Women Social Entrepreneurs: A Conceptual Model Based on Collaborative and Authentic Leadership Styles

Banya Barua MMgt.,PhD^1*, Angélica María Larios Arias DSL, MBA² and Cynthia Mako Robinson^3
*Correspondence: Banya Barua MMgt.,PhD, Esse Management Consultants Pty Ltd., RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Email:

Keywords

Social entrepreneurship • Women leaders • Collaborative leadership • Authentic leadership

Introduction

In a complex global work environment, socially responsible businesses and social enterprises can drive change and spearhead initiatives that aim to achieve a positive societal impact and are economically sustainable [1]. This movement by social entrepreneurs is opening a space on the edge of opportunity, where social entrepreneurs combine commerce and social issues by improving people's lives. Furthermore, research and practical experience have found that some concepts of social entrepreneurs are more aligned with men. In contrast, in practice, women start as entrepreneurs with social benefits in mind [2]. Founded on this aim, this literature review explores female social entrepreneurs, a population with limited research compared to the broader category of social entrepreneurship [2]. Based on this premise, this literature review explores how women social entrepreneurs run enterprises and the leadership styles they exhibit. Subsequently, the literature has uncovered numerous definitions of women and leadership in general, and we have uncovered the need for more research on women who lead social enterprises. This literature review seeks to synthesize and build an understanding of women's leadership styles in social enterprises.

Several motivations prompted this review. Firstly, the literature needs to be more comprehensive on the state of collaborative leadership and its connection to women social entrepreneurs. Secondly, there needs to be more empirical literature exploring the leadership styles of women who lead social enterprises. Lastly, to gain a deeper understanding of the role of collaborative and authentic leadership in women social entrepreneurs. Based on these motivations, this study's theoretical and practical approach addresses a gap in the literature regarding women who lead social enterprises. The goal is to contribute to the body of knowledge in this area and foster the growth and success of women social entrepreneurs while considering the potential impact of cultural diversity. In response to these motivations and gaps, an empirical study is being developed to inform the understanding of the lived experiences of women social entrepreneurs and their leadership styles. The outcomes have the potential to unveil effective strategies that can facilitate the growth and development of other women social entrepreneurs.

Furthermore, the research is proposed to shed light on the contributions and challenges related to the sustainability of women's social entrepreneurial initiatives. Moreover, the empirical study will offer insights into the relationship between authentic and collaborative leadership styles among women social entrepreneurs, potentially contributing to more productive organizations. This research has two significant implications: firstly, it justifies pursuing a practicebased research study, and secondly, a global research project allows for cross-country comparisons of women social entrepreneurs. It is essential to acknowledge limitations, which include the limited literature on women social entrepreneurs and the potential impact of cultural variations on collaborative leadership.

Literature Review

The four pillars framing this literature review include women social entrepreneurs, social enterprises, collaborative leadership and authentic leadership. The following sections provide an overview of social entrepreneurship, proposed concepts, and definitions. Gaps and rationales are also identified, and the review results in a proposed concept model.

Entrepreneurship

The literature on social entrepreneurship and social enterprises is generally categorized as a subset of entrepreneurship. The review begins with an understanding of entrepreneurship and then narrows on social entrepreneurship. Early scholarly work defined an entrepreneur in the context of their role in business markets, primarily motivated by the pursuit of profit and the willingness to take calculated risks, a concept originating from Cantillon R [3]. Boyettn expanded on Cantillon R [3] view by characterizing an entrepreneur as an "individual owner of a private firm anticipating direct entrepreneurial profits from their labor". Economic independence, self-employment, and a strong desire for achievement were critical drivers for small business entrepreneurs like Light I [4] and Nadkarni S [5]. Scholars also emphasized that entrepreneurs are willing to take risks while organizing and managing a business Light I [4] and Avolio BJ, et al. [6]. Successful entrepreneurs were seen as individuals who harnessed resources and intellect to create financially viable ventures that benefit themselves and society [7]. Moreover, Kumar found that entrepreneurs were seen as incorporating their values and leadership styles to ensure their enterprises' success and longevity.

Subsequently, Moriano JA, et al. [8] described entrepreneurship as a process extending beyond the startup phase, incorporating pre-launch, launch and post-launch phases. This perspective is significant as it aligns with an individual's deliberations before embarking on entrepreneurship, as Bird B [9] emphasized. Consequently, comprehending entrepreneurial intention is essential to understanding the entrepreneurial process.

Social entrepreneurship

Early renderings of social entrepreneurship theorized by authour conceptualized the notion of social and corporate social responsibility based on Dees JG [10] research on non-profits. More recently, research on social entrepreneurship has surged Humbert AL [11], Saebi T, et al. [2] and generally addresses the social and environmental issues that seek to have a positive impact on society elevating individuals from uncertainty [12]. Consequently, research on social entrepreneurship has roots in three different streams, including non-profit organizations searching for alternative funding strategies, commercial businesses that integrate socially responsible practices and forprofit organizations seeking to alleviate social problems and catalyse social transformation [13]. The inexplicit nature of social entrepreneurship makes it difficult to delineate between charity and philanthropy [14], sustainability and corporate social responsibility [15], social innovation, and commercial entrepreneurship [16]. Despite the blurred nature of social entrepreneurship, researchers have noted that it is inherently a multi-level phenomenon [2]. As previously mentioned, the historical understanding of social entrepreneurship evolved from various disciplines, including economics, management, sociology and entrepreneurship. However, current research has examined the contributions from business strategy, public sector management, political science and education [17]. Subsequently, the various disciplines from which social entrepreneurship has evolved have led to a focus on how context can shape and be shaped by the enactment of the process of social entrepreneurship [18]. According to De Bruin A [18], the context of social entrepreneurship is a by-product of how context and enactment intersect. While the research calls for a universal definition of social entrepreneurship, there has yet to be an accepted singular definition.

Along with the surge in research, several challenges have been identified in the social entrepreneurship literature. Firstly, the historical nature of social entrepreneurship has evolved from several disciplines, including economics, management, sociology, and entrepreneurship. Given the roots of these various disciplines, there needs to be more clarity about how social entrepreneurship has been defined and viewed from an idealist and pragmatic stance [11]. Secondly, social entrepreneurship is multidimensional and includes individual, organizational, and institutional levels [2]. Most research focuses on the personal level, attempting to identify social entrepreneurs' traits, characteristics and intentions [2]. Lastly, focusing only on the individual level has the potential to misrepresent how social entrepreneurs exist within a community of practitioners and institutions jointly addressing social issues while helping to shape and drive change.

Defining social entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship differs from traditional/commercial entrepreneurship due to its primary mission of creating social value vs. private economic gains [19]. In addition, given the depth and breadth of the field, it is essential to clarify the phenomenon this research is concerned about. For example, social entrepreneurship generally refers to a process or behavior; however, a social entrepreneur is the initiative's founder, and social enterprise refers to the tangible outcomes of the business [13]. According to social enterprise and social entrepreneurship offer a different perspective to the classic notion of enterprise and entrepreneurship; social entrepreneurs focus on the motivation to perform financially and socially. While the social enterprise is based on mission, goal, resources, and governance, the social entrepreneur, in some cases, can be related to the entrepreneurial team and deeply embedded in the social and institutional context [2]. Ultimately, the objective of social entrepreneurship in this research is the business approach that focuses on social value creation [2]. The lack of homogeneity and consistency of a definition and the phenomenon being studied highlight the complexity and difficulty in generalizing and defining the differences between social entrepreneurship and social outreach [17]. Despite the lack of an agreed-upon definition, there is a common theme across the research on the characteristics of activities (innovative vs. traditional), the outcome (social and economic value) and the process [17].

The definition developed for this research is that social entrepreneurship could be founded either on the entrepreneurial team or social and institutional contexts or could also be a combination of both, created to profitably add social value to a particular community or group of stakeholders exhibiting characteristics, attributes, behaviors, and traits of authentic and collaborative leadership styles. As a result of the growing interest in social entrepreneurship, there is a consensus that the sectors, boundaries and lack of a concise definition have led to misconceptions within empirical studies.

Women entrepreneurs

A common trend in the literature involved comparing men and women in varying industrial and occupational domains [20,21]. This practice of juxtaposing genders in distinct work settings has contributed to the realization that conventional leadership theories, generally based on the male experience, may only partially apply to women entrepreneurs [22]. This revelation carries profound implications given the incongruence between existing models rooted in masculine traits, sometimes called the white male hero [23] and the unique qualities of female entrepreneurs, who often wear multiple roles, including family and domestic responsibilities.

In recent years, according to Sappleton N [24], a growing body of research has observed a trend in women venturing into non-traditional sectors such as manufacturing, construction, and finance. Despite this emerging shift, studies also found that most women business owners generally work in personal services and women's roles within the home [25-27]. Notably, these studies propose that women entrepreneurs gravitate towards traditional areas and may be influenced by factors such as heightened risks [28] and the amplified need for capital and technical expertise Tang J [29] associated with venturing into non-traditional entrepreneurial domains.

Characteristics of social entrepreneurs

The research suggests that social entrepreneurs are found in all walks of life and societal sectors [12]. While research within social entrepreneurship has centered on human resource categories, including traits, gender, human capital, motivation, training and teaching [18], this mainstream focus can be viewed as gendered and lead to a lack of understanding of the identity construction of women social entrepreneurs [11]. Consequently, findings from five European countries indicated that male and female social entrepreneurs share similar demographic characteristics, including education, age, ethnicity and religion [2]. Similarly, the scholarly literature on social entrepreneurs has identified characteristics of prosocial personality [2], high tolerance for ambiguity and risk [10], the ability to exhibit higher levels of self-efficacy and ambition [30] as well as sharing similar social positions [2]. While individuals who envision improving society may come from different backgrounds and training, they may have different worldviews and use diverse methods to accomplish their objectives [12]. That aside, the common goal that stems from these characteristics is the importance of being change agents [17] and creating value [10]. More importantly, social entrepreneurs are transformational forces [31], relentless individuals with a vision, stamina, and persistence to achieve their goals and share their ideas to support social value [12].

Leadership

Evidence shows that organizational leadership is critical in creating and sustaining a healthy workplace [32]. Furthermore, a leader’s position has been found to influence employees and subordinates in various ways [33]. Given that effective leadership styles have been found to relate positively to workplace well-being [34], leaders at all levels generally have the opportunity to build and sustain a positive culture with strong values for learning, innovation, experimentation, flexibility, and continuous improvement [35]. A combination of all these skills and traits determines the behaviours of leaders [35-38].

Positive leadership

Positive leadership is an umbrella term within positive psychology encompassing various leadership styles, including servant, responsible, authentic and collaborative [39]. Within these leadership styles, positive leadership attributes and behaviors have been found to facilitate employee well-being [40]. Furthermore, confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience are four positive psychological capacities supported by research that impact work performance, including higher productivity, enhanced customer service, and increased employee retention [41]. Positive leadership attributes have also been found to relate to resilience, flourishing, satisfaction with life, and happiness, thereby creating organizational positivity [42-44]. Moreover, leaders learn to adopt a myriad of positive characteristics and traits that generally fall into three characteristics:

(1) facilitation of extraordinarily positive performance (above-average performance),

(2) focus on individual strengths and abilities

(3) facilitation of the best of the human condition, thereby fostering virtuousness [39,45].

This literature review and future empirical research will look at positive leaders through the lens of collaborative and authentic leadership, including limitations and similarities [46].

Collaborative leadership

A collaboration leadership style "is a purposeful relationship in which all parties strategically choose to cooperate" to accomplish a shared outcome [47]. Subsequently, collaborative leadership engages collective intelligence to deliver results across organizational boundaries when ordinary control mechanisms are absent [48]. A collaborative leader has accepted responsibility for building or helping to ensure the success of a heterogeneous team to accomplish a shared purpose. The strategies a collaborative leader can use include a purposeful exercise of behavior, communication, organizational resources, and the ability to structure a climate that supports connection [47].

Dimensions: Osula B and Ng ECW [49] propose that collaborative leadership encompasses five dimensions: governance, administration, autonomy, mutuality, trust and reciprocity. These dimensions collectively suggest that collaborative leadership is not merely an individual attribute but a dynamic process capable of enhancing an individual's leadership qualities and overall organizational effectiveness. Beyond Osula B and Ng ECW [49] framework, additional dimensions of collaborative leadership have been recognized in the literature. These encompass a high level of self-awareness, leading from the inside out, authentic interactions marked by openness and engagement, a commitment to the holistic perspective that mitigates hierarchical shortcomings, and the establishment of conditions fostering a shared purpose that inspires others [48].

Moreover, empirical research by Hsieh JY and Liou KT [50] has expanded on the dimensions of collaborative leadership. This research identifies critical aspects such as activating resource assistance, framing the work environment and synthesizing a collaborative process that directly influences organizational performance. Collaborative leadership is a multifaceted approach extending beyond theoretical dimensions, incorporating practical elements crucial for organizational success.

Characteristics: Collaborative leadership is nurtured by bridging connections between internal and external stakeholders, blending diverse talents, exemplifying collaborative behavior and skillfully steering teams away from prolonged debates [51]. This approach is generally characterized by shared vision and values, interdependence, shared responsibility, mutual respect, empathy, vulnerability, ambiguity tolerance, and communication through dialogue and synergy. The cornerstone of effective collaborative leadership is a healthy interpersonal relationship, as Osula B and Ng ECW [49] emphasized, underlining the pivotal role of healthy leadership in preventing collaborative efforts from derailing [51].

Zooming in on individual leaders, the literature highlights competencies such as self-leadership, relational intelligence, team orchestration, and networking as integral components of collaborative leadership [52]. In essence, collaborative leadership encompasses organizational dynamics, individual skills and qualities that collectively drive successful collaboration within and beyond organizational boundaries.

Authentic leadership

This study focuses on authentic leadership as the second leadership style under examination. According to Luthans F, et al. [41], authentic leadership is "a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development". This process leads to enhanced selfawareness and self-regulated behaviours among leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. Avolio BJ, et al. [53] further define authentic leaders as individuals deeply aware of their thoughts and behaviors, operating with an understanding of their context and possessing qualities of confidence, hopefulness, optimism, resilience and high moral character.

Authentic leadership theory posits that leaders and their followers share congruent values and purpose, with authenticity transmitted from the leader to the follower [15]. The construct of authentic leadership is multidimensional and multi-level involving the development of authentic relationships between leaders and followers [54]. This development is facilitated through ongoing processes of self-awareness, self-regulation, and the establishment of open, transparent, trusting and genuine relationships.

Self-awareness is fundamental to authentic leadership, requiring individuals to be cognizant of their existence and context over time [54,55]. Consequently, self-regulation involves self-control by setting internal standards, assessing discrepancies, and reconciling differences to achieve authenticity in relationships [54,56]. Authentic leaders influence and develop followers through positive modeling of self-awareness, self-regulatory processes, and a positive moral perspective [54]. As followers internalize values and beliefs, their conception of themselves evolves [54]. The sustained performance of authentic leadership is associated with financial [57], human [58], social [59] and psychological [43] returns. Authentic leadership can incorporate various positive forms of leadership, such as transformational, charismatic, servant and spiritual leadership.

Leaders characterized by enduring relationships, work hard, and purposeful leadership may not necessarily be described as charismatic by others, a core component of transformational leadership. Being an authentic leader does not equate to being a transformational leader. Instead, authentic leaders influence followers through character, leading by example and dedication vs. inspirational appeals, dramatic presentations, and other forms of impression management [54]. Furthermore, servant leadership includes explicitly recognizing the mediating role of follower self-awareness and regulation, positive psychological capital, and a positive organizational context, which are components of authentic leadership [54]. Areas of overlap between authentic and spiritual leadership theories include a focus on integrity, trust, courage, hope and perseverance [54].

Relationship between collaborative and authentic leadership

Collaboration is the starting point for authentic leadership, and collaborative leadership is emerging as a widely accepted and beneficial management practice. While collaborative leadership has been extensively studied in a general context [50,60-62] limited specific research focuses on women exhibiting collaborative leadership, particularly about responsibility and creating a responsible environment [63].

Studies on authentic leadership attributes applied to women leaders [64,65] align with collaborative leadership attributes [60]. However, a deeper analysis reveals that collaborative leadership inherently encompasses authentic leadership attributes. Despite some overlapping characteristics, collaborative leadership, as outlined by Lawrence RL [60], involves shared vision and values, interdependence and shared responsibility, mutual respect, empathy and vulnerability, ambiguity tolerance and communication through dialogue and synergy. On the other hand, authentic leadership, as defined by Avolio BJ and Garnder WL [54], involves understanding individual purpose, practicing solid values, leading with the heart, establishing relationships, and demonstrating self-discipline. While both leadership styles share certain traits, only some studies have delved into a comprehensive examination of collaborative and authentic styles or conducted direct comparisons between the two. In essence, the connection between collaborative and authentic leadership highlights the intricate interplay between these approaches, showcasing the potential for enriched leadership practices that combine the strengths of both styles.

Attributes of collaborative and authentic leadership

The literature highlights key examining the attributes and contexts that contribute to defining a woman as an entrepreneur [66-68]. As outlined by Belas J and Kljucnikov A [69] and Link AN [70], entrepreneurs embody a spectrum of qualities, including creativity, passion, motivation, ability to network, self-confidence, vision, risk-taking, decision-making, adaptability and fiscal responsibility. Jensen SM and Luthans F [71] have associated the psychological capital of entrepreneurs with authentic leadership, a concept explored in a further study by Samuel III LR [72], who found no gender difference among entrepreneurs. However, a comparison between collaborative and authentic leadership styles, as Antoniou AS, et al. [73] suggest, reveals shared attributes in women entrepreneurs that align with both styles. This implies a potential need to investigate the simultaneous application of other leadership styles in women entrepreneurs. Moreover, while collaborative leadership has been broadly [50,60,61,74] the specific examination of women embodying collaborative leadership is limited, with a focus on responsibilities and creating a responsible environment [63].

Hopkins MM and O’Neil DA [64] posit that women encounter challenges in authentic leadership due to societal norms associated with leadership and organizational dynamics. Firstly, women face a dilemma between adhering to societal norms associated with leadership and living a personally fulfilling [75]. Agentic behaviors, commonly linked with men, may lead to criticism, creating a double-masked situation for women [76]. Secondly, the gendered nature of organizations poses challenges to gender-neutral authentic leadership [64]. Women may question their authenticity when confronted with conflicting values and behaviors in male-dominated environments [77]. Thirdly, the continuous challenge of authenticity for women in leadership roles creates tension, particularly when navigating changing situations and significant life events [64]. Lastly, the criticism that authentic leadership overly emphasizes individual agency rather than collective needs is pertinent, potentially contributing to a less favourable environment for female followers who work in predominantly gendered environments [64,78]. The synthesis of these studies underscores the complex interplay between attributes, leadership styles, and gender dynamics in women entrepreneurs, suggesting the need for further exploration and nuanced understanding in this domain.

Authentic self and its relevance to this study

The complexity of the human personality is evident in the coexistence of myriad elements such as personality dispositions, emotional tendencies, values, attitudes, beliefs, and motives, often contradictory and clash within an individual’s psychological framework.

Self-knowledge becomes paramount in deciphering the authentic self, a notion emphasized by Jongman-Sereno KP and Leary MR [79] as individuals navigate the intricate tapestry of their psychological makeup. The alignment of behaviors with one’s internal psychological characteristics vs. external influences varies. Some behaviors emerge as more authentic and selfcongruent than others Jongman-Sereno KP and Leary MR [79]. Acknowledging this rationale, the proposed concept model and empirical research assume the significance of unravelling the intricate interplay between authentic and collaborative leadership, recognizing the imperative role of self-awareness in understanding and navigating the dynamics of leadership styles.

Results and Discussion

Rationales, gaps and assumptions

The literature review underscores a consistent differentiation between male and female entrepreneurs and leadership styles. Several studies suggest that male entrepreneurs often prioritize tasks and profit, while female entrepreneurs focus on people relationships and exhibit transformational leadership [26]. The motivations for starting social enterprises also vary between genders, with women emphasizing the social aspect and facing challenges in climbing the ladder, leading some to opt out and establish their businesses [26]. Furthermore, Scott argues that an increasing number of women entering social enterprises can be attributed to new opportunities, challenges and a desire to overcome barriers in the corporate world. The study suggests that men and women may have different entrepreneurial priorities, with men emphasizing being their boss and women placing more emphasis on personal challenge and satisfaction. Additionally, women entrepreneurs are viewed as advantageous in people-oriented businesses due to their perceived strengths in human relations [26].

Further research explores the intersection of gender and social entrepreneurship, highlighting a scarcity of studies despite claims that social enterprises can address gender-related social issues [18,80]. The impact of ethnicity on the obstacles faced by women social entrepreneurs is also a critical area of inquiry [10]. Moreover, the need for comprehensive studies that consider multiple levels of analysis, including individual, organizational, and institutional perspectives, is emphasized to avoid misrepresentation and provide a nuanced understanding of social entrepreneurship [1]. Additionally, contextual factors' importance in social entrepreneurship are stressed, including considerations at the enterprise level, external factors, country of origin, and industry affiliation. Comparative studies are recommended to explore differences in pace, opportunities, and barriers within specific industries or countries [18]. Mixed methods are proposed for research in social entrepreneurship to enhance study validity, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches [18].

Despite the growth in social entrepreneurship research, Garcia-Lomas I and Gabaldon P [81] argue that there is a need to fully understand the nature of women's contributions and impact in the sector. Social sector challenges, such as scaling impact, acquiring capital, and enhancing management skills, are highlighted [11]. Little is known about potential differences in how women run their social ventures, particularly in innovation [1]. Finally, the Internet has opened new avenues for entrepreneurs and is recognized as a catalyst for potential growth in social collaboration [82]. Future research is encouraged to explore how factors such as gender and ethnicity affect the obstacles encountered in social entrepreneurship [10].

Gaps

The literature review delved into the critical intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship, focusing on collaborative and authentic leadership styles. Three identified gaps underscore the need for more comprehensive exploration in the context of women entrepreneurs.

Gap 1: The need for more studies concentrating on women entrepreneurs demonstrating both collaborative and authentic leadership attributes poses a significant void in understanding the application of these leadership styles to women's leadership roles [64].

Gap 2: Limited research exists on women entrepreneurs exhibiting collaborative and authentic leadership styles despite available studies on attributes and contexts defining women as entrepreneurs [66-68]. A comparison within this review indicates common attributes, highlighting the necessity to investigate both leadership styles concurrently in women entrepreneurs.

Gap 3: While the literature suggests an inherent overlap of authentic and collaborative leadership characteristics in women entrepreneurs, a specific study providing this observation is absent.

Assumptions

The central assumption guiding the literature review posits that women entrepreneurs embody attributes and behavior associated with both collaborative and authentic leadership styles. Collaborative leadership attributes, seen as decisive factors [11,83], may provide women entrepreneurs with an advantage over their male counterparts, with authentic leadership deemed a fundamental requirement for entrepreneurship [64,65]. This assumption is the foundational point for framing the research objectives and questions.

The primary research questions from this literature review are: What makes a women social entrepreneur build a productive organization? Furthermore, what leadership styles are demonstrated by female social entrepreneurs? These questions aim to explore the interplay between leadership styles and the success of women social entrepreneurs. The concept model in Figure 1 visually represents the relationship between the research questions and the identified gaps, offering a comprehensive view derived from the literature review constructs. It is a guiding framework for understanding the intricate dynamics of leadership attributes in women social entrepreneurs and their impact on organizational productivity [84,85] (Figure 1).

Future pathway – Implications and significance

The culmination of this literature review points towards the imperative need for an empirical study to elevate the derived concept. The concept derived from this review must be assessed through an empirical study. Currently undergoing pilot testing, the proposed empirical study aims to assess the reliability and adaptability of the concept model.

Upon completion, the study is anticipated to provide a glimpse into cultural variations, contrasting perspectives between first-world and third-world countries, and diverse global views on social entrepreneurship. The identified gaps and rationales indicate that this study could initiate a series of research endeavours focusing on women social entrepreneurs and collaborative leadership. The research’s overarching goal is to gain a deeper understanding of women social entrepreneurs' lived experiences and leadership practices. The outcomes are envisioned to pave the way for global strategies supporting the growth and development of women social entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the research aims to unravel the contributions and barriers influencing the sustainability of women's social entrepreneur initiatives. A key focus lies in understanding the relationship between authentic and collaborative leadership styles in women social entrepreneurs, potentially leading to the formation of productive organizations [86-88].

Conclusion

Two implications emerged from this literature review. Firstly, a practicebased approach suggests that the researcher could serve as a valuable guide for women social entrepreneurs, aiding and deciphering leadership styles conducive to successful social enterprises. Secondly, the global nature of the study, involving women social entrepreneurs from around the world, promises diverse insights into leadership dynamics. Acknowledging the limitation of the scarce literature on women social entrepreneurs, this literature review is recognized as a conceptual paper, emphasizing the need for an empirical study to confer practical relevance and assess the applicability of the conceptual model. The theoretical significance lies in the global scope of the study and the exploration of collaborative and authentic leadership styles among women social entrepreneurs. The practical application of the conceptual model is considered essential for a deeper understanding of women social entrepreneurs.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Huysentruyt, Marieke. "Women's social entrepreneurship and innovation." (2014).

Google Scholar

2. Saebi, Tina, Nicolai J. Foss and Stefan Linder. "Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises." J Manage 45 (2019): 70-95.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Cantillon, Richard. “Essay on the nature of commerce in general.” Routledge(2017).

Google Scholar, Indexed at

4. Light, Ivan. "Disadvantaged minorities in self-employment." In Background to ethnic conflict (= IJCS XX, 1-2), (1980): 31-45.

Google Scholar

5. Nadkarni, Swen. Relationship of leadership and Innovation in family businesses. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (2016).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Avolio, Bruce J., Fred O. Walumbwa and Todd J. Weber. "Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions." Annu Rev Psychol 60 (2009): 421-449.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Kaufmann, Hans Ruediger. "The contribution of entrepreneurship to society." Int J Entrep Small Bus 7 (2009): 59-73.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

8. Moriano, Juan Antonio, da Fonseca Oliveira, Belkis Maria and Ana Laguía, et al. "The psychosocial profile of the entrepreneur: A study from the point of view of gender." Anu de Psicol 45 (2015): 301-315.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

9. Bird, Barbara. "Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention." Acad Manage Rev 13 (1988): 442-453.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

10. Dees, J. Gregory. "The meaning of social entrepreneurship." (1998).

Google Scholar

11. Humbert, Anne L. "Women as social entrepreneurs." (2012).

Google Scholar

12. Belasen, Alan and Joseph Angiello. "The Important role of women in social entrepreneurship." Women and Leadership (2018): 37-52.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

13. Mair, Johanna and Ignasi Marti. "Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction and delight." J World Bus 41 (2006): 36-44.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

14. Acs, Zoltan J., David B. Audretsch and Erik E. Lehmann. "The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship." Small Bus Econ 41 (2013): 757-774.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

15. Nicolopoulou, Katerina. "Social entrepreneurship between cross‐currents: Toward a framework for theoretical restructuring of the field." J Small Bus Manag 52 (2014): 678-702.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

16. Schneider, Aaron. "Social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, collectivism and everything in between: Prototypes and continuous dimensions." Public Adm Rev 77 (2017): 421-431.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

17. Canestrino, Rossella, Marek Cwiklicki, Pierpaolo Magliocca and Barbara Pawełek. "Understanding social entrepreneurship: A cultural perspective in business research." J Bus Res 110 (2020): 132-143.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

18. De Bruin, Anne and Kate V. Lewis. "Traversing the terrain of context in social entrepreneurship." J Soc Entrep 6 (2015): 127-136.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

19. Gupta, Parul, Sumedha Chauhan, Justin Paul and Mahadeo P. Jaiswal. "Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda." J Bus Res 113 (2020): 209-229.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

20. Evans, David S. and Linda S. Leighton. "Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship." Small Bus Econ (1990): 79-99.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

21. Wharton, Amy S. "Gender segregation in private-sector, public-sector, and self-employed occupations, 1950-1981." Soc Sci Q 70 (1989): 923.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

22. Stevenson, Lois. "Some methodological problems associated with researching women entrepreneurs." J Bus Ethics 9 (1990): 439-446.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

23. Ogbor, John O. "Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology‐critique of entrepreneurial studies." J Manag Stud 37 (2000): 605-635.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

24. Sappleton, Natalie. "Women non‐traditional entrepreneurs and social capital." Int J Gend 1 (2009): 192-218.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

25. Devine, Theresa J. "Characteristics of self-employed women in the United States." Monthly Lab Rev 117 (1994): 20.

Google Scholar

26. Oliver, Suzanne. "How Katherine Hammer reinvented herself." Forbes 158 (1996): 98-103.

Google Scholar

27. Buttner, E. Holly and Dorothy P. Moore. “Women entrepreneurs: Moving beyond the glass ceiling.” Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, (1997).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

28. Scott, William L. "Financial performance of minority-vs. nonminority-owned businesses." J Small Bus Manag (pre-1986) 21 (1983): 42.

Google Scholar

29. Tang, Joyce. "Differences in the process of self-employment among whites, blacks, and asians: The case of scientists and engineers." Sociol Perspect 38 (1995): 273-309.

Google Scholar

30. Clark, Kevin D., Scott L. Newbert and Narda R. Quigley. "The motivational drivers underlying for-profit venture creation: Comparing social and commercial entrepreneurs." Int Small Bus J 36 (2018): 220-241.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

31. Bornstein, David. “How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas.” Oxford University Press (2007).

Google Scholar

32. Shain, M. and D. M. Kramer. "Health promotion in the workplace: Framing the concept; reviewing the evidence." J Occup Environ Med 61 (2004): 643-648.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

33. Sparks, John R. and Joseph A. Schenk. "Explaining the effects of transformational leadership: An investigation of the effects of higher‐order motives in multilevel marketing organizations." J Organ Behav 22 (2001): 849-869.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

34. Eriksson, Andrea, Bjarne Jansson, Bo JA Haglund and Runo Axelsson. "Leadership, organization and health at work: A case study of a Swedish industrial company." Health Promot Int 23 (2008): 127-133.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

35. Yukl, Gary. "Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention." Acad Manag Perspect 26 (2012): 66-85.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

36. Avolio, Bruce J. "Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building." Am Psychol 62 (2007): 25.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

37. Avolio, Bruce J. and Bernard M. Bass. "Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership." LQ 6 (1995): 199-218.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

38. Brown, Michael E. and Linda K. Trevino. "Ethical leadership: A review and future directions." The LQ 17 (2006): 595-616.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

39. Antino, Mirko, Francisco Gil-Rodríguez, Alfredo Rodríguez-Munoz and Stefano Borzillo. "Evaluating positive leadership: Pilot study on the psychometric properties of a reduced version of the positive leadership assessment scale/Evaluando el liderazgo positivo: Estudio piloto de las propiedades psicometricas de una versión reducida del positive leadership assessment scale." Rev Psicol Soc 29 (2014): 589-608.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

40. Kelloway, E. Kevin, Heidi Weigand, Margaret C. Mckee and Hari Das. "Positive leadership and employee well-being." J Leadersh Organ Stud 20 (2013): 107-117.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

41. Luthans, Fred, Bruce J. Avolio, James B. Avey and Steven M. Norman. "Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction." Pers Psychol 60 (2007): 541-572.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

42. Avolio, Bruce J., Fred O. Walumbwa and Todd J. Weber. "Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions." Annu Rev Psychol 60 (2009): 421-449.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

43. Youssef, Carolyn M. and Fred Luthans. "Positive global leadership." J World Bus 47 (2012): 539-547.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

44. Zbierowski, Przemysław and Katarzyna Gora. "Positive leadership: Its nature, antecedents and consequences." J Posit Manag 5 (2014): 85-99.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

45. Cameron, Kim S. "Paradox in positive organizational change." J Appl Behav Sci 44 (2008): 7-24.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

46. Kollenscher, Eldad, Micha Popper and Boaz Ronen. "Value-creating organizational leadership." J Manag Organ 24 (2018): 19-39.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

47. Rubin, Hank. Collaborative leadership: Developing effective partnerships for communities and schools. Corwin Press (2009).

Google Scholar, Indexed at

48. Hurley, Thomas J. "Collaborative Leadership: Engaging collective intelligence to achieve results across organizational boundaries." White paper: Oxford Leadership Academy (2011).

Google Scholar

49. Osula, Bramwell and Eddie CW Ng. "Toward a collaborative, transformative model of non-profit leadership: Some conceptual building blocks." Adm Sci 4 (2014): 87-104.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

50. Hsieh, Jun Yi. and Kuotsai Tom Liou. "Collaborative leadership and organizational performance: Assessing the structural relation in a public service agency." Rev Public Pers Adm 38 (2018): 83-109.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

51. Ibarra, Herminia and Morten Hansen. "Are you a collaborative leader?" (2011).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

52. Goman, C. K. "Six crucial behaviors of collaborative leaders." (2017).

Google Scholar

53. Avolio, Bruce J., Fred O. Walumbwa and Todd J. Weber. "Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions." Annu Rev Psychol 60 (2009): 421-449.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

54. Avolio, Bruce J. and William L. Gardner. "Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership." LQ 16 (2005): 315-338.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

55. Silvia, Paul J. and T. Shelley Duval. "Objective self-awareness theory: Recent progress and enduring problems." Pers Soc Psychol 5 (2001): 230-241.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

56. Stajkovic, Alexander D. and Fred Luthans. "Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.” Psychol Bull 124 (1998): 240.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

57. Roberts, Peter W. and Grahame R. Dowling. "Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance." Strateg Manag J 23 (2002): 1077-1093.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

58. Lepak, David P. and Scott A. Snell. "The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development." Acad Manage Rev 24 (1999): 31-48.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

59. Adler, Paul S. and Seok-Woo Kwon. "Social capital: Prospects for a new concept." Acad Manage Rev 27 (2002): 17-40.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

60. Lawrence, Randee Lipson. "Understanding collaborative leadership in theory and practice." New Dir for Adult and Cont Edu 2017 (2017): 89-96.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

61. Rabinowitz, P. "Section 11: Collaborative leadership." (2018).

Google Scholar

62. Endres, Sigrid and Jurgen Weibler. "Understanding (non) leadership phenomena in collaborative interorganizational networks and advancing shared leadership theory: An interpretive grounded theory study." Bus Res 13 (2020): 275-309.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

63. Stead, Valerie, Carole Elliott, Belinda Blevins-Knabe and Emily Chan, et al. "Collaborative theory building on women’s leadership: An exercise toward responsible leadership." Theorizing women and leadership: New insights and contributions from multiple perspectives (2017): 37-50.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

64. Hopkins, Margaret M. and Deborah A. O’Neil. "Authentic leadership: Application to women leaders." Front in Psychol 6 (2015): 959.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

65. Sims, Cynthia Mignonne, Tao Gong and Claretha Hughes. "Linking leader and gender identities to authentic leadership in small businesses." Gend Manag 32 (2017): 318-329.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

66. Cho, Sangmi, Ahraemi Kim and Michalle E. Mor Barak. "Does diversity matter? Exploring workforce diversity, diversity management and organizational performance in social enterprises." Asian Soc Work Policy Rev 11 (2017): 193-204.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

67. Moore, Dorothy Perrin, Jamie L. Moore and Jamie W. Moore. "How women entrepreneurs lead and why they manage that way." Gend Manag 26 (2011): 220-233.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

68. Walker, Robyn C. and Jolanta Aritz. "Women doing leadership: Leadership styles and organizational culture." Int J Bus Commun 52 (2015): 452-478.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

69. Belàs, Jaroslav and Aleksandr Kljucnikov. "The most important attributes of entrepreneurs. Case study of the environment of czech SMEs." (2016).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

70. Link, Albert N., ed. “Gender and entrepreneurial activity.” Edward Elgar Publishing (2017).

Google Scholar

71. Jensen, Susan M. and Fred Luthans. "Relationship between entrepreneurs' psychological capital and their authentic leadership." J Manag (2006): 254-273.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

72. Samuel III, Lutcher R. The relationship of psychological capital to authentic leadership among entrepreneurs and business professionals and an examination of potential differences between men and women. OLLU (2018).

Google Scholar

73. Antoniou, Alexander-Stamatios, Cary Cooper and Caroline Gatrell, eds. “Women, business and leadership: Gender and organisations.” Edward Elgar Publishing 2019.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

74. Endres, Sigrid and Jurgen Weibler. "Understanding (non) leadership phenomena in collaborative interorganizational networks and advancing shared leadership theory: An interpretive grounded theory study." Business Res 13 (2020): 275-309.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

75. Catalyst (Organization). “The double-bind dilemma for women in leadership: Damned if you do, doomed if you don't. Catalyst.” (2007).

Google Scholar

76. Eagly, Alice H. and Linda L. Carli. “Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders.” Harv Bus Rev (2007).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

77. Ruderman, Marian N. and Patricia J. Ohlott. "Leading roles: What coaches of women need to know." Leadership in action: A publication of the Center for Creative Leadership and Jossey‐Bass 25 (2005): 3-9.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

78. Woolley, Jennifer L. "Studying the emergence of new organizations: Entrepreneurship research design." Entrep Res J 1 (2011).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

79. Jongman-Sereno, Katrina P. and Mark R. Leary. "The enigma of being yourself: A critical examination of the concept of authenticity." Rev Gen Psychol 23 (2019): 133-142.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

80. DeTienne, Dawn R. and Gaylen N. Chandler. "The role of gender in opportunity identification." Entrep Theory Pract 31 (2007): 365-386.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

81. Garcia-Lomas, Isabel and Patricia Gabaldon. "Gender–from variable to lens in social enterprises: A literature review and research agenda for women’s involvement in social ventures." J Soc Entrep 14 (2023): 152-176.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

82. Leadbeater, Charles. "Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years." A social enterprise think piece for the cabinet office of the third sector (2007).

Google Scholar

83. Sorenson, Ritch L., Cathleen A. Folker and Keith H. Brigham. "The collaborative network orientation: Achieving business success through collaborative relationships." Entrep Theory Pract 32 (2008): 615-634.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

84. Boehm, Frederic and Erika Sierra. "The gendered impact of corruption: Who suffers more? men or women?." U4 Brief (2015).

Google Scholar

85. Castelló-Sirvent, Fernando and Pablo Pinazo-Dallenbach. "Corruption shock in Mexico: fsQCA analysis of entrepreneurial intention in university students." Mathematics9 (2021): 1702.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

86. Darwish, Saad, Safeya Alzayed and Umair Ahmed. "How women in science can boost women’s entrepreneurship: Review and highlights." Int J Innov Creat Change 14 (2020): 453-470.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

87. Luthans, Fred and Bruce J. Avolio. "The “point” of positive organizational behavior." J Organ Behav 30 (2009): 291-307.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

88. Smith, George. "Self, self-concept and identity." Handbook of Self and Identity 2 (2012): 69-104.

Google Scholar, Indexed at