Abstract

Purpose: the main purpose of the paper was to examine how internal stimuli among women are vital for opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial success. Most studies in the field explored external factors facilitating entrepreneurial success at the expense of internalized individual factors. Without a gendered perspective approach, previous studies have focused so much on male entrepreneurs ignoring women in the field.

Research approach: this is a theory driven paper and hence it combined Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior with Shapero’s model of the Entrepreneurial Event. The approach was necessary to allow testing of hypothesis against each other rather than against using arbitrary standards. It was necessary for providing robust descriptive information for each factor as well as establishing the relationships between them.

Findings: it was established that environmental and individual factors both affect the relationships between internal stimuli and opportunity recognition hence entrepreneurial success. Developing entrepreneurial orientation mind set as an internal stimulus is responsible for direct positive impact of opportunity recognition thus entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurial success depends on the core competencies for developing a strategic management approaches to internal stimuli. There is no substantial empirically proven evidence that entrepreneurial phenomenon tends to be highly compatible with certain culture than others. It is universally acceptable that there is a positive relationship between women internal stimuli, opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial successful.

Key words: internal stimuli, opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial success

 

Introduction

• Background of the study (300)

The fact is that every person has at some point in life thought of becoming self-employed by owning a business enterprise. According to Hulbert, Gilmore, & Carson, (2015) every institution including government entities have always advocated for entrepreneurship as form of creating jobs. Unfortunately, very few are usually able to achieve this goal. As a result, people wonder why even promising entrepreneurial prospects fail to establish and sustain their own businesses. Approached from gender-based perspective, women are extremely affected camper to their male counterparts. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct extensive research to understand how to mould successful entrepreneurs. Past research in the field has always focused on reasons as why potential entrepreneurs usually fail to accomplish their dreams (Hulbert, Gilmore, & Carson, 2015). The study has also being inclined towards understanding external factors at the expense of personal qualities. It is important to take a different approach and examine reason why there are successful entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and success has been extensively studied over time. However, there has existed serious biasness until in 2007 when Dawn DeTienne and Gaylen Chandler shifted their attention. The two performed an impressive function when they shifted their focus to study the role of gender in opportunity recognition. Previous studies had only focused on entrepreneurial traits, skills, environmental factors and entrepreneurial process. However, since dawn and chandler’s research there has been commendable shifting attention among researchers. According to their study, it was established that women used different human capital factors to identify opportunities compared to men (DeTienne & Chandler, 2007). Therefore, Dawn’s study has major contributions to opportunity recognition literature as well as social feminism theories. They conclude that despite the fact that women use different approaches to identify opportunities none of them is deemed superior than another. Thus, it prompts further research to understand how and why some women tend to be more successful than others are.

As a result, Dr.S.Valli Devasena & Priyadarshini, (2011) tried to establish the possible causes of success disparities among entrepreneurial women. In the study, they confirm that gender is one of the factors that determine entrepreneurial success. However, they narrowed down and established that women possess different qualities among themselves. According to their study, various factors such as age, education, socioeconomic status, social networks and regional development among others are responsible for the disparity in success (Dr.S.Valli Devasena & Priyadarshini, 2011). In addition, it is evident that most studies have only based on external factors. They thus fail to address the role of internal personal attributes in opportunity recognition as well as women entrepreneurial success. Due to this, this article has been prepared to with the purpose of extensively incorporating internal stimuli among women into the exercising literature. Similarly, it is vital to consider internal personal qualities instead of concentrating on external factors and hence the preparation of this article.

1.2       Significance of the Study

As Kickul, Liao, Gundry, & Iakovleva, (2010) states, an effective process for solving a problem entails adoption of systematic procedural guidelines. Since past research has always taken a general approach, it is time to change the tune and concentrate on a specific category of the society. Consequently, this article narrows down to examine why internally driven women entrepreneurs normally emerges as successful business people. Women, forms a relevant social section worth examination due to the changing social trends (Kickul, Liao, Gundry, & Iakovleva, 2010). Currently, women are on the forefront and they have shown great potential of taking the lead. Therefore, it is prudent to understand the type of incoming leaders before entrusting them with global resources. Research has also indicated that women have the tendency of influencing more lives compared to their male counterparts. Thus, empowering women translates into massive global empowerment and transformation hence the need to understand the dynamics about this social sector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Literature Review

2.1       Opportunity recognition

Hulbert, Gilmore, & Carson, (2015) puts forth a simple definition of an opportunity is simply an inaccurately defined market need leading to underutilization of available capabilities and resources.  In another study Hurbert et al (1997) business opportunity is not only a chance to meet an unsatisfied need but also where there is sufficient demand to address meeting that need worthwhile. Due to this, it is believed that an opportunity only exists in a specific industry context whereby external factors interfere with the present equilibrium states on the market. Singh & Hills (2003) write it is a key factor in any business lifecycle. It mainly occurs at the certain start-up of a venture by whether by a sole trader, in the development growth strategies or even in the construction of a business momentum in a well-established venture.  In Gaglio work, ‘The Role of Mental Simulations and Thinking in the Opportunity Identification Process’, examined the how question regarding entrepreneurs think and reasons to identify and address innovative opportunities. The study examination presumes from the theory of alertness that the driving force of all economic activities entails decision-making for the change. The study, however, shifts attentions from the nature of process towards a perspective of underlying dynamics.

The aim of interfering with the equilibrium state is to initiate competition among market actors.  The foundation of a business opportunity emanates from a change to the business environment. It in turn means a change in political, economic, and technological environment. As a result, Singh & Hills (2003) pointed out that recognition lies in two keys; the knowledge processed and self-awareness of that needed knowledge, the desire to own and make use of it to explore the opportunity. One is only considered a successful entrepreneur if she is able to recognize and acquire specific information about the markets. Then she must use this information to identify possible gaps that are invisible to others and strive to twist them into business opportunities.

On the contrary, from a firm perspective, Dr.S.Valli Devasena & Priyadarshini, (2011) hypothesize that competitiveness is evident in technological industry because there is pressure to cope with constant changing and developing market environment. As a result, from corporate terms, the two element of opportunity recognition converges together in some form of strategic or marketing strategies. Entrepreneurs, therefore, are forced not only to produce new products but to identify new markets as well. Adopting entrepreneurial mindsets, help them increase opportunity recognition capabilities. As forwarded by these arguments it is easier for one to become an internally driven entrepreneur due to need for active participation. As for Matherne, (2007) it is it is essential to have an understanding about person-organization fit and person-entrepreneurship fit. In simple terms, this is essential to understand the relationship between target entrepreneurs as a person with the organizations they work and their entrepreneurship goals.

Schwarz, Wdowiak, Almer‐Jarz, & Breitenecker, (2009) argues that factors that affect opportunity recognition capability among entrepreneurs can be broadly categorized into industry and market specific factors, socio-political factors and individual specific factors. The study put forward that industry and market factors include industry context, market and knowledge. Socio-political factors include government policies, culture, history, and socioeconomic dynamics. Individual factors entail major personality traits such as inventiveness, alertness, education, social class identity, social networks, previous experience and previous knowledge. In their study, Orser, Elliott, & Leck, (2012) claims that sociopolitical factors support the fact that entrepreneurial success is reliant on culture. Thus, it implies that entrepreneurship is compatible in some cultures compared to other different ones. In light of this observation, the study emphasizes that regional innovation is the major determinant for opportunity recognition.

However, Matherne, (2007) argues in contrary and claims that region specific stock of knowledge is the main factor responsible for regional disparities in entrepreneurial success. It implies that these two factors have relatively same impact on opportunity recognition. He, therefore, tried to suggest major national cultural dimension that can be used in the study of opportunity recognition process. The highlighted cultural dimensions include power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, restraint versus indulgence and normative versus pragmatic. Ethnic background is another factor that has been explored to understand its impact on opportunity recognition. Result by Kickul, Liao, Gundry, & Iakovleva, (2010) shows that racial differences are among the factors responsible for opportunity recognition among nascent entrepreneurs. The outcomes of these study reveals that white women are more likely to venture into business compared to their colored counterparts.

According to Gaglio & Katz (2001), opportunity identification process is a nurtured intention that shapes an entrepreneur’s  behavior.  They argue that business identification process starts as a reflex, responding to the conditions we have around us. Thinking about the condition is process of opportunity identification, which counter thinking simulations provide constructs of the perceived opportunity into a viable business Gaglio & Katz firmly argues in line with the psychological literature, particularly in cases where behavior is rare or in unpredictable time lags, intentions have revealed the predictors of planned behavior.

P1: Extrinsic and individual factors both affect the relationships between internal stimuli and opportunity recognition hence entrepreneurial success

2.2       Women Stimuli to Do Business (1000-1200)

As far as Coleman & Kariv, (2013) are concerned one must understand the real meaning of entrepreneurial opportunity before developing interest in identification and exploration of these opportunities. Therefore, he defines entrepreneurial opportunity as a condition that allows development of new means to an end by reorganization of scarcely available resources for a profit. Through the definition, it follows then that internally driven entrepreneurs must have a purpose and reason for making an investment. With a purpose, it is easier to set goals and strive to achieve them for self-satisfaction as one strives to reach the highest position of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Ability to recognize an entrepreneurial opportunity has been studied extensively. The existing body of knowledge have been developed to provide an answer to the question; “why some people do recognize an opportunity that cannot be recognized by others?” As DeTienne & Chandler, (2007) states that there are chances two different people are thinking about the same thing at the same time. However, since they have different capabilities and sources of motivation, it is not easier for them to implement the idea at the same time. According to this study, the question can be addressed effectively by considering four major factors. These are previously acquired experiences, knowledge possessed, inspiration and most importantly cognition (Eckhardt, and Shane (2003). Review of existing sources of information confirms that this assertion is only true when considering social networks and entrepreneur alertness.

A delve into by Becker, Aufseß, & Brem, (2015) extents the above findings by elaborating more about entrepreneur alertness as one of the most important internal stimuli for opportunity recognition. In this study, entrepreneur alertness is defined as tendency to discern and become responsive to information about environmental stimuli. As an entrepreneur, it means that one must be able to sense the needs, interests and problems of potential product users. One is not an accomplished entrepreneur until she is able to mobilize and combine available resources to satisfy the needs of product users. Related study by Brush, Carter, Gatewood, Greene, & Hart, (2006) holds that ability to appreciate the role of external stimuli is reliant on one’s personal characteristics and traits.

Thus, the ability to interlink these inner values is the starting point for an entrepreneur to comprehend firm’s internationalization process. Therefore, opportunity recognition is a gradual process that depends on the quality as well as quantity of internally developed values. Various channels for opportunity recognition exist and most notable ones are; through education, networks and previous acquired experience. According to Coleman & Kariv, (2013) investigation, personality traits especially self-efficacy, motivational and inventiveness are vital for opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial success. Specifically pointing out on motivation, the study emphasizes that this personality virtue is vital for endurance. Through motivation, an entrepreneur is able to develop a thriving spirit and remain persistently willing to pursue the opportunity.

P2: Developing entrepreneurial orientation mind set as an internal stimulus is responsible for direct positive impact of opportunity recognition thus entrepreneurial success.

2.3       Women Entrepreneurial Success

Dr.S.Valli Devasena & Priyadarshini, (2011) emphasizes that understanding the concept of entrepreneurship among internally driven women must start buy understanding the entrepreneurial process. As he highlights, being a successful entrepreneur is not just an overnight decision. Instead, it can be considered a lifetime process that requires one to commit all that she has. Using a retrospective approach, (Kickul, Liao, Gundry, & Iakovleva, 2010) strives to highlight major stages of a comprehensive entrepreneurial process. In the study, the main stages of entrepreneurial process listed include; 1) developing self-employment thoughts, 2) discovery phase, 3) exploitation phase and 4) entrepreneurial phase. Unfortunately, this paper failed to provide an elaborative explanation about each of the mention phases. However, a related study by Schwarz, Wdowiak, Almer‐Jarz, & Breitenecker, (2009) expounded by revealing that every person at some point usually anticipates to become her own boss.

Nevertheless, as one grows and discovers more about themselves. Usually, the subjects change their dreams hence the discovery phase. During this phase, most people realize that it is very hard for them to become their own bosses and thus they opt for formal employment. The 35% who remains enter the exploitation phases whereby they becoming highly committed to start their companies. Due to some external factors such as socioeconomic status, cultural norms and education background the number of entrepreneurs continues to reduce. Eventually, only 5 to 10 percent of the population ends up starting their businesses due to their inner ability to overcome the challenges.

In relation to the above entrepreneurial process, Kickul, Liao, Gundry, & Iakovleva, (2010) conducted a study to establish the dynamic aspects associated with entrepreneurial process. In this study, it was revealed the number of people who persistently holds unto their entrepreneurial desires keeps on reducing over time. They identified that most of the quitters do so due to changes in the political and economic conditions without giving out any actual basis. It shows that most people tend to blame their failure on the situation rather than striving to understand what they are exactly made of internally. Thus, it was suggested that it is necessary to conduct research that identifies the power of internal stimuli in entrepreneurial success.

Supporting this recommendation Hulbert, Gilmore, & Carson, (2015) performed a study to assess the level of satisfaction among employed people. The findings identified that 99% of employed people are not satisfied with their current jobs. In fact, they still wish that they could have the ability to start their own businesses at some point in life. Therefore, under this study entrepreneurs were categorized into latent, nascent and young entrepreneurs depending on their age. Latent entrepreneurships are retired people who anticipate starting their own business in the next three years even though they do not have any concrete reality. Nascent entrepreneurs are people aged between 18 and 64 years who admire to start a business at some point. Young entrepreneurs are people who were at some time nascent entrepreneurs but they have actually transformed their idea into visible business start-ups.

Inspired by the above studies, Coleman & Kariv, (2013) developed a research inquiry to uncover the possible reasons for disparities among people in accomplishing their entrepreneurial dreams. One of the major factors identified by this research was gender and sex orientations. During this study, it was established women are more likely to forego their entrepreneurial dreams compared to their male counterparts. Closely related study by Brush, Carter, Gatewood, Greene, & Hart, (2006) reveals that the major cause of this disparity is the level attitude and willingness to take up risks. The results shows that women decide to become self-employed when they are older than men are and they prefer investing in service industries. This study falls short because it fails to recognize the possible reasons as to why this is the situation. Therefore, there is need to undertake further study about the topic to get insight on the possible causes of the above results.

Study by Becker, Aufseß, & Brem, (2015) established that family backgrounds have great impact on the way women make investment decision. The study states that the burden of child caring and traditional duties is major reasons as to why women base on their families to make investment decisions. For that reason, women who are married and those with school going children prefer self-employment compared to those who do not have committed family duties. This is because women with families want to capitalize on the flexibility and independence that comes with self-employment.

DeTienne & Chandler’s (2007) research on a relatively different topic has shown that increasing ability in opportunity recognition among women increases their investment confidence level. Women who are able to identify promising business opportunities are likely to become self employed at a younger age. They are also always quick to make positive investment decisions by a factor of 1.5 to 1.9 compared to men. Women with low formal education have higher opportunity recognition perceptions for startups. It is presumed that women in this category know very well they cannot secure any decent formal job and hence they must strive to become self employed. Another possible factor contributing to this is the fact that they have less divergent attentions.

A related study by Kickul, Liao, Gundry, & Iakovleva, (2010) states that highly educated people tend to have so many business ideas such that they fail to decide which one to be implemented. People in this category find every business idea lucrative and attractive as well as having serious risks. This implies that educated women usually lack clear view of their entrepreneurial goals hence making it hard for them to identify good opportunities. According to Orser, Elliott, & Leck, (2012) social relationships are also essential for accomplishment of entrepreneurial dreams. Women who have close relationships with successful business people are likely to become successful entrepreneurs as well. This is attributed to the fact that they get constant motivation and encouragement to follow their dreams.

P3: Entrepreneurial success depends on the core competencies for developing a strategic management approach to internal stimuli hence the need to recognize women’s backgrounds

2.4.      Opportunity Recognition, Women Stimuli to Do Business, and Women Entrepreneurial Success

According to the wrap up views, it is evident that the relationship between the three variables opportunity recognition, women stimuli, and entrepreneurial success exist. Accordingly, the opportunity identification result from the disequilibrium state is triggered by the external factors. The external factors develop a planned behavior of an entrepreneur. Consequently, the personal factors process the opportunities recognized. According to Kirzne (1979) writes that people varies and are not equally likely to recognize the same opportunities to venture. It is through recognition arrives at because of mental simulation rather than search. However, counterfactuals thinking determine entrepreneur’s break through from the external stimulus (Gaglio, 2004).

P4: there is a correlation between women stimuli, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial success.

2.5       New Model/ Conceptual Framework 

No specific research approach is sufficient to effectively analyze the impact of the relationship between internal stimuli and opportunity recognition on entrepreneurial success. As a result, multiple comparable hypothesis testing research models were used. The models used allowed testing of hypothesis against each other instead of being based on and arbitrary standard. As a social psychology model, theory driven model was adopted to provide comprehensive roadmap for understanding the nature of internal stimuli processes. Meta analysis study by Coleman & Kariv, (2013) have shown that attitudes are reliable for intention prediction while intentions are necessary for predicting behaviors. In the past, entrepreneurial models have neglected robust and predictive approaches hence the need for adopting a different model. Thus, the Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior is essential for measuring internal stimuli aspects such as attitude, intentions, perception, and self-efficacy. It also helps in linking these internal stimuli factors to external individual factors such as behavior. Therefore, the model is necessary for gathering information that is in line with all the above propositions.

On the other hand, Shapero’s model of the Entrepreneurial Event is required in this study as it helps in regulating information gathered. Through this model, it is easier to narrow down the focus on women entrepreneurial career as required by the study topic. Under this model, it is believed that human behavior is guided by inertia until something else disrupts the force. However, due to internally driven force, entrepreneurial women are not always ready to subdue to the demands of the external forces. Therefore, this model is vital for addressing issues to do with feasibility, desirability and propensity to act (Becker, Aufseß, & Brem, 2015). These are essential when examining social norms, anticipated utilities, and motives to comply s well as normative beliefs. When combining these models, then internal stimuli must clearly manifest through exterior qualities of an entrepreneurial woman both empirically and conceptually.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0     Methodology

3.1       Research design

The study examined the existing knowledge to provide a theoretical discussion of opportunity recognition, women stimuli, and entrepreneur success. It is, therefore, either a purposeful research, which entails of the following philosophical sciences of research; descriptive, exploratory, explanatory or a combination of two can be employed. In this case, to achieve sound empirical research, it is advisable to utilize exploratory and explanatory approach. Bryman et al. (2007) writes a good theoretical research constitutes three elements such include framing the inquiry question, identifying the relevant concept believed to be true, and positioning the current study to update the research constructs employed (Ghauri & Gronhaug 2005). Besides, deductive and qualitative approach is applicable where theory is drawn from past studies.

3.2       Expected results and findings  

Environmental and individual factors both affect the relationships between internal stimuli and opportunity recognition hence entrepreneurial success

DeTienne & Chandler, (2007) asserts that women and men think differently and hence the reason they differ in opportunity recognition. They hold that over time women have always been denied the privilege to get access to critical resources such as financial support, which are necessities for entrepreneurial success. Thus, this assertion is in line with the first hypothesis in this study, which postulates that environment factor affects opportunity recognition among entrepreneurial women. Therefore, it follows that external factors have a great impact on the way through which women develop and adopt their internal stimuli. As demonstrated by Dr.S.Valli Devasena & Priyadarshini, (2011) failure to support women by the basic resources, leads to lose of morale due to lack of motivation. Motivation is an internal stimulus, which is vital for attitude development and behavior control. Since attitude has greater impact on one’s willingness to act, it follows that demoralized are less alert to available opportunities and hence opts to forego their entrepreneurial dreams.

Dr.S.Valli Devasena & Priyadarshini, (2011) states, it is important to understand the relationships between entrepreneurial environment and individual factors. It is so because such knowledge is necessary for understanding specific personal features that promotes opportunity recognition. Secondly, it develops insight about challenge that women entrepreneurs face as they strive to accomplish their goals. The proposal is in line with DeTienne & Chandler, (2007), as it lays emphasis on understanding human capital, social skills and social capital. Thus, it is vital for understanding the decisions making process among internally driven women entrepreneurs at different phases of their entrepreneurial process. The findings show that learning experience is vital for knowledge development. Highly motivated people are always alert and highly responsive to opportunities. They also have total confidence in their dreams because they rely on rational decision-making process and hence increase their chances for success.

In order to provide clear explanation for information within the document, (DeTienne & Chandler, 2007) adopted a mixed research approach whereby the combined pilot study and survey interviews. The approach is essential bearing in mind that this was an explorative study. They were the first and hence they hand the liberty to experiment with both qualitative and quantitative studies. By presenting two different research methodologies, it makes it harder for the reader to effectively connect the results obtained from each approach. On the other hand, Dr.S.Valli Devasena & Priyadarshini, (2011) decided to adopt qualitative approach so that they could provide comprehensive information about the topic. Unfortunately, there is no empirical evidence that the identified aspects have significant impact on women internal stimuli development. They failed to narrow down and address how internal stimuli affect opportunity recognition. Their study was focused on entrepreneurial success rather than opportunity recognition.

Developing entrepreneurial orientation mind set as an internal stimulus is responsible for direct positive impact of opportunity recognition thus entrepreneurial success.

In relation to the above observations, it is clear that developing entrepreneurial orientation mindset is responsible for direct positive impact on opportunity recognition. According to Hulbert, Gilmore, & Carson, (2015) women with entrepreneurial oriented mindset are usually risk takers. As a result, they tend to have stronger willingness to dedicate their resources into business ventures. Similarly, they have the habit of investing more in personal development to acquire proper business management skills. On the other hand, Kickul, Liao, Gundry, & Iakovleva, (2010) claims that entrepreneurial mind set is vital for understanding risk taking, pro-activeness, autonomy, innovativeness and competitive aggressiveness among internally driven women entrepreneurs. This it justifies why they are able to use their commitment and passion to establish link that enables them overcome resources constraints. Equally, it is necessary for comprehending how internally driven women develop relationships with various available social networks. It explains how they are able to overcome the effects of external influences on their decisions to take up risks. Ultimately, it explains how they put in place appropriate methods to counterattack the possible risk factors.

Kickul, Liao, Gundry, & Iakovleva, (2010) argues that market knowledge is the major ingredient in decision making regardless of the manner in which it was acquired. In their findings, they highlights that women with internal stimuli are always ready to use all means to ensure they gather the right information at the right time and use it in the right way. Some of the ways of acquiring knowledge they consider include, through education, through experience, through research and analysis s well as by happenstance. As they postulate it is only through knowledge that an entrepreneur will be able to understand the market requirements. Hence, it increases their chances of identifying any available opportunity as well as make good use of reliable management skills. On the contrary, Hulbert, Gilmore, & Carson, (2015) asserts that possession of internal stimuli virtues such as self-awareness is the major determinant for opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial success. According to their study, it was established that only a person who understands their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are able to figure out what they should exactly undertake.

Entrepreneurial success depends on the core competencies for developing a strategic management approach to internal stimuli hence the need to recognize women’s backgrounds

It has been hypothesized that entrepreneurial phenomenon tends to be highly compatible with certain culture than others. In regard to Matherne, (2007) the proposition is essential for examining the qualities that entrepreneurs develop as they learn about their background. It facilitates an inquiry that helps understand the effects of social, economic and political structures in development of internal stimuli qualities among women. The approach is essential for describing how internally driven women react to their conditions. Hence, it provides insight on how entrepreneurial women chose group memberships and how they handle group dynamics. Coleman & Kariv, (2013) states that this proposition is viable for understanding the role of power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, indulgence versus normative and masculinity versus femininity. Specifically focusing on masculinity versus femininity, it significantly highlights major differences between women and men. This is necessary for this study so that aspiring women entrepreneurs are able to perform personal SWOT analysis.

Accordingly, Coleman & Kariv, (2013) established that national culture is the major moderator between entrepreneurial orientation and venture growth. As they reveal cultural values have significant impacts on the entrepreneurial behaviors. The fact is that opportunities and resources exist in the external environment, which is controlled by cultural norms. Therefore they holds that the rules, regulations, laws and conditions of cultural surroundings have great influence on the type of internal stimuli formed among entrepreneurs. According to this study, an opportunity can be identified through internal stimulation, external stimulation or at times, the two must be combined. Women from supportive cultures usually emerge successful as they implement their entrepreneurial desires. It is so because entrepreneurship entails pursuing opportunities without considering the resources under one’s control. Brush, Carter, Gatewood, Greene, & Hart, (2006) agrees to this provision as they established that internal stimuli such as perceived self-efficacy, attitudes, intentions, motivations and beliefs are extremely shaped by cultural norms as well as social networks. As a consequence, it follows that entrepreneurs who come from a cultural background that promotes develop and application of internal stimuli has more chances for success.

There is positive relationship between opportunity recognition, women stimuli and entrepreneurial success.

Finally, it has been postulated that entrepreneurial success depends on the core competencies for developing a strategic management approach. Becker, Aufseß, & Brem, (2015) found that in the current world there is constant technological advancements. As a result, an internally driven entrepreneur must adopt a collective learning approach. This is necessary for coordination of production skills and technological alignment. The results of their studies shows that core competence acts are essential for strategic transformation. The problem with such studies is that they have failed to provide one unified stream that can be used to address the issue of core competencies. For instance some claims that core competencies entails capabilities and resources (Becker, Aufseß, & Brem, 2015) while others claim that skills, capability and aptitude (Schwarz, Wdowiak, Almer‐Jarz, & Breitenecker, 2009). Therefore, it is important to understand how an entrepreneur defines and develops meaning about entrepreneurial concepts. Thus, this proportion is vital for understanding how internally driven entrepreneurs guarantees customer satisfaction. It also facilitates exploration of competitive uniqueness among internally driven women entrepreneurs as well as the manner through which they penetrate diversified markets.

Schwarz, Wdowiak, Almer‐Jarz, & Breitenecker, (2009) suggests that core competencies are strategic tools that help to encapsulate the venture’s uniqueness as defined by uniqueness in capabilities and resources. He further argues that core competencies can only be identified if they satisfy the following three criterion simultaneously; 1) significantly leads to customer benefit, 2) facilitates access to wider market range and 3) is competitively unique. Whereas (Schwarz, Wdowiak, Almer‐Jarz, & Breitenecker, 2009) might emphasized so much on influence of core competencies on external parties, (Orser, Elliott, & Leck, 2012) states otherwise. In their study, Orser, Elliott, & Leck, (2012) advocates for possession of internal personality traits and having proper understanding on how to incorporate them in the external world. Therefore, he postulates that core competencies are inclusive of internal stimulants such as creativity, self-efficacy and optimism among others. He emphasizes on the importance of having the ability to incorporate these into outside world through social networks, knowledge and experience among other aspects. In light of this, it is recommended that future studies be narrowed down to clear the controversy related with core competencies. Most importantly is for these studies to demonstrate how core competencies fit into the entrepreneurial concept.

 3.4      Conclusion  

In summary, studies addressing this and related topics are essential as they approach the field with comprehensive diversity. They are vital and applicable in multiple fields such as business, management, education, psychology, sociology, gender and entrepreneurships just to mention a few. Human understanding of reality is both subjective and objective. Therefore, in order to have a clear picture about the relationship between internal stimuli and their impact on entrepreneurial success, one must accept that subject and objective understanding are complementary. It is for this rationale that the research model was adopted. Such approaches are necessary or highlighting the importance of multi-theoretical and multi-disciplinary approaches.

As hypothesized, both environmental and individual factors both affect the relationships between internal stimuli and opportunity recognition hence entrepreneurial success. Environmental aspects have great impact on the manner through which people develop and sustain their internal stimulation virtues. Similarly, developing entrepreneurial orientation mind set as an internal stimulus is responsible for direct positive impact of opportunity recognition thus entrepreneurial success. This implies that internal stimuli have direct positive impact on opportunity recognition as well as entrepreneurial success. Also, it entrepreneurial success depends on the core competencies for developing a strategic management approaches to internal stimuli hence the need to recognize women’s backgrounds. Through this, it becomes easier to empower women so that they can overcome challenges especially those posed by external stimuli. However, there is no substantial empirically proven evidence that entrepreneurial phenomenon tends to be highly compatible with certain culture than others. Study has shown that people from a culture form a reputable culture have at times failed to accomplish their entrepreneurial dreams. At the same time, some people from highly undermined culture have on certain occasions emerged as reputable successful entrepreneurs. Thus, it is universally acceptable that there is a positive relationship between women internal stimuli, opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial successful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0       Reference

 

Anna, A. L., Chandler, G. N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N. P. (2000). Women business owners in          traditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of Business venturing, 15(3), 279-303.

Baron, R. A. (2004). Opportunity recognition: A cognitive perspective. Academy of          Management Meeting Best Paper Proceedings.

Becker, A., Aufseß, D., & Brem, A. (2015). Beyond traditional developmental models: a fresh     perspective on entrepreneurial new venture creation. International Journal Of         Entrepreneurial Venturing, 7(2), 152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijev.2015.068591

Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business      Venturing, 9, 223-242.

Birley, S., Moss, C., & Saunders, P. (1987). Do women entrepreneurs require different      training. American Journal of Small Business, 12(1), 27-35.

Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (2006). The use of bootstrapping       by women entrepreneurs in positioning for growth. Venture Capital: An International Journal Of Entrepreneurial Finance, 8(1), 15-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691060500433975

Bryman, Alan & Hutton, Bruce. (2007) Business Research Methods. Second Edition. Oxford:                  University Press.

Busenitz, L. (1996). Research on entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Small Business         Management, 34(4), 35-44.

Carter, N., Brush, C., Greene, P., Gatewood, E., & Hart, M. (2003). Women entrepreneurs who   break through to equity financing: the influence of human, social and financial          capital. Venture Capital: an international journal of entrepreneurial finance, 5(1), 1-28.

Coleman, S. & Kariv, D. (2013). ‘Deconstructing’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy: a gendered           perspective on the impact of ESE and community entrepreneurial culture on the financial        strategies and performance of new firms. Venture Capital, 16(2), 157-181.        http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2013.863063

DeTienne, D. & Chandler, G. (2007). The Role of Gender in Opportunity Identification.               Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice, 31(3), 365-386.            http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00178.x

Dhaliwal, S. (2000). Entrepreneurship-a learning process: the experiences of Asian female             Entrepreneurs and women in business. Education+ Training, 42(8), 445-453.

Dhaliwal, S. (2000). Entrepreneurship-a learning process: the experiences of Asian female             Entrepreneurs and women in business. Education+ Training, 42(8), 445-453.

Dr.S.Valli Devasena, D. & Priyadarshini, P. (2011). Women Entrepreneurial Success-Key             Indicator Analysis. Indian Journal Of Applied Research, 1(11), 18-19.    http://dx.doi.org/10.15373/2249555x/aug2012/7

Eckhardt, J. T. & Shane, S. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of             Management, 29: 333-349.

Gaglio, C. M. & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification:             Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16(2): 95-111.

Ghauri, pervez & Gronhaug, Kjell. (2005) Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical        Guide: Quill Drivers Books.

Golant, S.K., Heim, P. and Hughes, T., 2015. Hardball for women: Winning at the game of           business. Penguin.

Gundry, L. K., & Welsch, H. P. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of     women-owned enterprises. Journal of business Venturing, 16(5), 453-470.

Hansen, D. J., Shrader, R., & Monllor, J. (2011). Defragmenting definitions of entrepreneurial      opportunity. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2): 283-304.

Hills, G. E. & Singh, R. P. (2004). The opportunity recognition variables in the PSED        Questionnaire. In B. Gartner, N. Carter, and P. Reynolds (Editors) The Handbook of      Entrepreneurial Dynamics, Chapter 24, Sage Publications.

Hills, G. E., Lumpkin, G. T., and Singh, R. (1997). Opportunity recognition: Perceptions and        behaviors of entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 17: 168-182.

Hughes, K. D. (2006). Exploring motivation and success among Canadian women             entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 107-120.

Hughes, K. D. (2006). Exploring motivation and success among Canadian women             entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 107-120.

Hulbert, B., Brown, R. B. & Adams, S. (1997). Towards an understanding of “opportunity.”        Marketing Education Review. 7(3): 67-73.

Hulbert, B., Gilmore, A., & Carson, D. (2015). Opportunity recognition by growing SMEs: a        managerial or entrepreneurial function?. Journal Of Strategic Marketing, 23(7), 616-642.             http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2014.1001868

Kickul, J., Liao, J., Gundry, L., & Iakovleva, T. (2010). Firm resources, opportunity           recognition, entrepreneurial orientation and performance: the case of Russian women-led          family businesses. International Journal Of Entrepreneurship And Innovation             Management, 12(1), 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2010.033167

Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Perception, opportunity, and profit: Studies in the theory of             entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Krueger, A. O. (1974). The political economy of the rent-seeking society. The American    economic review, 64(3), 291-303.

Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of      women. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(3), 341-364.

Long, W., and McMullan, W. E. (1984). Mapping the new venture opportunity identification       process. In J. A. Hornaday, et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research.        Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 567-590.

Matherne, B. (2007). The Bureaucratic Logic of Entrepreneurial Firms: Providing Opportunity      for Women or Just Window Dressing?. Academy Of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 84-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.27895345

Orser, B., Elliott, C., & Leck, J. (2012). Entrepreneurial Feminists: Perspectives About      Opportunity Recognition and Governance. Journal Of Business Ethics, 115(2), 241-257.        http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1391-6

Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principle. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 31-40

Schwarz, E., Wdowiak, M., Almer‐Jarz, D., & Breitenecker, R. (2009). The effects of attitudes    and perceived environment conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent. Education +     Training, 51(4), 272-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910910964566

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities.       Organization Science. 11: 448-469.

Singh, R. P., & Hills, G. E. (2003). Recognizing opportunities vs. deciding to become an   entrepreneur: A test of Bhave’s model. Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship            Interface. University of Illinois at Chicago.

Singh, R. P., Hills, G. E., Lumpkin, G. T., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). The entrepreneurial      opportunity recognition process: Examining the role of self-perceived alertness and social    networks. Academy of Management Meeting Best Paper Proceedings. Chicago, Illinois,     August 10.

Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm       performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of productivity    and Performance management, 55(7), 569-593.

Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm       performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. International Journal of productivity    and Performance management, 55(7), 569-593.

Timmons, J. A. (2004). Opportunity recognition. In W. D. Bygrave and A. Zacharakis, (eds.),       The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship (pp. 29-70). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Walker, E., & Brown, A. (2004). What success factors are important to small business       owners?. International small business journal, 22(6), 577-594.