IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v14y2024i11p302-d1521489.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Looking Through the Entrepreneurial Kaleidoscope—Examining Stereotypes Against Commercial, Social, Environmental, and Community Entrepreneurs in Kenya and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Kruse

    (Faculty of Psychology, School of Science, Technical University Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany)

  • Pauline Wangari Kamau

    (Faculty of Psychology, School of Science, Technical University Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany)

Abstract

For the greater part of entrepreneurial history, entrepreneurship’s primary target was commercial, i.e., money generation for the entrepreneur and his or her stakeholders. However, starting in the 1980s, hybrid forms of entrepreneurship fusing the creation of non-financial value with entrepreneurial means have gained traction. Currently, several conceptually different forms, e.g., social, environmental, and community entrepreneurship, exist. Research yields various differences comparing commercial and hybrid entrepreneurship, particularly in the stereotypical perceptions of different entrepreneurs. Notwithstanding notable insights, entrepreneurial stereotype research suffers from three major shortcomings. First, stereotype differences are primarily examined by comparing commercial to hybrid entrepreneurs, neglecting stereotype differences inside hybrid entrepreneurship. Second, the scope of stereotypes investigated (e.g., warmth and competence) remains vague and lacks entrepreneurial specificity. Third, the robustness of entrepreneurial stereotypes under different institutional circumstances, e.g., in economy and culture, is unclear. The current study addresses these three shortcomings. Analyzing two samples from Kenya and Germany ( N total = 286) with repeated-measures analyses of co-variance, we find notable stereotype differences (i) inside hybrid entrepreneurs; (ii) regarding warmth, competence, and entrepreneurship-specific success indicators; and (iii) under different institutional circumstances. Despite acknowledgeable limitations, our work extends previous stereotype research by highlighting the necessity for a more fine-grained, specific, and inter-country perspective on entrepreneurial stereotypes.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Kruse & Pauline Wangari Kamau, 2024. "Looking Through the Entrepreneurial Kaleidoscope—Examining Stereotypes Against Commercial, Social, Environmental, and Community Entrepreneurs in Kenya and Germany," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-24, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:14:y:2024:i:11:p:302-:d:1521489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/14/11/302/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/14/11/302/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ana Laguía & Cristina García-Ael & Dominika Wach & Juan A. Moriano, 2019. "“Think entrepreneur - think male”: a task and relationship scale to measure gender stereotypes in entrepreneurship," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 749-772, September.
    2. Eleanor Meda Chipeta & Robert Venter & Philipp Kruse, 2022. "Measuring the Role of Reductive Bias in Social Enterprise Formation: Development and Validation of a Social Entrepreneurial Intention Bias Scale," Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 164-182, May.
    3. John Thompson & Bob Doherty, 2006. "The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 33(5/6), pages 361-375, May.
    4. Christian Dustmann & Bernd Fitzenberger & Uta Sch?nberg & Alexandra Spitz-Oener, 2014. "From Sick Man of Europe to Economic Superstar: Germany's Resurgent Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(1), pages 167-188, Winter.
    5. Audretsch, David B. & Lehmann, Erik E., 2016. "The Seven Secrets of Germany: Economic Resilience in an Era of Global Turbulence," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190258696.
    6. Tamami Komatsu Cipriani & Alessandro Deserti & Maria Kleverbeck & Francesca Rizzo & Judith Terstriep, 2020. "Business models & social innovation: mission-driven versus profit-driven organisations," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 541-566, September.
    7. Anna E. Kornadt & Peggy Voss & Klaus Rothermund, 2017. "Age Stereotypes and Self-Views Revisited: Patterns of Internalization and Projection Processes Across the Life Span," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 72(4), pages 582-592.
    8. Kuppens, Line & Langer, Arnim & Ibrahim, Sulley, 2018. "‘A teacher is no politician’: Stereotypic attitudes of secondary school teachers in Kenya," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 270-280.
    9. Berry, James W. & Sanchez, Janice, 2019. "Perceiving entrepreneurs: Job title comparisons in warmth and competence," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 12(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2017. "Technological Innovation and Inclusive Growth in Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 11194, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Sergio Destefanis & Matteo Fragetta & Giuseppe Mastromatteo & Nazzareno Ruggiero, 2020. "The Beveridge curve in the OECD before and after the great recession," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 10(3), pages 411-436, September.
    3. Brigitte Granville & Jaume Martorell Cruz & Martha Prevezer, 2015. "Elites, Thickets and Institutions: French Resistance versus German Adaptation to Economic Change, 1945-2015," Working Papers 63, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.
    4. Elstner, Steffen & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2018. "The German productivity paradox: Facts and explanations," Ruhr Economic Papers 767, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    5. Tobias Brändle & Laszlo Goerke, 2018. "The one constant: a causal effect of collective bargaining on employment growth? Evidence from German linked‐employer‐employee data," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 65(5), pages 445-478, November.
    6. Vallés, Javier & Salas Fumás, Vicente & San Juan, Lucio, 2022. "Corporate economic profits in the euro area: The relevance of cost competitive advantage," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 569-585.
    7. Uwe JIRJAHN & Stephen C. SMITH, 2018. "Nonunion Employee Representation: Theory And The German Experience With Mandated Works Councils," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(1), pages 201-233, March.
    8. Charlotte Senftleben-König, "undated". "Public Sector Employment and Local Multipliers," BDPEMS Working Papers 2014010, Berlin School of Economics.
    9. Michael Berlemann & Vera Jahn & Robert Lehmann, 2018. "Auswege aus dem Dilemma der empirischen Mittelstandsforschung," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 71(23), pages 22-28, December.
    10. Jörg Bibow, 2018. "How Germany’s anti-Keynesianism has brought Europe to its knees," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(5), pages 569-588, September.
    11. Mario Reinhold & Stephan Thomsen, 2017. "The changing situation of labor market entrants in Germany [Die veränderliche Situation für Berufseinsteiger in Deutschland]," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 50(1), pages 161-174, August.
    12. Kevin Pineda‐Hernández & François Rycx & Mélanie Volral, 2022. "How collective bargaining shapes poverty: New evidence for developed countries," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 60(4), pages 895-928, December.
    13. Bibek Adhikari & Romain Duval & Bingjie Hu & Prakash Loungani, 2018. "Can Reform Waves Turn the Tide? Some Case Studies using the Synthetic Control Method," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 879-910, September.
    14. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2022. "The Ossified Economy: The Case of Germany, 1870-2020," IZA Discussion Papers 15607, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Y. Saks, 2016. "Socio-economic transitions on the labour market : a European benchmarking exercise," Economic Review, National Bank of Belgium, issue iii, pages 41-58, December.
    16. Gagliardi, Luisa & Moretti, Enrico & Serafinelli, Michel, 2023. "The World's Rust Belts: The Heterogeneous Effects of Deindustrialization on 1,993 Cities in Six Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 16648, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Matteo Bugamelli & Silvia Fabiani & Stefano Federico & Alberto Felettigh & Claire Giordano & Andrea Linarello, 2018. "Back on Track? A Macro–Micro Narrative of Italian Exports," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 4(1), pages 1-31, March.
    18. Barbara Bradač Hojnik & Katja Crnogaj, 2020. "Social Impact, Innovations, and Market Activity of Social Enterprises: Comparison of European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, March.
    19. Stephan Brunow & Stefanie Lösch & Ostap Okhrin, 2022. "Labor market tightness and individual wage growth: evidence from Germany," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 56(1), pages 1-21, December.
    20. Ganserer, Angelika, 2021. "Non-compliance with temporary agency work regulations: Initial evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-057, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:14:y:2024:i:11:p:302-:d:1521489. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.