4UIE Article 15

Gender in Management: An International Journal
Motivational factors in a push-pull theory of entrepreneurship

Jodyanne Kirkwood,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jodyanne Kirkwood, (2009) "Motivational factors in a push‐pull theory of entrepreneurship",
Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 Issue: 5, pp.346-364, https://
doi.org/10.1108/17542410910968805
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/17542410910968805
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 09:51 27 September 2017 (PT)
Downloaded on: 27 September 2017, At: 09:51 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 87 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 14974 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1996),"Market segments of push and pull motivations: a canonical correlation approach",
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 32-38 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09596119610115989">https://doi.org/10.1108/09596119610115989</a>
(2011),"Understanding the relationship between push and pull motivations in rural tourism", Tourism
Review, Vol. 66 Iss 3 pp. 32-49 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/16605371111175311">https://
doi.org/10.1108/16605371111175311</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:616458 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2413.htm
GM
24,5 Motivational factors in a push-pull
theory of entrepreneurship
Jodyanne Kirkwood
346 Department of Management, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Received 19 January 2009

Revised 1 February 2009, Abstract
9 March 2009 Purpose – Entrepreneurial motivations are often defined as fitting into “push” or “pull” categories.
Accepted 11 March 2009 To date, research has focused on the factors motivating men and women separately. What is missing
from this research is an analysis of the comparative differences in these motivators of men and women,
and an exploration of what this means in terms of push-pull theory. This paper aims to contribute by
applying the existing theory on push and pull factors; and using a gender comparative approach to
explore the nature of potential gender differences within entrepreneurial motivations.
Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study uses a gender comparative approach in
semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 75 entrepreneurs (28 women and 47 men).
Findings – Findings suggest that both women and men appeared similarly motivated by a combination
of push and pull factors. Three gender differences were found in the incidence of motivations: women were
more influenced by a desire for independence; women considered their children as motivators more so than
did men; men were influenced more by job dissatisfaction than were women. The discussion focuses on
analysing the nature of gender differences rather than merely their incidence.
Research limitations/implications – A number of further research directions and questions are
posed as a way of extending the knowledge in this area. Implications for managers and entrepreneurs
are also presented.
Originality/value – Contributes to push-pull theory by offering a gender comparative approach to
advance theory.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Gender, Motivation (psychology), Job satisfaction, New Zealand
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
People have various motivations for becoming an entrepreneur. The primary theory
development around entrepreneurial motivations has been to classify motivations into
categories of push and pull factors (Hakim, 1989; McClelland et al., 2005; Schjoedt and
Shaver, 2007; Segal et al., 2005). Push factors are characterised by personal or external
factors (including a marriage break-up, or being passed over for promotion), and often
have negative connotations. Alternatively, pull factors are those that draw people to
start businesses – such as seeing an opportunity (Hakim, 1989). In general, pull factors
have been found to be more prevalent than push factors (Segal et al., 2005; Shinnar and
Young, 2008). This is significant because businesses started by entrepreneurs who
experienced push motivations are less successful (financially) than those built upon
pull factors (Amit and Muller, 1995).
Gender in Management: An While these studies sort entrepreneurs’ motivations in terms of push and pull
International Journal categories, little explanatory research has been undertaken to review push-pull theory
Vol. 24 No. 5, 2009
pp. 346-364 since the terms’ inception in the late 1980s. It is important that these categorisations are
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1754-2413
revisited as some important events since the time of these studies may have impacted
DOI 10.1108/17542410910968805 on the theory. Indeed, some would argue that push and pull theories may have changed
over recent years with the advent of the internet – by reducing barriers to entry into Motivational
business (Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007). Another factor which has changed since many of factors in a
these studies have been conducted is the changing world of work. As Arthur and
Rousseau (1996) suggest, the 1980s was dominated by the organisational career, but push-pull theory
this has overwhelmingly changed worldwide.
To date, researchers have focused relatively little attention on exploring whether there
are gender differences in the push and pull motivations for becoming an entrepreneur. 347
This omission is not an isolated case, as while there has been a strong research focus on
women entrepreneurs as a group, gender comparative research is still lacking in the
entrepreneurship field (Menzies et al., 2004). Ten years ago, Brush and Hisrich (1998, p. 156)
suggested that “the extent to which women create different organisations, or manage
differently from men is not well understood”. Another advent which may affect the
applicability of existing research on gender differences in push-pull theory is the
increasing numbers of women now choosing entrepreneurship as a career option. Women

are starting businesses at increasing rates globally (Devine, 1994; Minniti et al., 2004).
While there is strong growth in the numbers of women entrepreneurs, there remains a
large gender gap in participation in most countries. In the latest Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor study, women entrepreneurs are noted as collectively making an important
contribution to the global economy (Allen et al., 2008). While there is variation amongst
different countries, women’s contribution to entrepreneurship is particularly evident in
low and middle income countries (Allen et al., 2008). In all but two countries (Japan and
Peru), participation rates of women in entrepreneurship are still substantially lower than
men’s (in some countries this is half as much as men’s participation) (Allen et al., 2008). One
explanation for these lower participation rates of women compared to men in
entrepreneurship is that women have a lower propensity for entrepreneurship (Koellinger
et al., 2008). This may be related to the observation that women are less likely than men to
perceive themselves as entrepreneurs (Verheul et al., 2002), and some women don’t
consider themselves entrepreneurs in the male sense of the word (Stevenson, 1990). Thus,
entrepreneurship is described as male gendered (Ahl, 2003; Hyrsky, 1999; Verheul et al.,
2002) and often defined in a “masculine” way (Ahl, 2003; Holmquist and Sundin, 1998;
Ljunggren and Alsos, 2001; Simpson, 1991; Verheul et al., 2002). It is important to note that
recent studies have shown that women may be lured into entrepreneurship by their
continuing lack of progress within the workplace. This glass ceiling may be pushing
women into entrepreneurship (Devine, 1994; Winn, 2004). This is highlighted by research
which found women enter entrepreneurship having less managerial experience than men
(Terjersen, 2005).
The decision to use existing theories in this paper is significant. Recently, researchers
have argued that it may not be necessary to develop new theories to explain women’s
entrepreneurship (de Bruin et al., 2007a; de Bruin et al., 2007b; Langowitz and Minniti,
2007). They argue that it is not altogether productive to compare women entrepreneurs
to a male norm, but that research should focus on the process of entrepreneurship
(de Bruin et al., 2007b). Before proceeding it must also be noted that “objective and
reliable measurement of goals and motivations are difficult to achieve” (Amit and
Muller, 1995, p. 67). In fact, this positivist approach may not be desirable and researchers
in the field have suggested that gender comparative studies should focus on patterns of
variation instead of the traditionally measured average differences (de Bruin et al.,
2007a). This fits well with the objective of focusing on processes of entrepreneurship
GM rather than statistical differences between the genders. In taking this approach, I am also
24,5 conscious of not placing women as “other” or somehow secondary to men as is the case
for much of the entrepreneurship research (Ahl, 2006).
The overall purpose of this paper is therefore to contribute to and extend existing
theory on push and pull factors by using an exploratory gender comparative
qualitative study. Three research objectives underlie this paper:
348 (1) What motivates people to start a business?
(2) How do motivations fit in relation to push or pull factors?
(3) Explore whether there are gender differences in entrepreneurial motivation (and
explain the nature of any differences that emerge).
2. Literature review
The focus of this paper is on gender comparative studies of motivations for

entrepreneurship and theoretical contributions of push-pull theory. Some of this
research has suggested that women and men have relatively similar motivations for
entrepreneurship (Rosa and Dawson, 2006). On the whole though, the results of these
studies on the influence of gender on entrepreneurship are mixed and gender
comparative research is still an emerging area (Moore, 2004).
A review of the literature leads the author to conclude there are four key drivers of
entrepreneurial motivation. First, a desire for independence (and related factors such as
autonomy and greater control) is often cited as the number one motivating factor for
many people in becoming an entrepreneur (Alstete, 2003; Borooah et al., 1997; Cassar,
2007; Fox, 1998; Wilson et al., 2004). A desire for independence is primarily classed as a
pull factor. Few gender differences have been found in relation to independence (Marlow,
1997; Pinfold, 2001; Scott, 1986; Still and Soutar, 2001; Sundin and Holmquist, 1991).
Independence appears to be a similar motivator for both women and men in becoming an
entrepreneur, at least in countries where independence is part of a national culture that
strongly emphasises the responsibility that an individual (not a collective) has in
managing his or her own life (e.g. the USA (Frederick and Chittock, 2006)).
Monetary motivations are also usually classed as a pull factor. People are not
always motivated by money to start a business (DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Fischer
et al., 1993; Rosa and Dawson, 2006) but this has been found to be important in a study
of prospective entrepreneurs (Alstete, 2003). Some gender differences exist with regard
to money as a motivating factor (Borooah et al., 1997; DeMartino and Barbato, 2003;
Fischer et al., 1993; Marlow, 1997; Scott, 1986; Wilson et al., 2004). Economics research
also offers some insights into motivations for entrepreneurship (referred to as
self-employment). For example, Clain (2000) finds women place less emphasis on
money and more on non-wage components of self-employment. She also concludes that
women, who are historically low-wage earners, are pushed into entrepreneurship
whereas men (high-wage workers) are pulled into it (Clain, 2000). Later work from a
German study confirms these non-monetary aspects (e.g. time flexibility) of
self-employment to be significant (Georgellis and Wall, 2005). Alongside this
apparent lesser concern that women have for money when making entrepreneurial
decisions, recent work has shown that women are also less likely than men to seek
external finance for their businesses at start-up and also perceive there to be stronger
financial barriers than men (Sena et al., 2008).
Motivations to become an entrepreneur that relate to work are usually considered to Motivational
be push factors and are often a key factor that can influence the preparation for an factors in a
entrepreneurial career (Dobrev and Barnett, 2005; Winn, 2004). This category includes
issues such as unemployment, redundancy, and a lack of job or career prospects. Some push-pull theory
gender differences are found with respect to work (Borooah et al., 1997; Cromie, 1987a;
DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Hakim, 1989) but generally prior studies have shown few
gender differences in work-related motivators. This observation may be surprising 349
given the often gendered nature of the workplace. Indeed, while women’s participation in
the workforce has risen over the past 50 years or so, distinctions remain between the
work that women and men do, and the levels at which they operate in the workplace
(Powell and Butterfield, 2003; van de Lippe and van Dijk, 2002). As noted earlier,
the glass ceiling may impact women entering entrepreneurship, and women typically
have less managerial experience than men. Other research has concluded that women
have personal characteristics that are less highly valued in the workplace (Clain, 2000)
and this have the effect of pushing women into business ownership. This is significant
as women have been long found to lack networks (Aldrich, 1989), or have different
networks from men’s (Martin, 2001). Indeed, Terjersen (2005) found social capital
(“knowing whom”) was useful in becoming an entrepreneur. The women in her study
who had reached senior management positions within organisations were able to
leverage this relatively successfully.
A number of family-related factors have been found to be important, such as combining
waged and domestic labour (Still and Soutar, 2001), family policies and family obligations
(DeMartino and Barbato, 2003), fit with domestic commitments (Greenfield and Nayak,
1992), and a desire for work-family balance (Jennings and McDougald, 2007; Kirkwood
and Tootell, 2008). Family-related motivations for becoming an entrepreneur are often
labelled push factors and have been recently described as important to entrepreneurs of
both genders around the world (Verheul et al., 2006). These household and family issues
are recently being recognised as significant to explaining women’s entrepreneurship
(de Bruin et al., 2007b). Unlike the three other main categories of motivators, most of the
results in relation to family motivators showed statistically significant gender differences;
whereby women were more motivated than men by these factors.
In summary, while it can be seen that gender differences may be observed in
entrepreneurial motivations, relatively few studies actually offer gender comparative
approaches within their studies (Amit and Muller, 1995). In fact, many of the studies
are samples of women entrepreneurs and appear to be compared to some male norm
based on earlier research. Previous research has suggested that women may be more
motivated by push factors than by pull factors (Clain, 2000; Orhan and Scott, 2001). On
the contrary, Amit and Muller (1995) found women were more often pulled into
entrepreneurship than pushed into it. When comparing women’s motivations across
countries, McClelland et al. (2005) similarly found few push factors. These findings
contrast with other research which suggests that men are more often pulled into
business ownership than are women (Shinnar and Young, 2008). The results therefore
are mixed, and warrant further investigation.
3. Method
Entrepreneurship research has been primarily positivist in its paradigmatic stance to
date (Ahl, 2003; Curran and Blackburn, 2001; Grant and Perren, 2002; Lewis et al., 2007).
GM Of late, more research is being conducted within an interpretive paradigm and
24,5 qualitative approaches are becoming more widely accepted (Lewis et al., 2007; Perren
and Ram, 2004; Senenberger et al., 1990). Qualitative approaches are particularly useful
in areas that are not well advanced theoretically (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). This
is particularly pertinent given the problems pointed out in the literature review
regarding the measurement of motivations (Amit and Muller, 1995).
350 The majority of the prior research on entrepreneurial motivations has been from
positivist paradigms (see, for a review Kirkwood and Campbell-Hunt, 2007) and
observed from psychological perspectives (Segal et al., 2005). The resulting research
methods are concerned with hypothesis and theory testing, focusing on quantitative
methods, and taking a deductive approach to research (Shane et al., 1991). However,
given the motives for becoming an entrepreneur are often seen as multi-faceted (Mallon
and Cohen, 2001; Marlow and Strange, 1994), a “checklist” approach may be unable to
“capture the complexity of the decision process” (Stevenson, 1990, p. 442). In relation to
gender comparative studies specifically, researchers suggest we focus on patterns of
variation instead of these traditionally measured average differences (de Bruin et al.,
2007a). These concerns raise an interest in an interpretive paradigm, which may be
better suited to understanding such a complex phenomenon. In light of these issues,
semi-structured interviews were seen to be the most appropriate way of collecting data
to meet the objectives of this paper, outlined in the introduction. An interview schedule
was devised after a review of the literature and was sent to participants prior to the
interviews. Although the purpose of this phase of the study was to explore the research
problem from a different perspective, it is generally agreed that some focus on the
current literature was necessary (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser, 1978). The main aim
however was to allow respondents’ own constructions of terms and meanings to be
accessible to analysis, permitting more precise comparisons of gender differences in
motivations for becoming entrepreneurs.
The unit of analysis is the entrepreneur. Much research in entrepreneurship has been
focused at the firm level, and recently authors in women’s entrepreneurship have
suggested we focus more attention on the entrepreneur (de Bruin et al., 2007a). This seems
particularly pertinent when researching entrepreneurial motivations. For the purpose of
this paper, an entrepreneur is defined as a person (or a group of people) who creates a new
business (for profit) and employs at least one other paid employee. Thus, the focus is on
what motivates people to start businesses. In a similar way to the issues around research
paradigms discussed above, entrepreneurship studies employ various definitions and this
makes comparisons between studies to be somewhat difficult (Moore, 1990).
The sample emerged from a quantitative study that used the New Zealand Business
Who’s Who – a listing of businesses and their owners in New Zealand. The selection
process was based on entrepreneurs who met the definition of an entrepreneur, who
had started their businesses no longer than ten years prior, and also on the practical
need to minimize travel expenses. Interviews were held in five of New Zealand’s
largest cities – Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin and Invercargill.
This author interviewed all 75 participants in a face-to-face format. Interviews ranged
in time from 45 minutes to over three hours, and one part of the interview focused on
the participant’s spouse. Most interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes and
all were tape-recorded and transcribed. Some demographics of the sample are
presented in Table I, which shows that men and women participants were relatively
Motivational
Men (n ¼ 47) Men (%) Women (n ¼ 28) Women (%)
factors in a
Ethnic origin push-pull theory
Pakeha/European 45 95.7 26 92.9
Maori 1 2.1 1 3.6
Other 1 2.1 1 3.6
Age 351
Under 35 1 2.1 5 17.9
35-39 7 14.9 6 21.4
40-44 11 23.4 3 10.7
45-49 8 17.0 5 17.9
50þ 20 42.6 9 32.1
Industry
Service 25 53.2 17 60.7
Manufacturing 8 17.0 3 10.7

Retail 4 8.5 2 7.1
Other 10 21.3 6 21.4
Annual sales NZD (1NZD ¼ 0.35 GBP)
Under 100,000 7 14.9 4 14.3
100-500,000 9 19.1 10 35.7
500,000-1 million 18 38.3 8 28.6
Over 1 million 11 23.4 5 17.9
Undisclosed 2 4.2 1 3.6
Parents owned business 23 48.9 18 64.3 Table I.
Married or with a partner 45 95.7 23 82.1 Sample demographics
Children at time of start-up 41 87.2 15 53.6 by gender
similar across demographics such as industry, sales and ethnic origin. Gender
differences lie in the numbers of participants who had children at the time of starting
their business. Just over half of the women had children at this time, while 87 per cent
of men did so.
The QSR NUD *IST Vivo (Nvivo) software package was used for data management
(Richards, 2000). Using Nvivo, transcripts were coded according to themes, and
analysed using a constant comparison approach (Glaser, 1992). Phenomena were
labelled and categories were discovered which were then analysed in terms of their
properties and dimensions; and it is these concepts from which theory is able to be built
(Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The data were coded by paragraph and sentence as
proposed by Strauss and Corbin (1990), and the entire document was also viewed to see
if (and how) it differed from the previous transcript. Code notes were written from the
open coding procedure and these were our initial thoughts about important themes and
possible relationships and issues that seemed important to the participants. In this
paper, the issue of credibility and transferability was addressed in three main ways:
using convergent interviews, selecting quotes and contrary cases, and in the use of
tabulations. In addition, the issue of dependability cannot be ignored, and careful
documentation of procedures is required (Kirk and Miller, 1986). Silverman (2000)
offers two ways to increase reliability of qualitative research: by using field notes, and
assessing inter-coder agreement. Reliability was addressed by these two ways, and
also by tape recording the interviews.
GM 4. Findings
Table II illustrates the key motivating factors which participants described as being
24,5 important to their starting a business. This table is referred to in the following
discussion of findings.
4.1 Pull factors

352 As illustrated in Table II, five pull factors were found to be important motivators for
entrepreneurship. Two factors were discussed more frequently than others –
independence and money. The most often mentioned factor for both men and women
was a desire for independence. This finding mirrors prior studies in this respect; but
when looking at gender, more women were motivated by independence than were men,
in the current study. This contradicts prior studies where few gender differences have
been found in relation to independence (Marlow, 1997; Pinfold, 2001; Scott, 1986; Still
and Soutar, 2001; Sundin and Holmquist, 1991). While the incidence of independence as
a motivating factor appeared different for women and men, Table III shows that the
accounts of both women and men were similar however. Participants of both genders
talked of the desire for control over their destiny and wanting to be their own boss. For
example, “feeling of being in charge of your own destiny” (Ann) and “didn’t want to be
controlled” (Jess) were common amongst both genders.
The second most prevalent pull factor was monetary motivations. Prior studies
observed that people are not always motivated by money to start a business (DeMartino
and Barbato, 2003; Fischer et al., 1993; Rosa and Dawson, 2006). The current paper also
found money to be discussed by participants in around a quarter of cases. As with the
discussion on independence above, analysis of the quotations in Table III show similarities
between women and men’s views on monetary motivations. In many examples,
participants had varying goals with respect to money, such as “wanted to be a millionaire”
(Jean), to some of the men’s accounts which described wanting to provide financially for
their children – “I wanted to provide them [kids] with the right lifestyle” (Steve).
The other three motivators appeared relatively less often in participants’ accounts
of why they started a business. A desire for a challenge/need for achievement has
Men ðn ¼ 47Þ Women ðn ¼ 28Þ

n (%) n (%)
Pull factors
Independence 16 33 14 50
Money 13 27 6 21
Challenge/achievement 7 15 1 4
Saw opportunity 5 10 0
Lifestyle 4 8 4 14
Total pull incidences 45 25
Push factors
Job dissatisfaction 23 48 9 32
Changing world of work 13 27 5 18
Helped by employer 8 17 5 18
Children (of those participants with children) 9/41 22 10/15 75
Total push incidences 53 29
Table II.
Push and pull motivators Note: In most participants more than one motivating factor was apparent
Pull factors Men Women
Independence I certainly didn’t see any future in working for anybody else so it It is that feeling of being in charge of your own destiny it is that
was a conscious decision to move into business – Aaron freedom – Ann
I might as well do it for myself and I guess that gave me the There is a false sense of feeling sort of like in control – Beth
confidence to be able to actually start my own business – Jim I refuse to conform to jobs – Jess
I thought I could do this myself, I’ll go and set up myself – Ted I wanted to work for myself and enjoy that flexibility – Lisa
Control is always a good thing – Gordon I just really wanted to strike out on my own and I did it with
You have the freedom to choose what you want to do – Steve virtually no thought really – Beth
I always wanted to work for myself since the year dot – Craig I like my independence – Emma
Well for me it is more independence – Don I really really really didn’t want to be controlled so I wanted to be
You’re controlling your own destiny – Craig the one to be making choices and decisions and that sort of thing so
I don’t like not having total control of everything, I like to do it was quite a strong desire to be self-employed – Jess
everything – John Freedom I think yourself and independence – Ruth
I was committed to was to be my own boss and doing interesting That was something we always decided we were going to do – Sue
work with interesting people – Keith
I had set myself at the age of 50 that I wanted to be running my own
business – Keith
I always knew I wanted to start my own company, I always knew
that at some time I would know intuitively that the time was right –
Steve
Money One of the compelling reasons was that I had kids that in three or Hugely – Cath
four years time were going to be teenagers, and they were going to I always wanted to be a millionaire (Laugh) so that was one of the
be very expensive and demanding as teenagers are, and I wanted to little things at the back of mind – Jean
be able to provide them with the right lifestyle [. . .] And that was a I would like to say no, the truth of the matter it is yes – Kay
major driving force in starting my own company – Steve
I am doing [it] for my kids . . . I am there to provide them the best
opportunities – Brent
I am in it for the money yeah – Don
Really wanted to increase my income ultimately just to buy myself
more freedom – Gerry
Yes we are in it for the money – John
You asked if I was money motivated and I said no, the answer is
yes. Of course I am – Monty
Three reasons for being in business – meet a lot of people, have a
lot of fun, make a lot of money. That’s it – Jason
Motivational
participants experiencing
push-pull theory
Example quotes of
pull factors
Table III.
353
factors in a
GM shown gender differences in prior research (to “achieve something and recognition for
24,5 it”) (Shane et al., 1991). Mixed results have been found previously with respect to
challenge, where studies have found women are more motivated than men by a desire
for a challenge (Scott, 1986), but Still and Soutar’s (2001) later result which shows men
are more motivated than women by meeting new challenges. Seeing an opportunity
was not a motivator that emerged in many instances in this paper (five men and no
354 women). Earlier studies have not found gender differences in this factor (Fox, 1998;
Honig-Haftel and Marin, 1986). Alongside these two motivators, lifestyle was described
by four men and four women as motivating them to start a business. This factor has
not emerged in prior studies of entrepreneurs in general, but recently, studies of
ecopreneurs and craft entrepreneurs have found lifestyle considerations to be
motivators for entrepreneurship (Cato et al., 2008; Fillis, 2003). This could also be
related to family motivators (children), discussed in the following section.
4.2 Push factors

Table II indicates that push factors were slightly more prevalent than pull factors for
both women and men. Four key push factors were found to be important to the
entrepreneurs in this paper; dissatisfaction with a job, being helped by an employer,
the changing world of work and motivations regarding children. Table IV provides a
range of example quotations for each of these factors and should be consulted
alongside the following discussion.
Job dissatisfaction featured strongly for 23 men and nine women participants. There
was a continuum of levels of dissatisfaction, ranging from particularly bad
experiences, to dissatisfaction with the general organisational culture and office
politics. For some participants in this paper, job dissatisfaction was so intense that
they felt a sense of wanting to “show” their previous employer how a business should
be operated, and set up in direct competition to them. In these instances there was often
a rather long and drawn out process of the participant offering suggestions and advice
about how to do the job better and in turn reduce their own dissatisfaction. Often this
was rebuffed by the organisation and led to the employee wanting some form of
“revenge” by doing it better in a new company. The literature review reported some
gender differences with respect to work-related motivators (Borooah et al., 1997;
Cromie, 1987a; DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Hakim, 1989) and this paper is no
exception. Being dissatisfied with a job (e.g. being unappreciated or suggestions for
improvement being ignored) was often the trigger for many male participants to leave
employment and start a business. While greater numbers of men reported being
motivated by factors around job dissatisfaction, their experiences appeared relatively
similar to those of women (Table IV). On a positive note, women in this paper did not
appear to be affected by the glass ceiling, which other studies have shown to be a
motivating factor for women in becoming an entrepreneur (de Bruin et al., 2007a).
Alongside job dissatisfaction, changes occurring within workplaces were mentioned
by 13 men and five women (only four of the participants in this paper were actually made
redundant from their job). For the women and men participants who were faced with the
changing world of work, this was not a wholly negative experience and offered a “push”
into business ownership. Research contests that push and pull theories may have
changed over recent years with the changing world of work. Examples of such changes
in the workplace were shown as push factors in this paper. Additionally, three-quarters
Push factors Men Women
Job dissatisfaction I was so, so unhappy with where I was [. . .] and I just thought, The first was, we [business partner] could do it better, and that
I would do anything to get out of this – Ross company taught me so much of what not to do. And the second
It was kind of like being in the war together – Pete thing is that I really had it in for them – Cath
I hated it, absolutely hated it – Marty So, I decided after one day when I had a very bad (laugh) day
Had a very controlling, domineering and emotionally difficult and wasn’t appreciated, then I would go and do it for myself –
boss, and that sort of in the end, made life difficult for me, Jean
because I was a high achiever – Harry
Changing world [. . .] tell you one thing that was a really major stimulation in [. . .] it meant that we had a contract that we had won literally
of work terms of going into my own business was I saw a number of my the week before, and there wasn’t a company to do it, so I had to
friends being made redundant – Steve really pick it up because of its unusual nature – Diane
[. . .] yeah, I was happy but [company name] have a saying that I was made redundant but I didn’t get any redundancy pay [. . .]
– “don’t bring your lunch, and then don’t bring any morning and I just thought “oh this is not working for me” – Lana
tea” (Laugh) – Craig
Family The reason I am doing this I suppose, ultimately it is for the [. . .] because I wanted the flexibility. I was very happy being
family, so no – everything I do here pretty much fits around the employed up to the point of having children but I wanted to be
family – Gerry around for them at the right times [. . .] It’s meant the business
Child was] just born, I needed to change where I was, I just has grown a lot slower than it might have and I found that once
needed to change where I was, I suppose my commitment to you know children were totally out of the way and my focus
family was higher than my commitment to the employer – Pete was totally on the business, it really started to grow more –
Elly
[. . .] starting a business] I felt it would be good for my children.
It means that I was home with the kids, it meant that I could
add to the coffers – Jean
I toyed with working for a corporate because working for
yourself can be quite tough at times, I would have been out the
door at five to seven, and not back to seven, I would never have
seen my kids, so I have the best of the both worlds – Sarah
For both of us family is the number one priority, we are not out
to make millions of dollars – Lisa
Helped by employer I thank him to this day really for giving me that opportunity
and year, it was the big move – Larry
Motivational
participants experiencing
push-pull theory
Example quotes of
push factors
355
factors in a
Table IV.
GM of the women participants who had children showed some evidence of kaleidoscope
24,5 thinking – whereby they defined their careers in relation to their values and life choices
(Sullivan et al., 2007).
Some of the participants received assistance from their previous employer to start their
business (eight men, five women). In most of these cases, this help proved to be a
compelling motivation to start their own business. In Sarah’s case, restructuring led to her
356 position being “outsourced”, so this offered her the impetus to start her own business.
Sarah feels she “was nudged into doing my own thing”. In contrast to the women
participants’ experiences with their employers, some of the men who were assisted by their
employers were in management positions and were able to negotiate financially
rewarding assistance. For example, when Todd indicated that he was going to leave, the
company was desperate to keep him, so they agreed that he could set up his own business
while still working for them. They allowed him time during work to establish his business
and also gave him access to their customer base. In Craig’s case, he negotiated tangible
financial benefits (“I got six months [free] rental on the office building”) from his employer
because of his tenure and position with the organisation. What are different here are the
levels of tangible “benefits” that were gained between women and men participants. In the
case of the women participants, two actually worked on contract for their previous
employers, while the other two were given the chance to start their own businesses but
were not given any material assistance for their efforts. In contrast, three of the eight men
were in management positions and had significantly greater assistance from their
employer than did the women participants or the other two men. Unlike other push factors,
these examples of an employer pushing (or nudging as noted by one participant) people
into an entrepreneurial career does not necessarily have the negative connotation that
other push factors tend to have. This factor may be a significant finding as it has not
appeared in prior studies of entrepreneurial motivation.
Of those entrepreneurs who had children, greater numbers of women (75 per cent)
were motivated by their children, compared to men (22 per cent). Beneath these
percentages, this paper found that women and men were influenced differently by their
children in their motivations to create a new venture. Women participants spoke of
concern for their children’s well-being, in terms of wanting to be there emotionally for
their children. They also talked about their decision to become an entrepreneur in
relation to practical reasons as well as their children’s emotional needs. Two women
comment on their motivations: “Because I wanted the flexibility” (Elly) and “It means
that I was home with the kids” (Jean). These excerpts sum up the thoughts of most of
the women who had children at the time of starting their venture. In comparison,
almost all of the men had children when they started their business but were not
involved in their actual day-to-day care. However, men spoke of their breadwinner role
in the family (as discussed above in monetary motivations), and how they felt
pressured to provide for their children in material ways. The following quotation sums
this up: “Yes, I was very conscious of the need that the children had a stable platform”
(Gerry); and other examples in Table IV support this mindset. Given these financial
concerns towards their children, having children may have strengthened their
motivations to become an entrepreneur because of their need to play the role of
financial provider for the family. These household and family issues have been termed
“motherhood”, and researchers argue that they are significant to explaining women’s
entrepreneurship (de Bruin et al., 2007b).
5. Discussion and implications for managers and entrepreneurs Motivational
Table II illustrates that entrepreneurs were not motivated by a single factor, and the factors in a
majority described multiple motivations for starting a new business. These findings
therefore support previous research that suggests motivations for entrepreneurship are push-pull theory
complex and intertwined (Kirkwood and Campbell-Hunt, 2007; Mallon and Cohen,
2001). However, few prior studies have focused on understanding whether gender
differences exist in the push and pull motivations for becoming an entrepreneur. As 357
outlined in the literature review, inconclusive results of extant research around gender
differences in motivations for entrepreneurship exists. Some suggested that women
may be more motivated by push factors than by pull factors (Orhan and Scott, 2001),
while others found the reverse (Amit and Muller, 1995; Shinnar and Young, 2008). This
paper generally agrees with others that women and men have relatively similar types
of motivations for entrepreneurship (Rosa and Dawson, 2006). At a broad level, the
incidence of pull and push factors are almost equally apparent for both women and
men participants in the paper; but some more subtle gender differences emerged when
analysing the rich qualitative data more fully. For instance, prior quantitative research
indicated women seemed to place less emphasis on money as a motivation for
entrepreneurship and more on other factors such as family flexibility (Clain, 2000;
Georgellis and Wall, 2005). The current paper allows these findings to be supported by
gender comparative empirical research, and also provides a greater understanding on
exactly what non-monetary factors influenced women and men in their motivations for
entrepreneurship.
As noted earlier, being pulled into business ownership means entrepreneurs are
likely to have ongoing financial success (Amit and Muller, 1995). While push factors
were slightly more visible in the current paper the author suggests both pull and push
factors could be observed acting in combination. However, the entrepreneurs in this
paper may be still likely to succeed because of this combination. While women were
pulled into entrepreneurship in a remarkably similar way to men, the push factors they
experienced were largely related to their families (flexibility with children). This
finding is significant because women considered (in advance of starting the business)
the potential difficulties of integrating their family and the business. This may bode
well for the sustainability of women’s businesses in the longer term, given that they
have already considered the potential effects of the business on their families.
Additionally, two of the factors labelled as push motivators may have had more
positive connotations than previous categories of push factors. These were, being
helped by an employer, and the changing world of work. These factors acted like a
trigger point, and appeared to work in combination with other push and pull factors.
Some have termed these “critical incidents” (McClelland et al., 2005).
There is little doubt that job dissatisfaction would arise as an issue for these
participants, as much prior research has indicated this to be an important driver for
people to leave employment and become entrepreneurs (Brockhaus, 1980; Cromie,
1987b; Honig-Haftel and Marin, 1986; Mallon and Cohen, 2001; Stoner and Fry, 1982).
More recently, the opposite conclusions have been reached, however this was in a
sample of nascent entrepreneurs. These results showed that the decision to leave
employment was not due to job dissatisfaction (Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007).
The present paper finds many examples of job dissatisfaction, but it also identifies
some differences from the findings of previous research. Prior research suggests that
GM people who are dissatisfied with their jobs tend to start businesses that are different to
24,5 their workplace. On the other hand, those who are more driven by an
opportunity/growth are more likely to go into a similar business (Stoner and Fry,
1982). For some participants in this paper, job dissatisfaction was so intense that they
felt a sense of wanting to “show” their previous employer how a business should be
operated and set up in direct competition to them. In these instances, there was often a
358 rather long and drawn out process of the participant offering suggestions and advice
about how to do the job better and in turn reduce their own dissatisfaction. Oftentimes
this was rebuffed by the organisation and led to the employee wanting some form of
revenge in the form of a new company doing it better. However, another point to note is
that there is often a distinct time lag between when participants become dissatisfied
with their jobs and finally taking the decision to leave an organisation. Therefore, there
is a chance that if employers listen more closely to their employees’ concerns and action
their suggestions for improvement, the employees may not leave (and therefore may be
less likely to set up a business as a direct competitor).
One final implication of this paper is for managers and entrepreneurs. In a tight
labour market, retaining good employees is an important focus for many organisations.
The results of this paper show that New Zealand employers may not be in a position to
stop people leaving to become entrepreneurs as the desire to be an entrepreneur is
already strong. However, in countries where the level of entrepreneurship is not as
high, this may not be the case. In these situations, it may be that there are fewer factors
that pull a person into entrepreneurship. Therefore, in such situations, employers may
have more confidence that their employees will stay in the job. However, this may be
made more difficult as the worldwide trend is towards employees opting out of
traditional linear careers in organisations (Mainiero and Sullivan, 2006). The high level
of entrepreneurship in New Zealand and other entrepreneurial countries may also
affect entrepreneurs themselves. While participants in this paper wanted to start their
own business after a career within an organisation, it is also likely that some of their
own employees will want to leave to become entrepreneurs. This may be seen as a
negative consequence of employing people (in terms of the investment of training and
development), particularly if the employee is using the workplace as an incubator to
start a similar business. An alternative view of such a situation is that some
entrepreneurs could view this as an opportunity to collaborate with their departing
employees on future additional business ventures.
6. Conclusion
Overall, while the types of motivators described by participants in this paper were
similar between women and men, the interactions and manifestations of these push
and pull factors appeared to differ. Thus, this paper contributes to the field by moving
beyond being concerned only with the existence of gender differences, to exploring the
nature of gender differences in the motivations for becoming an entrepreneur. Using
qualitative methods to explore entrepreneurial motivations uncovers different
“answers”; and the continuing focus on positivist approaches will not highlight the
many differences that an interpretive approach can illuminate. One of the key purposes
of this research is to review whether existing theory adequately explains
entrepreneurial motivations – given the increasing numbers of women entering
entrepreneurship and the lowering of some barriers to entrepreneurship. The author
agrees with recent propositions that new theories are not always necessary in order to Motivational
explain women’s entrepreneurship (de Bruin et al., 2007a, b; Langowitz and Minniti, factors in a
2007). This paper finds relatively few gender differences in motivations but suggests
existing push-pull theory should recognise importance of the role of children, referred push-pull theory
to by others as the “motherhood” aspect of women’s entrepreneurship (de Bruin et al.,
2007b). Women assessed the likely impact their decision to become an entrepreneur
would have on their families. The women in this paper considered their relationships 359
with others in their decision – should those relationships have been in jeopardy they
may not have continued with the decision to become an entrepreneur. Therefore,
women’s motivations to become an entrepreneur are strongly affected by relational
thinking, as has been found in studies of women making entrepreneurship and other
career decisions (Lirio et al., 2007; Mainiero and Sullivan, 2006). These relational
approaches are also apparent in the ways women entrepreneurs manage their
businesses where women employed relationship-based management strategies

(Farr-Wharton and Brunetto, 2009).
While this paper contributes new findings to the field, there is still more work to be
done by researchers. In further research, studies would therefore benefit from the
conclusions in this paper and others by placing more emphasis on the family as a
motivator for becoming an entrepreneur. It has been argued recently that the
household context plays a significant role in women’s entrepreneurship and it may
explain some gender differences (de Bruin et al., 2007b), and this is certainly a worthy
avenue for further research. The rationale for individuals to transition from an
organisational career to an entrepreneurial career is still under-researched and not fully
understood in comparison to some other motivational factors like independence and
family-related factors. These career related decisions have begun to receive some
attention recently in the form of qualitative studies (Mainiero and Sullivan, 2006; Peel
and Inkson, 2004; Terjersen, 2005) and this paper offers some insights into the nature of
these career decisions. Further work on the factors around the decision to leave
organisational employment would be insightful – extending work done on the impact
of wage variations in paid employment and the impact of the glass ceiling on women
managers’ decisions to leave and start their own businesses.
Additionally, while motivations for entrepreneurship appear to be intertwined, these
findings do not allow the researcher to rank-order the motivations in terms of their
importance. Others have noted the difficulty in assessing the magnitude of each
motivation (Shane et al., 2003). In interpreting the findings, the researcher has taken
advice from a recent study which suggested that gender comparative studies focus on
patterns of variation rather than average differences (de Bruin et al., 2007a). Some other
methodological points are also pertinent to consider in undertaking future research on
entrepreneurial motivations. This paper has alluded to some weaknesses in much of the
prior research on motivations for becoming an entrepreneur that relate to the dominance
of quantitative methodologies. This may be merely extending the traditional yes/no
measures of motivations to interval scales, where the relative importance of various
motivations can be gauged (Taormina and Lao, 2007). Furthermore, because
entrepreneurs are individuals and their motivations are diverse, it seems useful to
suggest that more researchers consider using interpretive approaches.
Finally, every study has limitations. Those in this paper focus on retrospective
recall and the context for the paper. Researchers often only have retrospective accounts
GM to rely on, and there are potential issues with accuracy of recall in many methodologies
24,5 (Mangione, 1995). Attempts were made to minimise elapsed time between events and
data collection but there is still potential for inaccuracy because the businesses were up
to ten years old at the time of the interview. In a related point, while this paper focused
on the motivations for becoming an entrepreneur, others have noted that motivations
may differ over different steps of the entrepreneurship process (Shane et al., 2003). This
360 paper does not investigate such changes in motivations over time. The country context
is also a factor that should be considered when interpreting the findings discussed here
and their applicability to other countries. New Zealand has been found to have a high
level of entrepreneurship (particularly entrepreneurs who are pulled into
entrepreneurship). In countries where the level of entrepreneurship is not as high as
in New Zealand, there are likely to be fewer factors that pull a person into
entrepreneurship and findings may differ accordingly.
References
Ahl, H.J. (2003), Ways to Study the Text of Entrepreneurship, Scandinavian Academy of
Management, Reykjavik.
Ahl, H.J. (2006), “Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 595-621.
Aldrich, H. (1989), “Networking among women entrepreneurs”, in Hagan, O., Rivchun, C. and
Sexton, D.L. (Eds), Networking among Women Entrepreneurs, Praeger, New York, NY.
Allen, I.E., Elam, A., Langowitz, N. and Dean, M. (2008), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2007
Report on Women and Entrepreneurship, The Center for Women’s Leadership at Babson
College, Babson Park, MA.
Alstete, J. (2003), “On becoming an entrepreneur: an evolving typology”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 222-34.
Amit, R. and Muller, E. (1995), “Push and pull entrepreneurship (two types based on
motivation)”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 64-80.
Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (1996), “Boundaryless career as a new employment principle”,
in Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career as a New Employment
Principle, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Borooah, V.K., Collins, G., Hart, M. and MacNabb, A. (1997), “Women in business”, in Deakins, D.,
Jennings, P. and Mason, C. (Eds), Small Firms: Entrepreneurship in the Nineties, Paul
Chapman Publishing, London.
Brockhaus, R.H.S. (1980), “The effect of job dissatisfaction on the decision to start a business”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-43.
Brush, C.G and Hisrich, R.D. (1988), “Women entrepreneurs: strategic origins impact on growth”,
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Cassar, G. (2007), “Money, money, money? A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneur career
reasons, growth preferences and achieved growth”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 19, pp. 89-107.
Cato, M.S., Arthur, L., Keenoy, T. and Smith, R. (2008), “Entrepreneurial energy: associative
entrepreneurship in the renewable energy sector in wales”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 313-29.
Clain, S. (2000), “Gender differences in full-time self-employment”, Journal of Economics and
Business, Vol. 52, pp. 499-513.
Cromie, S. (1987a), “Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs”, Journal of Motivational
Occupational Behaviour, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 251-61.
factors in a
Cromie, S. (1987b), “Similarities and differences between women and men who choose business
proprietorship”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 43-60. push-pull theory
Curran, J. and Blackburn, R.A. (2001), Researching the Small Enterprise, Sage, London.
de Bruin, A., Brush, C. and Welter, F. (2007a), “Advancing a framework for coherent research on
women’s entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, 361
pp. 323-40.
de Bruin, A., Welter, F. and Brush, C. (2007b), What We Know About the “Mothers of Invention”:
An Overview and Research Agenda, International Council for Small Business, Turku.
DeMartino, R. and Barbato, R. (2003), “Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:
exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 815-32.
Devine, T.J. (1994), “Changes in wage-and-salary returns to skill and the recent rise in female
self-employment”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 108-13.
Dobrev, S. and Barnett, W. (2005), “Organizational roles and transition to entrepreneurship”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 433-49.
Edmondson, A. and McManus, S. (2007), “Methodological fit in management field research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1155-79.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Farr-Wharton, R. and Brunetto, Y. (2009), “Female entrepreneurs as managers: the role of social
capital in facilitating a learning culture”, Gender in Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 14-31.
Fillis, I. (2003), “Image, reputation and identity issues in the arts and crafts organization”,
Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 239-51.
Fischer, E.M., Reuber, A.R. and Dyke, L.S. (1993), “A theoretical overview and extension of
research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 151-68.
Fox, M.A. (1998), “Motivations and aspirations of self-employed Maori in New Zealand”, working
paper, Lincoln University, Canterbury.
Frederick, H. and Chittock, G. (2006), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Aotearoa New Zealand:
2005 Executive Report, Unitec, Auckland.
Georgellis, Y. and Wall, H.J. (2005), “Gender differences in self-employment”, International
Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 321-42.
Glaser, B.G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory,
The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.
Grant, P. and Perren, L. (2002), “Small business and entrepreneurial research: meta-theories,
paradigms and prejudices”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 185-211.
Greenfield, S. and Nayak, A. (1992), “The management information needs of very small
businesses: gender differences”, in Welford, R. (Ed.), The Management Information Needs
of Very Small Businesses: Gender Differences, European Research Press, Bradford.
Hakim, C. (1989), “New recruits to self-employment in the 1980s”, Employment Gazette, June,
pp. 286-97.
GM Holmquist, C. and Sundin, E. (1998), “Women as entrepreneurs in Sweden: conclusions from a
survey”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
24,5 Honig-Haftel, S. and Marin, L.R. (1986), “Is the female entrepreneur at a disadvantage?”, Thrust:
The Journal for Employment and Training Professionals, Vol. 7 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-64.
Hyrsky, K. (1999), “Entrepreneurial metaphors and concepts: an exploratory study”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 13-34.
362 Jennings, J. and McDougald, M. (2007), “Work-family interface experiences and coping strategies:
implications for entrepreneurship research and practice”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 747-60.
Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage, Beverly
Hills, CA.
Kirkwood, J. and Campbell-Hunt, C. (2007), “Using multiple paradigm research methodologies to
gain new insights into entrepreneurial motivations”, Journal of Enterprising Culture,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 219-41.

Kirkwood, J. and Tootell, B. (2008), “Is entrepreneurship the answer to achieving work-family
balance?”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 285-302.
Koellinger, P., Minniti, M. and Schade, C. (2008), “Seeing the world with different eyes: gender
differences in perceptions and the propensity to start a business”, Tinbergen Institute
discussion paper 035/3, Tinbergen Institute, Tinbergen.
Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007), “The entrepreneurial propensity of women”,
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 341-65.
Lewis, K., Massey, C. and Harris, C. (2007), “Learning by doing: six dimensions of complexity
in researching SMEs”, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 151-75.
Lirio, P., Lituchy, T.R., Monserrat, S.I., Olivas-Lujan, M.R., Duffy, J.A., Fox, S., Gregory, A.,
Punnett, B.J. and Santos, N. (2007), “Exploring career-life success and family social support
of successful women in Canada, Argentina and Mexico”, Career Development
International, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-50.
Ljunggren, E. and Alsos, G. (2001), “Media expressions of entrepreneurs: frequency, content and
appearance of male and female entrepreneurs”, paper presented at the Babson-Kauffman
Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Jonkoping.
McClelland, E., Swail, J., Bell, J. and Ibbotson, P. (2005), “Following the pathway of female
entrepreneurs: a six-country investigation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 84-107.
Mainiero, L. and Sullivan, S. (2006), Opt-Out Revolt: Why People Are Leaving Companies to
Create Kaleidoscope Careers, Davies-Black Publishing, Mountain View, CA.
Mallon, M. and Cohen, L. (2001), “Time for a change? women’s accounts of the move from
organizational careers to self-employment”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 217-30.
Mangione, T.W. (1995), Mail Surveys: Improving the Quality, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Marlow, S. (1997), “Self-employed women – new opportunities, old challenges?”,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 9, pp. 199-210.
Marlow, S. and Strange, A. (1994), “Female entrepreneurs – success by whose standards?”,
in Tanton, M. (Ed.), Female Entrepreneurs – Success by Whose Standards?, Routledge,
London.
Martin, L. (2001), “Are women better at organisational learning? An SME perspective”, Women
in Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 287-96.
Menzies, T.V., Diochon, M. and Gasse, Y. (2004), “Examining venture-related myths concerning Motivational
women entrepreneurs”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 89-108.
factors in a
Minniti, M., Arenius, P. and Langowitz, N. (2004), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report on
Women and Entrepreneurship, The Center for Women’s Leadership at Babson College, push-pull theory
Boston, MA.
Moore, D.P. (1990), “An examination of present research on the female entrepreneur – suggested
research strategies for the 1990s”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 275-81. 363
Moore, D.P. (2004), “The entrepreneurial woman’s career model: current research and a
typological framework”, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 23 Nos 7/8, pp. 78-98.
Orhan, M. and Scott, D. (2001), “Why women enter into entrepreneurship: an explanatory model”,
Women in Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 232-43.
Peel, S. and Inkson, K. (2004), “Contracting and careers: choosing between self and organizational
employment”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 542-58.
Perren, L. and Ram, M. (2004), “Case-study method in small business and entrepreneurial
research: mapping boundaries and perspectives”, International Small Business Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 83-101.
Pinfold, J.E. (2001), “The expectations of new business founders: the New Zealand case”, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 279-85.
Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (2003), “Gender, gender identity, and aspirations to top
management”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 88-97.
Richards, L. (2000), Using NVivo in Qualitative Research, QSR International, Victoria.
Rosa, P. and Dawson, A. (2006), “Gender and the commercialization of university science:
academic frontiers of spinout companies”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 341-66.
Schjoedt, L. and Shaver, K.G. (2007), “Deciding on an entrepreneurial career: a test of the pull and
push hypotheses using the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics data”,
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 733-52.
Scott, C.E. (1986), “Why more women are becoming entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 37-44.
Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), “The motivation to become an entrepreneur”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Sena, V., Scott, J.M. and Roper, S. (2008), “Entrepreneurial choice, gender differentials and access to
finance”, paper presented at Prowess Annual International Conference, Peterborough.
Senenberger, W., Loveman, G.W. and Piore, M.J. (Eds) (1990), The Re-emergence of Small
Enterprises, International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva.
Shane, S., Kolvereid, L. and Westhead, P. (1991), “An exploratory examination of the reasons
leading to new firm formation across country and gender”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 431-46.
Shane, S., Locke, E.A. and Collins, C. (2003), “Entrepreneurial motivation”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 13, pp. 257-79.
Shinnar, R. and Young, C. (2008), “Hispanic immigrant entrepreneurs in the Las Vegas
metropolitan area: motivations for entry into and outcomes of self-employment”, Journal of
Small Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 242-62.
Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, Sage, London.
Simpson, S.M. (1991), “Women entrepreneurs”, in Firth-Cozens, J. and West, M.A. (Eds), Women
Entrepreneurs, Open University Press, Buckingham.
GM Stevenson, L.A. (1990), “Some methodological problems associated with researching women
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 439-46.
24,5 Still, L.V. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), Generational and Gender Differences in the Start-up Goals and
Later Satisfaction of Small Business Proprietors, Australia and New Zealand Academy of
Management (ANZAM), Auckland.
Stoner, C.R. and Fry, F.L. (1982), “The entrepreneurial decision: dissatisfaction or opportunity”,
364 Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 20, pp. 39-44.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Sullivan, S., Forret, M., Mainiero, L. and Terjersen, S. (2007), “What motivates entrepreneurs? An
exploratory study of the Kaleidoscope career model and entrepreneurship”, The Journal of
Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 4-19.
Sundin, E. and Holmquist, C. (1991), “Growth of women entrepreneurship – push or pull
factors?”, in Davies, L.G. and Gibb, A.A. (Eds), The Growth of Women Entrepreneurship –
Push or Pull Factors?, Avebury, Aldershot.
Taormina, R.J. and Lao, S.K.-M. (2007), “Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial motivations:
personality and environmental influences”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 200-21.
Terjersen, S. (2005), “Senior women managers’ transition to entrepreneurship”, Career
Development International, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 246-62.
van de Lippe, T. and van Dijk, L. (2002), “Comparative research in women’s employment”,
Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 221-42.
Verheul, I., Uhlaner, L. and Thurik, A.R. (2002), What Is an Entrepreneur?: Self-image, Activities
and Gender, International Council for Small Business, Puerto Rico.
Verheul, I., van Stel, A. and Thurik, R. (2006), “Explaining female and male entrepreneurship at
the country level”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 151-83.
Wilson, F., Marlino, D. and Kickul, J. (2004), “Our entrepreneurial future: examining the diverse
attitudes and motivations of teens across gender and ethnic identity”, Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 177-97.
Winn, J. (2004), “Entrepreneurship: not an easy path to top management for women”, Women in
Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 143-53.
About the author

Jodyanne Kirkwood is a Lecturer in the Department of Management, University of Otago and a
researcher in the Centre for Entrepreneurship. She teaches innovation management,
entrepreneurship and operations management. She has a number of research interests in the
entrepreneurship field. Her current work is on ecopreneurs and women entrepreneurs. She is also
researching the role of the family in entrepreneurial decisions and is participating in an ongoing
study on succession planning for business owners. Jodyanne Kirkwood can be contacted at:
[email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Monika Mühlböck, Julia-Rita Warmuth, Marian Holienka, Bernhard Kittel. 2017. Desperate
entrepreneurs: no opportunities, no skills. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 50. .
[Crossref]
2. Tommy Shih, Yen-Yu Huang. 2017. A case study on technology entrepreneurship education at a
Taiwanese research university. Asia Pacific Management Review . [Crossref]
3. Christian Hopp, Johannes Martin. 2017. Does entrepreneurship pay for women and immigrants? A 30
year assessment of the socio-economic impact of entrepreneurial activity in Germany. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 29:5-6, 517-543. [Crossref]
4. . Bibliography 145-166. [Crossref]
5. Rita G. Klapper, Helle Neergaard. Teaching Entrepreneurship as Lived Experience Through
‘Wonderment Exercises’ 145-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
6. AlDhaheriRajwa, Rajwa AlDhaheri, JabeenFauzia, Fauzia Jabeen, HussainMatloub, Matloub Hussain,

Abu-RahmaAli, Ali Abu-Rahma. 2017. Career choice of females in the private sector: empirical evidence
from the United Arab Emirates. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning 7:2, 179-197.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Kalemci TuzunIpek, Ipek Kalemci Tuzun, Araz TakayBahar, Bahar Araz Takay. 2017. Patterns of female
entrepreneurial activities in Turkey. Gender in Management: An International Journal 32:3, 166-182.
8. OutsiosGeorgios, Georgios Outsios, FarooqiSeemab Ara, Seemab Ara Farooqi. 2017. Gender in
sustainable entrepreneurship: evidence from the UK. Gender in Management: An International Journal
32:3, 183-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Rebecca Jane Stirzaker, Laura Galloway. 2017. Ageing and redundancy and the silver lining of
entrepreneurship. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 18:2, 105-114. [Crossref]
10. Lovisa Nilsson, Helena Hansson, Carl Johan Lagerkvist. 2017. Motivational Factors for Remaining in or
Exiting a Cooperative. Agribusiness 33:2, 209-225. [Crossref]
11. ZhangYi, Yi Zhang, ByonKevin K., Kevin K. Byon. 2017. Push and pull factors associated with the
CTTSL game events between on-site and online consumers. International Journal of Sports Marketing
and Sponsorship 18:1, 48-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Norita Ahmad, Fatima Al-Mazrouee, Mariela Ranova-Fredrick. Motivation, Voices, and Visions of
Women Entrepreneurs in the UAE 589-597. [Crossref]
13. Aude d’Andria, Inès Gabarret. 2017. Mères et entrepreneures : étude de la motivation entrepreneuriale des
mampreneurs françaises. Revue internationale P.M.E.: Économie et gestion de la petite et moyenne entreprise
30:1, 155. [Crossref]
14. Zahra Arasti, Neda Bahmani. Women’s Entrepreneurship in Iran 109-137. [Crossref]
15. Hannu Tervo, Mika Haapanen. Opportunity- and Necessity-Driven Self-Employment Among Older
People in Finland 255-276. [Crossref]
16. Paola Paoloni, Paola Demartini. 2016. Women in management: perspectives on a decade of research
(2005–2015). Palgrave Communications 2, 16094. [Crossref]
17. ModarresiMeisam, Meisam Modarresi, ArastiZahra, Zahra Arasti, TalebiKambiz, Kambiz Talebi,
FarasatkhahMaghsoud, Maghsoud Farasatkhah. 2016. Women’s entrepreneurship in Iran. International
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 8:4, 446-470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. BastianBettina Lynda, Bettina Lynda Bastian, ZaliMohammad Reza, Mohammad Reza Zali. 2016.
Entrepreneurial motives and their antecedents of men and women in North Africa and the Middle East.
Gender in Management: An International Journal 31:7, 456-478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. CostaCarlos, Carlos Costa, BredaZelia, Zelia Breda, BakasFiona Eva, Fiona Eva Bakas, DurãoMarilia,
Marilia Durão, PinhoIsabel, Isabel Pinho. 2016. Through the gender looking-glass: Brazilian tourism
entrepreneurs. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 8:3, 282-306. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
20. BianchiMarina, Marina Bianchi, ParisiValentino, Valentino Parisi, SalvatoreRenato, Renato Salvatore.
2016. Female entrepreneurs: motivations and constraints. An Italian regional study. International Journal
of Gender and Entrepreneurship 8:3, 198-220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Sara Poggesi, Michela Mari, Luisa De Vita. 2016. What’s new in female entrepreneurship research?
Answers from the literature. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12:3, 735-764.
[Crossref]
22. Antonia Mercedes García-Cabrera, María Gracia García-Soto, Juan José Durán-Herrera. 2016.
Opportunity motivation and SME internationalisation in emerging countries: Evidence from
entrepreneurs’ perception of institutions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12:3,
879-910. [Crossref]
23. Jodyanne Jane Kirkwood. 2016. How women and men business owners perceive success. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 22:5, 594-615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Silke Tegtmeier, Agnieszka Kurczewska, Jantje Halberstadt. 2016. Are women graduates jacquelines-
of-all-trades? Challenging Lazear’s view on entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 47:1, 77-94.
[Crossref]
25. Jalleh Sharafizad, Alan Coetzer. 2016. Women business owners’ start-up motivations and network content.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 23:2, 590-610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Colette Henry, Lene Foss, Helene Ahl. 2016. Gender and entrepreneurship research: A review of
methodological approaches. International Small Business Journal 34:3, 217-241. [Crossref]
27. Michela Mari, Sara Poggesi, Luisa De Vita. 2016. Family embeddedness and business performance:
evidences from women-owned firms. Management Decision 54:2, 476-500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Neha Chatwani. Understanding the Gendered Identity Role of Skilled Female Entrepreneurs Amongst
the Indian Diaspora in Europe 117-131. [Crossref]
29. James A Peprah, Clifford Afoakwah, Isaac Koomson. 2015. Savings, entrepreneurial trait and self-
employment: evidence from selected Ghanaian Universities. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
5:1. . [Crossref]
30. Rakesh Belwal, Hanan Al Balushi, Shweta Belwal. 2015. Students’ perception of entrepreneurship and
enterprise education in Oman. Education + Training 57:8/9, 924-947. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Eftychia Palamida, Savvas Papagiannidis, Despoina Xanthopoulou, Teta Stamati. 2015. Capital, Motives,
and Their Link to Investment Intentions: The Moderating Role of the Financial Crisis in Greece. Journal
of Small Business Management 53, 115-144. [Crossref]
32. Ute Pascher, Melanie Roski, Brigitte Halbfas. 2015. Entrepreneurial aspirations and start-up motives
of women chemists in Germany. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 7:3, 272-290.
33. Nsubili Isaga, Enno Masurel, Kees Van Montfort. 2015. Owner-manager motives and the growth of SMEs
in developing countries. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 7:3, 190-211. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
34. Emiel L Eijdenberg, Leonard J Paas, Enno Masurel. 2015. Entrepreneurial motivation and small business
growth in Rwanda. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 7:3, 212-240. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
35. Tui McKeown, Robyn Cochrane. 2015. Editorial. Small Enterprise Research 22:2-3, 113-118. [Crossref]
36. Magdalena Markowska, Charmine E. J. Härtel, Ethel Brundin, Amanda Roan. A Dynamic Model of
Entrepreneurial Identification and Dis-Identification: An Emotions Perspective 215-239. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
37. Pi-Shen Seet, Janice Jones, Tim Acker, Michelle Whittle. 2015. Shocks among managers of indigenous
art centres in remote Australia. Management Decision 53:4, 763-785. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Tamer Mohamed Atef, Masooma Al-Balushi. 2015. Entrepreneurship as a means for restructuring
employment patterns. Tourism and Hospitality Research 15:2, 73-90. [Crossref]

39. Kate V. Lewis, Candice Harris, Rachel Morrison, Marcus Ho. 2015. The entrepreneurship-motherhood
nexus. Career Development International 20:1, 21-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Sara Poggesi, Michela Mari, Luisa De Vita. 2015. Family and Work–Life Balance Mechanisms. The
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 16:1, 43-53. [Crossref]
41. Jiří Dostál. Badatelsky orientovaná výuka . [Crossref]
42. James Jianhui Zhang. 2015. What to Study? That Is a Question: A Conscious Thought Analysis. Journal
of Sport Management 29:1, 1-10. [Crossref]
43. Nejia Zaouali, Islem Khefacha, Lotfi Belkacem. 2015. The Impact of Opportunity and Necessity Based
Start-Up on the Choice of an Economic Sector in Tunisia. Procedia Economics and Finance 23, 1411-1419.
[Crossref]
44. Yeoryios Stamboulis, Achilleas Barlas. 2014. Entrepreneurship education impact on student attitudes.
The International Journal of Management Education 12:3, 365-373. [Crossref]
45. Étienne St-Jean, Luc LeBel. 2014. The influence of start-up motivations on forest entrepreneurs'
performance. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 27:4, 392-405. [Crossref]
46. Tim Vorley, Peter Rodgers. 2014. Home is where the business is: Incidents in everyday life and the
formation of home-based businesses. International Small Business Journal 32:4, 428-448. [Crossref]
47. Jasmine E. Goliath, Shelley M. Farrington, Shelley B. Saunders. 2014. Establishing student perceptions
of an entrepreneur using word associations. Acta Commercii 14:2. . [Crossref]
48. Paul F. Knell, Antonio J. Castro. 2014. Why People Choose to Teach in Urban Schools: The Case for a
Push–Pull Factor Analysis. The Educational Forum 78:2, 150-163. [Crossref]
49. Syed Zamberi Ahmad, Fauzia Jabeen, Mehmood Khan. 2014. Entrepreneurs choice in business venture:
Motivations for choosing home-stay accommodation businesses in Peninsular Malaysia. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 36, 31-40. [Crossref]
50. Natalie Sappleton. 2013. When the “Manny” is the Boss. An Exploratory Study into Discrimination
and Preferential Treatment Perceived by Men Childcare Business Owners. Recherches sociologiques et
anthropologiques :44-2, 93-113. [Crossref]
51. Helena Hansson, Richard Ferguson, Christer Olofsson, Leena Rantamäki-Lahtinen. 2013. Farmers'
motives for diversifying their farm business – The influence of family. Journal of Rural Studies 32, 240-250.
[Crossref]
52. Giles Andrew Barrett, David McEvoy. 2013. An emerging African business quarter amid urban decline.
Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 7:3, 274-292. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
53. Pooran Wynarczyk, Jayne Graham. 2013. The impact of connectivity technology on home-based business
venturing: The case of women in the North East of England. Local Economy 28:5, 451-470. [Crossref]
54. Víctor M. González-Sánchez. 2012. Miguel-Ángel Galindo and Domingo Ribeiro (eds): Women’s
Entrepreneurship and Economics. New Perspectives, Practices and Politics. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal 8:4, 499-503. [Crossref]
55. Christopher Dawson, Andrew Henley. 2012. “Push” versus “pull” entrepreneurship: an ambiguous
distinction?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 18:6, 697-719. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
56. MAGNUS HOLMÉN, THAW TAR MIN, EMILIA SAARELAINEN. 2011. FEMALE
ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN AFGHANISTAN. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 16:03,
307-331. [Crossref]
57. Ulla Hytti. 2010. Contextualizing entrepreneurship in the boundaryless career. Gender in Management:
An International Journal 25:1, 64-81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4UIE Article 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4UIE Article 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4UIE Article 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender in Management: An International Journal

Motivational factors in a push-pull theory of entrepreneurship

Downloaded on: 27 September 2017, At: 09:51 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Received 19 January 2009

increasing numbers of women now choosing entrepreneurship as a career option. Women

The focus of this paper is on gender comparative studies of motivations for

Manufacturing 8 17.0 3 10.7

4.1 Pull factors

Men ðn ¼ 47Þ Women ðn ¼ 28Þ

Pull factors Men Women

4.2 Push factors

Push factors Men Women

businesses where women employed relationship-based management strategies

Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 219-41.

About the author

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

6. AlDhaheriRajwa, Rajwa AlDhaheri, JabeenFauzia, Fauzia Jabeen, HussainMatloub, Matloub Hussain,

employment patterns. Tourism and Hospitality Research 15:2, 73-90. [Crossref]

You might also like