting finding is the rarity of all-female co-owned businesses (4.7%
compared to 14% for all-male co-owned businesses). If we consider businesses with
three or more owners, none was all female, compared to 5% all-male owned. The
absence of all-female multiple-owned businesses may reflect the low concentrations of
more senior women managers in corporations in the UK (Davidson & Cooper, 1992, p.
13). Many businesses with three or more male owners are started by corporate managers
who leave together to start a business. Some may occasionally include a female manager
in the partnership. The chance of getting three or more female managers all together
within one firm, department or branch, and if so, willing to leave to start a business, is
rare indeed. Another explanation may be the absence of any tradition of bringing to-
gether female family members to run a business. We have yet to encounter a "Mary
Smith and Daughters, accountants" for example. Even male parterships, however, are
much less frequent than mixed-sex partnerships, which, as Table 1 shows, form as much
as 4 1 % of the sample.
Table 2 shows the distribution of ownership by legal type. The results again confirm
that single ownership is in the minority in each sex. Distributions are surprisingly similar
by sex in the total sample and in two ofthe sectors examined. Only in one sector, textile
and clothing, are sex differences significant, and displaying the more usual picture of
sole trading being more common in women proprietors, and limited companies more
common in men. This is specified by Brush (1992, p. 13) who states that "comparable
to male-owned businesses, women most often choose sole proprietorship as the preferred
form of business structure."
The fact that the proportion of sole ownership can vary appreciably from one study
to another is interesting. One explanation may be that industrial sectors vary in the
proportion of businesses that are sole trading. The proportion of sole traders in a study
will thus reflect the sectoral mix of that study. Another reason may be that sole trading
may be artificially high due to the fact that a sample chosen is non-random. A recent
study by Challis (1992), for example, also from the UK, reports a much higher per-
centage of small traders than in the current study (close to 60% for each sex). Challis's

14 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY ond PRACTICE

 Table 1

Distribution of Ownership
Categories by Gender
ALL
SECTORS %

ONE OWNER:
Female 19.6
Male 19.6
TWO OWNERS:
Both female 4.7
Both male 9S
Mixed sex 29.4
THREE OR MORE OWNERS:
All female 0.0
All male
Mixed sex 12.2

TOTAL 100.0

sample, however, was drawn predominantly from very small businesses with self-
employed owners that had gone to local support agencies for help. He also covered all
sectors. Sectoral and sample variation in the incidence of sole trading may thus indicate
that it is not so much that women prefer sole trading, hut that in sectors where women
are commonly self employed, sole trading is the dominant form of business ownership.
It is equally possible that men in those types of businesses will also prefer sole trading.

Table 2

Legal Status of Business by Sex of Respondent

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

% % % % % % % %

Sole trader 49.0 37.6 36.0 38.6 34.3 33.0 39.7 36.4
Partnership 31.6 25.7 36.0 32.7 49.5 50.0 39.1 36.1
Ljnijied company 19.4 36.6* 28.0 28,7 16.1 17.0 21.2 27.4
100.0 100.0 100.0 100-0 100,0 100.0 100,0 100,0
TOTAL 98 101 100 101 99 100 297 302
CHI SQUARE (p) 0.03 0.73 0.99 0,42

* Separate Effect Significant: «.OO1.

Figures do not itemize 3 "others." franchises, cooperatives.

Spring 1994 15
Becoming an Owner
Only 61% of the sample overall started from scratch (Table 3). A sizeable minority
(about a quarter) bought or bought into the business. There is some marked sectoral
variation, with owners from the hotel and catering sector being much more likely to have
bought a business than those from the other sectors (true for both sexes). This again is
an example of the peculiar conditions of specific sectors, which erode any gender
effects, and which complicate our ability to interpret the impact of gender.
Significant differences by sex were only found in the textile/clothing sector. Though
the overall differences were non-significant, separate effects showed that men were
significantly more likely to have inherited the business or bought the business, while
women were significantly more likely to have started one. Other data from the survey
show that in this sector in particular, female businesses tend to be younger, and smaller,
which may account for these differences.

Other Owners
Those respondents whose businesses were co-owned were asked to provide details
of up to six other owners. The number of other owners whose details were obtained
totalled 540. Table 4 demonstrates that about half the sample of co-owners were asso-
ciated with one other only, but that the proportion associated with three or more is still
considerable, at about a quarter. Table 4 shows highly significant differences by sex in
the total sample and in two ofthe three sectors. The genera! trend is for female owners
to be more commonly associated with only one other owner, and male respondents with
four or more other owners. These trends are most marked in business services, where
traditional financial partnerships are more common amongst male respondents.

Table 3
Mechanism of Business Entry by Sex of Respondent
Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

Inherited firm 1.0 12,0*' 3.0 2.0 4.1 6.1 2.7 6.7
Bought firm 3.0 12.0* 8.0 4.0 52.0 43.4 20.9 19.7
Bought into firm 4,0 3,0 7.0 9.9 8.2 8,1 6.4 7,0
Married into firm 4.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 1,0 3.4 1.3
Started up nrm 87.9 68.0" 68.0 74.3 31.6 37.4 62.6 60.0
Other 0.0 2.0 9.0 9.8 3.1 4.0 4.0 5,3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 100 101 100 101 98 99 297 300
CHI SQUARE (pl 0,18 0, 19 0.88 O.I

Separate Effect Significant: ^.01 >.OO1.

* Separate Effect Significant: =£.001.

16 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

Table 4
Number of the Other Owners by Sex of Respondent
Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

% % % % % % % %

one other 56.0 44.9 54.1 26.1-" 56.5 58.3 55.6 41.3***
iwo others !8.7 24.7 16,5 26.1 13.0 26.2' 15.9 25.7'*
3-4 others 25.3 24.7 17.6 18.3 25.0 15.5 22.6 19.4
more than 4 oihers 0,0 5.6- 11.8 29.6-" 5.4 0.0* 6.0 13.5"
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 75 89 85 115 92 S4 252 288
CHI SQUARE (p) 0.12 0,00 0.01 0.00

* Separate Effect Significanl: =s.O5 > . O I .

•* Separate Effect Significant: ^ . 0 1 >.OO1.

*•* Separate Effect Significant: =£.001.

Distribution of Sex of Other Owners

Table 5 shows that the sex of other owners is not distributed randomly when
associated with the sex of the respondent. For both sexes other owners are predominantly
male, though male respondents are much more likely than females to be associated with
another female owner. This overall trend is replicated in the hotel and catering sector and
the textile and clothing sector. In the case of business services, however, there is no
significant difference at all between the distribution of other owners in regard to sex. It
is unclear why business services should stand out in this way.

Table 5

Sex of Other Owners by Sex of Respondent

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

% % % % % % % %

Women 24.0 39.5 22.4 21.7 24.1 48,2 23.5 34,9

Men 76,0 60.5 77.6 78.3 75.9 51.8 76.5 65.1
100.0 100,0 100,0 100.0 100,0 lOO.O 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 75 86 85 115 87 83 247 284
CHI SQUARE (p) 0.04 0.92 0,00 0.00

Spring, 1994 17
Original Founder by Sex of Other Owner
Two-thirds of the sample of other owners were original founders (Table 6), a trend
which surprisingly differs little between the sexes overall. This can be related back to
Table 3, where the proportion marrying into the business is also surprisingly low for
women as well as men. This may mean that more women and men start businesses
together than we might expect from conventional wisdom, where men are routinely
thought to be the founders, and women later entrants either through marriage or to
support their husbands. Significant differences are lacking in two of the three sectors. In
the textile and clothing sector women are more likely than men to have been original
founders. This may again be related to the greater age of businesses owned by male
respondents in this sector.

The Relationship of Other Owners to the Respondent

Women respondents are much more likely to be related to one or more of the other
owners in their business than men are (Table 7). This variable, however, shows enor-
mous sectoral variability. Over three-quarters of the respondents in the textile and
clothing and hotel and catering sectors are related in some way to other owners, in
contrast to business services, where the proportion of respondents related to other own-
ers is appreciably lower, especially in men. In contrast to the overall result, only one of
the sub-sectors, business services, shows a significant difference in the degree of relat-
edness between the sexes. In business services, females are more likely than males to be
related to another owner.
Table 8 explores the nature of the relationship of related other owners to the sex of
the respondent. In all sectors it is the domestic partner which tends to be the dominant
category of relationship. In all sectors, too, it is the female respondent who is much more
likely to be related to a domestic partner than male respondents. This relationship is
significant overall and also in the textile and clothing sector. This means, therefore, that
women are much less likely to be associated with other cateogories of relatives than men
are. This is particularly evident in certain categories of kinship. In the textile and
clothing sector, for example, nearly a fifth of male respondents have other owners who
are their children, usually or almost invariably sons rather than daughters, whereas
women respondents have hardly any examples of children being co-owners in their firm.

Table 6

Whether Original Founder by Sex of Other Owner

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

% % % % % % % %

Yes 78.8 62,0 54.5 56.6 67.8 78.3 bl.l 64.5

No 21.2 38,0 45.5 43.4 32.2 21.7 32.3 35.5
100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0
TOTAL 52 108 44 152 59 106 155 366
CHI SQUARE {p) 0.03 D.KI 0.14 (1.47

18 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

Table 7

Whether Related to Respondent by Sex of Respondent

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

% % % % % % % %

Yes 77.3 82.1 59,3 28.1 82,6 74.0 72.7 57.5

No 22.7 17.9 41.7 71.9 17.4 26.0 27.3 42.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 75 84 84 114 86 77 245 275
CHI SQUARE (p) 0,45 0,00 0,19 0.00

In all three sectors as well as in the overall sample siblings are relatively common as
other owners where the respondent is a male, and extremely uncommon where the
respondent is female. Breaking down siblings into brothers and sisters showed that
nearly all the relationships mentioned happen to be brothers rather than sisters.
Of note, too, referring to the textile and clothing sector, is the fact that female
respondents are more likely than male to have other owners who are related outside the
nuclear family. This probably reflects the influence of in-laws. This is not surprising
given that a male domestic partner is much more likely in this sector to have relatives
drawn from his nuclear family. On marrying the person, the woman obviously acquires

Table 8

How Related to Other Owner by Sex of Respondent

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and iCatering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

Parents 8,6 17,4 22.4 21.9 16.9 17,5 15.7 18.4

Children 1.7 I4.5*'' 0.0 0.0 n.3 7,0 5.1 8.9
Siblings 8.6 21.7- 6.1 12.5 1.4 15.8**' 5.1 17.7***
Other relative 17,2 13.0 2,0 6,2 5,6 5.3 8.4 8.9
Domestic partner 63.8 33.3*** 59.4 65.4 64,8 54.4 65.7 46.2***
100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 58 69 49 32 71 57 178 158
CHI SQUARE (p) ) 0.71 0,0f O.(K)

* Separate Effect Significant: 'S.OS >.O1.

* * Separate Effect Significant: ^ . 0 1 >.OO1.

* * * Separate Effect Significant: 'S.OOl.

Spring, 1994 19
these relationships with marriage. Tn the business services sector, tbe fact that relatives
are much less common than other sectors reflects the professional nature of many of
these businesses. It is interesting that proportionally far fewer female respondents have
relatives in the business services sector other than domestic partners. This may reflect
the structure of ownership of many of the business services' professional practices,
where sons and fathers are often co-owners of the business and daughters seldom are.
For example, a firm called Hogg, Hogg and Hogg, Solicitors, would usually refer to
three male Hoggs. Given the rarity of involving daughters in such practices, it is almost
inevitable that the only way a woman can enter them through a kinship route is through
marriage. This is clearly reflected in Table 7.

Active Management/Business Roles

Table 9 shows that male other owners are more likely to be active managers in all
sectors (significant in business services). More surprising is the fact that three-quarters
of female other owners were active managers too, a much higher proportion than we
expected. Differences by sex of owner were also small overall when the respondents
were asked whether each owner had a specialist role in the business (Table 10). Sex
differences within sectors were also non-significant, though men in each sector were
consistently more likely to have a specialized role. If a specialist role was indicated for
an owner, the respondent was asked to itemize what the role actually was in an open-
ended question. An impressive variety of answers was obtained, which have rendered
meaningful statistical analysis by gender difficult due to low cell numbers.
An example of one gender trend, however, is discernible in the figures. A specialist
role in the hotel/catering sector is cooking food. There are two labels used to describe
this role in English. A person doing the cooking is either the "cook" or the "chef" The
word "chef" conveys considerably more status and prestige than "cook." Table 11
demonstrates a highly significant gender difference. Of 127 respondents with a specialist
role in the hotel and catering sector, 27% are "cooks" if women, but only 6% if men.
Conversely, 19% of male owners are "chefs" but only 4% are women. This distinction
is clearly irrelevant in other sectors where no cooking takes place as a business role.
Specific business roles are thus heavily influenced by sectoral factors, but within rele-
vant sectors can be associated with significant gender components too.

Table 9

Whether an Active Manager by Sex of Other Owner

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

% % % % % % % %

Yes 74.5 86,1 72.7 87.2 75.0 68.2 74.2 81.4

No 25.5 13,9 27..1 12.8 25.0 31.8 25,8 18.6
100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 51 108 44 156 60 107 155 371
CHI SQUARE (p) 0,07 0.02 0.36 0,06

20 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

Table 10

Whether They Had a Specific Role by Sex of Other Owner

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

Yes 64.6 73,6 59.5 67.6 61,4 69.1 61.9 69.9

No 35.4 26.4 40.5 32.4 38.6 30.9 38.1 30.1
1000 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 48 106 42 142 57 97 147 345
CHI SQUARE (p) 0,26 0.33 0,0B

Owners Who Have Left the Business ^

A minority indicated that at least one other owner had left the business during the
time they had been involved with the ownership and management of the business (Table
12). Departed owners were significantly more common in the case of male respondents
overall, and in two of the three sectors (hotel and catering was again the exception).
Considerable information was obtained in the questionnaire on the characteristics of
other owners who had left the firm. Most of these results will not be reported in this
paper. However, it is interesting to note that whereas in Table 7 two-thirds of the other
owners were related in some way to the respondent, when the other owners who had left

Table 11

"Cook" Versus " C h e f as

Specialist Role in the Hotel
and Catering Sector: by Sex
of Other Owner

ALL SECTORS

Specialist Women Men

role % %

Qwf 4.1 19.2

6.4
m* 100.0
74.4
100.0
TOTAL 49 78
CHI SQUARE (p) 0.001

Separate Effect Significant: ^.05 <.O1.

Spring 1994 21
Table 12

Whether Owners Have Left the Business by Sex of Respondent

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

% % % % % % % %

Yes 8.2 19.8 14,0 28.7 13.2 12.2 11.8 20.6

No 91.8 80 2 86.0 71.3 86.8 87.4 88.2 79.4
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 98 101 100 94 91 87 289 282
CHI SQUARE (p) 0.02 0.01 0.91 0.00

were examined, only 22% were related to the respondent. This indicates that it is usually
non-relatives who leave the firm. The sexes do not differ very much in the proportion of
ex-owners who are related to the respondent. There is. however, a notable difference
when the distribution of relatives who have left is considered. In the case of female
respondents, ex-owners include father, mother, sister and former domestic partners.
There is no instance of a brother or of another relative having left a firm where a female
respondent was working. In contrast, only two former male owners fall into these
categories. The majority of male former owners were either brothers or other relatives,
categories which do not appear at all in relation to female respondents.

Multiple Business Ownership

Just under a fifth of respondents overall own more than one business. Men are far
more likely to own more than one business than women are (Table 13). This trend is
highly significant in the total sample, and is either significant or close to being signif-
icant within each sector. Unlike most of the trends illustrated in this paper where at least

Table 13 ' '

Whether Currently Owning Another Business by Sex
of Respondent

Textile/Clothing Business Services Hotel and Catering ALL SECTORS

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men

% % % % % % % %

Yes 7.5 17.5 9.3 22.9 8.9 184 8,6 19.6

No 92.5 82.5 90.7 77.1 91.1 81.6 91.4 80.4
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL 93 97 97 96 90 87 280 280
CHI SQUARE (p) 0.04 0,01 0.06 0,00

22 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

one sector does not follow the general trend of the total sample, all three sectors show
the same type of trend in this particular case. Of those who own more than one business,
there is a highly significant gender difference in the distribution of numbers of additional
businesses owned (Table 14). The table shows quite clearly that men are much more
likely to own multiple businesses than are women.

CONCLUSIONS
.
If we consider just the total sample, and statistically compare the sexes, trends
appear to be relatively clear. Surprisingly there were no significant differences by sex for
legal ownership, on mechanisms for business entry, and for being an active manager.
Femaie respondents tend to be significantly associated with just one other owner, while
male respondents are much more likely to be associated with four or more other owners.
Other owners are much more likely to be male for both sexes but male respondents are
much more likely to be associated with women (not surprisingly, as the other owner is
often a domestic partner). Women are significantly more likely to be related to other
owners. This is more likely to be a domestic partner than for men, and less likely to be
siblings. Although most owners were active managers, men were more likely to be
active. More men tended to have a specific role, and to have left an ownership position
in the business. Multiple business ownership was significantly more likely amongst
men.
These trends, however, are much more complex when sector is examined. The
variation by sector tends to be much greater and more significant than gender, which
means that gender trends are often eroded or compromised by the interaction of sectoral
forces. For example, in Table 2, both sexes are much more likely to have bought a

Table 14

Number of Other Current

Businesses by Sex of
Respondent (of Those
Owning Others)

ALL SECTORS

Women Men

One other 83.3

Two others 12.5 It.9
More than two 28.6*
ioo.o
TOTAL 24 56
CHI SQUARE (p) 0.04

* Separate Effect Significant: ^ . 0 5 < . 0 I .

Spring, 1994 23
business if they come from the hotel and catering sector. This is determined ultimately
by the physical properties of hotels which form permanent stages for entrepreneurial
actors to play and exit, and are rarely huilt from scratch when an entrepreneur starts the
venture. If we take all the tables in this paper with a full sectoral breakdown, and allow
for "separate effects" too, there is scarcely a table without some significant gender trend
(see Table 2 for one sector only being significant; and Table 3 for the impact of separate
effects in the light of overall non-significance).
We hypothesize that a sex difference can be interpreted in terms of social structural
gender differentiation if the difference by sex is significant and in the same direction in
all three sectors. Unfortunately none of the variables examined in this paper fell into this
category. A gender difference is also strongly implied if two sectors are significant, and
a third, while not significant, shows trends consistent with the other two sectors. Table
7 demonstrates this kind of pattem, as does Table 8 in the case of "siblings" (where men
are much more likely to be related to other owners as siblings than women are), and
Table 13 for higher incidences of male multiple business ownership. Most of the tables
do not follow even this reduced indicator of gender. Usually the trend strong in two
sectors is absent in the third (e.g., see Table 12 in the case of hotel and catering). In
some cases the third sector contradicts the other two (see Table 9 where the dominant
trend is reversed in the hotel and catering sector). Lack of consistency in trends between
sectors is an example of "discordant variation."
Discordant variation by sex should not lead us to necessarily conclude that no gender
trends exist. This is possible, but we showed in Table 11, when referring to the "cook/
chef" gender difference, that instances may arise where gender relevantly affects only
one sector. (Cooks and chefs have no relevance to management practice in the textile or
business services sectors.)
Some interesting results relate to kinship and ownership, and reflect institutionalized
social trends. We noted that levels of inheritance were surprisingly low, and in the total
sample were only marginally higher for men. In the traditional textile/clothing sector,
however, men were much more likely to inherit the business. This points to a persistence
in the traditional reluctance to pass on resources to daughters. We highlight too the rarity
of any co-ownership with sisters. It would appear that women are mostly confined to
partnerships with domestic partners, while men have a much wider choice of relatives to
share the business with. The power of the family business in general is shown by the fact
that owners that left tended to be non-relatives, a trend not significant by sex of respon-
dent. The role of kinship in small business ownership appears to differ significantly by
gender, and invites farther research.
The study also demonstrates that the truly individual owner-manager, particularly
the individual woman in business, is less common than the literature implies. Two-thirds
of businesses involve partnership of some kind. Even sole traders tend to have domestic
partners and other relatives who are contributing to the business in some way (we have
a great deal of evidence for this which could not be reported in this paper).
The diversity of sole trading from one sector to another and one study to another
questions, as we discussed earlier, the view that women prefer sole trading as a legal
state (Brush, 1992). Indeed women are not always proportionally the majority of sole
traders, as we show in Table 2, where male sole traders are more common in business
services. If sole trading is the dominant form of legal ownership in sectors associated
with new smaller businesses, often low performance businesses, then this is likely to be
the form of legal ownership adopted by any business owner for that business type. If
women tend to be more commonly sole traders, then this may not so much be a symptom
of preference, but of structural disadvantage, that women tend to be clustered in small
low-performance sectors.

24 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

 The most spectacular and consistent gender difference involves multiple business
ownership. Why men tend to own more businesses than women begs many gender-
related explanations. (For example, men are reputed to have more resources; are less
likely to value financial security; have more opportunities and choice of establishing new
ventures; and so on.) A major possibility too is that in practice many women may not
have the total control of their own resources necessary for lateral business expansion.
Most women either share their business resources with legal partners, and/or share their
domestic resources with their domestic partners. This is also true for male business
owners to a large extent, but social custom arguably allows men more freedom to
separate and "ring fence" resources for their own ends. These conclusions, however,
need to be modified to take into account the inherent heterogeneity of female business
owners in their relationships with spouses and partners. For example, the detrimental
impact of the husband to a woman's business, indicated as common by Goffee and Scase
(1983), is often contradicted in our study. The results are also open to more positive
interpretations. Although there may be more male multiple business owners proportion-
ally, there are still a significant number of female multiple business owners too. If we
speculate that women in business have started from a much lower tradition of achieve-
ment, and have a smaller resource base on average, then these figures are remarkable,
and may be an indicator that the gender gap may be narrowing (Birley, 1989).
This positive note, however, is a cautious one. One of the most clearcut differences
was the total absence of all-female owned businesses with three or more owners, in
contrast to a significant representation of all-male owned businesses with three or more
owners. This may reflect the rarity of opportunities within the labor market or within
families for groups of women to get together to start businesses.

Methodological Implications
The fmdings also have implications for the methodology of small business gender
studies. As most variables vary so widely between sectors, precise "gender" findings of
a study may be a consequence of the sectoral mix of the sample as much as genuine
social trends impinging on the small business community. We concur with Thomas,
Uribe-Echevarria, and Romijn (1991, p. 5) when they state;

The so-called small scale sector is far from homogenous and does not constitute a
single sector of the economy in any real sense. Reality shows a sectoral labour
market, regional heterogeneity that cannot be ignored. A most disaggregated view
of small scale economic activity should therefore reduce the emphasis on broad and
highly aggregated analysis and policy.

If sectoral differences are large, then it becomes almost impossible to talk about a
"random" typical sample of small businesses from which to draw general conclusions.
Detailed descriptive results become relatively meaningless outside the context of that
study. To say that X% of men compared to Y% of women are active managers, for
example, would be a sterile statistic, as another sample with another sectoral mix could
show quite different figures. In this scenario, it is the relationships of variables that are
important to enable us to generalize from gender trends, rather than inferences from
detailed figures.
Secondly, the practice of comparing samples of female and male "entrepreneurs"
without taking into account wider ownership issues in the sampling and analysis phases
can be questioned. Fischer (1992, p. 6), for example, extracted 2724 firms from the Dun

Spring, 1994 , 25
and Bradstreet database in Canada and identifled 60 female-owned firms out of 508
usable replies. She does not explain what is meant by "female owned," or whether the
male-owned sample is totally male-owned, or a mixture of male and female co-owners.
What does Bmsh (1988, p. 612) mean by "women owned enterprises now account for
more than 25% of all small businesses?" Even Kalleberg and Leicht's otherwise com-
mendable and thorough longitudinal analysis of Indiana firms does not elaborate on what
is meant by "businesses headed by women" (1991. pp. 136, 139), or what differential
success and performance between male- and female-headed businesses really means in
the light of the authors' failure to control fully for co-ownership.
This paper shows that a majority of owner-managers, whether female or male, share
decision making in some way. Indeed a majority of co-owned businesses were of mixed
sex. What are we comparing when we compare "random" sam'les of female and male
entrepreneurs or business owners? Are we comparing management of female and male
ways? Or are we comparing perceptions of a common process of decision making, or
merely the compromise between the negotiated decisions between male and female
owner-managers within the flrm? These questions are obviously much more complex to
answer than is implied by a simple male versus female sampling strategy, where there
is a strong implication that each owner-manager in the sample is entirely responsible for
the decisions of the firm he or she manages and that he or she does not share the burden
with others. Future studies should seriously consider the possibilities of adopting a
sampling framework based on the categories outlined in Table 1, rather than a simple
male versus female approach.
Finally, the evidence from this paper suggests that, for many women, proprietorship
tends to provide only a limited opportunity for "liberation through self-determination"
(Goffee & Scase, 1983, p. 627). Most women have to accommodate their own ambitions
in business ownership with those of others. The impact of "gender" on small business
ownership is thus not interpretable in simple unidimensional terms, but can only be fully
understood by taking a more holistic approach to research (Hamilton, Rosa, & Carter,
1992).

REFERENCES
Birley. S. (1989). Female entrepreneurs: Are they really any different? Journal of Small Bu.siness Manage-
ment, January. 32-36.

Birley, S., Moss, C , & Saunders. P. (1987). Do women entrepreneurs require different training? y^mer/can
Journal of Small Business, /2(1), 27-35.

Brush. C. (1988). Women entrepreneurs: Strategic origins impact on growth. In B. A. Kirchoff. W. A.

Long, W. E. McMullan. K. H. Vespur & W. E. WetzeL Jr. (Eds.). Frontiers of entrepreneurship re-
search, pp. 612-625. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Brush, C. (1992). Research on women business owners; Past trends, a new perspective and future direc-
tions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 16(4), 5-30.

Carter, S., & Cannon. T. (1991). Women as entrepreneurs. New York: Academic Press.

Challis. B. (1993). Self reported motivation towards entrepreneurship: A comparison between male and
female proprietors of recently formed businesses. MSC in Entrepreneurial Studies Dissertation. University
of Stirling.

Cromie. S., & Hayes, J. (1988). Towards a typology of female entrepreneurs. The Sociological Review,
36(\), 87-113.

26 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

Davidson, M. J., & Cooper, G. L. (1992). Shattering the glass ceiling: The woman manager. London: Paul
Chapman.

Fischer, E. (1992). Sex differences and small business performance among Canadian retailers and service
providers. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. 9(4), 2-13.

Goffee. R.. & Scase, R. (1983). Business ownership and women's subordination: A preliminary study of
female proprietors. The Sociological Review. 3{4), 625-648.

Hamilton. D. (1990). An ecological basis forthe analysis of gender differences in the predisposition to self
employment. University of Stirling, SEF monograph 73/90.

Hamilton. D.. Rosa, P., & Carter, S. (1992). The impact of gender on the management of small business:
Some fundamental problems. In R. Welford (Ed.), Small businesses and small business development—A
practical approach, pp. 33-40. Bradford: European Research Press.

Kalleberg, A., & Leicht, K. (1991). Gender and organisational perfonnance: Determinants of small busi-
ness survival and success. Academy of Management Journal. 34(1), 136-161.

Meijer, J., Braaksma, R., & Van Uxem, F. (1986). Contributing wife partner in business, ln R. Donckels
& i. Meijer (Eds.), Women in .tmall business, pp. 65-77. Maastricht: Van Gorcum.

Meittinen, A. (1986). Contributing spouses and the dynamics of entrepreneurial families. In R. Donckels
& J. Meijer (Eds.), Women in .small busine.ss, pp. 78-86. Maastricht: Van Gorcum.

Moser. C. A., & Kalton. G. (1971). Surx'ey methods in social investigation (2nded.). London: Heinneman.

Solomon, T., & Femald, L. (1988). Value profiles of male and female entrepreneurs. International Small
Business Journal, 6(3), 24-33.

Thomas, H., Uribe-Echevama, F., & Romijn, H. (1991). Smalt-scale production. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.

Peter Rosa is a Senior Research Fellow at the Scottish Enterprise Foundation, University of Stirling,
Stirling. Scotland FK9 4LA.

Daphne Hamilton was Research Fellow at the Scottish Enterprise Foundation. University of Stirling
and is now Lecturing at the Department of Political Science and Social Policy at the University of Dundee,
Scotland.

The research was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council. The research team also
consisted of Sara Carter and Helen Bums. Their contribution during the iife of the project made this paper
possible, but all errors and unsubstantiated opinions remain our own.

Spring, 1994 27