As an expert on women entrepreneurs, I'm often asked questions such as:
Why do female entrepreneurs have a problem of scale? Why do they continually start and run businesses that are low-profit, low growth, small enterprise, and low-tech? How can they be encouraged to build larger, higher-tech, more noticeable businesses?
In short, I am being asked: "How can we get female entrepreneurs to start those blockbuster businesses that are so often started by men?"
And I get very frustrated, because in my mind this is the wrong conversation.
These questions are problematic because they reinforce the strong dichotomy that exists in the mind of the general public between businesses that are fast-growing, capital-rich, and highly-visible (and undeniably mostly male) and businesses that grow more organically, remain closely held, have greater longevity, have less capital, and stay smaller.
The first group gets deemed the legitimate "real" entrepreneurs, while the latter group, especially if they are run by women, gets passed off as "lifestyle" or "lipstick" entrepreneurs. While in reality businesses in the latter group are run by both men and women, I've yet to see a man's business pejoratively referred to as a "lifestyle" business.
Of course, it is also frustrating that women receive only 5% of venture capital and have historically had limited access to the necessary training, networks, and education required to get equity funding. I absolutely support the call for greater access to capital for women entrepreneurs and consider the funding disparity to be a big problem. However in reality, these conversations about women in technology and women's ability to access capital take into consideration only a minority of women entrepreneurs and only one model of entrepreneurship.
It can be easy to forget that of the 8-10 million women entrepreneurs in the U.S., only a very small portion are fundable by the traditional VC model, and only a portion are even interested in this kind of funding. The over-emphasis on these conversations not only prevents us from talking about the real issues that impact and matter to the majority of women entrepreneurs, but also detracts from the value and legitimacy of the majority of women entrepreneurs.
Lifestyle entrepreneurship makes someone's life work seem like a hobby -- an indulgent, half-serious "interest" pursued in one's spare time. This doesn't describe the women entrepreneurs we work with: women who actually work quite a lot (probably more than in their corporate gigs), who depend on the income they generate, who are interested and invested in the strategic growth and development of their venture, and who constantly seek challenge, variety, and new opportunities.
These are women who spotted an opportunity and took significant risks; they make tough decisions about growth and direction, watch costs and calculate cash flow and profitability, and invest in marketing and product/sales development. Many of them built their business in response to a problem or need that they felt called to fix.
I don't think I'd call them anything but entrepreneurs.
The difference between the women we work with and our society's well-reinforced notion of "real" entrepreneurs is that most of them are focused on the long-term viability and sustainability of their venture instead of its fast growth and quick sale. Generally, they are looking to create something that can grow with them overtime, meet their changing needs, and remain something that they can control.
Growing a business in this way is not a process taken haphazardly, here and there, as you think of it, and in between other extracurricular activities. Instead, it requires careful planning, constant assessment, and frequent recalibration. Categorically calling these women lifestyle entrepreneurs undermines the risks they take, the impact they make, and the value they create.
Of course, and as with most social justice issues, the rigid dichotomy does a disservice to both sides. It relegates female entrepreneurs to second-class status and limits male entrepreneurs' ability to comfortably experiment and explore a variety of entrepreneurial models. If everyone is either a "legitimate" entrepreneur focused on fast growth and capital acquisition or a lifestyle entrepreneur, where does that leave men who are also incrementally building something great that they want to keep for the long haul?
So of course, if "how can women's firms be more like men's" is the wrong conversation, then what is the right one?
Recognizing the variety of reasons that one becomes an entrepreneur and the many ways to go about it, we should be asking whether women entrepreneurs are able to achieve their goals. Are they getting where they'd like to go?
I have previously suggested that given the average revenue metrics, the answer is likely not. I still maintain that in order to improve these statistics we need, among other things:
• More support for fantastic organizations like Springboard, Astia, and Golden Seeds or newer incubators like Springworks, all of which help women obtain angel and VC funding.
• Greater contributions to the Kauffman Foundation, which works on behalf of all entrepreneurs and lobbies for small business-friendly policies.
• To encourage the media to profile a wider variety of businesses (beyond those that are high-tech, fast-growth, and capital laden) and to highlight more varied measures of success (rather than money raised or money made).
• An expanded SBA loan program with an increased focus on early stage entrepreneurs and women.
• Some bright entrepreneurs to come up with more creative and women entrepreneur-friendly funding alternatives.
• More education and programs that teach about multiple models of entrepreneurship and various ways to grow a company and obtain profitability.
Some of these are admittedly big items, and in the meantime I think it's high time that we put a little effort into reframing entrepreneurship in a way that helps us stop seeing women business owners as second-class entrepreneurs.
Let's each start by working to:
• Expand our collective definition and measures of success.
• Recognize and respect the many models of entrepreneurship and the variety of motivations that drive them.
• Stop judging what kind of entrepreneurship is real or legitimate.
And, lastly, if you are a woman business owner, please claim the title entrepreneur. Chances are you really deserve the credit.
Follow Adelaide Lancaster on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ingoodcmpny
Maddy Dychtwald and Christine Larson: Must One Gender Rule the Other?
Robert Rosenthal: 5 Remarkable Female Entrepreneurs
Thank you for honoring all of our efforts with a great post!
The other point worth mentioning re: VC's is the amount of control they have over the business once they provide funding. Many people choose not to go this route because they could, in essence, be fired from their own venture, not to mention give up a considerable amount of the profit. What is lost on these guys is the notion that some people don't need to be spectacularly rich--they just want to create a family-owned business that's here for the long-haul. But, as we've seen in the testosterone-laden world of big business, short term profits trump long-term stability every time.
I believe the connection of all three is the "holy trinity" that will create a more equitable society. (Separated, philanthropy becomes an afterthought and activism is left to a few stalwarts; separated, social injustice continues until it becomes pervasive, and discrimination by sex and race stops being questioned even by those it is oppressing.)
WOMEN are the glue that holds our society together; I think women want their business success to impact family, community and the world. The women I speak to have figured out that they can use their business as a vehicle for SOCIAL CHANGE; they can make money while eradicating poverty, and funnel their profits into helping elect progressive women to the House and Senate where policies are being made that effect their lives, their families, their business opportunities, their safety, and the planet.
The Friedman Model is a failure: How much more evidence do we need of that than a credit crisis, mortgage crisis, numerous "pre-emptive" wars abroad, banking run amok, rape of our environment for oil and coal...aggression in every form!
Rosanne Ferreri-Feske, CEO
The New US Woman
http://www.thenewuswoman.com
I moved to a community 7 years ago that did not and to some degree still does not accept and encourge WBO's to be successful. I have seen many local businesses owned by women close their doors because they were just not able to "make it".
Here in this communty we do not have any groups or organizations that are specifically for WBO's. We have the typical (not-so-much) networking opportunities and a few workshops that are arranged but what I have found is that the big component that is missing is EDUCATION!!
I have been frustrated by this and I realized that there had to be other women business owners across the country who were probably feeling the same way so I decided to do something about it :-) I have created an online community where WBO's can come together to network with other WBO's - no dressing up or business cards needed - and they can come together and learn from industry leading experts - through the amazing technology of webinars :-)
Education for women business owners is so important and I thank you for shining the light on this. I hope to have done my part in creating a place that WBO's can come and learn and in turn will grow their businesses to new heights!!
Proudly an entrepreneur,
Dayna Palmer
Founder
Women Business Owners Network
www.WBOnetwork.com
I agree with your points about needing to expand our definition and measures of success and respecting the different models of entrepreneurship and the underlying motivations. This is important because for many female entrepreneurs success is measured by different factors than those of their male counterparts. Women also often see self-satisfaction as their primary motivators and measures of success, whereas men will more likely be motivated by profit and growth.
Christine Maingard, Author of "Think Less, Be More" - http://www.thinklessbemore.com
While conversations about access to funding and support for women building scalable businesses may not affect the majority of female entrepreneurs, they still are important conversations to have. Yes, that conversation is too narrow, but I personally hesitate to call them the ‘wrong conversations.’ Are they being over-emphasized? I don’t think so if women are still receiving only 5 percent of VC money. I think the goal would be to broaden the conversation, no?
Now, as you point out, that’s not a path that every woman business owner wants to pursue and therefore the conversation may not personally be relevant to all. And yes, there are many valuable models of entrepreneurship for men and women alike. However, in deeming the model of “funded, high growth entrepreneurship as more male,” doesn’t this discussion fail to support the women who are going that route and perhaps even does a disservice to them.
As you point out, it’s important not to judge what kind of entrepreneurship is real or legitimate, as there are many models that women want to pursue. I’d also add that its helpful to stay away from deeming some modes of business growth “typically male” or “typically female” as that actually perpetuates these notions. As we know, women entrepreneurs collectively play a hugely important role in the economy, and your insightful calls to action would be helpful for all, regardless of their growth plans.
thanks for your input.