Success in the female entrepreneurial networking process

Abstract

This paper addresses the network process from the individual's point of view. It aims to explore the individual success in the female entrepreneurial networking process using a mixed methodology. The data were collected 2006–2008 from 25 female entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurial success profiles identified suggest that the female entrepreneurs in the networking process were characterised by good motivation, good persistence, good sense of responsibility, enjoying working with pair/team/peer, learning by doing, and holistic view. Further, peer support, encouragement, and networking created new channels and new opportunities. New products and contacts were developed and resources became available. Learning and new tools for entrepreneurship were identified. The female entrepreneurial networking process also enhanced well-being in life.

Key Words:

• entrepreneurial success
• individual experience
• female entrepreneurial networking.

This article addresses the networking process from the individual's point of view. Insufficient attention has been paid to the ways in which entrepreneurship and individual enterprising can be enhanced. Networks have become more important and more interesting. According to (Timmons 1999; Timmons and Spinelli, 2009), there is a common understanding that the entrepreneurial network is a key issue in firms with one to two employees. They are unable to achieve their goals alone (Birley, 1985; Johannisson, 1988). There is a need for different kinds of additional resources, social relationships, and interactions among organisations (Melin, 1987). They need support and resources from external actors such as other firms (Meller & Marfan, 1981) and relatives and friends (Birley, 1985; Bridge, O'Neill, & Cromie, 1998; Johannisson, 1988).

Many studies have stated that the success of firms standing alone depends on the supporting networks (Donckels & Lambrecht, 1995; Greve, 1995; Hansen, 1995) and social relationships (Aldrich et al., 1989; Chu, 1996; Johannisson, 1988; Ostgaard & Birley, 1996). The network provides both opportunities and imposes constraints on entrepreneurs in their businesses. Nevertheless research on the entrepreneurial networking process from the individual's point of view is rare. Johannisson (1978) and Aldrich and Zimmer (1986) have published some research work, but there is still a lack of research on success in the female entrepreneurial networking context. This article will contribute theoretically and empirically to bridging this gap by focusing on entrepreneurial success profiles identified and on individual experiences of success in the female entrepreneurial networking context.

The paper is arranged as follows. The first section is an introduction. The second section addresses the issue of entrepreneurial networking. Next, success in the female entrepreneurial networking context is defined and described. This is followed by descriptions of the research factors/profiles, the case study, and the methodology. Finally the paper considers the findings from the case study and presents conclusions.

Entrepreneurial networking

Research in entrepreneurial networking

Networking has developed differently in different research traditions and over different periods of time. The concept of networks and networking was originally developed in sociology, while anthropology studies considered exchange as a social organisation and as social relationships (e.g. Barnes, 1954; Bott, 1957; Levi-Strauss, 1949). In the management literature, networks and networking were used in organisational behaviour regarding partnership, exchange relationships, joint ventures, and co-operation agreements (e.g. Ford, 1980; Håkansson, 1982; Johanson & Mattson 1987) focusing on the business relationships of the industry and the interaction strategies of the parties. At that time the reemergence of entrepreneurship research also started to focus on network research (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1985; Jarillo, 1989; Lorenzoni & Ornati, 1988; Szarka, 1990).

Entrepreneurial networking research is deemed, according to Gartner (1985), to characterise a particular phenomenon (new venture creation in the networking process) as the simultaneous interplay of a number of experiences, images, and ideas that, in combination, actually make sense. Aldrich and Zimmer (1986) defined networks as continuing social relationships, as a collection of entrepreneurs committed to pursuing business activity, and as the pattern of activities by which actors, activities, and resources are tied together. Entrepreneurial network research considers the individual entrepreneur in firm networks with defined borders (Slotte-Kock & Coviello, 2010). Entrepreneurial networking can be understood through the activities by which entrepreneurs organise and develop their firms (Gartner, 2001, p. 30).

As Szarka (1990) argues, the firm's owner/entrepreneur will identify strongly with the firm and, conversely, the firm will tend to be strongly identified with its principal. The entrepreneur and the firm are (positioned as) central to decision-making, but are influenced by numerous external factors. Networking considers the behaviours undertaken in the process of discovering and exploiting ideas for new business ventures (Davidsson, 2003; Gartner, 1988; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). According to Van de Ven (1993), most entrepreneurial innovations are collective achievements of many people. Within a network of relationships, entrepreneurs are facilitated or constrained by linkages between aspiring entrepreneurs, resources, and opportunities (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986). The process can provide ideas for new business ventures. When the network is innovative, it can identify and formulate new services and products in light of the resources available, which can be mobilised as and when the opportunities occur on the market. Powell, Koput, and Smith-Doerr (1996) suggest that network relationship opportunities exist because of heterogeneity of knowledge. The creation of new knowledge is an essentially local activity taking place within networks between actors with different and complementary knowledge bases. The establishment of a network relationship entails interaction that makes the knowledge of resource utilisation subject to further evolution. The opportunities do not exist per se; they result from interaction between entrepreneurs (Snehota, 1990).

The entrepreneurial network phenomenon in the context of firms with one to two employees requires ‘both social relationships among individuals and interactions among organizations’ (Melin, 1987, p. 31). Social relationships are key facilitators in the successful networking process (Ireland, Hitt, & Vaidyanath, 2002; Jarillo, 1989; Lipparini & Sopero, 1994). They are especially important in networking processes where the organisation and the entrepreneur are one and the same. Social capital between entrepreneurs is a kind of bridge-building process that links individuals and creates a relationship for the effective exchange of information and resources (Anderson & Jack, 2002; Knoke, 1999). According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), social capital is a sum of resources embedded within, available through and derived from the network of relationships by an individual or a social unit. The entrepreneurial network is for the entrepreneurs a community and a platform where they can co-create, co-innovate, and co-operate new ventures in interaction and dialogue with each other. Social relationships are one of the key issues in the networking, especially in the entrepreneurial context, where the performance of the firms is dependent on what entrepreneurs are as individuals (Wincent & Westerberg, 2005).

Social relationships and networking

Entrepreneurial networking entails social relationships through which entrepreneurs obtain information, resources, and social support (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986). Chell (2000) notes the importance and interplay of the entrepreneurial profile and social interaction in networking, and Aldrich and Zimmer (1986) stated that the social relationships in the entrepreneurial networking can channel and facilitate, as well as constrain and inhibit, entrepreneurial activities. These relationships are affected by entrepreneurs as individual human actors and are based on their individual behaviour. Relationships are developed and maintained primarily through everyday interaction. Through the interaction, the entrepreneurs gradually on the one hand learn about each others’ needs, competencies, skills, strategies, and come to trust each other, and on the other hand adapt to each others’ ways of performing operations and commit resources to the relationship (Forsgren & Johansson, 1992). According to Kaleva (2000), relationships are created in and based on a shared orientation and social exchange between entrepreneurs in networks. More specifically, a network is an expression of entrepreneurial action in the context of a network relationship. It is held that the nature of a network can only be understood and explained as a network relationship process.

It is argued that a relationship cannot be restricted to, and understood in terms of, exchange transactions that are a transfer of objects between actors. According to Snehota (1990), values are produced in relationships by linking actors (e.g. entrepreneurs) in networking relationships. Networking is a relationship system, for example, an organised behaviour system that manifests a network structure. The network relationship process is, therefore, to be viewed as the process of networking among the entrepreneurs involved. Networking activity is dependent on entrepreneurs’ ability to co-operate and to sustain an interdependent relationship. Interaction is heavily dependent on the relationships built up over time. The entrepreneurs’ ability is to adjust their behaviour to the changes in their networking, to implement new solutions, and to create new resources. Changes in the network are picked up and acted on and relations between the various entrepreneurs are renewed (Maillat, 1992 1995).

Thus, entrepreneurship is embedded in entrepreneurial networks of continuing social relationships. Relationships between members of networks are continuously constructed and reconstructed during interaction and dialogue with each other (Grabher, 1993). The entrepreneurs in the network and their performance change over time. Entrepreneurial networking is by nature a dynamic process. According to Venkataraman (1989), entrepreneurs typically have difficulties in extending and sustaining appropriate relationships. This highlights the importance of the social relationships of the entrepreneurs in networking. The social relationships in the networking process are based on the individual behaviour and personal characteristics of the entrepreneurs (Wincent & Westerberg, 2005). These affect the development of the networking process, whether it is successful or not.

Success in entrepreneurial networking

Success in entrepreneurial networking can be defined in many different ways; externally, internally, and on the basis of values. A possible external dimension might be commercial success: growth in sales, in employment, in profitability, and/or in productivity (revenues/employee) and/or economic-increased efficiency, lower costs, improved return on investment (ROI). In firms of one to two employees, success does not necessarily imply a ‘growth’ orientation (Sonfield & Barbato, 1999). Success can mean an increase in self-sufficiency and a reduction of dependence (Walls, Dowler, Cordingly, Orslene, & Greer, 2001), which is more an internal and value-added dimension of success. Success can also be defined on the basis of how entrepreneurs succeed in networking with other entrepreneurs in the network, while Duchesneau and Gartner (1988) found that surviving entrepreneurs are more active in social relations than unsuccessful entrepreneurs, because successful entrepreneurs spend more time communicating with partners and so on. In this research, success on the individual level is investigated through the experiences of the network participants, female entrepreneurs, drawing on their responses, experiences, and associations during the networking process. Success is also investigated on the basis of entrepreneurial profiling (e.g. personal characteristics affecting the interaction and development of the networking process). By focusing on the entrepreneurs’ individual experiences and entrepreneurial profiling success, the aim is to explore the female entrepreneurial networking context.

What is successful entrepreneurship?

Successful entrepreneurship is a constant process that relies on creativity, innovation, and application in the marketplace (Zimmerer & Scarborough, 1996). The process and norms of interaction between entrepreneurs also determine success in networking. Intentions are converted into real relationships through interaction. The initial context of networking seldom encourages a relationship: the entrepreneurs lack mutual familiarity, understanding, and trust, and the absence of these can easily lead to an adversarial relationship (Doz & Hamel, 1998, p. 147). According to Timmons (1999), successful entrepreneurs devise ingeniously creative strategies for marshalling and gaining control of resources. The unique combination of entrepreneurs, opportunity, and resources at a particular time and place may be the most important factor (in an ultimate chance) for a successful venture (Timmons, 1999).

Bridge et al. (1998) point out that entrepreneurs require ideas, opportunities, resources, skills, and motivation for success and that, therefore, the social structures and situations to which they are exposed will impact on the choice process, for example, entrepreneurial networking. This network provides linkages or relations between entrepreneurs and opportunities for success (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986). The essence of success is in creating value through the process of combining resources in new and different ways to achieve a competitive edge and for ‘creating new twists on existing services are hallmarks’ for success (Zimmerer & Scarborough, 1996, p. 51). Elements of successful networking are based on the resource taking the form of advanced skills or simply on the knowledge related to a specific sector.

Success in networking processes

As argued, success in the networking process is not limited to commercial success. In addition, actions that appear to be, or indeed are, initially successful would be regarded as entrepreneurial, but those that then subsequently fail would usually still be regarded as having been entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurial actions take place within a time-frame and outside it conditions can change radically (Bridge et al., 1998, p. 39). According to Doz and Hamel (1998, p. 34), network participants who attempt to assess potential benefits often fall into one of two traps: (1) making excessively ambitious and overly optimistic assessments of benefits and (2) defining the range of potential benefits too narrowly. Ambitions are either too grand to be realised or so narrowly defined that other value creation opportunities are overlooked. It is not the deal per se that creates value, but the capacity of other entrepreneurs to dynamically and creatively manoeuver their network through a thicket of uncertainties, changing priorities, organisational frictions, and competitive surprises. The interest is in the role of networks in innovation and new business development. The entrepreneur uses products, processes, or service innovations as tools to exploit change. Innovation is the instrument that empowers resources to new ends, thus creating value (Zimmerer & Scarborough, 1996).

Most entrepreneurs in a network must fully appreciate all the benefits they can expect from the network so they do not lose their sense of purpose when confronted with unexpected setbacks. ‘An opportunity has the qualities of being attractive, durable, and timely and is anchored in a product or service which creates or adds value’ (Timmons, 1999, p. 80). For an opportunity to have these qualities, the ‘window of opportunity’ opens and remains open long enough. Further, entry into a market with the right characteristics is feasible and the network is able to achieve it. The venture has or is able to achieve competitive advantage. Networks can be a stimulant and source of new ideas, as well as a source of valuable contacts with people. ‘Networks can facilitate and accelerate the process of making contacts and finding new business ideas’ (Timmons, 1999, p. 98). Schumpeter emphasised that it is not knowledge that matters, but a successful solution to putting an untried method into practice (Schumpeter, 1928). Schumpeter defined entrepreneurial activity as ‘creating new combinations of existing economic possibilities’ (Schumpeter, 1912, p. 158).

Success in the female entrepreneurial context

Success in the female entrepreneurial context is based on the entrepreneurs’ individual experiences. In firms of one to two employees, where the female entrepreneur mainly operates alone, survival can be seen as a minimum criterion of success (Bruderl & Preisendorfer, 1998). The criterion for survival is usually defined as staying in business for the first few years of operation and sometimes stands alone as an outcome measure (Littunen, 2000). More often success is accompanied by other outcome measures, such as growth (Cooper & Gimenogascon, 1994) in sales, in employment, in profitability, and/or in productivity (revenue/employee) and non-survival refers to the lowest level of performance and/or economic-increased efficiency, lower costs, improved ROI. In female firms of one to two employees, success does not necessarily mean a ‘growth’ orientation (Sonfield & Barbato, 1999). Success for female entrepreneurs means an increase in self-sufficiency and reduction of dependence (Walls, Dowler, Cordingly, Orslene, & Greer, 2001).

According to Strake (1979), many female entrepreneurs have high self-esteem and tend to enjoy attaining success (Kyrö & Hyrsky, 2008). They live in a holistic reality and take a holistic approach (Brush, 1992; Holmqvist, 1996; Kovalainen, 1993; Kyrö & Hyrsky, 2008; Maysami & Goby, 1999; Moore & Buttner, 1997; Sundin, 1996; Yeager, 1999). This results in a profile of a female entrepreneur who, with high self-esteem, risk-propensity, and innovativeness with a need for self-fulfilment and work satisfaction, creates an under-performance firm waiting (Kyrö & Hyrsky, 2008).

It has been stated that financial success among women entrepreneurs has been labeled ‘under-performance’ (Du Rietz & Henrekson, 2000). Haynes and Haynes (1999) claimed that financially poorer success was due to lack of financial and human capital resources. Brush (1992) claims that their businesses are integrated into the lives of female entrepreneurs rather than being separate economic units (Kyrö & Hyrsky, 2008). Maysami and Goby (1999) stated that women seem to start their own businesses to become their own bosses and strive to make their own ideas and dreams come true. Women with a dream to create their own reality want to combine work and home in order to fulfil their need to establish a firm. Having their own business gives them more freedom and flexibility. Gilbreth (1928) realised ‘success’ to incorporate satisfactions and achievements both at home and at work (Kyrö & Hyrsky, 2008). Success for such people may be either self-fulfilment or a balance between family and work, not the profit, not the growth in sales, not the growth in employment, not productivity (revenues/employee), not economically increased efficiency, lower costs, or improved ROI. According to Kyrö (2001) female entrepreneurs have a need to create their own reality. Self-fulfilment refers to success as satisfaction.

To conclude, success can be experienced by female entrepreneurs in many ways. In the female entrepreneurial networking process, the social relationships in interaction and dialogue with other entrepreneurs affect the success of the networking. It is the characteristics of the entrepreneur and/or the situation that determine an entrepreneur's behaviour (Gartner, 1988); they affect success through their behaviour in the social relationships of the networking process. Next the focus turns to entrepreneurial profiling in the entrepreneurial networking process.

Entrepreneurial success profiling

In the entrepreneurial networking process the performance of the firms is dependent on what entrepreneurs are as individuals. Therefore differences in the performance of the firms may be explained through differences in the personalities and characteristics of entrepreneurs – the process is referred to as entrepreneurial profiling. Entrepreneurial profiling includes the personal characteristics of entrepreneurs, meaning relatively enduring preferences on an entrepreneur's part for thinking and/or acting in a specific manner (Epstein & O'Brien, 1985). Following Bridge et al.'s (1998, p. 42) theories, consider that it is the ‘personality of individuals that explains their actions’ and there is something within those individuals that makes them disposed to and prepared for action when seeking opportunities. Entrepreneurial actions are defined as such because they have particular profiling and certain individuals, entrepreneurs, perform such actions well.

In those firms, especially where performance is dependent on what entrepreneurs are as individuals (Wincent & Westerberg, 2005), the personal characteristics e.g. entrepreneurial profiling of individuals predispose them towards entrepreneurial behaviour. The characteristics most often proposed are achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, or the desire for control. McKenna (1987) points out that entrepreneurial profiling can relate to motives, temperament, style, and ability. There is a considerable body of literature on these characteristics and profiling, claiming that they predispose individuals to behave in an entrepreneurial fashion. The successful accomplishment of an entrepreneurial task provides individuals with a strong sense of achievement and confirms their capacity to control their lives. Stevenson and Gumpert (1992) note that entrepreneurs continuously seek business opportunities without being concerned about the necessary resources. They take a chance on resources and consider that suitable resources will be forthcoming. Many have therefore seen ‘the individual as important for the firm, indeed as a key to success’ (Bridge et al., 1998, p. 41). According to Lahti (1995), there is a close connection between the personal qualities of the entrepreneur and the economic success of the firm. It is necessary to investigate the success of the entrepreneurial networking process in light of entrepreneurial success profiling.

Defining entrepreneurial success profiling emphasises the relevance of success. Identifying entrepreneurial profiling has been a challenge for a number of researchers. There have been many studies and approaches to analysing what makes some individuals more entrepreneurial than others. They include (1) personality theories considering traits in individuals predisposing them to enterprise, (2) psychodynamic approaches that look at the enterprising personality, (3) social psychology approaches that take into account the context in which an individual operates, (4) owner typologies that look at different types of entrepreneur, (5) behavioural theories including competencies and stage model approaches, (6) economic approaches, (7) sociological approaches, and (8) integrated approaches, all offering some insight into what makes an individual act in an entrepreneurial way. The integrated approaches are potentially the most useful models for examining entrepreneurial success. In this research the most comprehensive summaries of attitudes and behaviours in entrepreneurial profiling are those of Schumpeter (1934/1962), McClelland (1961), Timmons (1999, 2009), and Sarasvathy (1998 2006).

The Schumpeterian entrepreneur

Schumpeter (1934/1962) proposed that entrepreneurs are a special type and their behaviour a special problem. The Schumpeterian entrepreneur is romantic, subjective, individualistic, has courage, foresight, intuition, and vision (Lintunen, 2000). The essential nature of Schumpeter's entrepreneur lies in energetic behaviour, in specific motivation – a man of action (Shionoya, 1997). Rejecting the assumption of homo oeconomicus and his maximising behaviour, Schumpeter made clear: ‘We shall … try to understand human behaviour, by analysing the characteristic motive of his (entrepreneur) conduct … we do not adopt any part of the time honoured picture of the motivation of “economic man” ’ (Schumpeter, 1934/1962, p. 90). Schumpeter admitted that the behaviour of the entrepreneur may be termed irrational and non-hedonistic; then it is considered at least a fundamentally different kind of rationalism (Shionoya, 1997). Schumpeter characterised the entrepreneur's motivation as follows: (1) there is a dream and the will to found a private kingdom, usually though but necessarily also a dynasty. (2) There is the will to conquer: the impulse to fight, to prove oneself superior to others, to succeed not for the sake of the fruits of success, for the success itself. The financial result is a secondary consideration, or, at all events, mainly valued as an index of success and as a symptom of victory. (3) There is the joy of creating, of getting things done, or simply of exercising one's energy and ingenuity. According to Schumpeter (1934/1962), entrepreneurs are mostly self-directed and autonomy refers to independence from other people, of being in control of one's own destiny (see also Caird, 1988; Parker, 2004). Our type seeks out difficulties, challenges in order to change, delights in ventures (Schumpeter, 1934/1962). According to Schumpeter entrepreneurs conduct their business from the possibilities of the future, through their visions (Lintunen, 2000; Schumpeter, 1928 1934/1962, 1939/1982, 1942, 1946, 1947, 1949). Schumpeter's reasoning has remained a basic point of reference for many of his successors, for those who follow his tradition of regarding the entrepreneur as an innovative path breaker (e.g. Baumol, 1968; Dahmén, 1950; Leibenstein, 1968). The Schumpeterian entrepreneur is called the entrepreneurial or innovation utility, which relates to the will and the creativity of the entrepreneur to act in uncertainty (Lintunen, 2000). Schumpeter's concept of the entrepreneur as the successful leader of innovation calls for an equal concept or theory of the creative firm (Lintunen, 2000). It is the innovating entrepreneur and not the firm organiser whose role is difficult to describe and analyse systematically (Baumol, 1995, p. 17). The individual's acts cannot be a mere repetition of what has been done before. According to Schumpeter (1942, p. 132) ‘as innovation itself is being reduced to routine … so many more things can be strictly calculated that had of old to be visualised in a flash of genius’. Thus entrepreneurial success factors/profiles for the Schumpeterian entrepreneur mean specific motivation, autonomy, visualising (visual), intuition (kinesthetic), and creative information processing and thinking style.

The McClellandian entrepreneur

McClelland (1917–1998) was the first to present empirical studies in the field of entrepreneurship that were based on behavioural science theory. According to McClelland, entrepreneurs are people who have a great need for achievement, self-confidence, independent problem-solving skills, and who prefer situations that are characterised by moderate risk, follow-ups of results and feedback, and acceptance of individual responsibility. McClelland among others (Atkinson, 1958 1964; Atkinson & Feather, 1966; McClelland, 1961; McClelland & Winter, 1969) sought to understand individual motivation. Their theory of psychological motivation is a generally accepted part of the literature on entrepreneurial behaviour and claims that people are motivated by three principal needs: (1) the need for achievement, (2) the need for power, and (3) the need for affiliation. The need for achievement is the need to excel and for quantifiable personal accomplishment. A person competes against a self-imposed standard that does not involve competition with others. The individual sets realistic and challenging goals and likes feedback on how well he or she is doing in order to improve performance. The need for power is the need to influence others and to achieve an ‘influence goal’ (i.e. the goal of outperforming someone else or establishing a reputation or position according to an externally derived and oriented standard). While it is sometimes easier to see the negative aspects of power motivation, bear in mind that socialised and civilised power needs have played an important role in influencing people and institutions. Motivation stimulates them into action. When they accomplish something they consider worthy, their self-esteem is enhanced and they are encouraged to seek other demanding assignments. Thus entrepreneurs are constantly on the lookout for challenges (Bridge et al., 1998). McClelland (1965) argues that such a person is more self-confident, enjoys taking carefully calculated risks, researches his/her environment actively, and is very much interested in concrete measures of how well he/she is doing. Somewhat surprisingly … he/she does not seem to be galvanised into activity by the prospect of profit; … he/she … works hard anyway, provided there is an opportunity of achieving something. (McClelland, 1965, p. 7).

Thus entrepreneurial success factors/profiles for the McClellandian entrepreneur are motivation, responsibility, and autonomy.

The Timmonsian entrepreneur

According to Timmons (1999), entrepreneurs share common attitudes and behaviour.

They work hard and are driven by intense commitment and determined perseverance; they see the cup half full, rather than half empty; they strive for integrity; they burn with the competitive desire to excel and win; they are dissatisfied with the status quo and seek opportunities to improve almost any situation they encounter; they use failure as a tool for learning and eschew perfection in favour of effectiveness; and they believe they can personally make an enormous difference in the final outcome of their ventures and their lives. (Timmons, 1999, p. 44)

Entrepreneurs with a lot of persistence believe that they can perform at a high level and attribute their success to their personal skills rather than chance. If entrepreneurs have a lot of persistence, they like to work from start to finish and see that things are completed (Timmons, 1989). According to Timmons ‘the need for affiliations is the need to attain an “affiliation goal” (i.e. the goal to build a warm relationship with someone else and/or to enjoy mutual friendship)’ (Timmons, 2009, p. 43). Entrepreneurs are self-starters and visionaries (Timmons, 2009). Desire for responsibility is one of the key entrepreneurial attitudes for the entrepreneurs by feeling a personal responsibility for the outcome with which they are associated (Timmons, 2009, p. 43). They prefer to be in control of their resources and to use those resources to achieve self-determined goals. This willingness to accept the responsibility for the outcome of the entrepreneurial network is closely related to success in entrepreneurial networking. They have substantial confidence in themselves. They firmly believe that what they accomplish is within their own control. They tend to be optimistic. They also tend to have a very high opinion of their ability to succeed. Effective entrepreneurs actively seek and take initiatives, as evidenced by their constant willingness to assume personal responsibility for success or failure. Desire for immediate feedback is one of the behaviours and attitudes of entrepreneurs (Timmons, 1999). They like to know how they are doing and are constantly looking for reinforcement. They have a strong desire to use this knowledge to improve their performance. This characteristic is also highly relevant to their desire to learn from mistakes. Consequently, such entrepreneurs are often described as excellent listeners and quick learners (Timmons, 1999). The support and approval of family, friends, and co-workers can be helpful, especially when adversity strikes. Reference (e.g. peer) group approval can be a significant source of positive reinforcement for a person's career choice and, thus, his or her entire self-image and identity. Groups of people can also generate creativity that may not exist in a single individual. Continually, the creativity of a group of entrepreneurs is impressive and comparable or better creative solutions to problems evolving from the collective interaction of a small group of people have been observed (Timmons, 1999, p. 80).

Creativity and flexibility are necessary for entrepreneurs. Their ability to adapt flexibly to the changes in the economy requires a high degree of creativity. Very often ambiguity will serve better than certainty. A creative entrepreneurial mind is required to deal with this ambiguity in the development of a problem solution. A person uses both sides, actually shifting from one mode to the other. Entrepreneurs are interested in how to control modes of thought, and they can, perhaps, draw on two interesting approaches (Timmons, 1999, p. 79). Entrepreneurs will be those who coordinate the complementary functions of each hemisphere of the brain. Entrepreneurs are seldom driven by externally evidenced status and power. Rather, they derive satisfaction from the challenge of being creative and building their chosen network or new venture. They appear to have a keen sense of their strengths and weaknesses (Timmons, 1999). Creative thinking is of great value in recognising opportunities and in other aspects of entrepreneurship. The notion that creativity can be learned or enhanced has important implications for entrepreneurs who need to be creative in their thinking (Timmons, 2009, p. 155). Most people can certainly spot creative flair. Several studies suggest that creativity actually peaks around the first grade because a person's life tends to become increasingly structured and defined by others and by institutions (Timmons, 1999, p. 79, 2009, p. 155). Summing up, entrepreneurial success factors/profiles for the Timmonsian entrepreneur mean motivation, persistence, responsibility, pair/team/peer, listening (auditory), visionary (visual), creative information processing, and thinking style.

The Sarasvathian entrepreneur

Sarasvathy (1998 2006) researched entrepreneurial expertise; the characteristics, habits, and behaviours of the entrepreneur. She recognised that entrepreneurs have a certain type of entrepreneurial thinking style, which is called ‘effectual reasoning’. The word ‘effectual’ is the inverse of ‘causal’ (Sarasvathy, 1998 2006). Causal rationality considers a pre-determined goal, a given set of means and identifying the optimal – fastest, cheapest, most efficient, etc. – alternative to achieve a given goal. According to Sarasvathy (1998 2006), effectual reasoning considers a given set of means, allowing goals to emerge contingently over time from the varied imaginations and diverse aspirations of the founders and people they interact with. Causal thinkers seek ‘to conquer fertile lands’, but effectual thinkers explore ‘uncharted waters’. Sarasvathy (2006) states that the same person can use both causal and effectual reasoning at different times depending on the circumstances, and that the best entrepreneurs are capable of both and use both well. Furthermore, Sarasvathy claims that entrepreneurs prefer effectual reasoning over causal reasoning in the early stages of a new venture and do not transition well into the later stages requiring more causal reasoning. Causal reasoning may involve creative thinking, but effectual reasoning is creative. Effectual reasoning includes imagination, spontaneity, risk-taking, and salesmanship. Embodied in a network of enduring relationships, effectual logic is particularly useful and effective in domains such as the introduction of new products in new markets (Sarasvathy, 2006). Effectual logic is people dependent and will be predicated on the people (e.g. entrepreneurs) of the entrepreneurial network, brought together to co-create, co-innovate, and co-operate. Entrepreneurs are entrepreneurial because they think effectually and they believe in a yet-to-be-made future shaped by human action. It is useful to understand and work with the people and entrepreneurs who are engaged in the decisions and actions that bring it into existence. Entrepreneurs succeed by thinking and doing new things or old things in new ways. According to Sarasvathy (1998 2006), the entrepreneur has to possess the ability to look beyond conventional procedures and to try to combine existing ideas and resources in different ways, thereby gaining experience through experiment and trial and error. Entrepreneurial success factors/profiles for Sarasvathy mean imagination (visual), experiencing (kinesthetic), entrepreneurial information processing, and thinking style.

As a conclusion of entrepreneurial success profiling, it is considered, implicitly or explicitly, that this will help to determine whether an individual does or does not succeed in co-operation with other entrepreneurs of the networking process. It is important, however, to note that entrepreneurs are not homogenous and that, therefore, different approaches looking at different stages of networking development will result in a complex picture. In general there are many variables that can impact on a firm and network success but few have taken up the challenge to do so. The complexity of such modules and the enormous difficulty in using multivariate analysis with so many variables that are difficult to measure have daunted researchers. However, it can be assumed that the entrepreneurial profile – entrepreneurial behaviour – is essential in entrepreneurial networking because of complex relationships that have been strategically important and harder to manage (Doz & Hamel, 1998, p. 6). According to Timmons (1999), in each situation it depends on the mix and match of the key players and how promising the opportunity is. ‘The group of entrepreneurs might collectively show many of the desired strengths’ (Timmons, 1999, p. 220) and according to Bridge et al. (1998, p. 62) ‘not always clear, but it appears to be connected with the view that network leads to a higher standard of living, which itself is desirable. Indeed, networking people and networking economies have become synonymous with successful people and successful economies’

Definitions of research factors/profiles

The questionnaire form is based on Barbara Prashnig's Working Style Questionnaire Form, Creative Learning Systems Ltd., New Zealand. It was further developed from Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn's Learning Style Model ‘PEPS’, or Productivity Environmental Preference Survey. In this research of the entrepreneurial networking process, the following characteristics were important: motivation, persistence, responsibility, and self-directedness (autonomy) are entrepreneurial characteristics found in the literature on entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the will to work with a partner/team/peer is important in the networking context, which is intended to develop in co-operation. Also, as argued in the literature on entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurs like to learn by doing, they are listeners, and like visualising. It was important to investigate if this is because networking is dynamic, involves action, and is based on the co-operation. Finally it is important to investigate the information processing and thinking style networking needs to be innovative. Briefly, these elements were combined in the questionnaire by Barbara Prashnig.

The entrepreneurs responded to 112 questions/statements (Appendix 1.) according to their personal characteristics when concentrating, solving a problem, learning something new and/or difficult, or working on a project or job that is difficult for them. According to Prashnig, the key to a person's lifelong success is to know ‘how she/he works, concentrates, thinks, absorbs and comprehends information, and the way she/he solves problems’. Prashnig's questionnaire includes the elements most frequently observed in the entrepreneurship literature on entrepreneurial success profiling. The entrepreneurial success profiles of the questionnaire are classified under the following 12 headings.

Motivation/self-starting

Motivation to excel is one of the behaviours and attitudes of entrepreneurs. They are highly motivated to excel in what they do. They are typically self-starters and appear to be driven internally to compete against their self-imposed standards. This was an important characteristic to measure in this study (see McClelland, 1961; Schumpeter, 1934/1962; Timmons, 1999).

Persistence

Another entrepreneurial factor is persistence, which is also a very typical entrepreneurial characteristic with regard to a very systematic working style. Persistence concerns beliefs about one's ability to perform at a high level, in other words, the extent to which people believe that they are able to accomplish the goals they set for themselves. People with a lot of persistence believe that they can perform at a high level and attribute their success to their personal skills. If people have a lot of persistence, they like to work from start to finish and see that things are completed. A degree of persistence is necessary for success (see Timmons, 1989).

Responsibility

Responsibility is one of the entrepreneurial success profiles, which means that entrepreneurs do what they have promised to do and always like to do what is considered right. They do not have to be reminded to do things and always take their duties seriously. They want to be reliable and do their best to keep their promises. Entrepreneurs feel a personal responsibility for the outcome with which they are associated. This willingness to accept responsibility for the outcome with the entrepreneurial network is closely related to success in entrepreneurial networking and it is therefore important to measure it (see McClelland, 1961; Timmons, 1999).

Autonomy/self-directed

Entrepreneurs are mostly self-directed and autonomy refers to independence from other people, of being in control of one's own destiny. Entrepreneurs have a strong desire to go it alone and want to be in control of their own work situation and therefore appreciate ‘being one's own boss’. Entrepreneurs with a locus of control believe that success or failure are contingent upon one's own actions and predict a wide range of behaviours related to work and professional success. They prefer to work independently and like to work things out for themselves. Entrepreneurs believe that they personally make things happen in a given situation, and play down the importance of luck and fate. They make things happen; they make things not happen to them. Autonomy/self-directed was one of the entrepreneurial characteristics and important to measure (see McClelland, 1961; Schumpeter, 1934/1962).

Pair, team, peer

Entrepreneurs like to view themselves as part of a network or of a social group. They work better with another person present. They are more productive and get more done when they have a partner to work with. They like to share with a friend or co-worker. They enjoy working on group/team projects. They prefer working with a team or peer group to working alone. Being part of a team enhances the quality of their work, effectiveness, understanding, and helps to achieve better results. These characteristics are the key factors to measure in the networking context, which is based on the collectivism approach (see Timmons, 1999).

Auditory (listening, talking/discussion, self-talk/inner dialogue)

Desire for immediate feedback is one of the behaviours and attitudes of entrepreneurs. They like to know how they are doing and are constantly looking for reinforcement. They have a strong desire to use this knowledge to improve their performance. This characteristic is also highly relevant to their desire to learn from their mistakes. Entrepreneurs are often described as excellent listeners and quick learners. Good collaboration in entrepreneurial networking is based on listening and dialogue, therefore this entrepreneurial characteristic needs to be measured (see McClelland, 1961; Timmons, 1999).

Visual (reading, seeing/watching, visualising/imagination)

Entrepreneurs conduct their business from the possibilities of the future through their visions. Visualising and imagination are important characteristics of creative thinking and new venture creation in entrepreneurial networking and therefore it is also important to measure this characteristic (Sarasvathy, 1998 2006; Timmons, 1999).

Kinesthetic (experiencing/doing, feeling/intuition)

Entrepreneurs learn through experience by doing. They like projects and assignments with physical activities or involvement in real situations. They possess the ability to combine existing ideas and resources in different ways thereby obtaining experience through experimental trial and error. They learn best by becoming involved – by doing, interviewing, experiencing, or reporting. Pacing, walking, and jogging enhance thinking. Positive feeling enhances the situation when solving problems, understanding, and remembering new material. This is one of the key elements to measure (see Sarasvathy, 1998 2006).

Information processing, simultaneous (right hemisphere) versus sequential (left hemisphere)

Research into the working of the human brain shows that each hemisphere of the brain processes information differently and one side of the brain tends to be dominant over the other. The left hemisphere processes language, logic, and symbols and performs rational and logical functions. Entrepreneurs prefer tasks and topics that move in a logical sequence, contain plenty of detail with no diversions. The right hemisphere takes care of the body's emotional, intuitive, and spatial functions, and furthermore operates non-rational modes of thought. People who use this hemisphere more like to enjoy life, they have humor, and a positive view of life. They need to have an overview before starting. The left hemisphere processes information in a step-by-step fashion, but the right hemisphere processes intuitively; that is, all at once, relying heavily on images. A person uses both sides, actually shifting from one mode to the other. Entrepreneurs will be those who coordinate the complementary functions of each hemisphere of the brain and therefore it is important to measure this (see Sarasvathy, 1998 2006; Timmons, 1999).

Thinking style, spontaneous (right hemisphere) versus reflective (left hemisphere)

The left side of the brain is guided by linear, vertical thinking, while the right hemisphere relies on kaleidoscopic, lateral thinking. Left-brained vertical thinking is narrowly focused and systematic, proceeding in a highly logical fashion from one point to the next. Right-brained lateral thinking is somewhat unconventional, unsystematic, and unstructured, much like the image of a kaleidoscope, whirling around to form one pattern after another. It is the right-brain-driven, lateral thinking that lies at the heart of the creative process. Creative thinking is based on a vision and an imagination marked by lateral thinking. Entrepreneurs will be those who coordinate the complementary functions of each hemisphere of the brain, using all its creative power. Creative thinking is of great value in recognising opportunities, as well as in other aspects of entrepreneurship and therefore it is important to measure it (see Sarasvathy, 1998 2006; Schumpeter, 1934/1962; Timmons, 1999).

Methodology

The methodological approach is a case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1989). According to Gummesson (1991), case study is to better understand complex phenomena such as change processes (Gummesson, 1993, p. 6). It is considered a suitable methodological choice because it enables the observation of the focal phenomenon in its natural context (Pettigrew, 1997) dealing with the activities of individuals (i.e. entrepreneurs) and organisations (networking process) over time. Cassel and Symon (1994, p. 209) and Hartley (1994, p. 227) state that the key feature of the case study approach is not method or data, but the emphasis on understanding processes as they occur in their social context. According to Hartley (1994) and Aaltio-Marjosola (1999), the strength of case studies lies especially in their capacity to explore social processes as they unfold in organisations. Case study research enables a holistic and meaningful characterisation of real life events and the research increases the understanding of complex social phenomena (Gummesson, 2000, pp. 86–87; Yin, 1989, p. 14). The case approach is particularly appropriate in firms with one to two employees, in which it is important to understand individual-level behaviour (Davidsson, Achtenhagen, & Naldi, 2004; Ireland, Reutzel, & Webb, 2005) and the relationships involved in the networking process. This is the reason why case study was chosen as a research strategy. It enables the observation of the focal phenomenon over time in its natural context (Pettigrew, 1997; Yin, 1989).

In the case study, the combination of quantitative and qualitative evidence is often used as a methodology (Kanter, 1977). These methods were intended to explore success in the female entrepreneurial networking process. The question arises: What kinds of entrepreneurial success factors/profiles exist in the network? What are the individual experiences of success in the female entrepreneurial networking process? According to Welter and Lasch (2008), rigor is achieved by using mixed data techniques. The data were collected ‘in a real organisational context’ during a female entrepreneurial network research project 2006–2008 on the individual (= 25 female entrepreneurs) and the group (= network) level. The qualitative data were based on the semi-structured interviews during and at the end of the process. The qualitative data were recorded and transcribed. The sentences in quotation marks are direct citations of entrepreneurs from the interviews. The names of the firms and the individuals involved have been changed and coded, and some of the information that might compromise the anonymity of the participants or their firms has been edited. According to Gartner and Birley (2002), qualitative research can draw on sophisticated approaches and concepts.

The quantitative analysis was based on a system of 112 three-point scale (‘agree’, ‘disagree’, ‘cannot say’) questions/statements of 12 entrepreneurial success factors/profiles; 8 questions regarding motivation, persistence, responsibility, autonomy/self-directed, kinesthetic, information processing (simultaneous, sequential), and thinking style (spontaneous, reflective); 12 regarding auditory, visual; 16 regarding pair/team/peer. The questionnaire was based on Barbara Prashnig's Working Style Questionnaire Form, Creative Learning Systems Ltd, New Zealand, from which the success factors/profiles most frequently observed in entrepreneurship literature of entrepreneurial success factors were chosen (see Table 1)

Table 1. Entrepreneurial success factors/profiles

Success factors/profiles	Motivation	Persistence	Responsibility	Autonomy	Pair/team/peer	Auditory	Visual	Kinesthetic	Information processing	Thinking style
Schumpterian	*			*			*	*		*
McClellandian	*		*	*
Timmonsian	*	*	*		*	*	*		*	*
Sarasvathian							*	*	*	*

The present study included two measures of entrepreneurial profiles, at the beginning of the entrepreneurial process in spring 2006 all participating entrepreneurs (25) responded and at the end of the process in autumn 2008 the remaining 20 entrepreneurs responded to the survey. Because of the different number of questions/statements, the weighting of responses was based on eight questions and analysed by quantitative methods; cluster analysis (CA) and principal component analysis (PCA) by GridSuite 4.0, frequencies by SPSS program, tables and graphs by Excel 2007, were all used to present the ‘agreed’ responses from the data from the period 2006 to 2008. Both CA and PCA provide similar information in most cases. The PCA provides indications of underlying structures and displays these graphically in coordinate systems. It goes beyond CA by further reducing the amount of information about the (correlative) relationships of the entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial profiles and expressing this more economically through principle components. Due to the higher abstraction from the raw data in PCA, the affiliation of the results to the raw data is no longer possible, as in CA.

Presenting more qualitative aspects of the phenomenon (in this case the network) was more to the forefront and the outcomes of the study have been more discussed. To improve the quality the same questions were reformulated at different phases of the project, which improves the quality of research (Niiniluoto, 1997). The case material was used to critically examine the quality of the research to increase the understanding of the phenomenon of interest.

Presenting the case study

The female entrepreneurial networking project started on 4 May 2006. It was funded by the Finnish Workplace Development Programme (TYKES) of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Finland. Various entrepreneurial associations were informed and entrepreneurs were asked to participate in this networking project. They were offered an opportunity to develop relationships and new services. All entrepreneurs who wanted to participate were welcome. They had to pay a participation fee of 50t (US$67.50). They all paid and committed themselves. In total, 25 female entrepreneurs wanted to work together and to build an entrepreneurial network. The project participants were mostly working alone and in the service sector. The entrepreneurs did not know each other. The project manager was the common link; she had encouraged entrepreneurs from different organisations to participate in the project. The goal was to build an entrepreneurial network for future co-operation. Firms had their size in common and other features associated with, or dependent on, size. They were in many other respects heterogeneous rather than homogeneous. These firms were at different developmental stages. They were in diverse phases of the life cycle; some of them were start-ups, some had been running for years. They were usually managed by one person, who was also the owner. Two of the firms were family firms and six of the firms were working as a team or through a co-operative. They came from different business branches; the network included, for example, business coaches, a dancer, health care professionals, and a renovator. They differed in experience, background, age, and education. All the other entrepreneurs were approached at the same time on 4 May 2006, but one entrepreneur started a firm in 2007 and joined the network in summer 2007. They were free to interact with all the participants; firstly, regularly in three small groups and later on in one big group including all participants. The meetings were organised 54 times during the 2-year period.

Research findings and discussion

The aim of this paper was to explore individual success in the female entrepreneurial networking process. The first stage of this research was to define success in the female entrepreneurial networking context. This, it was hoped, would serve to reveal the key elements, which, if not predictive, would facilitate an understanding of the key areas in the process of entrepreneurial networking that explore success in the female entrepreneurial networking process.

Cluster analysis (CA)

The CA was used to analyse the ‘agreed’ responses to the 112 questions/statements of the entrepreneurial profiles. Cluster analysis arranges the raw data automatically according to similarities and illustrates (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) the similarity clusters in the dendrogram graphics (tree structures). In the dendrograms, shallow bends show a high degree of similarity between entrepreneurs (vertical number bar on the left, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) or entrepreneurial profiles (horizontal number bar on the right, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), and higher bends show a low degree of similarity. The clusters were built in GridSuite 4.0 program by the single linkage method, which uses the distance from the new value to the nearest value in the cluster, the nearest neighbor, as the measure of similarity. In spring 2006 the similarities of entrepreneurs was 89% at its highest and 67% at its lowest (Fig. 1), which is a very good result. The corresponding result of entrepreneurs in autumn 2008 was even higher; 89% at the highest and 69% at the lowest (Fig. 2). Based on these two results it could be said that the entrepreneurs had many similarities. Regarding the results of entrepreneurial factors in spring 2006, the similarities of entrepreneurial factors were 71% at the highest and 35% at the lowest (Fig. 1). In autumn the corresponding results were 64% at the highest and 43% at the lowest (Fig. 2). In conclusion, it can be stated that in the CA many groups/clusters of entrepreneurs were identified who displayed great similarity to each other. Among entrepreneurial factors many groups/clusters with great similarity were also identified.

Fig. 1. Dendrogram, spring 2006.

Fig. 2. Dendrogram grid, autumn 2008.

Principal component analysis (PCA)

The PCA provided indications for underlying structures and displayed these graphically in coordinate systems of these ‘agreed’ responses to the 112 questions/statements of the entrepreneurial profiles. The PCA calculated the similarities and differences of the targeted entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial profiles and expressed this through principle components (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5). In addition to the correlative relationships between the entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial profiles, the relationships to these coordinate axes were also calculated. These axes are a mathematical orientation aid, which can be compared to reference points used for orientation in the measurement of different locations on a site. The axes relate the variables (e.g. entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial profiles) to each other. The coordinate system shows two components. In addition to the number of components, the percentage value of the variance explained by these components is shown at the end of the axis at the top and to the right. In the coordinate system the entrepreneurial profiles and entrepreneurs are mapped out together. The entrepreneur notations are directly beside the points, and the notations of the entrepreneurial profile are in the margins of the graph. The coordinate systems (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5) show the PCs in spring 2006 and in autumn 2008. The coordinate system (Fig. 3) presents the variance of components one and two, where in spring 2006 these two components explained 44.61% of the distribution of the variables and in autumn 45.17% of the distribution of the variables. In the coordinate system (Fig. 4), the variance of components one and three are presented, which in spring 2006 explained 40.65% of the distribution of the variables and in autumn 43.24% of the distribution of the variables. In the coordinate system (Fig. 5), the variance of components two and three is presented, which in spring 2006 explained 35.52% of the distribution of the variables and in autumn 33.47% of the distribution of the variables. As a conclusion, the variance of components one and two (Fig. 3) explains best the distribution of the variables.

Fig. 3. Principal components 1–2, spring 2006 and autumn 2008.

Fig. 4. Principal components 1–3, spring 2006 and autumn 2008.

Fig. 5. Principal components 2–3, spring 2006 and autumn 2008.

Frequencies of entrepreneurial success factors

A frequency report and bar chart show (see Tables 2 and 4 and 5) the distinct values in ascending order by frequencies and the distribution of the entrepreneurial factors.

Table 2. Frequencies of motivation, persistence, responsibility, and autonomy 2006 and 2008

	Motivation				Persistence				Responsibility				Self-directed
	2006		2008		2006		2008		2006		2008		2006		2008
Valid	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
0	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	12	3	15
1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	3	15
2	–	–	–	–	2	8	3	15	–	–	–	–	6	24	5	25
3	–	–	3	15	1	4	2	10	–	–	1	5	5	20	3	15
4	–	–	1	5	4	16	6	30	2	8	2	10	3	12	3	15
5	4	16	1	5	1	4	2	10	3	12	4	20	3	12	2	10
6	2	8	6	30	7	28	2	10	15	60	9	45	3	12	–	–
7	9	36	4	20	4	16	1	5	5	20	3	15	2	8	–	–
8	10	40	5	25	6	24	4	20	–	–	1	5	–	–	1	5
Total	25	100	20	100	25	100	20	100	25	100	20	100	25	100	20	100

Table 3. Frequencies of pair/team/peer, auditory, visual, and kinesthetic 2006 and 2008

	Pair/team/peer				Auditory				Visual				Kinesthetic
	2006		2008		2006		2008		2006		2008		2006		2008
Valid	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
0	–	–	–	–	1	4	1	5	–	–	1	5	–	–	3	15
1	1	4	–	–	1	4	2	10	2	8	2	10	–	–	–	–
2	–	–	1	5	–	–	1	5	2	8	6	30	1	4	1	5
3	1	4	4	20	3	12	3	15	4	16	2	10	1	4	3	15
4	2	8	5	25	5	20	4	20	3	12	–	–	1	4	–	–
5	7	28	2	10	10	40	8	40	8	32	2	10	5	20	5	25
6	5	20	2	10	2	8	1	5	2	8	4	20	2	8	1	5
7	5	20	5	25	3	12	–	–	3	12	3	15	9	36	3	15
8	4	16	1	5	–	–	–	–	1	4	–	–	6	24	4	20
Total	25	100	20	100	25	100	20	100	25	100	25	100	25	100	25	100

Table 4. Frequencies of information processing and thinking style 2006 and 2008

	Information processing simultaneous/right brain				Information processing sequential/left brain				Thinking style spontaneous				Thinking style reflective
	2006		2008		2006		2008		2006		2008		2006		2008
Valid	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
0	–	–	1	5	3	12	5	25	3	12	6	30	5	20	5	25
1	1	4	1	5	1	4	4	20	4	16	4	20	1	4	4	20
2	–	–	1	5	8	32	5	25	3	12	3	15	4	15	2	10
3	4	16	2	10	6	24	3	15	3	12	3	15	5	20	3	15
4	10	40	8	40	7	28	3	15	2	8	2	10	4	16	5	25
5	5	20	3	15	–	–	–	–	4	20	–	–	3	12	1	5
6	2	8	2	10	–	–	–	–	2	8	1	5	1	4	–	–
7	1	4	1	5	–	–	–	–	1	4	–	–	1	4	–	–
8	2	8	1	5	–	–	–	–	2	8	1	5	1	4	–	–
Total	25	100	20		25	100	20	100	25	100	20	100	25	100	20	100

Motivation, persistence, responsibility, self-directed

The first output of entrepreneurial profiling (Table 2) shows that, in 2006, 84% (19/25) agreed with six statements out of eight on self-starting and own motivation while 100% of 25 entrepreneurs agreed with at least five statements on own motivation. The value for the comparison from 2008 was 75% (15/20), while 25% (e.g. 5/20) agreed with three to five statements out of eight. These statements suggest that most of these entrepreneurs were strongly self-starting and had own motivation. Secondly, from the output it can be seen that, in 2006, 68% (17/25) agreed with six statements out of eight about persistence. The value for comparison from 2008 was 35% (7/20) statements out of eight. Based on these statements, most of these entrepreneurs were decidedly persistent. Thirdly, the output shows that, in 2006, 80% (20/25) agreed with at least six statements out of eight about responsibility and all 25 entrepreneurs agreed with at least four statements about responsibility. The value for comparison from 2008 was 95% (17/20) while 5% (3/20) agreed with three statements out of eight. According to these statements, most of these entrepreneurs were highly responsible. Fourthly regarding autonomy, the output shows that, in 2006, 32% (8/25) agreed with at least five statements out of eight on self-direction and 12% (3/25) did not answer. The value for comparison from 2008 was that only 5% (i.e. one entrepreneur) ‘agreed’ with all eight statements and the other responded ‘agreed’ with under five statements on self-directedness. To conclude, these entrepreneurs in the female networking process were well motivated, had good persistence, high responsibility, and some of them like to be self-directed.

Pair/team/peer, auditory, visual, kinesthetic

From the second output of the entrepreneurial profiling (Table 3) it can firstly be seen that, in 2006, 56% (14/25) agreed with at least six statements out of eight about collectivism and had a desire to work in a pair, in a team, or/and had a peer. The value for comparison from 2008 was 40% (8/20). According to these statements, most entrepreneurs want to work with a partner, have a team, or a peer. Secondly the output (Table 3) shows that, in 2006, 60% (15/25) agreed with at least five statements out of eight about the auditory modality as a sensory modality. The value for comparison from 2008 was 45% (9/20). Based on these statements most of the entrepreneurs have a strong auditory modality as a sensory modality, which means that they are good listeners. Thirdly the output (Table 3) shows that, in 2006, 56% (14/25) agreed with at least five statements out of eight about the visual modality as a sensory modality. The value for comparison from 2008 was 45% (9/20). According to these statements most of the entrepreneurs also have a strong visual sensory modality. They like visualising. Fourthly the output (Table 3) shows that, in 2006, 88% (22/25) agreed with at least five statements out of eight about the kinesthetic as a sensory modality. The value for comparison from 2008 was 65% (13/20). Based on these statements most of the entrepreneurs are decidedly kinesthetic, which means that they are oriented to learning by doing and action. To conclude, the entrepreneurs in the female network like to work with the pair/team/peer, are good listeners, like visualising, and learn by doing.

Information processing, thinking style

The output (Table 4) shows that, in 2006, 40% (10/25) agreed with at least five statements out of eight about simultaneous (right hemisphere) information processing. The value for comparison from 2008 was 35% (7/20). According to these statements about half of the group had strong simultaneous information processing capability. Secondly the output (Table 4) shows that, in 2006 none of the 25 agreed with more than five statements about sequential (left hemisphere) information processing. All (25/25) agreed with at least one to four diverse statements out of eight about sequential information processing. The value for comparison from 2008 was the same with one to four statements and none agreed with more than four statements. Based on these statements, some of the entrepreneurs have low sequential information processing capability. Thirdly the output (Table 4) shows that in 2006, 40% (10/25) agreed with at least six statements out of eight about spontaneous (right hemisphere) thinking style. The value for comparison from 2008 was 10% (2/20). Based on these statements some of the entrepreneurs were highly spontaneous. Fourthly the output (Table 4) shows that in 2006, 24% (6/20) agreed with at least five statements out of eight about the reflective (left hemisphere) thinking style. The value for comparison from 2008 was 5% (1/20). According to these statements some of the entrepreneurs were reflective in their thinking style.

As a conclusion the results of the survey indicate that entrepreneurs were self-starting, had own motivation, had a lot of persistence, and were very responsible, which are all typical characteristics for an entrepreneur (see McClelland, 1961; Timmons, 1999). Some of the entrepreneurs agreed that they were self-directed and liked autonomy, which has been studied by Schumpeter (1934/1962). Regarding the pair/team/peer factor, most of these entrepreneurs agreed with the statements and wanted to work with a partner, have a team or peer instead of being alone, which is necessary and natural in the networking collaboration and context. The auditory profile/factor suggests that they are good listeners and also like discussion. They have a strong visual profile/factor and like visualising. The entrepreneurs had a strong kinesthetic profile/factor. Regarding the information processing and thinking style, it could be stated that the entrepreneurs had more simultaneous information processing ability and were more spontaneous than sequential and reflective as also characterised by Sarasvathy (1998 2006). The results of the entrepreneurial profiles/factors indicate that the entrepreneurs of the networking process had good chances of success in the networking process, they were well motivated, had good persistence, high responsibility, liked to work with a pair/team/peer, and learn in action. They are creative and have a holistic view.

Success as individual experiences of entrepreneurs

As the above results indicated, there were good chances for success in the female entrepreneurial networking process when considered through entrepreneurial profiling. Now we focus on the individual experiences of success in the female entrepreneurial networking process. At the end of the networking process 21 out of 25 female entrepreneurs were interviewed. Six entrepreneurs had changed status and were no longer entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs were interviewed on how networking had succeeded and how networking had benefited the interviewee as an entrepreneur and also her firm. The results of 15 interviews with entrepreneurs indicate that individual success in the female entrepreneurial networking of firms of one to two employees was very personal and intimate. It was experienced (see Table 5) as collegial/peer support, encouragement, networking created channels, and opportunities for entrepreneurs. New products and contacts were developed and resources became available. Learning and new tools to handle entrepreneurship were identified. The female entrepreneurial networking process also enhanced well-being in life.

Table 5. Entrepreneurial experiences

Support and encouragement

‘I have a picture of others’ experiences and work and it helps me to go forward’. MKT3, 6.11.2008

‘[T]o listen to others’ experiences about entrepreneurship, especially women's … especially from diverse business areas, we have got a lot of help, in many kinds … this has been important from many perspectives, I wonder, how we could have managed our situation without this project. We met nice people and types on this journey, we saw the same kind of problems, and in the same way it is good to stop for a while just to listen to the guidance and advice’. TH2, 28.10.2008

‘It supports my work. It relieves you when you are solving some problem alone’. TH3, 21.10.2008

‘[O]n the other hand it brings the joy of being an entrepreneur, because this network, which is together now, we have quite a good sense of humor, and in my opinion, we have very nice meetings, and therefore in many different ways it enhances entrepreneurship and the firm's operation, too’. CH11, 16.10.2008

‘[I]t is the peer support, and it is the sharing of the work, but then it is the mental side too and free days. It is very important to share your experiences and knowledge and to get information, for example, on the phone, if you do not have time to meet face-to-face. One knows something and the other one something else … so it is the information, knowledge and skills sharing, it is question about’. TH7, 13.11.2008

‘And it is the sharing, you can discuss with somebody who has the same kind of problems with her health and this kind of things … and it helps a lot that we can share and inspire each other and enhance intellectual capital with each other, because it helps you with your own firm and working alone’. TH1, 31.10.2008

‘It brings new perspectives and you learn diverse small things, which you have not thought about earlier, … like accounting or other kinds of small hints. When we are working alone, somebody has got an idea, and you share the idea or information … and when you have a certain community, there is also its social side and not only the formal side of the network, but the support’. TH12, 23.10.2008

‘Absolutely, it is important, to join and discuss with other people about the same kinds of matters, experiences and well-being, and networking that you can share your own things and ideas, can work together, develop common activities together’. CH6, 24.10.2008

Products, resources, and so on

‘[I]t is co-operation, new channels, and opportunities and perhaps well-being in the life’. TH2, 28.10.2008

‘I will have different activities, because jointly developed new products give new color to the product palette, probably the clientele will be extended and diversified’. CH, 11.16.10.2008

‘Co-operation, new products, co-operation both joy and opportunity as well as productivity, but when you are working alone as an entrepreneur, you feel lonely and therefore it is hard, when you must make all decisions alone … it is sharing … there must be the intellectual side and not just running after money. What I mostly wish, is the intellectual side and then the money comes in sight when we take care of good co-operation, everybody is well, we can share and develop ourselves and develop together’. TH1, 31.10.2008

‘More products for the firm … and diversity for me as an entrepreneur, that I can get away from the heaviest work. It is nice, that there are both sides, I can do various kinds of work, and it would be really nice’. MKT7, 24.10.2008

Contacts, learning, and other benefits

‘Channels first of all and co-operation with diverse people and tools to handle entrepreneurship and by listening [to] other people's experiences of diverse problems and success stories, you understand entrepreneurship better, and it is not always necessary to experience the most difficult way by yourselves and it is nice to realise that other people have the same kind of experiences’. TH, 28.10.2008

‘[W]hat we have done until now, has enriched my life a lot … and as an entrepreneur I learn from the other entrepreneurs, so it will benefit me, and this peer support and peer learning’. CH11, 16.10.2008

‘Networking is always good. The more you know [about] other entrepreneurs, the more it benefits you. If we think, that I need new customers all the time, by networking, when you have relationships, you can get new customers with the help of other entrepreneurs. You can also make common orders in co-operation’. TH1, 31.10.2008

‘We had an opportunity to meet and discuss and reflect our own ideas with other entrepreneurs’ experiences and in that way learn and get new ideas, which can be tried out’. CH6, 24.10.2008

‘Contacts, professional support and some kind of empowering and visioning, for that kind of things network is quite a good tool’. CH10, 17.11.2008

Well-being

‘I enjoy, get new ideas, support and learning for myself as an entrepreneur’. CH11, 16.10.2008

‘I believe that if I had been alone, as a craftsman, now when I have been an entrepreneur already for 8 years, it has given me a lot of energy, positive support, peer support, which enhance well-being as an entrepreneur’. TH7, 13.11.2008

‘[I]t is my own well-being, it is a benefit and then also customers, when there are channels. When we are there at the moment, we also have three channels, and one large common channel. And the sharing of the work’. TH7, 13.11.2008

‘It is the intellectual side, which is sharing, that enhances well-being. … it is important to maintain the inspiring spirit, which enhances well-being and that we have got during the last days a lot’. TH1, 31.10.2008

During the networking process three small networks (e.g. nets) were built, including nine entrepreneurs (TH1, TH2, TH4, TH6, TH7, TH8, CH11, CH12, MKT7). Two of these networks, including five entrepreneurs, engaged in business and co-operation in the health care business, the third net (Brawonet) included entrepreneurs from diverse business areas; one renovator, one dancing teacher, and two business coaches. The two health care net operated in the traditional health care business, mainly offering services to private customers. The third net (Brawonet) was the most innovative and developed new, innovative well-being services for companies. At the end of the process these four Brawonet entrepreneurs expressed themselves as follows:

In the beginning I could not imagine that just we four are starting to co-operate, but this diamond took two and half years to be crystallised. (Brawonet Group Interview, August 2008)

The role of individual success in the female entrepreneurial networking process was especially important for the nine entrepreneurs who continued to have a business relationship after the experimental networking project. It was realised at the end of the networking process when four entrepreneurs made an agreement on future co-operation that it was firmly based on good motivation, responsibility, and persistence, which enhanced the cooperation of the network.

Conclusions

This study focused on success as individual experience and from entrepreneurs’ point of view in the female entrepreneurial networking process. My initial assumption was that the networking process in the female entrepreneur context and from an individual's point of view is rare; there is a lack of research on success in the female networking context, where entrepreneurs’ individual experiences and personal profiling are considered as success factors. The aim of this study was to explore the key individual success of the female entrepreneurial networking process.

Networks are recognised by entrepreneurs and networking activity is dependent on entrepreneurs’ ability to co-operate and to maintain interdependent relations. The success of the female entrepreneurial networking process is primarily based on relationships of entrepreneurs, who in this research are characterised as follows: they possess motivation, persistence, responsibility, autonomy, a preference for working with a pair/team/peer, auditory modality, visual modality, kinesthetic modality information processing (simultaneous vs. sequential), and thinking style (spontaneous vs. reflective). Entrepreneurial success profiles refer to the characteristics and elements by which network members influence each other, the network as a whole to improve the network relationship, and the success of the entrepreneurial networking process. Success in the female entrepreneurial networking process, in turn, is defined as the extent to which an individual entrepreneur experiences success and benefits in the networking process. This research took a case study approach, since it seemed an appropriate method to pursue the research aims based on a Finnish networking project during the period 2006–2008 funded by the Finnish Workplace Development Project (TYKES). The case data consists of interviews with 21 entrepreneurs as well as the data from a survey with 112 questions/statements administered to 25 (spring 2006) and 20 (autumn 2008) female entrepreneurs. The findings on entrepreneurial factors/profiles suggest that the entrepreneurs in the networking process had many characteristics in common and the network had a good chance of success in the networking process. In most networks, the ultimate test of success is growth in sales, in employment, in profitability, and/or in productivity, or economic-increased efficiency, lower costs, and improved ROI. In the female entrepreneurial network, other more qualitative factors are equally important. The findings of the individual experiences of success in the female entrepreneurial networking process were very personal and intimate. Female entrepreneurs experienced peer support, encouragement, and networking that created new channels and new opportunities. New products and contacts were developed and resources became available. Learning and new tools to handle entrepreneurship were identified. The female entrepreneurial networking process enhanced well-being in life, too.

A team or a group of individuals plays a central role in the female entrepreneurial network. The network provides a shared context where individuals can interact with each other and engage in the constant dialogue on which effective reflection depends. Individuals create new points of view through dialogue and discussion. They pool their information and examine it from various angles. Eventually they integrate their diverse individual perspectives into a new collective perspective by combining their activities in the networking process to produce new services. Success in entrepreneurial networking can enable a higher standard of living for female entrepreneurs, which itself is desirable. Networking female entrepreneurs can become synonymous with successful people and successful economies depending on how they have experienced the networking and what their individual experiences are of success in the female entrepreneurial networking process.

Table 6. Appendix 1

Factors/profile
1. Motivation/self-starting	I enjoy trying new things and often seek new opportunities.
	I feel motivated after successfully completing a project at work.
	It's important to me that I am successful at my job.
	I find on-the-job training stimulating and always want to learn more.
	I'd rather do other things than be at work.
	It really doesn't matter to me or anyone else how well I do at my job.
	My work and/or job training do not really motivate me.
	Learning new skills or leisure activities does not really interest me.
2. Persistence	Once I start a task, I like to work from start to finish and see that it's completed.
	I make every attempt to follow through with each one of my tasks, even when they are difficult.
	I prefer to work systematically and no one has to remind me to get my work done.
	I don't like to stop in the middle of one task to start working on a new one.
	I always have trouble completing difficult tasks at work.
	I generally finish most of my work, but someone has to push me to do it.
	I always procrastinate, hoping I won't have to finish certain tasks.
	When I take breaks, I usually get distracted and often fail to return to my original task.
3. Responsibility	I always like to do what's considered right.
	I don't have to be reminded to do things and always take my duties seriously.
	If I make a mistake, I usually apologise and try to correct it immediately.
	I am a reliable person and do my best to keep my promises.
	There are other things more important to me than working or learning new things.
	I often don't keep my promises, regardless of people's expectations or consequences.
	I don't always do the ‘right’ thing and often can't be bothered to correct my mistakes.
	As a child, learning was not very important to me, and it still isn't.
4. Self-directed	I prefer to receive clear directions before I start something, and tend to follow them closely.
	For difficult tasks, I need clear guidelines or a framework, then I know what to do.
	I like to be told exactly how to do something, when, and where to begin.
	If I get instructions in advance, I have no trouble finishing a task.
	I prefer to work independently and like to work things out for myself.
	I usually figure out how to get things done without instructions.
	I do not like receiving help or being told to how do something.
	If I am unable to finish something, I reluctantly ask for directions and then try to complete it myself.
5. Pair/team/peer	I work or concentrate better with another person present.
	I am more productive and get more done when I have a partner to work with.
	I learn more and work faster if I have someone else to exchange ideas with.
	I like to share ideas, or what I've learned, with a friend or co-worker.
	I enjoy working on team projects.
	I prefer to work with a team or committee instead of working alone.
	Being part of a team enhances the quality of my work, my effectiveness, and insight.
	Working or learning with a team helps me to achieve better results.
	When working in a group, I find that we all help each other.
	Interacting with people of similar interests improves my comprehension and learning.
	I prefer to develop new ideas with members of a peer group, often without a leader.
	I am most effective in my work or study when I can relate to colleagues, friends, or like-minded people.
6. Auditory	I remember best by listening or discussing.
	I can absorb a lot of information by just listening to an audio tape or a radio report.
	I really like lectures and recall information well if someone reads it to me.
	My comprehension improves when someone talks to me and I learn a lot from listening.
	I remember best when I can explain to others what I have learned, read, or heard.
	Talking out loud helps me to organise my thoughts.
	I love debating and enjoy participating in discussion groups.
	For better understanding, I need to talk things over with someone else.
	I understand difficult concepts more easily if I can talk them over in my head.
	By talking to myself I often find solutions to my problems.
	When I worry, I always have a lot of negative self-talk going on in my head.
	I tend to say the words in my head when I am reading.
7. Visual	I remember best by reading or seeing information written down.
	I prefer computer programs with words, graphs, and flowcharts.
	I like books and task descriptions with clear, precise text, and instructions.
	I enjoy solving crossword puzzles and/or word games.
	I remember best by watching a television programme, video, or movie.
	I really enjoy computer programs with graphics, pictures and colours.
	Doodling helps me to remember what I hear.
	I like to sketch, draw charts, and symbols when working on a new project.
	I can understand difficult concepts more easily when I visualise them.
	I tend to create images in my mind when I worry.
	When I have to solve a problem, it is easier for me if I imagine the outcome.
	Picturing what I have heard, seen, or read helps me to remember and understand new information better.
8. Kinesthetic	I like work that requires me to be out of the office.
	I prefer projects with physical activities or involvement in real situations.
	I learn best by getting involved – by doing, interviewing, experiencing, or reporting.
	I often do my best thinking when pacing, walking, or jogging.
	I remember best when I feel positive about the material I am dealing with.
	Often I understand new material by how I feel about it.
	I prefer to solve problems or make decisions based on my intuition.
9. Information processing
Simultaneous/right brain	I like to have an overview or know the reasons and goals before I start.
	My comprehension is better when I get a summary right at the beginning, then concrete examples, and when I feel good about the task at hand
	I prefer people who have a sense of humour and a positive view on life.
	I tend to browse through a magazine or newspaper backward, often read the end of a book first, and then decide whether it's worth reading.
Sequential/left brain	I prefer tasks and topics that move in a logical sequence, contain plenty of details, and avoid sidetracking.
	I like details and benefit most from analysing information.
	I prefer people who stay on task, are serious, and don't fool around.
	I always start at the beginning of a book or magazine, rarely dip into the middle, and/or look at the end first.
10. Thinking style
Spontaneous/right hemisphere	I am a quick thinker and get bored if I have to reflect on things for too long.
	People tell me that I make snap decisions.
	Most of the time I don't really think before I speak, make a decision, or take action.
	In conversation, I often interrupt and sometimes have the answer even before the question is asked.
Reflective/left hemisphere	For better understanding, I need to think first and I prefer to consider all options before I make a decision.
	I usually don't make snap decisions.
	I always think about the consequences before I take action.
	When I respond to questions I have to think about the answers first.

Conflict of interest and funding

The author has not received any funding or benefits from industry or elsewhere to conduct this study.

Acknowledgements

This research project was funded by the Finnish Workplace Development Programme TYKES (2004–2009). Coordination of the programme is the responsibility of the programme's project team at the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES) in the Ministry of Employment and the Economy.