networking among high-potential female entrepreneurs - an empirical study in india and germany

Zeppelin University

Department Corporate Management & Economics

Leadership Excellence Institute Zeppelin | LEIZ

Nair Rajendran, Murali

In Cooperation with

Indian Institute of Management Bangalore

N S Raghavan Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning

Prof. Suresh Bhagavatula

Masterthesis

Networking among High-potential Female Entrepreneurs

An Empirical Study in India and Germany

Nicole Jackisch

Matriculation number: 1120046

Corporate Management & Economics

Date: 20.06.2014

Abstract English

This thesis analyzes and compares the business discussion networks of high-potential female

entrepreneurs in India and Germany and examines their networking activities and behavior. The

framework is this of entrepreneurship research with a network perspective. Also, the framework

considers a gender-sensitive approach. Within a mixed-method, stated hypotheses derived from social

network analysis were tested with the samples and comparisons between them drawn. Within

qualitative interviews, network behavior and networking activities of the female entrepreneurs were

investigated. The most important findings of the quantitative part were that the only significant difference

between the Indian and German sample is a slight difference in the size of the networks, otherwise,

average network structures were similar. The qualitative part made three important categories of

developing new contacts visible: Networking through personal references, organizations, events and

“cold” contacting. In addition, barriers to networking were accumulated and strategies to overcome

those barriers revealed. Start-up hubs such as cities like Berlin and Bangalore play a crucial role for

this particular group of entrepreneurs.

Keywords: High-potential Female Entrepreneurs, Women Entrepreneurship, Social Network Analysis, Ego-

centered Networks; India, Germany, Start-up, Social Network Perspective

Abstract German

In dieser Masterthese werden die “Business Discussion Netzwerke” von sogenannten High-potential

female Entrepreneurs in Indien und Deutschland untersucht und miteinander verglichen. Außerdem

wird die Frage beantwortet, wie sie ihre Netzwerkaktivitäten gestalten. Der wissenschaftliche Rahmen

berücksichtigt einen Gender-sensitiven Ansatz. In einem „Mixed-Method Design“ werden Hypothesen

gebildet, abgeleitet aus der Sozialen Netzwerkanalyse, um die Netzwerke der Stichproben aus Indien

und Deutschland zu verglichen. Innerhalb qualitativer Interviews werden Netzwerkaktivitäten der

Frauen genauer untersucht. Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse sind, dass außer einem kleinen, aber

signifikanten Unterschied in der Größe der Netzwerke, keine Unterschiedlichkeiten bezüglich der

Netzwerkvariablen aufzufinden sind. Bezogen darauf, wie die Unternehmerinnen neue Kontakte

herstellen, werden im qualitativen Teil drei wichtige Kategorien aufgezeigt: Netzwerken durch

persönliche Referenzen, durch Organisationen und Events, sowie „kaltes“ Netzwerken. Außerdem

wurden Netzwerkbarrieren identifiziert und aufgezeigt, mit welchen Strategien Unternehmerinnen diese

überwinden. Start-up Cluster wie Berlin und Bangalore spielen außerdem eine große Rolle für High-

potential female Entrepreneurs.

Keywords: High-potential Female Entrepreneurs, weibliches Entrepreneurship, weibliches Unternehmertum,

Soziale Netzwerkanalyse Ego-zentrierte Netzwerke, Indien, Deutschland, Start-up, Soziale

Netzwerkperspektive

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Problem Statement: Conditions for High-potential Female Entrepreneurs . 1

1.2 Research Objectives ................................................................................... 3

1.3 Relevance of this Study .............................................................................. 4

1.4 Thesis Structure .......................................................................................... 4

2 Framework Development and Literature Review .............................................. 5

2.1 Entrepreneurship Research ........................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Entrepreneurship Research in Context: India and Germany ................ 6

2.1.2 Entrepreneurship Research in Context: Gender .................................. 8

2.2 The Network Perspective in Entrepreneurship - Hypotheses’ Development

11

2.2.1 The Business Discussion Network ..................................................... 11

2.2.2 What Kind of Network is Useful? ........................................................ 12

2.2.3 A Network’s Structural Characteristics ............................................... 12

2.2.4 A Network’s Relational Characteristics ............................................... 14

3 Methodology and Research Design ................................................................ 16

3.1 Social Network Analysis ............................................................................ 16

3.2 Data Collection ......................................................................................... 17

3.3 Measures .................................................................................................. 17

3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 20

4 Findings .......................................................................................................... 21

4.1 Findings of the Quantitative Part ............................................................... 21

4.1.1 Sample Characteristics ...................................................................... 21

4.1.2 Results by Hypotheses ....................................................................... 28

4.1.3 Summary of the Quantitative Part ...................................................... 33

4.2 Findings of the Qualitative Part ................................................................. 34

4.2.1 Characteristics of Network Relations .................................................. 34

4.2.2 Maintaining and Developing Contacts ................................................ 37

4.2.3 Networking Constrains ....................................................................... 42

4.2.4 Summary of the Qualitative Part......................................................... 48

5 Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................. 49

5.1 Limitations and Concluding Remarks ....................................................... 54

References............................................................................................................. VI

6 Appendix ....................................................................................................... XVI

Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung ..................................................................................... XIX

Tables

Table 1: Comparing Economy and Demographics of India and Germany ............... 2

Table 2: Sample Characteristics of Indian and German High-potential Women

Entrepreneurs ........................................................................................................ 24

Table 3: Demographics of Indian and German High-potential Women Entrepreneurs

............................................................................................................................... 25

Table 4: Correlations between Entrepreneur’s Work Experience and Network

Variables ................................................................................................................ 25

Table 5: Business Characteristics of Indian and German High-potential Women

Entrepreneurs ........................................................................................................ 26

Table 6: Characteristics of Alteri in Ego’s Core Business Network ........................ 27

Table 7: Network Variables of High-potential Female Entrepreneurs from Germany

and India ................................................................................................................ 28

Table 8: T-test for Independent Samples for Network Size .................................... 32

Table 9: T-test for Independent Samples for Proportion of Family Members ......... 32

Table 10: Characteristics of the Ties between Ego and its Alteri ........................... 34

Table 11: Characteristics of the Ties between Ego and its Alteri ........................... 36

Table of figures

Figure 1: Team Constellation in Terms of Gender in Germany .............................. 22

Figure 2: Team Constellation in Terms of Gender in India ..................................... 22

Figure 3: Ego-Network of a high-potential female with a low density (0.28) ........... 29

Figure 4: Ego-Network of a high-potential female with a moderate density (0.57) . 29

Figure 5: Ego-Network of a high-potential female with a high density (0.91) ......... 30

Figure 6: Entrepreneurs Maintaining Contacts in Hours per Month ....................... 35

Figure 7: Entrepreneurs Developing Contacts in Hours per Month ........................ 36

1

1 Introduction

Apart from the obvious – that entrepreneurship contributes to the economy - it more

than that has a remarkable impact on society. The following definition of

entrepreneurship reflects that:

„Entrepreneurship can be defined as the process of creating

value for business and social communities by bringing together

unique combinations of public and private resources to exploit

economic, social or cultural opportunities in an environment of

change.“ (Fillis & Rentschler, 2010, p. 50)

Therefore, becoming an entrepreneur should be accessible for a wide variety of a

nation’s population. Unfortunately, participation in entrepreneurship shows a gender

gap worldwide e.g. (Delmar & Davidsson, 2000; Minniti, Arenius, & Langowitz, 2005;

Davis & Shaver, 2012). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) established a

special report on female entrepreneurs and compares women’s entrepreneurship in

various regions. The report shows that the gender gap varies highly between

countries; especially mid-Asia shows significant disparities for example in Pakistan,

only 1 % of the female population is engaged in entrepreneurship (Kelley, Brush,

Greene, & Litowski, 2013). In this thesis a comparison between Indian and German

entrepreneurs with regards to their business discussion networks will be drawn - with

a focus on a specific kind of sub-sample: high-potential female entrepreneurs. This

group is defined as “women who own and operate businesses that are innovative,

market expanding and export oriented” (Global Entrepreneurship and Development

Institute, 2014, pp. 8–15).

1.1 Problem Statement: Conditions for High-potential Female Entrepreneurs

In the 2014 report The Gender Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index

(Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, 2014, pp. 8–15) 30 countries

were ranked according to their conditions to foster high potential female

entrepreneurship in the groups: (1) Entrepreneurial Environment; (2) Entrepreneurial

Eco-System and (3) Entrepreneurial Aspirations. Germany ranked 4-5th while India

2

only ranked 26th. The highest rated countries were those with a highly developed

economy, while the authors describe those countries that scored last – among them

India – as „culturally conservative emerging economies that adhere to traditional

women’s roles in society“(Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, 2014,

p. 15).

In Table 1 a comparison between German and Indian economic data, demographics

and perceptions towards female economic activity is given. Among many

differences, a high percentage of female self-employment in the informal sector of

India (98%) is striking, which explains the high amount of research concentrating on

this sector e.g. (Datta & Gailey, 2012; Kantor, 2002), resulting in a lack of research

for high-potential female entrepreneurs at the same time.

Table 1: Comparing Economy and Demographics of India and Germany

Economy and Demographics India Germany

GDP per capita PPP (constant 2005 intl $) $3.223 $34.573

Adolescent fertility rate (in percent) 77 7

Mean female marriage age 20 32

CEDAW ratification (5 point scale) 2/5 4/5

Mobile Phone Gender Gap 37 No gap

Percent of female self-employment that is informal 98 No Data

Percent of population involved in Entrepreneurship Startups 14 5

Perceptions

Percent of women/men that disagree that “Men make better

business executives than women” 45/ 32 90 / 76

Do women have equal access to leadership positions (1-7 scale) 4/7 4/7

(The Gender Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index, 2013)

3

In line with research on entrepreneurship that underlines the importance of networks

(e.g. Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1986; Elfring & Hulsink, 2007) the GEDI also

examined the factor “networking”. Within a range 0 to 100 points, the countries were

evaluated. The points were aggregated by the two variables (1) if the entrepreneurs

knew other entrepreneurs and (2) their access to Internet & networks. Germany

scored .66 out of hundred possible points while India ranked .18 - the lowest on the

category (The Gender Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index, 2013,

p. 58). What is unsatisfactory is the oversimplified approach of only considering

those two factors. What should be further investigated is the entrepreneurs’ network

activities and their embeddedness in social networks within a social network

perspective as this would give a more holistic view. Unfortunately, this is completely

missing in the report. This gap will be addressed by this work as stated later in the

research objectives.

1.2 Research Objectives

The gender GEDI index made a huge contribution to research in women

entrepreneurship, as it accounts various factors and contributes to the scarce data

situation on worldwide high-potential women entrepreneurship. Still, many results

need explanation and reasoning. As shown, some factors are from social nature,

therefore a social network approach to get insights to the how’s and why’s is

appropriate.

Building on the above, this thesis contributes to answer the questions:

- How do high-potential female entrepreneurs in India and Germany network?

- How are their networks constituted?

- Are there differences between the German and the Indian sub-samples? If

there are, what are the reasons?

4

1.3 Relevance of this Study

This thesis will contribute to research in at least two ways. First, women

entrepreneurship is generally an under researched topic (Brush, Bruin, & Welter,

2009). Especially taking gender concepts into account, addressing women

entrepreneurship in research will also help reducing the gender gap. Additionally,

most entrepreneurship data is based on samples of men (Bruin, Brush, & Welter,

2006). Therefore, entrepreneurship theory undergoes a bias, as it is not considering

half of the world’s population.

Second, entrepreneurship as well as female entrepreneurship lacks cross-country

comparisons that would allow for a more global approach. The same bias is found

in entrepreneurship literature that mostly derives its theory of entrepreneurship from

western cultures.

1.4 Thesis Structure

In chapter 2, Framework Development and Literature Review, a brief introduction to

entrepreneurship research is given, followed by an overview of the two research

contexts with a focus: (1) on (female) entrepreneurship in India and Germany and

(2) on entrepreneurship research and gender. The discussion of those contexts

gives further implications for the research design of the present paper. Within

Chapter 2.2 The Network Perspective in Entrepreneurship - Hypotheses’

Development, the state of past and current research on entrepreneurship with a

social network perspective is presented. Relevant terms of social network theory will

be explained to the reader and in a second step, hypotheses will be developed.

Those will be based on previous research in entrepreneurship with a network

perspective and the contexts of high-potential female entrepreneur in India and

Germany. After the methodology is explained in Chapter 3, the findings of the

hypotheses testing and the exploratory part based on interviews will be presented in

Chapter 4, to be discussed in Chapter 5. In this last chapter, indications for further

research and policy makers will be stated and limitations will be pointed out.

5

2 Framework Development and Literature Review

2.1 Entrepreneurship Research

In the history of entrepreneurship studies, a line of research concentrating on the

individual entrepreneur – her traits, her behavior and aspirations – was prevailing for

a long time. Peter Schumpeter’s work is still the most citied in entrepreneurial

literature. Schumpeter describes the entrepreneur as a special person with an

outstanding personality and a particular kind of motivation (Schumpeter, 2006,

p. 131). Ahl criticizes that from this historical view “the emerging image is that of the

heroic self-made man” (Ahl, 2006, p. 599). Research in line with the individualistic

approach dealt with entrepreneurial traits, motivations and ambitions (e.g. Llewelyn

& Wilson, 2003; Rauch & Frese, 2007).

Until today, a crucial part for the definition of entrepreneurship is the discovery and

exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Ozgen & Baron, 2007; Shane &

Venkataraman, 2000). Over time, it was realized that opportunities and the access

to resources to exploit those opportunities do not lie solely in the entrepreneur herself

– but that contexts such as social, societal and institutional determine the

entrepreneurial process (Welter, 2011, p. 165).

A shift towards entrepreneurship research that considered those contexts emerged;

especially the focus on the entrepreneurs’ embeddedness in social networks –

known as the Social Network Perspective delivered fruitful insights. Before digging

deeper into social networks, this thesis’ framework will be build successive by

considering (1) the state of research in the field of entrepreneurship research in

developed (Germany) and less developed/emerging countries (India); (2)

implications of gender theory in the field of entrepreneurship research, (3) a brief

overview of the situation of women entrepreneurs in each country and lastly (4)

building the hypotheses from literature of entrepreneurship with a network

perspective.

6

2.1.1 Entrepreneurship Research in Context: India and Germany

As mentioned above, when investigating in entrepreneurship research, contexts

should be considered. Smallbone advices to embed research in “wider political,

economic and social contexts” (Smallbone, Welter, & Ateljevic, 2014). This part looks

at the contexts of Germany and India. First, the state of entrepreneurship research

in developed versus emerging/undeveloped countries will be outlined and second,

the context of particular interest for German and Indian high-potential female

entrepreneurs will be delivered.

Most literature on entrepreneurship concentrated on developed markets (Smallbone

et al., 2014) – meaning that entrepreneurial theories are more valid for western

economies. Accordingly, cross-country studies should be favored. Studies on

entrepreneurship focusing on India are limited (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Obloj, 2008, p. 2)

– in spite of India’s growing economy (Gupta et al., 2014, p. 369). Although, Das

(Das & Das, 2014) affirmed an increase in literature after a call for papers in 2008

and Hughes et al. (Hughes, Jennings, Brush, Carter, & Welter, 2012, p. 436)

predicted growing literature on women entrepreneurship in India. Gupta, for example

(Gupta, Turban, Wasti, S. Arzu, & Sikdar, 2009) used a three-country sample

including India, USA and Turkey investigating in gender stereotypes and

entrepreneurial intentions. Surprisingly, they could not find any significant

differences (Gupta et al., 2009, p. 405). Vita et al. did a literature review

concentrating on women entrepreneurs in developing countries. Papers recognized

a slowly emerging “new profile of women entrepreneurs: more motivated, well-

educated and free from family ties” (Vita, Mari, & Poggesi, 2013, p. 456). Here, the

importance for research on high-potential women entrepreneurs becomes clear. Vita

et al. organized the review into regional sub-clusters: (1) Sub-Saharan, (2) Africa,

(3) East Asia and Pacific, (4) Europe and Central Asia, (5) South Asia, (6) Latin

America and Caribbean and (7) Middle East. The paper clustered India into the

South Asian region. Comparing to the other countries like Bangladesh or Indonesia,

India has been the most studied. Research focuses on non-profit, micro-enterprises,

7

reflecting India’s female entrepreneurial population. Again, this shows that there is

definitely a lack of research on high-potential female entrepreneurs,

Within the emerging literature on women entrepreneurs in India, the “traditional form”

of entrepreneurial research – concentrating on the individual, – was mainly pursued.

This is comprehensible regarding the young research field. Despite of the legitimacy

of basic research, advanced research designs and questions should be considered

when investigating Indian women entrepreneurs, especially focusing on relational

dimensions as emphasized by Vita (2013). For the study at hand, that implies to test

traditional hypotheses with our sample, as well as asking questions that go beyond

the line of descriptive research and use explanatory approaches.

2.1.1.1 Women entrepreneurs in India

As mentioned above, 95% of Indian women entrepreneurs work in the informal

sector, mostly in rural areas. Even though Vita constitutes an emergence of “high-

potential female entrepreneurs (Vita et al., 2013, p. 456) that are educated, growth

orientated and probably less restricted by traditional role models, there is not much

data on those kind of women. Therefore, we have to concentrate of general

assumptions of conditions for female entrepreneurs to develop hypotheses.

Pandian looked at success factors and problems faced by women entrepreneurs in

the Indian state Tamilnadu. He found out main challenges are receiving a bank loan

from the government, lack of education, lack of self-confidence, gender

discrimination in the society and combining family and work life (Pandian, S. P.

Karuppasamy & Jesurajan, S. Vargheese Antony, 2011, p. 917). In India, mobility

for women is constrained because of security issues and the traditional role models

of women. Women are confronted with family duties, for example approval of the

husband to follow economic activities; caring for family members such as children

and in-laws (Kumari & Deshpande, 2012, p. 16). From this it can be assumed, that

Indian women entrepreneurs work in more closed networks with family members

and close friends.

8

2.1.1.2 Women Entrepreneurs in Germany

The percentage of female entrepreneurs in Germany is increasing. The organization

“bundesweite gründerinnenagentur” involved in fostering women entrepreneurship

in Germany, gave out several reports on women entrepreneurs. The following

statements are based on several reports (bga bundesweite gründerinnenagentur,

2007, 2013a, 2013b).

In German society, still traditional role models are in place. Females are responsible

for childcare and household, therefore they face a double responsibility balancing

professional and family life. 66 % of Germans female entrepreneurs work part-time,

explained by those familial responsibilities. Personal support, especially from the

spouse or partner is crucial, but approval not necessary. Looking at perceived

barriers for female entrepreneurs, personal fear of failure, lack of social security and

a lack of finance comes into the picture. Germans with a higher level of education

have a higher propensity to become an entrepreneur. Mobility is no problem for

German females, as it is safe for women travelling alone and it is a common sight to

see female professionals.

Before investigating in the network perspective of entrepreneurship - a look at a

gender perspective will be taken. This will help to understand the underling

framework and what needs to be considered when investigating in a “gendered”

topic. This also has indications for the research design of this study.

2.1.2 Entrepreneurship Research in Context: Gender

Why is it important to have a look at gender theory when investigating in women

entrepreneurship? It has been the critiques of Ahl (2006) and fellow researchers

which brought to the table the negative effects of traditional research without a

framework on gender – or at least some considerations. In the article Why Research

on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions (Ahl, 2006), the author describe

certain discursive practices in women entrepreneurship research, e.g.:

9

1. The entrepreneur as male gendered

2. Theorizing entrepreneurship as a function in the economy

3. The popular assumption that men and women are essentially different

The first practice, the entrepreneur with a male connotation; shows itself in various

ways. Ahl examined historical (Schumpeter) and recent entrepreneurship literature.

In Schumpeter’s reflections she found that, his descriptions of an entrepreneur are

explicitly male connoted for example as “a man of daring and decisiveness” (Ahl,

2006, p. 599). More subtle, but still existent in recent literature, she found the wording

used to describe an entrepreneur resembles Bem’s Index of masculinity (Bem Lipsitz

& Sandra Lipsitz, 1081).

Using performance measures as the only dependent variable results out of the

second assumption, to consider economic growth as the only qualification for the

existence of entrepreneurship – puts aside other aspects of it, for example tackling

social problems with social entrepreneurship (Braun & French), its contribution to

equality of opportunities, e.g. for people with disadvantages, facilitation and

preservation of local culture and regional development (Spilling, 1991).

Ahl’s third mentioned practice leads to research that concentrates on investigating

differences between male and female entrepreneurs by drawing comparisons

between the groups. „Contrary to hypotheses, few (if any) differences were

found“(Ahl, 2006, p. 604). However, research and publicizing practice prefer results

of difference to non-difference, so comparative approaches prevail. For example,

differences in productivity, success and growth are constantly mentioned (here

again, the second discursive practice shows its power). However, those studies did

not control for firm size, sector and capital intensity; which in contrary would make

those differences disappear (Worldbank, p.25; Hallward-Dreimeier 2013).

The overall effect of this kind of research is “that women are cast as “the other” of

men. They are cast as secondary, as a complement or, at best, as an unused

resource (Ahl, 2006, p. 604). „Rather, gender subordination occurs when women are

presumed to be different (weaker); that these weaknesses are axiomatically

10

exhibited within entrepreneurship and so require special fixing. Such assumptions

are clear articulations of gendered disadvantage which must be recognized in future

research“ (Marlow, 2013, p. 12). A year after Ahl’s publication The Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice gave out a special issue dedicated to women's

entrepreneurship. During compiling this special issue, the publishers also

encountered methodological concerns. Only a few papers used more than one

nation in their sample, therefore, they suggest doing more cross-country studies in

the future (Bruin et al., 2007).

Following Ahl’s critique of the practice to compare women and men, they suggest

“comparisons between samples of women” (Bruin et al., 2007, pp. 328–329). This

would also improve the data situation, as past research only considered samples of

men (Bruin et al., 2006). This goes in line with the call for cross-country studies

between developed and developing countries (Marković, 2007, p. 326) as outlined

in chapter 2.1.1 Entrepreneurship Research in Context: India and Germany.

In order to create a viable research design that takes the stated concerns with

regards to female entrepreneurship research into consideration, I have included

Ahl’s and Hughes’ recommendations and designed the following research setup,

which:

1. Addresses the problem on a social level (network perspective), rather than

using an individualistic approach on entrepreneurship

2. Uses exploratory rather than only descriptive approaches

by a mixed-method

3. Compares two nations in a cross-country study (India and Germany)

4. Compares samples of women instead of comparing male and female samples

Throughout the above chapters, it was indicated that the approach of a social

network analysis is adequate to answer the research questions. The following

chapter sheds light on the embeddedness of entrepreneurs in social networks.

11

2.2 The Network Perspective in Entrepreneurship - Hypotheses’

Development

Aldrich and Zimmerman were one of the first researchers putting a network

perspective to entrepreneurship research. Their well-cited article “Entrepreneurship

through Social Networks” (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1998) criticized the personality

approach popular in the previous discourse.

„The approach we take, by contrast, focuses on

entrepreneurship as embedded in a social context, channeled

and facilitated or constrained and inhibited by people's positions

in social networks.“ (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1998, p. 4)

„Traditional approaches to research on entrepreneurship neglect

the relational nature of the process“ (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1998,

p. 4)

The idea that entrepreneurship is embedded in networks (Birley & MacMillan, 1997;

Hansen, 1995; Larson, 1992; Reynolds, 1991) caused a shift towards relational

perspectives in entrepreneurship literature and parallel to developments of social

network theories and methods made the topic popular e.g. (Davidsson & Honig,

2003; Dyer & Singh, 1998; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; Zaheer & McEvily, 1999). A

great quantity of empirical evidence can be found that states how important social

ties are for young companies (Brüderl & Preisendörfer, 1998, p. 213). The reason is

that through social networks the entrepreneur gets access to valuable resources

such as information, capital or opportunities (Singh, Hills, Lumpkin, & Hybels, 1999).

Those resources acquired through relations are called social capital. It is defined as

“recent and potential resources within a steady net of more or less institutionalized

relations” (Bourdieu, 1983, p. 191).

2.2.1 The Business Discussion Network

A person’s networks “reflects distinct forms of social capital” (Reagans & Zuckerman,

2001, p. 503). In terms of social network theory, a network consists of nodes and

ties. A node represents a person and a tie the relationship between two nodes. In

12

this study a sub-set network is examined, that gives the entrepreneur access to

valuable resources: the business discussion network. It is defined as the network the

entrepreneur turns to for discussing her business or get advice (Renzulli, Aldrich, &

Moody, 2000). It is called ego-centric, because its focus lays on one individual and

her distinct ties. This approach is particularly adequate for investigating in young

start-ups, as in the early phase of a firm; ego-centric networks reflect the personal

networks of the founders (Hite & Hesterly, 2001, p. 282).

One way to look at the network’s features is to distinguish between relational and

structural attributes. The relational nature of the network looks at how the ties are

constituted e.g. shown in the concept of strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973).

The structural quality of a network looks at the structure produced by the various

connections of ties and leads to certain compositions, e.g. is a network dense,

meaning the members know each other; do some members have special positions

e.g. as a gatekeeper etc. (Wasserman & Faust, 1994)

2.2.2 What Kind of Network is Useful?

In entrepreneurship literature with a network perspective, various kinds of network

settings are said to be favorable for an entrepreneur. Organizing the review into

relational and structural embeddedness seems convenient, but it has to be kept in

mind that concepts are interdependent, for example the positive relation between

network size and number of weak ties. In the following, the most important studies

in the field will be presented, based on reviews done by (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003,),

(Slotte-Kock & Coviello, 2010) and (Martinez & Aldrich, 2011).

2.2.3 A Network’s Structural Characteristics

First research concentrating on basic structural characteristics, found out that the

size of a network is important. (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986). From particular interest for

this study is the result that the discussion network sizes and the time in maintaining

and developing contacts is different between countries (Greve & Salaff, 2003, p. 7).

As India’s women are even more connected to families, it is assumed their networks

13

consist of more familial relations; as this network is limited, it is assumed that their

discussion networks are smaller in size:

Hypothesis 1:

Network size is bigger in high-potential female entrepreneurs

from Germany than from India.

Entrepreneurship scholars also dealt with the density of a network. A dense network

is important for startups as the information flows easily (Bhagavatula, 2009, p. 53).

Density is also said to be higher in networks with a huge amount of strong ties,

therefore we can hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2:

Network density is higher in high-potential female entrepreneurs

from India than from Germany.

The position of an entrepreneur within the network is also supposed to influence

resource flow (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003, p. 170). A related concept is that of

structural holes, defined as “a gap between two individuals with complementary

resources or information” (Burt, 1992, p. 685). The entrepreneur can profit from

bridging that gap by getting access to new information, new opportunities and

possessing a control position (Burt, 2004). One measure Burt uses in this line of

thinking is that of the “network constraint”. It measures how constrained the ego is

by the structure of his network. If the network constraint is high, it means there are

not many structural holes in ego’s network. In a dense network, the possibility of

structural holes is less. If Indian entrepreneur’s networks show a higher density, then

it can be assumed that structural holes are less.

Hypothesis 3:

Indian high-potential female entrepreneurs’ networks have a

higher network constraint than those of German high-potential

female entrepreneurs.

14

2.2.4 A Network’s Relational Characteristics

Another way to analyze a network is by its relations. A tie can be weak or strong,

composited of ties that are similar or diverse. Uzzi (1996, p. 694) argues that strong

and weak ties have different advantages and disadvantages for entrepreneurs and

therefore, a network should be balanced. Other researchers argue that strong ties

are more crucial than weak ties (Brüderl & Preisendörfer, 1998, p. 213). Among the

strong ties, family members play a crucial role. For example, children with parents

having entrepreneurial background are more prone to become entrepreneurs (Greve

& Salaff, 2003, p. 7). As family ties play a more important role for Indian society and

mobility issues are there as stated in chapter 2.1.1.1 Women entrepreneurs in India,

it is assumed that:

Hypothesis 4a:

High-potential female entrepreneurs in India show a network with

a higher proportion of strong ties as the networks of German high-

potential female entrepreneurs

Hypothesis 4b:

High-potential female entrepreneurs in India show a network with

a higher proportion of family members as the networks of German

high-potential female entrepreneurs

But the strength of ties is not the only researched relational characteristic. In the

context of accessing angel capital for example, Steier states a need for diversity in

networks (Steier & Greenwood, 2000).

The homophily principle states that people tend to connect to people that are similar

to themselves (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). This applies to attributes

such as race, gender, profession or similar values and beliefs. If we want to look at

diversity, homophily effects have to be kept in mind. With gender homophily for

example, the strength of ties makes a difference: whereas in kinship ties tend to be

diverse in gender; weak ties show a stronger homogeneity (Aldrich, 1989, p. 110).

15

Based on the previous hypothesis, that Indian women have more kinship ties than

weak ties, it is assumed that:

Hypothesis 5:

High-potential female entrepreneurs in India have higher gender

diversity in their networks as German high-potential female

entrepreneurs.

16

3 Methodology and Research Design

As suggested by Bruin at al. (Brush, Bruin, & Welter, 2009, p. 16) a mix of qualitative

and quantitative methods was used. This is also the case for network related data

as the quantitative dimensions of the networks such as density and size as well as

qualitative data such during semi-structured interviews was collected.

3.1 Social Network Analysis

Social network analysis focuses on relations (ties or edges) of individuals (nodes or

vertices). In this study, certain kinds of the entrepreneurs’ so called ego-centric

networks, were examined to get a picture of their access to various resources and

finance. The “ego” is our entrepreneur; she will name contact persons, the “alteri”

and their tie will have attributes such as strength. Afterwards, network density was

measured by asking respondents if the listed alters know each other. (Wasserman,

1994, p. 41)”.

Data collection of ego-centric networks consists of two parts. The first part is the

stimulus (called namegenerator), where it is asked about certain contact persons. In

our case, we looked at the entrepreneur's business discussion networks – those

networks an entrepreneur turns to for information and support (see Renzulli et al.,

2000). The second part is the name interpreter where attributes of alter as well as

the tie are asked. Most studies ask for up to 5 – 10 persons (Wolf, 2010), here it was

asked for a maximum of 10 to have a good indication of the network size.

In this study, the instrument used to gain ego-centric data is based on Burt (Burt,

1984):

“From time to time, most people discuss important business

matters or business plans with other people. Looking back over

the past month:

Please identify the first name of up to ten (10) people with whom

you regularly speak about your business and discuss important

matters -excluding your core team members.”

17

3.2 Data Collection

Data collection was conducted in two phases. In phase one the participants filled out

an online questionnaire. The second phase involved a 20- to 40-minute phone

interview – based on data coming from the questionnaire. The interview was

conducted with a semi-structured approach that allowed also for narrative responds.

Before sampling, questions from both sources – questionnaire and interview – where

presented to an expert in start-up financing and his feedback considered. Within a

pilot sampling, the interviewee was observed during filling of the questionnaire and

was asked to give open feedback to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was

perceived as very long and exhausting, so only one discussion network was

included. The questionnaire was finalized after that; only a few interview questions

where added within the interview phase (compare Xu, 2008).

To avoid a selection bias, especially nor tapping into a given network, participants

were searched through various channels. Those included personal contacts such as

asking friends, professors and research assistants in Universities in Germany and

India, random LinkedIn search, recommendations of the founders themselves,

entries in business magazines, contacting various entrepreneurship organizations

and using newsletters and other social media channels to ask for participants.

The sample consisted of N = 34 high-potential female entrepreneurs; 15 from

Germany and 19 from India. Inclusion criteria were that the company should not be

older than six years to be considered a start-up (Xu, 2008). As expected from high-

potentials, all participants from Germany and India spoke adequate English. Two

industries where chosen that fulfilled the criteria of being either underrepresented by

female founders (technology) or more strongly represented by female founders

(fashion).

3.3 Measures

There are two kinds of variables in social network data. Structural variables measure

attributes of ties; whereas composition variables measure actor attributes

(Wasserman, 1994, p. 29).

18

In this case, the following structural attributes where measured:

1. Frequency of contact

2. Mutual resource exchange

3. Duration of connection

4. Type of relation (strength)

5. Topics talked about (resources)

6. Density (do alters know each other?)

Additionally, heterogeneity measures (gender) of ego’s network were calculated

using Mueller and Schuessler’s "Index qualitativer Variation" (IQV- Index) (Mueller

& Schuessler, 1962).

Equation 1: Mueller and Schuessler’s IQV-Index

𝐼𝑄𝑉 − 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 =𝐾(𝑁2 − ∑ 𝑓2

𝑁2 (𝐾 − 1)

K= Count of categories (gender =2)

N= Count of cases e.g. (x men and y women)

∑ f2 = squared Sum of frequencies

19

As ego-centric networks of every female were generated, there are two types of

composition attributes, those of the ego (our founders) and those of her alters. For

ego, we measured the following composition variables (mostly socio-demographics)

within the questionnaire.

1. Age

2. Nationality

3. Country of company

4. Marital status

5. Number of children

6. Level of education

7. Profession

8. Years of professional experience

9. Full-time or part-time in company

10. First time entrepreneur

11. Hours maintaining contacts

12. Hours developing contacts

For alter the following composition measures were conducted:

1. Age

2. Nationality

3. Gender

4. Level of education

5. Profession

20

3.4 Data Analysis

The data coming from the questionnaire was cleaned and organized in Microsoft

Excel 2013. The Add-In “NodeXL” helped organizing network formats such as node-

and edge lists. From there, data was exported into UCINET (Borgatti 2002) - a

software for analyzing social networks - and then analyzed. For frequencies and

statistical tests, the OpenSource Software PSPP (an equivalent to IBM’s SPSS) was

used. Network graphs were plotted with the open source software Gephi.

The transliterated interviews were analyzed with MAXQDA 11. The software allows

sorting paragraphs into categories and subcategories and analyzing evolving

patterns. The coding process was based on Strauss’ and Corbin’s analysis for

qualitative data (Strauss, Corbin, & Niewiarra, 1996).

21

4 Findings

The results of the analysis are presented in the following order: First, general

descriptive data are laid out, giving the reader an understanding of the sample

characteristics. Second, results regarding the tested hypotheses are shown and

third, categories built by analyzing the qualitative interviews will be demonstrated

and made concrete by chosen excerpts. Additionally, qualitative data was used to

shed light on some quantitative results.

4.1 Findings of the Quantitative Part

4.1.1 Sample Characteristics

As shown in Table 2: Sample Characteristics of Indian and German High-potential

Women Entrepreneurs, there was a slight bigger sample of Indian women (n=19) to

German women (n=15). In our sample, entrepreneurs with children were much

higher in the Indian sample (57%) in contrast to 33 % of German women

entrepreneurs. This reflects the fertility rates of both countries (compare chapter

2.1.1 Entrepreneurship Research in Context: India and Germany). The rates of

second- and first time entrepreneurs are relatively balanced: On average 76 % of

the entrepreneurs started-up their first business. Only 5 % of Indian women were not

full-time entrepreneurs, whereas Germans 27 % worked part-time instead of fulltime

in their company. The reasons mentioned for working part time were very diverse

such as being still a student, the business does not sustain itself, having a second

company or project or being a mom. Further investigation for the reasons to work

part-time with a bigger sample is therefore recommended. When asked, if co-

founders had the same gender, it shows that 89 % of Indian high-potential female

entrepreneurs founded in a mixed gender team, whereas 67% of German high-

potential female entrepreneurs founded in a mixed gender team. This was one of

the biggest differences found in the sample characteristics. One excerpt shows what

might be a reason for funding with the other gender:

22

“If you asked me a few years ago, I would not have minded but

now I almost think that I would prefer a male. I think that in India,

still there is a lot of difficulty for women to work full time and I am

in my early 30ies and I am married and I don't have kids. But most

women in their 30ies are married and have kids and they do not

have the luxury to make their own decisions and they are not able

to commit full time.” – Indian entrepreneur

Figure 1: Team Constellation in Terms of Gender in Germany

Figure 2: Team Constellation in Terms of Gender in India

Looking at team build-up, 32 % of the Indian sample founded alone (German 20 %).

In the interviews, sole entrepreneurs were asked for the reasons to found alone. Two

types of founders were identified: The ones that do more service related work and

do not (yet) consider to collaborate. Moreover, others interviewees could not find an

adequate partner.

67%33%

GERMANY

Mixed-Gender Teams Women-only Teams

89%

11%

INDIA

Mixed-Gender Teams Women-only Teams

23

1. Not needing a partner

„I’m a freelancer at the moment, so I don’t need a co-founder. I

wanted to first create a solid base, before I take the next step

starting-up.“ – German entrepreneur

“Cause whenever I tell people that I have a “xy”1 company, they

think: what it must be? What I do and things like that. That's the

reason why I never thought I need a co-founder or something.

Because I thought my passion was enough to drive it all, maybe

(laughing)”. – Indian entrepreneur

The last excerpt above shows a mix of two reasons. The entrepreneur did not find

someone who is as passionate about what she is doing and at the same time, she

thought of being able to do it alone, although in the interview she admits that it is

sometimes difficult, also in terms of time for networking.

1 Company type changed because of anonymity reasons

24

2. Not finding a partner:

“I have often wished that I could have a partner who is specialized

in operations and growth, but I haven't actively searched that

person and nor have I met that person.”

– Indian Entrepreneur

“I have always searched for someone. I even placed ads in

magazines. But, it is hard to find someone in my space (…)”

– German entrepreneur

Table 2: Sample Characteristics of Indian and German High-potential Women Entrepreneurs

Characteristics Both nations India Germany

N 34 19 15

Sector (percent): Fashion

Technology

24

76

32

68

13

87

Children

No Children

47

52

58

42

33

67

Second-time Entrepreneur +

First-Time Entrepreneur

24

76

21

79

27

73

Full-time Entrepreneur

Part-time Entrepreneur

85

15

95

5

73

27

Single Founder 26 32 20

Mixed Gender Founding Teams 79 89 67

Most entrepreneurs in both countries were in the age groups 25 to 34 (India 58%,

Germany 67%) and 35 to 44 (India 37%, Germany 20%). As found in

entrepreneurship research, only a very small number were under 25 years old

(Aldrich, Elam, & Reese, 1997, p. 10). As expected with high-potential female

entrepreneurs all participants had at least an undergrad degree, most of the sample

even had a graduate degree (82 %). In terms of work experience mean experience

was around 10 years in both samples with a minimum of three and a maximum of

30 years (see Table 3).

25

Table 3: Demographics of Indian and German High-potential Women Entrepreneurs

Characteristics All nations India Germany

N 34 19 15

Age

15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

3

62

29

3

3

5

58

37

/

/

/

67

20

7

7

Education

Undergraduate (e.g.BA)

Graduate (e.g. MA)

Doctoral Degree

15

82

3

16

84

/

14

79

7

Work Experience (years):

Min

Max

Mean / SD

3

30

9.79 / 6

3

19

9.21 / 4,43

4

30

10.57/7.76

As shown in Table 4 Work experience was correlated (Pearson’s r, two-sig) with the

network variables network size, density, constrain and gender diversity (IQV-Index).

The only significant correlation found was a weak negative correlation (r=-41)

between proportion of strong ties and work experience was 0.2 (p>0.05)

Table 5 shows data of the entrepreneurs’ businesses. In the Indian sample, there

was no company in Ideation state; in the German sample only 6 %. Most German

companies were in Early State (60%), whereas most Indian firms were in

Scale/Growth state. This is also reflected by the companies’ age. There was a

proportion of 57% of German companies with the age of 0-1.9 years (India 37.5 %).

Table 4: Correlations between Entrepreneur’s Work Experience and Network Variables

Work

experience

(n=34)

Proportion of

strong ties

Proportion of

family ties

Network

Constrain Network Density

Network

Size

IQV

(Gender)

-0.41* -0.3 0.05 -0.15 0.14 -0.13

Two-tailed Correlations: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01

26

In the Indian sample, there were 13 % of the companies 2-4.9 years old, whereas in

the German sample 36 % had this age. Only 7 % of German examined companies

were 5 years and older. India’s sample showed 50% of companies in this age group.

The differences in company age between the sample has to be kept in mind, as at

different company stages, entrepreneur’s show different kind of network

characteristics (Lechner, Dowling, & Welpe, 2006) and can distort results of

hypotheses testing. The size of the companies (reflected here by number of

employees) differs highly, especially as there is one firm with 400 full-time

employees in India.

Table 5: Business Characteristics of Indian and German High-potential Women Entrepreneurs

Characteristics All nations India Germany

Business State:

Ideation / Discovery

Early State / Validation

Scale / Growth

3

53

44

/

47

53

6

60

33

Company Age:

0 - 1.9 years

2 - 4.9 years

5 + years

47

23

30

38

13

50

57

36

7

Number of Full-time Employees

Min

Max

Mean /SD

0

400

15.97/68.18

0

400

25.68/90.96

0

21

3.67/5.55

Looking at the characteristics of the ego’s networks, the percentages do not show

huge differences except of the percentage of family members (India 29%; Germany

19%). Before investigating deeper in this difference in the next part, the average

numbers of both nations will be presented as in Table 6. The entrepreneur’s

networks show that they have much more contact with men than women (35%

women). 40% of the networks consisted of friends, whereas business contacts made

up 36 % of the network.

27

Table 6: Characteristics of Alteri in Ego’s Core Business Network

Characteristics Both nations India Germany

N 173 82 91

Percent of network members who are:

Women 35 33 41

Family members

Friends

Acquaintances /Business Contact

24

40

36

29

39

30

19

40

39

Age groups of network members (percent)

15-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

1

31

34

20

12

/

32

35

18

11

1

20

33

22

12

The average age groups of the entrepreneur’s business discussion networks did not

highly differ between the Indian and the German sample. Only 1 % of contacts where

in the age group 15-24 years. The age group 25-34 years makes up 31 % of high-

potential female entrepreneurs’ contacts; followed by the age group 35-44 years (34

%). Persons in the age of 45-54 years made up 20 % of the network. The female

entrepreneurs had 12 % of network members in the age of 55-64 years.

28

4.1.2 Results by Hypotheses

In Table 7 , all network variables that were tested are shown. The only remarkable

differences are in network size (Hypothesis 1) and proportion of family members

(Hypothesis 4b). First, it is looked at the variables that do not differ, to later test the

significance of the variables with a difference in detail.

Table 7: Network Variables of High-potential Female Entrepreneurs from Germany and India

Network Variable Country N Mean Standard Deviation

Network Size India 19 4.32 2.19

Germany 15 6.27 3.08

Network Density

India 19 .64 .18

Germany 15 .66 .25

Network Constraint

India 19 .50 .22

Germany 15 .48 .24

Proportion of Strong Ties

India 19 .68 .32

Germany 15 .63 .35

Proportion of Family members

India 19 .32 .36

Germany 15 .23 .27

IQV-Index (Tie Strength)

India 19 .47 .42

Germany 15 .48 .43

IQV-Index (Gender)

India 19 .63 .41

Germany 15 .59 .39

In terms of density, both samples revolve around a mean density of approximately

.65, meaning that the overall density is moderate. To illustrate this, the average

network would look like Figure 4 in terms of density. In this example, the

entrepreneur has one tie that is not connected to anyone, a few ties that know some

other contacts a few that know some more. In Figure 3, a discussion network with a

very low density is used as an example. Here, the entrepreneur has just two ties that

know each other. Figure 5 is an example of a network with a very high density.

29

Figure 3: Ego-Network of a high-potential female with a low density (0.28)

Figure 4: Ego-Network of a high-potential female with a moderate density (0.57)

30

Figure 5: Ego-Network of a high-potential female with a high density (0.91)

As the density does not differ a lot between both samples, it is not by surprise that

also network constraint does not show a huge difference (India .50; Germany .48).

The proportions of strong versus weak ties were calculated simply by dividing the

number of strong ties by the number of weak ties for every ego-network. A tie was

coded as strong if the contact was either named as a friend or family member. To

attenuate Marsden’s critique of measuring strengths of ties (Marsden & Campbell,

1984) some ties were coded as strong if they had the following attributes: at least 5

years old and contact frequency of at least weekly and daily. Out of these, it was

examined if ego showed any emotional connection to this person as categorized in

the qualitative data. Only then, the tie was coded as strong as well. Comparing the

means, there was no high difference between German and Indian high-potential

female entrepreneurs. With a mean ranging between 68 % (India) and 63 %

(Germany) this proportion is quite high. As a second measure, the Index of

Qualitative Variation (Mueller & Schuessler, 1962) for tie strength was calculated.

The IQV (Strength looks at a different measure, because it examines the possible

diversity’s extend. As expected because of the similarity of the proportion of strong

ties, there was no huge difference found.

31

The other diversity measure, the IQV-Index for gender, ranges in both samples

around 0.6. IQV-Index values range between zero and one, with one showing the

highest possible diversity. With a measure of 0.6, the average of the networks show

a moderate gender diversity with a drift towards diversity, but showing no difference

between the samples. To sum up, the hypotheses stating that Indian networks show

a higher density (Hypothesis 2), a higher network constraint (Hypothesis 3), a higher

proportion of strong ties (Hypothesis 4a) and a higher gender diversity (Hypothesis

5) have to be rejected. In the next paragraph, a t-test for independent samples was

conducted to examine if the observed differences in network size and proportion of

family members are statistically significant.

Hypothesis 1 stated that network size of German high-potential female

entrepreneurs is higher than that of the Indian sample. As hypothesized, Indian

women had a smaller network (n=19) with a mean of 4.32 (SD 2.19); whereas the

German sample showed a mean size of 6.27 (n=15, SD =3.08). As size was normally

distributed (K-Stest), a t-test for independent samples was used to test the

hypothesis (see Table 8: T-test for Independent Samples for Network Size). The

value for the Levene’s test for Equality of Variance was 0.1 (p>0.05) meaning that

the variability is same and we can look at the t-test results. The significance (2-tailed)

was with .04 (p<0.05) significant, meaning that there is a significant difference

between the size of Indian and German high-potential female entrepreneur’s

networks. This test procedure was repeated for the proportion of family members

(Hypothesis 4b).

32

Table 8: T-test for Independent Samples for Network Size

Levene’s Test for Equality of

Variance

T-Test for Equality of Means

F Sig t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean Difference

St. Error of

Difference

95% Confidence

Intervall of the Difference

Lower Upper

Network Size

Equal variance assumed

2.79 0,1 - 2.16 32 0.04 -1.95 0.9 -3.79 -0.11

Equal variance

not assumed

-2.07 24.35 0.05 -1.95 0.94 -3.89 -0.01

Concerning the proportion of family members in the networks, the mean of

Germany’s sample shows that it is smaller, as stated in Hypothesis 4b. Indian

women showed a mean proportion of .32 (SD .36) of family members in their

networks, while the German sample’s network consisted of .23 (SD .27) family

members. However, if we look at the t-test, it shows that this difference is not

significant (see Table 9). Therefore, Hypothesis 4b has to be rejected as well.

Table 9: T-test for Independent Samples for Proportion of Family Members

Levene’s Test

for Equality of

Variance

T-Test for Equality of Means

F Sig t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

St. Error

of

Difference

95%

Confidence

Intervall of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Network

Size

Equal

variance

assumed

3.95 .06 .85 32.00 .40 .09 .11 -.13 .32

Equal

variance

not

assumed

.88 31.92 .39 .09 .11 -.12 .31

33

4.1.3 Summary of the Quantitative Part

To sum up the section of quantitative research, it was found that concerning sample

statistics, more German high-potential female entrepreneurs worked part-time than

Indian ones. A high proportion of women in both samples founded with male

partners, but the proportion of German entrepreneurs who founded with other

women was 20 percent points higher than in the Indian sample. The qualitative data

did not give enough insights into the reasons why the entrepreneurs chose male

founders over female founders or whether it is a supply problem. There is an

indication that even women perceive other women as “less entrepreneurial” as

discussed on page 9 (the entrepreneur as male gendered). Also the gender

proportions of the discussion networks was unbalanced, as women made up only

35 % of the network

Around 20 % of German’s and 32% of Indian high-potential female entrepreneurs

founded their start-up alone. Two reasons for this were indicated in the qualitative

data: not finding or not needing a partner. A significant correlation between

proportion of strong ties in the network and work experience was found, indicating

that the more work experience a woman had, the more weak ties it developed. The

sample was unbalanced in terms of company stage with a low number of German

companies above 5 years of age compared to a moderate number in the Indian

sample.

Considering the hypotheses tested, only Hypothesis 1 (the network size of German

high-potential female entrepreneurs is higher than the network size of Indian high-

potential female entrepreneurs) was not rejected. All other network variables when

compared did not show significant differences.

34

4.2 Findings of the Qualitative Part

Apart from testing stated hypotheses from entrepreneurship research with a network

perspective with our samples, we also wanted to know how our entrepreneurs

network and what strategies they use. If there are not any differences between

Germans and Indians mentioned, the exploratory part will speak for both samples.

4.2.1 Characteristics of Network Relations

Table 10 shows the characteristics of the ties between ego and its alteri. Most

discussion network partners in India were contacted monthly (45%), whereas in

Germany (30%) had monthly contact. Germans seem to have a higher frequency of

contact with their alteri, showing also in the number of weekly contacts (Germany

47%, India 33%). The duration of their relation was biased, because duration of

family ties e.g. with parents distort the picture. Therefore, the duration was calculated

without kinship. The results show, that the duration of about 6 years (mean 5.78/SD

5.75) is quite similar between both samples.

Table 10: Characteristics of the Ties between Ego and its Alteri

Relationship All nations India Germany

Frequency of Contact (percent):

Once a Year

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

4

37

40

17

5

45

33

16

4

30

47

18

Duration of relationship (years)

N

Min

Max

Mean/SD

173

0.1

9.5

9.5/10.27

91

0,1

35

10.16/10.64

82

0,3

40

8.89/9.94

Duration of relationships excluding kinship

N

Min

Max

Mean/SD

132

0.1

25

5.78/5.75

58

0.1

25

5,77/6,14

74

0.3

20

5,8/ 5,46

35

Figure 6: Entrepreneurs Maintaining Contacts in Hours per Month shows the time

that every female entrepreneur spend on maintaining and developing contacts.

Within the middle field of 15-75 hours maintaining contacts per month, more German

entrepreneurs seem to be active. A higher amount of the Indian sample spend 1-14

hours per month maintaining contacts.

Figure 6: Entrepreneurs Maintaining Contacts in Hours per Month

The proportions of time spend for developing new countries seems to be similar

between the Indian and the German sample.

42

20

42

67

16 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

India Germany

Maintaining Contacts

1-14 hours 15-75 hours 76-300 hours

36

Figure 7: Entrepreneurs Developing Contacts in Hours per Month

Table 11: Characteristics of the Ties between Ego and its Alteri

Time Spend India Germany

Maintaining Contacts

N

Min

Max

Mean/SD

19

2

100

32.68/33.33

15

1

300

50.3/74,7

Developing Contacts

N

Min

Max

Mean/SD

19

0

100

26.8/30.5

15

1

300

34.3/74.9

Maintaining Contacts Categories (Percent):

1 – 14 hours per month



42

42

16

20

67

13

Developing New Contacts Categories (Percent):




58

37

5

60

33

7

58 60

37 33

5 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

India Germany

Developing Contacts

1-14 hours 15-75 hours 76-300 hours

37

4.2.2 Maintaining and Developing Contacts

In the following part, categories were build based on Strauss’ and Corbin’s analysis

for qualitative data (Strauss, Corbin & Niewiarra, 1996).To maintain contacts, most

women in both samples used Social Media like Facebook or LinkedIn, or send

Emails to update people. Those activities were mostly directed to a greater audience,

e.g. by sending updates on Facebook or writing a newsletter that goes to many

people. Personal contact via phone calls and meetings are also a mean to keep up

with people. It seems that those are always valuable contacts. Often those keep-up

meetings happen during lunch or over a coffee.

For developing contacts, four categories were identified:

- Personal references

- Organizations

- Events

- “Cold” Contacting

4.2.2.1 Developing Contacts through Personal References

In the interviews, participants where asked for each business discussion contact that

was not kinship, where they encountered. The following categories arose:

Known through:

- School

- College

- Family

- Friends

- Previous Work

- Business Contact

This pattern is reflected by the answer to the question, how they develop new

contacts. Personal references are one of the most used ways for the entrepreneurs

38

to meet new people. Contacts introduce the entrepreneur to others, because they

think it could be useful to them:

“My ex-colleague just said: ‘You should meet him; he might be

interesting for you.’ And then it went really fast, a personal intro

via mail and the you meet.“ - German entrepreneur

„A cousin of one of my friends asked me to contact him because

I told her I want to start a fashion label, but I did not have any

experience in design“ – Indian entrepreneur

In the case of weak ties, introducing the entrepreneur to others is mostly motivated

by reciprocity, or at least the expectation of reciprocity:

“Or something, where I can also contribute and then go on with

the discussions. See, most of the contact needs, either come

from this need of information of a particular space, where there is

not much information available in the Internet, and only that

person based on real life experience can give me that information

- or there is something to sell. If there is something to sell, than it

is easier, because selling is also value proposition for both sides.

There is no charity involved, right?” – Indian entrepreneur

Reciprocity was not only found in the direct exchange of “contact for contact” but

many other intangible goods where exchanged on a mutual basis:

“He tells me about his projects, where he invests and I tell him

about Berlin’s Start-up Scene, he is always curious about that”

- German entrepreneur

“And I have a lot of friends who are entrepreneurs. So I do

discuss, in fact, I am the one who is solving problems for others

and I'm giving them free advice - do this, do that. I enjoy a good

conversation with them. And in the bargain I learn a lot. I give

them some free advices that I think that can work for them and in

the bargain I do learn a lot from their businesses and what I can

39

pick from their businesses and apply to mine. So all that I keep

doing.“ – Indian entrepreneur

“My interactions have mostly been either transactional, so that I

need something and I can give them something. Or at the

philosophical level. At some higher level. It has never, never been

a personal with lot of this folks.” – Indian entrepreneur

While investigating in the reciprocity of contacts, a new category emerged in

terms of the role of business discussion contacts: the one of mentors. Two kinds

of mentors where identified. (1) Formal ones that were acquired through an

organization (see chapter 4.2.2.3 Developing Contacts through Organizations)

and informal ones.

Excerpts concerning formal mentors:

“I was part of Women entrepreneur’s organization 2 Foundation,

a mentoring program that I was selected for. And I'm also

selected for the Other Women entrepreneur’s organization*

program for women entrepreneurs.” – Indian entrepreneur

“Then I also had this mentor from NGO3. There I could ask

specific questions, how do I write a business plan, how did you

do it?” – German entrepreneur

Excerpts concerning informal mentors:

“Contact name4 is like an “uncle-like” advisor, he is a business

contact”. – German entrepreneur

“So it started of like that but our relationship grew from that more.

Yeah I was paying him, cause that's how our relationship started

(…) And during that course of time he sort of become a mentor”

- Indian entrepreneur

2 Organization name changed for anonymity reasons 3 Organization name changed for anonymity reasons 4 Name changed for anonymity reasons

40

“So Contact Name is one of the pioneers in that, because he has

already done a number of companies that he sold. And he also

wants to develop that kind of ecosystem in India. So, I've been a

volunteer, and during that, I got to interact with him, and he is

very knowledgeable, some kind of Guru person. So it is very easy

to reach out to him and ask questions which are really complex

in nature and get an answer.” – Indian entrepreneur

“He is my kind of mentor and advisor because when I was in

college I made my internship under him. He had a company, I

met him through one of the college events. So he had given me

a project during my college, so ever since I have been in touch

like a mentor.” – Indian entrepreneur

Almost all informal mentors where successful entrepreneurs themselves and want

to give back their experience or help developing an ecospace in their field. Informal

mentorship was mentioned more frequently than formal mentorship. This goes in line

with findings of industry experts that advice entrepreneurs, they also tend to be

informal (Aldrich et al., 1997, p. 11).

4.2.2.2 Developing Contacts through Events

The second largest category was developing contacts through events. They

attended either domain specific events such as trade-fairs or events especially for

start-ups such as meet-ups, panel discussion or workshops. Even though almost all

entrepreneurs did use events to make contacts, they regard it as something time-

consuming. In addition, it seems as in early start-up phases, the possibility to visit

general events is more valuable and in later stages, it becomes more selective.

„I did it a lot in the beginning, but I became more selective,

because it is really time consuming and it keeps you away from

working on the product.

41

At the moment I am really selective, so I try to find out who is

there that gives me an advantage, will I meet someone and do I

already know the people there.“

–German Entrepreneur

We used to, in the beginning, yes. When we started out for the

first maybe couple of years, we have done all of that you know,

Headstart or Coffeeclub and so on. That was good, when you are

starting up, but right now, I find it takes a lot of time. – Indian

entrepreneur

Some women reported to actively participated in the events such as panel

discussions, speakers, or participation in workshops. Those women reported that it

was fruitful to be active.

“In some events I have been speaking. Most often we got a

business out of it. So we have been seeing that this makes

definitely sense for the company to do that.”


“Yes, so I do attend conferences, It's a gateway to build contacts

and to promote my services and built my brand. I've been talking

in conferences as a speaker, quite a lot, so it's obviously an

important part.” - Indian entrepreneur

“I participate in many of these workshops or panel discussions,

so there I get to meet people.” - Indian entrepreneur

4.2.2.3 Developing Contacts through Organizations

The females also developed contacts through organizations. Four categories of

organizations could be identified:

- Start-up Organizations

(Among them women entrepreneur programs)

42

- Field specific organizations

- Voluntary organizations

- College Alumni Networks (only Indian sample)

Especially start-up organizations were named a lot by both Indian and German

entrepreneurs.

The last category, direct outreach to people was less mentioned. Women that were

directly contacted (e.g. via LinkedIn), showed a high reputation in their field or

participated actively at events as shown above. Also, they tend be valuable for their

potential network

“I invest quite a few hours a day on digital, so I have these profiles

on LinkedIn and twitter, and I am one of the few people, who has

also a profile on LinkedIn, so it is open, so I write there. So I try

to keep up to date, and try to help people who are looking for

some information in digital, so that's how I'm known in this.

People contact me, to get assistance to their business strategies

and advice.” – Indian entrepreneur

Only a few women reached out directly to people they did not know before. Also,

most of the time they used an event or a common topic to have a reason to contact.

This can be partly understood by looking at constrains high-potential female

entrepreneurs face in networking.

4.2.3 Networking Constrains

Concerning constrains to networking five categories could be identified:

- Safety and Comfort

- Time and everyday Business

- Distance and Locality

- Access to prestigious people or networks

- Gender Constrains

43

4.2.3.1 Safety and Comfort

In this category, only Indian women were identified. It includes safety issues while

travelling, especially at night but also feeling comfortable with actors, usually men.

Statements show an implication of normality by using words like “one would not” or

“women don’t”.

“But on an average, most women would not go. And also the time

when you meet people, you meet them during daytime. You don't

meet somebody at 8 o'clock, or 9 o'clock or whatever.

– Indian Woman

One women made this internalization even very explicit.

“You are comfortable during at day time, meeting in an office, in

a public spaces, you don't go to meet somebody in their house

for example. I mean one, it's of course not professional, but even

otherwise, it... it's just…doesn't. You not….you kind of tune... you

know…internalize the whole idea of reducing risks, internalizing

in your brains, right.”

“It is a safety issue, and it is more internalized, it's not something

that you consciously think "Oh, this is maybe dangerous". It is all

these, whatever, culturally or years of that kind of attitude is there,

right from parents. The way you grew up. So you, there is always

this basic defensive nature. And it is not conscious at all.”

– Indian woman

The women in India therefore prefer meeting at daytime, in public space or offices.

One way to overcome uncomfortable situations with new contacts is getting

knowledge about them or by knowing them though a reference:

“So once people validate, it is also that reference, no? It is not a

COMPLETE stranger anymore.” – Indian Woman

44

4.2.3.2 Time and Everyday Business

Time issue was the most mentioned constraint. This was also identified in the

category of using events for developing new contacts.

„I think that my issue is that I am buried so deep in everyday stuff,

that it is very hard for me to take this mental space and step away

and meet people.“ – Indian woman

“But I am so busy with the everyday stuff that there is no time to

do that” Indian woman

Especially women without a co-founder mentioned time issues.

“I cannot spend so much time in all those activities. Number one,

the constraint is, I am alone. So each and every activity, I have to

spend in each and every activity. So time constraints is one of the

parts. “– Indian woman

4.2.3.3 Access to Prestigious People or Networks

It was not mentioned as a huge obstacle, but it was reported, that sometimes

prestigious and busy people were hard to get through.

“So it's a really high level connection maybe a CTO. At least I

have not faced that problem where people had ignored my mails

- they take their own time, but they do get back”

– Indian entrepreneur

“Some of the really busy CEO types, I mean cold emailing. So I

usually do some research and figure out, how I can personally

meet them, or maybe attend a conference that they are speaking

at, or some common contact.” - Indian entrepreneur

“There is this Facebook group, and if I post something there I get

almost no reaction, but if some of the people that already founded

a company post something, they get more help. (…) When you

45

stand at the beginning, there is nothing you can trade so you can

communicate at eye level” – German entrepreneur

4.2.3.4 Distance and Locality

Most of the samples of the Indian entrepreneurs worked in Bangalore; likewise, most

German participants were from Berlin. Those cites played a crucial role. In German

interviews “Berlin” was mentioned 107 times, the word “Bangalore” occurred 32

times in the interviews. In addition, most start-up related events mentioned were also

located in Bangalore and Berlin.

Not being in Berlin was sometimes experienced as a constraint:

“The start-up scene in Berlin, I could not reach it yet. The problem

is, I’m not inside of this circle, what shall I do? I probably have to

go there and meet the people” – German Entrepreneur

“It is partly difficult, if you are not from Berlin and then you don’t

belong to the circle of the “chosen” people.”

- German Entrepreneur

„Berlin is hyped. It is the ultimate location that you have to be,

especially if you’re in the tech sector. And those start-ups there

think highly about themselves. They are in their own small world.

It is hard, to get contacts there, when you are non-Berliner“

- German Entrepreneur

A similar observation could be found in the Indian interviews:

“Currently, I'm located in Rural City5, which is in the mountains.

So I’m putting up here, I started from here. In order to expand into

the Indian market, I probably need to network with these people,

and I would probably meet these people in Cities like Bangalore,

Bombay, Chennai.” - Indian Entrepreneur

5 City name changed

46

“So probably I have to hook up with someone who has a network

in those cities already. I'm not sure, but I'm just contemplating

that it could be, that, because I'm located in a place, that maybe

I could not grow my network, that could be one reason, but I'm

not sure about it.” - Indian Entrepreneur

4.2.3.5 Gender Constrains on Networking

As discussed in chapter 2.1.1 Entrepreneurship Research in Context: India and

Germany women in both countries still face problems because of their gender. In

India it is more explicit with norms that have to follow as well as the relatively new

sight of seeing professional women.

“So usually you don't find women going out to pubs, after dinner,

I mean after work.(…) The professional networking with drinks

happens only between men. Women don't do that”

– Indian entrepreneur

“Other aspects of the gender is also, that a lot of Indian men are

not used to speak with women. They don't mean anything

negative and want to exclude, they are not as skilled enough. In

a networking room, walk towards a man that you don't know and

say "Hello, I'm doing this." It is unnatural. And most of the time I

also realized that real value connections, where you can do

something of value to each, will not happen in circumstances like

this, right.” – Indian entrepreneur

The females developed strategies to overcome those barriers. One entrepreneur for

example got into a network through sports.

“So initially, I was really depressed, because I could not talk to

anyone.(…) I got into sport6, and this is something that I do as a

hobby, a lot of people, such as techies, as well as some of the

6 Kind of sport changed to keep the entrepreneur anonymous

47

VCs are involved in that sport. And then it becomes really easy

to talk, because there is a common ground.”

Another strategy is to focus on other networks, when the access to networks similar

to “old boy-networks”- networks that favor men (Aldrich et al., 1997) - is not available.

“I somehow don't care for that (after work drinks). I mean my

networking is more focused. Very specific to my area. So these

are people who care about making a difference. Usually that kind

of you know, going out for drinks is more a corporate kind, but

really don't care for that kind of networking anymore. You know,

too much of time and it is not as intellectually appealing

anymore.”

It seems that gender discrimination is more subtle in Germany, but still existent. A

lot of it happens based on humor. On events were men are in majority, the practice

not to take women entrepreneurs seriously seems to be common.

“Sometimes you get those macho comments. My team and I were

sitting at the lawyer and I was the only women there. Then the

lawyer made comments about the “role of the women” and a

funny story about women who should rather serve coffee in

meetings” – German entrepreneur

„Sometimes there a certain kinds of men that don’t take you

seriously: you as a woman, in Technology?”

– German Entrepreneur

Especially German women themselves expressed a lot of gendered assumptions

about men and women and their networking behavior.

“The only thing women don't say anything unless they know what

they are talking about.”- German entrepreneur

Women more often thought-out and low-key, you make yourself

smaller as you are” – German entrepreneur

48

“Boys or men are generally more provoking. Just go out, try it,

speak to people, just do it and go on stage.” - German

entrepreneur

4.2.4 Summary of the Qualitative Part

Summing up the qualitative part, the main findings revolving around high-potential

female entrepreneurs’ networking behavior and activity will be presented briefly. In

terms of frequency of contact, German entrepreneur show a higher frequency of

contact with their discussion network members. Both samples’ average relationship

duration (excluding family) was around six years. On average both, German and

Indian female entrepreneurs spend around 30 hours per month on developing new

contacts. While Indians spend the same amount of hours per month on maintaining

contacts, Germans spend around 50 hours per month. This difference is not

significant as tested with a t-test for independent samples with p 0.36 (>0.05). To

maintain contacts, the interview showed that the entrepreneurs use Social Media

and emails and have personal contact with selected individuals. Personal references

was the most mentioned category to develop new contacts, followed by events,

organizations, and at the very last “cold” contacting. Reciprocity plays a role in

connecting with weak ties, so being valuable for the network is a vital strategy. It was

found that female entrepreneurs profited from two kinds of mentorship: formal and

informal, whereas the last mentioned one is even more important. Informal

mentorship is mainly given by benevolent established entrepreneurs. Being more

active in events proved also to be beneficial. Networking constrains identified were

safety and comfort, time and everyday business, distance and locality, Access to

prestigious people or networks as well as gender constrains.

49

5 Discussion and Conclusion

This thesis addressed the questions of how the networks of high-potential female

entrepreneurs in Germany and India are constituted and if there are differences

between them, keeping theories of the social network perspective in mind. Second,

in a more explorative way, the question was posed how those entrepreneurs

network.

The sample showed a high proportion of German high-potential female

entrepreneurs that work part-time. This goes in line with statistics of German female

entrepreneurs (bga bundesweite gründerinnenagentur, 2007). In addition, within the

online questionnaire the question was posed, why the entrepreneurs worked part-

time, but only very few answered it. Among the reasons for working part-time were:

being a student, the business not sustaining itself, having a second company or

project or being a mother. In German literature, the high rate of part-time female

entrepreneurs is explained by their family duties (compare chapter 2.1.1.2 Women

Entrepreneurs in Germany). As family duties are a very important factor for Indian

women as well, that does not explain this difference. As the results should stand

under reservation limitation because of the rather small sample size (see chapter 5.1

Limitations) the small sample size might be a reason for the result. Apart from any

differences among the samples, research should further examine the reasons for

high-potential female entrepreneurs to work part-time or full-time, as this has

important implications for policies supporting women entrepreneurs. The idea that

differences among samples might not be as important as had been initially expected

shows itself also in the results of the hypotheses’ testing.

The observation that the sample has more mix-gender founding teams then all-

women teams is probably biased because the majority of the observed women act

in technology – a men dominated field, at least in Germany (bga bundesweite

gründerinnenagentur, 2013), which would probably outweigh any gender homophily

effects. Another factor that could influence the tendency to found with males might

be due to the condition that entrepreneurs also found with partners or spouses (Ruef,

50

Aldrich, & Carter, 2009). Although, this was not asked in the questionnaire, in the

interviews there where mentions of co-founders being a husband or life partner. Still,

the qualitative data implies that women themselves have gendered perceptions of

entrepreneurship (see p.9 The entrepreneur as male gendered) as shown in the

qualitative part (p. 46, Gender Constrains on Networking) and this should also be

investigated. To investigate in reasons for team-formation does not imply that mixed-

teams are less acceptable. In contrast, Godwin found that mixed-sex teams are

beneficial for women entrepreneurs in male-dominated industries (Godwin, Stevens,

& Brenner, 2006, p. 631). The sample also showed approximately 26 % of founders

without co-founders. The reasons found in the qualitative interviews for founding

alone were (1) not needing a co-founder and (2) not finding a co-founder. These

reasons are reflected in Larson’s concept of venture formation as a process to

identify a need for resources (need for co-founder) and then the trial-and-error

process that is initiated by finding a “fit” for the venture (finding a co-founder) with

existing contacts such as former colleagues, family members etc.(Larson & Starr,

1993, pp. 7–8).

The hypotheses in this thesis revolved around differences in the network

characteristics of Indian and German high-potential female entrepreneurs.

Surprisingly, the only significant difference between the German and the Indian

sample is a small difference in size, with the German network being bigger. All other

network measures did not show significant differences between the German and the

Indian sample. Other research found significant differences in cross-national

comparisons of network characteristics (Aldrich & Tomoaki Sakano, 2002). In spite

of those findings - what can be the reasons for the similarity of our samples? It might

be a sign for the emergence of a global kind of high-potential female entrepreneurs.

An indication for that is the similar “start-up – ecospace” in which most of them act

that developed in Bangalore and Berlin. Thinking in terms of Fillis’ idea of

entrepreneurship as a creative process, (Fillis, 2010), Florida’s concept of the

“creative class” (Florida, 2002) can be applied. It stated that creative clusters – such

51

as Berlin or Bangalore – are able to transform culture. Indications for that can also

be found in the interviews:

“I don't think in a city like Bangalore, people differentiate based

on the gender. I don't find that happening.” – Indian entrepreneur

“I think it depends on the city and the context. Here in Berlin, it

is somehow – a level higher, so gender does not play a role

here. It is more about content than about gender roles”


If such regional clusters attracting global talent as Florida states (Florida, 2007), it

can be assumed that this diverse hubs will be less persistent on traditional roles of

females.

The findings of the exploratory interview-based part offers insights into the

networking activities and strategies of high-potential female entrepreneurs. Still, as

stated by the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (2014), conditions

for those entrepreneurs vary and are in both countries not optimal. A look at the

networking strategies and activities might shed light on this. First, a look at the

frequency of contact was taken. The frequency of contact to their discussion network

ranged mainly from monthly to weekly, whereas India had more monthly and

Germany more weekly contact to their discussion partners. This could be explained

by the higher proportion of mothers in the Indian sample, but should be investigated

further.

To maintain contacts social media such as LinkedIn and Facebook were

fundamental. The use of social media to connect to people plays a crucial role for

entrepreneurs. It is not surprising that Indian women do not lag behind. Overall,

females comprise 39% of the Indian Internet Population (comScore, 2013). Social

media sites like Facebook and LinkedIn are highly growing in India: There was a

28% increase in Facebook visitors in the last 12 months (Kemp). The Gender GEDI

index shows that Germany and India both rank around 40 % in women with LinkedIn

profiles (Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, 2014, p. 26).

52

In developing new contacts, the categories personal references, events,

organizations, (especially women entrepreneurial organizations) and “cold”

contacting were identified. Personal references were one of the most mentioned

ways to connect to people. Strong ties will recommend the entrepreneur to people

because of the emotional attachment. Following Granovetter’s (1973) approach of

the strength of weak ties’ those people might be less valuable, as the information

flowing in similar and cohesive networks shows less diversity and might be

redundant. Our data showed that for developing contacts with weak ties reciprocity

plays a role. It showed that it pays to be valuable for the network. Therefore, the

network needs to know in what way the entrepreneur can be helpful to them by being

visible (e.g. on social networks, Internet forums or as will be discussed in the next

paragraph, through active participation in events). Stam showed that participation in

industry events could lead to a beneficial brokerage effect for entrepreneurs (Stam,

2010). In addition, being known in the industry leads to a higher reputation- Larson

states that initially, personal reputation leads to the formation of new ties (Larson,

1992). Although, Uzzi (1996) stated that reputation is not as important for

entrepreneurs as information exchange between social relations.

Of particular interest were two kinds of mentors within the networks (1) formal and

(2) informal ones. It is shown that mentorship, especially for young entrepreneurs

benefits them (Ozgen & Baron, 2007, p. 177). Especially female entrepreneurs have

better access to finance through mentors (Carter, Brush, Greene, Gatewood, & Hart,

2003, p. 8). As the pattern evolved that informal mentors used to be benevolent

successful entrepreneurs, high-potential female entrepreneur should seek contact

to those.

The interviews showed that especially active participation in events and making

yourself valuable for your networks are vital strategies for women to get access to

diverse and helpful weak ties. As stated, seeing professional women on the forefront

of business, e.g. at panel discussions and on the stages might still be a rare sight,

especially in India. For policy makers and women entrepreneur organization’s it is

therefore vital to encourage women to participate for actively and give training

53

devoted to presentation skills. At different stages of the company, events should be

chosen accordingly to the resource needs of the company (Aldrich, Elam, & Reese,

1997, p. 3). It shows that for early stages, broader entrepreneur specific events are

fruitful, whereas industry specific and selective events are helpful at later stages.

This goes in line with the process view of contact needs in different entrepreneurial

stages (Lechner, Dowling, & Welpe, 2006). Entrepreneurs in our sample developed

new contacts through organizations such as start-up organizations and Alumni

organizations. Cold contacting was not highly mentioned as a way to develop to new

contacts. As it can be a source to valuable weak connections, a look at network

constrains might give reasons why contacting strangers is not practiced highly

among the sample.

Networking constrains identified were safety and comfort, time and everyday

business, distance and locality, access to prestigious people or networks as well as

gender constrains. Probably the biggest constrains in India is women’s safety and

comfort. It not only a huge problem for high-potential female entrepreneurs – but

also a general societal issue that needs to be addressed. Recommendations to solve

this problem would exceed this thesis’ limitations, but an exemplary perspective can

be given by how start-up themselves can contribute to solve this problem. Two

examples of social innovations by start-ups can be named: “Angel City Cabs” – a

cab service for women with women drivers equipped with additional security

arrangements such as GPS tracking and an emergency button (Prasher, October 3,

2013). Another example is women safety mobile apps that use features such as GPS

and automatic dials to friends or family in case of emergency (Sakaria, 2014).

Constrains concerning gender in Germany seem to be more subtle for example

through sexist humor. This also is a problem to be tackled from various perspectives.

One issue that pervade through this thesis are the sexist practices in

entrepreneurship research and practice criticized by Ahl in chapter 2.1.2

Entrepreneurship Research in Context: Gender. Also (Godwin, Stevens, & Brenner,

2006) approve the concept of the harmful discourse of a stereotyped view of the

54

entrepreneur. It is to hope that the emergence of various women entrepreneurship

organizations in India and Germany help to expose those harmful practices.

Other networking constrains revealed in this study were time constrains and

everyday business. As research shows, network activities and time invested in these

activities varies within different start-up stages (Lechner, Dowling, & Welpe, 2006).

This goes in line with our finding that after the initial start-up phase, - where detecting

opportunities and building the network is crucial (Singh, Hills, Lumpkin, & Hybels) -

entrepreneurs started to filter and be more selective of their networking activities. To

sum up, it must not be a constrain as such. However, entrepreneurs should start

networking more strategically with guidelines of entrepreneurship research with a

network perspective that explains what activities are useful at what times or resource

needs.

On one hand, it was shown that the start-up hubs of Berlin and Bangalore show

significant advantages for entrepreneurs. As stated before, it might even be an

emerging eco-space where gender barriers are reduced. On the other hand, not

being in those start-up nerve centers can be disadvantageous. Favorable would

therefore be a less centralized network of well-connected start-up hubs within the

country that gives access to a wider population and can react to local needs.

5.1 Limitations and Concluding Remarks

This thesis faces some limitations. Concerning the number of participants (n=34),

the sample size is rather small, so it should be taken with care to do generalizations

about the population of high-potential female entrepreneurs. In addition, the focus

on the two countries of India and Germany concealed the existence of subcultures

that might have a higher impact on networking as country differences, especially as

between the sector of technology and fashion there are differences in the

socioeconomic backgrounds of the actors.

Similar to the critiques of Ahl not to persist on differences between men and women;

it also should be taken with care on doing the same mistakes regarding apparently

“developed” and “underdeveloped” countries and do research with the connotations

55

of the “poor, victimized and disadvantaged” sample in contrast to the “developed and

advantaged” sample. This partly happened in this research, as most hypotheses

were stated as the Indian sample being on the downside, because of the difficult

conditions. As shown, differences were marginal and Indian and German

entrepreneurs developed fruitful networking strategies. The research stage is of

course still in its beginnings, but in further development the complexity of high-

potential female entrepreneurs should be considered in research designs. High-

potential female entrepreneurs face different conditions around the world. Despite

environmental difficulties, an important resource for them are their social networks.

This thesis contributed to the scares literature on high-potential female

entrepreneurs, especially by mixing quantitative network data with qualitative data.

An important insight of this study is, although cross-country comparisons in female

entrepreneurship are rare, differences in networks are more likely to be related to

factors such as industry, business stage, full-or part time entrepreneurship etc. then

those of simple country differences, assuming that subcultures are less important

than the concept of a “nationwide” culture.

The categories built in this research on how high-potential entrepreneurs network,

delivers a comprehensive basis for further investigation. Future research should

investigate deeper in different kinds of high-potential female entrepreneurs for

example the reasons to work part- or fulltime and the effects on their networks; or

the effect of “start-up hubs” such as Berlin and Bangalore on the networking activities

and barriers of those entrepreneurs.

VI

References

Ahl, H. (2006). Why Research on Women Entrepreneurs Needs New Directions.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 595–621.

Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial

Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship

Aldrich, H. (1989). Networking among women entrepreneurs. Women-owned

businesses, 103, 132.

Aldrich, H., Elam, A. B., & Reese, P. R. (1997). Strong ties, weak ties, and

strangers: Do women business owners differ from men in their use of networking

to obtain assistance? In S. Birley & I. C. MacMillan (Eds.), Routledge studies

international business and the world economy: Vol. 5. Entrepreneurship in a

global context (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.

Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C. (1998). Entrepreneurship through social networks.

Entrepreneurship, 261–281.

Aldrich, H., & Tomoaki Sakano. (2002). Unbroken Ties: How the Personal Networks

of Japanese Business Owners Compare to Those in Other Nations. International

Small Business Journal, 20(2).

Bem Lipsitz, & Sandra Lipsitz. (1081). Bem Sex-Role Inventory. "" Mental

Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print: Vol. 9.

bga bundesweite gründerinnenagentur. (2007). Existenzgründung durch Frauen in

Deutschland: Psychologische und soziale Aspekte der Gründungen durch Frauen

(No. 9).

bga bundesweite gründerinnenagentur. (2013a). Gründerinnen und

Unternehmerinnen in Deutschland II: Unternehmensbezogene Daten und Fakten.

bga bundesweite gründerinnenagentur. (2013b). Gründerinnen und

Unternehmerinnen in Deutschland III: Personenbezogene Daten und Fakten.

VII

bga bundesweite gründerinnenagentur. (2007). Existenzgründung durch Frauen in Deutschland: Psychologische und soziale Aspekte der Gründungen durch Frauen (No. 9).

Bhagavatula, S. (2009). Managing Networks for Entrepreneurial Success:

Academic Perspective. IIMB Management Review (Indian Institute of

Management Bangalore), 21(1), 52–58.

Birley, S. (1986). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of

Business Venturing, 1(1), 107–117.

Birley, S., & MacMillan, I. C. (Eds.). (1997). Routledge studies international business

and the world economy: Vol. 5. Entrepreneurship in a global context. London:

Routledge.

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows:

Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Braun, G. & French, M. Social Entrepreneurship: Unternehmerische Ideen für eine

bessere Gesellschaft; Dokumentation der 4. HIE-RO Ringvorlesung zu

Unternehmertum und Regionalentwicklung "Social Entrepreneurship -

Unternehmerische Ideen für eine bessere Gesellschaft" an der Universität

Rostock im Wintersemester 2007/2008. Rostock.

Brush, C. G., Bruin, A. de, & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for

women's entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and

Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8–24.

Brush, C. G., Carter, N. M., Greene, P. G., Hart, M. M., & Gatewood, E. (2002). The

role of social capital and gender in linking financial suppliers and entrepreneurial

firms: a framework for future research. Venture Capital, 4(4), 305–323.

Brüderl, J., & Preisendörfer, P. (1998). Network Support and the Success of Newly

Founded Business. Small Business Economics, 10(3), 213-225.

Bruin, A. de, Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the Special Issue:

Towards Building Cumulative Knowledge on Women's Entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(5), 585–593.

VIII

Buttner, E. Holly, & Rosen, B. (1989). Funding New Business Ventures: Are

Decision Makers Biased Against Women? Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 249-

261.

Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in Emerging

Economies: Where Are We Today and Where Should the Research Go in the

Future. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 32(1), 1–14.

Burt, R. S. (1984). Network Items and the General Social Survey. Social networks,

6(4), 293.

Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition. Networks and organizations:

Structure, form, and action, 57, 91.

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology,

110(2), 349–399.

Carter, N., Brush, C., Greene, P., Gatewood, E., & Hart, M. (2003). Women

entrepreneurs who break through to equity financing: the influence of human,

social and financial capital. Venture Capital, 5(1).

comScore. (2013). 2013 India Digital Future in Focus. Retrieved from

http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2013/2013_

India_Digital_Future_in_Focus.

Das, S. S., & Das, A. (2014). India shining? A two-wave study of business constraints

upon micro and small manufacturing firms in India. International Small Business

Journal, (2), 180.

Datta, P. B., & Gailey, R. (2012). Empowering Women Through Social

Entrepreneurship: Case Study of a Women's Cooperative in India.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 569–587.

Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among

nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.

Davis, A. E., & Shaver, K. G. (2012). Understanding Gendered Variations in

Business Growth Intentions across the Life Course. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 36(3), 495–512.

IX

Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and

sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management

review, 23(4), 660–679.

Díaz García, M. Cristina, & Carter, S. (2009). Resource mobilization through

business owners' networks: Is gender an issue? International Journal of Gender

and Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 226–252.

Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2007). Networking by Entrepreneurs: Patterns of Tie-

Formation in Emerging Organizations. Organization Studies, 28(12), 1849–1872.

Fillis, I., & Rentschler, R. (2010). The role of creativity in entrepreneurship. Journal

of Enterprising Culture, (1).

Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class: and how it's transforming work,

leisure, community and everyday life: Basic Books.

Florida, R. L. (2007). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for

talent ; [updated with "The world is spiky"] (1. paperback-ed.). New York:

HarperCollins.

Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute. (2014). The Gender Global

Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI) Institute: A 30-country analysis

of the conditions that foster high-potential female entrepreneurship.

Godwin, L. N., Stevens, C. E., & Brenner, N. L. (2006). Forced to play by the rules?

Theorizing how mixed-sex founding teams benefit women entrepreneurs in male-

dominated contexts. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (5), 623.

Greene, P., Brush, C., & Brown, T. (1997). Resource configurations in new ventures:

Relationships to owner and company characteristics. Journal of Small Business

Strategy, (8), 25–40.

Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (1), 1.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American journal of sociology,

78, 1360–1380.

X

Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. Arzu, & Sikdar, A. (2009). The Role of Gender

Stereotypes in Perceptions of Entrepreneurs and Intentions to Become an

Entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(2), 397–417.

Gupta, V. K., Guo, C., Canever, M., Yim, H. R., Sraw, G. K., & Liu, M. (2014).

Institutional environment for entrepreneurship in rapidly emerging major

economies: the case of Brazil, China, India, and Korea. The International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, (2), 367.

Gupta, D. D. (2013). The Effect of Gender on Women-led Small Enterprises: The

Case of India. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 2(1),

61–75.

Hughes, K. D., Jennings, J. E., Brush, C., Carter, S., & Welter, F. (2012). Extending

Women's Entrepreneurship Research in New Directions. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 36(3), 429–442.

Handy, F., Kassam Meenaz, & Renade, S. (2002). Factors Influencing Women

Entrepreneurs of NGOs in India. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13,

139–154.

Hansen, E. L. (1995). Entrepreneurial networks and new organization growth.

Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (4), p7.

Hite, J. M., & Hesterly, W. S. (2001). The Evolution of Firm Networks: From

Emergence to Early Growth of the Firm. Strategic management journal, (3), 275.

Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A

critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.

Kantor, P. (2002). A Sectoral Approach to the Study of Gender Constraints on

Economic Opportunities in the Informal Sector in India. Gender & Society, 16(3),

285–302.

Kelley, D. J., Brush, C., Greene, P., & Litowski, Y. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship

Monitor 2012 Women’s Report.

Kemp, S. Social, Digital & Mobile Worldwide in 2014. Retrieved from

http://wearesocial.net/blog/2014/01/social-digital-mobile-worldwide-2014/

XI

Klyver, K., Hindle, K., & Meyer, D. (2008). Influence of social network structure on

entrepreneurship participation—A study of 20 national cultures. International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 331-347.

Kumari, S., & Deshpande, S. (2012). Women Entrepreneurship in India.

International Indexed and Refered Research Journal, 9(10).

Larson, A. (1992). Network Dyads in Entrepreneurial Settings: A Study of the

Governance of Exchange Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1),

76.

Larson, A., & Starr, J. A. (1993). A network model of organization formation.

Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (2),

Lechner, C., Dowling, M., & Welpe, I. (2006). Firm networks and firm development:

the role of the relational mix. Journal of Business Venturing, p. 514

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.

Llewelyn, D. J., & Wilson, K. M. (2003). The Controversial Role of Personality Traits

in Entrepreneurial Psychology. Education & Training, 45, 341–345.

Marković, M. R. (2007). The perspective of women's entrepreneurship in the age of

globalization: IAP.

Marlow, S. (2013). Exploring Future Research Agendas in the Field of Gender and

Entrepreneurship.

Marlow, S., Henry, C., & Carter, S. (2009). Exploring the impact of gender upon

women's business ownership.(Report). International Small Business Journal, (2),

139.

Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces,

63(2), 482–501.

Martinez, M. A., & Aldrich, H. E. (2011). Networking strategies for entrepreneurs:

balancing cohesion and diversity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behaviour & Research, 17(1), 7–38.

XII

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily

in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 415–444.

Mishra, S. Women Enterpreneurship Development in India.

Mueller, J. H., & Schuessler, K. (1962). Statistical Reasoning in Sociology. American

Sociological Review, 27(1), 133.

Neergaard, H., Nielsen, K. T., & Kjeldsen, J. I. (2006). State of the Art of Women’s

Entrepreneurship, Access to Financing and Financing Strategies in Denmark. In

C. Brush, N. Carter, E. Gatewood, P. Greene, & M. Hart (Eds.), Growth-oriented

Women Entrepreneurs and their Businesses . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social Sources of Information in Opportunity

Recognition : Effects of Mentors, Industry Networks, and Professional Forums.

Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 174–192.

Prasher, G. (2013, October 3). Safe journey: Women at the wheel will drive you

home. The Times of India. Retrieved from

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Safe-journey-Women-at-the-

wheel-will-drive-you-home/articleshow/23434433.cms

Pandian, S., S. P. Karuppasamy, & Jesurajan, S. Vargheese Antony. (2011). An

empirical investigation on the factors determining the success and problems faced

by women entrepreneurs in Tiruchirapalli District - Tamilnadu. Interdisciplinary

Journal of contemporary Research in Business, 3(3).

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Born to Be an Entrepreneur?: Revisiting the

Personality Approach to Entrepreneruship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron

(Eds.), The organizational frontiers series. The Psychology of Entrepreneurship .

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Renzulli, L. A., Aldrich, H., & Moody, J. (2000). Family matters: Gender, networks,

and entrepreneurial outcomes. Social Forces, 79(2), 523–546.

Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.

XIII

Reynolds, P. D. (1991). Sociology and entrepreneurship: concepts and

contributions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, (2), 47.

Ruef, M., Aldrich, H., & Carter, N. M. (2009). The structure of founding teams:

Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial

teams and new business creation, 32–59.

Sakaria, P. (2014). Top 15 safety applications for women in India for April 2014.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2006). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin: Duncker

& Humblot; Duncker und Humblot.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field

of research. Academy of management review, 25(1), 217–226.

Sharma, Y. (2013). Women Entrepreneur In India. IOSR Journal of Business and

Management, 15(3), 9–14.

Singh, R. P., Hills, G. E., Lumpkin, G. T., & Hybels, R. C. The Entrepreneurial

Opportunity Recognition Process: Examining The Role of Self-Perceived

Alertness and Social Networks.

Singh, R. P., Hills, G. E., Lumpkin, G. T., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). The entrepreneurial

opportunity recognition process: Examining the role of self-perceived alertness

and social networks. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, G1-G6.

Slotte-Kock, S., & Coviello, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship Research on Network

Processes: A Review and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

34(1), 31–57.

Smallbone, D., Welter, F., & Ateljevic, J. (2014). Entrepreneurship in emerging

market economies: contemporary issues and perspectives. International Small

Business Journal, (2), 113.

Spilling, O. (1991). Entrepreneurship in a cultural perspective. Entrepreneurship &

Regional Development, 3(1).

Steier, L., & Greenwood, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the Evolution of Angel

Financial Networks. Organization Studies (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.),

21(1), 163.

XIV

Stam, W. (2010). Industry Event Participation and Network Brokerage among

Entrepreneurial Ventures. Journal of Management Studies, (4), 625.

Strauss, A. L., Corbin, J. M., & Niewiarra, S. (1996). Grounded theory: Grundlagen

qualitativer sozialforschung: Beltz, Psychologie-Verlag-Union.

The Gender Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI). (2013). A

17-country pilot analysis of the conditions that foster high-potential female

entrepreneurship: Individual Country Pages.

Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic

performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review,

674–698.

Vita, L. de, Mari, M., & Poggesi, S. (2013). Women entrepreneurs in and from

developing countries: Evidences from the literature. European Management

Journal,

Wasserman, S. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications:

Cambridge university press.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and

applications. Structural analysis in the social sciences: Vol. 8. Cambridge, New

York: Cambridge university press.

Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and

ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.

Wolf, C. (2010). Egozentrierte Netzwerke: Datenerhebung und Datenanalyse. In C.

Stegbauer & R. Häußling (Eds.), Handbuch Netzwerkforschung (pp. 471–483).

VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Worldbank. Gender at Work: A Companion to the World Development Report on

Jobs.

Xu, Y. (2008). How important are entrepreneurial social capital and knowledge

structure in new venture innovation? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,

28(7), 1.

XV

Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in

competitive capabilities. Strategic management journal, 20(12), 1133.

XVI

6 Appendix

Appendix 1 – Interview Guideline for Semi-Structured Interview

- In the questionnaire you indicated you have x co-founders.

Tell me about them, how do you know each other, who are they?

- Please tell me about (Business Contact a, b, c, n), where did you get to know

each other? What is your relation? (+follow-up questions)

- How do you develop new contacts? (+follow-up questions)

- How do you maintain new contacts? (+follow-up questions)

- + questions emerging from questionnaire (see Appendix 2), e.g.

Why did you chose to start-up on your own?

Appendix 2 – Online Questionnaire7

Dear Entrepreneur,

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire for my thesis at Zeppelin

University and IIM Bangalore.

The aim of this research is to examine entrepreneur's networks and their access to

finance through a method called "Social Network Analysis". This includes

questions about people you are in contact with. Some questions may appear

repetitive, but I kindly ask you to answer all of them, as this data is really important!

7 Questions abbreviated for reading convenience. Only questions used in this document presented.

XVII

All data with respect to your company will be kept completely confidential.

Only the aggregated results of the data will be used in the thesis. No individual

or company specific data will be published in the thesis.

It will take approximately 25 minutes to fill out the survey.

1. First Name, Last Name

2. Please indicate your gender.

3. What’s your age?

4. What is your nationality?

5. What is your current marital status?

6. What’s the number of children you have?

7. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

8. How many years of work experience do you have?

9. We want to now, how actively you are involved in the company.

Do you work full-time or part-time?

10. You said you work part-time for the company. What is the reason for this?

11. Is this your first business?

12. In a typical month, how many hours do you spend:

a) Developing contacts (meeting new people) with whom you can discuss

business matters?

b) In a typical month, how many hours do you spend: Developing contacts

(meeting new people) with whom you can discuss business matters?

13. Business contacts

From time to time, most people discuss important business matters or

business plans with other people. Looking back over the past month: Please

identify the first name of up to ten (10) people with whom you regularly speak

about your business and discuss important matters -excluding

your core team members.

14. Please indicate [ contact ]’s gender.

15. What’s [ contact ]’s age?

16. What is [ contact ]’s profession?

XVIII

17. What is [ contact ]’s nationality?

18. What is the highest level of education [ contact ] has completed?

19. Please indicate how often you have contact with [ contact ]?

20. Once a Year, monthly, weekly, daily

21. How long have you known [ contact ] in years?

22. How would you describe your relation?

23. Family member (please specify, e.g. mother, brother...), Friend,

Acquaintance, Business Contact

24. Do [ contact6 ] and [ contact8 ] know each other? (for each combination of

contacts)

25. Information on your company

26. Company name

27. Which phase describes best the state in which your company is in?

28. Ideation / Discovery, Early Stage / Validation, Scale / Growth,Sector

29. Please indicate the gender of your co-founders.

30. Please briefly describe the product / service your company is offering.

31. How many people does your business employ, other than yourself?

32. Where is your company located?

XIX

Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung

Ich erkläre hiermit ehrenwörtlich, dass ich die vorliegende Masterarbeit

mit dem Thema:

„Networking among High-potential Female Entrepreneurs

An Empirical Study in India and Germany“

selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe angefertigt habe.

Die Übernahme wörtlicher Zitate sowie die Verwendung der Gedanken anderer

Autoren habe ich an den entsprechenden Stellen der Arbeit kenntlich gemacht.

Ich bin mir bewusst, dass eine falsche Erklärung rechtliche Folgen haben wird.

Ort, Datum Unterschrift

Lippstadt, 20.06.2014

networking among high-potential female entrepreneurs - an empirical study in india and germany

Small Business & Entrepreneurship