Are we approaching efforts to scale female entrepreneurship from the wrong angle?

For decades, the unicorn was associated primarily with femininity. The mythical creature which resembles a horse with a long, straight horn on its head, was given form in soft toys, colouring books, inflatable toys, fairytales and movies.

oday, that is no longer the case.

Now, used to define a startup company valued at over $1 billion (R17.7bn), unicorns have little association with femininity.

For the reality is that female founders or directors of unicorn businesses are almost more mythical than unicorns themselves. For every of the 50 male founders or co-founders of a $1bn startup in 2024, there were only seven females.

Traditionally, unicorn status is seen as a token milestone, but it is also an indicator of how many start-ups are successful at scaling. Research indicates that unicorn start-ups account for roughly one in every 10 000 startups that have been funded.

This disjunction of successful female entrepreneurs to male entrepreneurs (especially considering that there are almost an equal number of women and men that start a business, according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) has led policymakers, academics and venture capitalists to spend lots of time pondering how to grow female entrepreneurship given that – according to a study by the Kauffman Foundation – private technology companies with female-led businesses generated 35% higher returns than their male counterparts.

Additionally, according to female entrepreneurship statistics, companies run by women prove to be a safer option for investors; women are building two times as many companies as men; have higher success rates and take fewer risks.

The World Economic Forum’s has also consistently highlighted the correlation between gender equality and economic prosperity in its Global Gender Gap Report. The report concluded that closing the gender gap in entrepreneurship could unlock trillions of dollars in global gross domestic product (GDP) and create millions of new jobs.

But should we be spending so much time ruminating on how we can motivate female entrepreneurs to scale?

What if we just accept that while women are just as (or maybe more than) entrepreneurial as men, expecting them to scale as a measure of success is arrogant and typical of a male-centred business landscape?

The reality is that females, in my experience, often prove to be more capable and better leaders. And as the research shows, they are more successful entrepreneurs as well … in the field of turnover and return on investment.

But they are at the mercy of nature, as well as cultural and societal pressures and expectations.

Girls are, in the main, top of their class at school and university and more successful post university initially. But then their careers start to lag, sometimes due to the insecurities of their partners.

This has often been a source of great frustration to me.

I’ve encountered instances where extremely competent leaders would approach me to request that they be passed over for a promotion … because holding a higher position than her partner would lead to discontent in the household.

These cultural and societal pressures, particularly in an African context, cannot be ignored.

Then too, there is biology. Women are the ones who give birth to and nurture children and are often the primary caregivers, bearing the brunt of the responsibilities when it comes to raising families.

This can be both a result of their own personal ambitions or choices … or a result of cultural and societal pressure. The result is the same: women are never just employees or entrepreneurs; they are always entrepreneurs plus mothers plus partners plus caregivers plus primary tenders of the household.

That is a lot of pressure!

What they may want is to run a successful small to medium-sized enterprise that they can cope with. Something that helps them care for their families financially and/ keeps their minds active and them productive but does not add another layer of responsibility on their already over-burdened plates.

So what if we flip the script?

Rather than focusing on female unicorns and scaling female start-ups, what if we simply focus on helping women start and build sustainable businesses?

What if most of the support (both financial and other) available for female start-ups focussed on ensuring they remain in business and survive the turbulent first one to five/10 years?

The decision then on whether to scale is up to them and can be determined by their life stages. While their family is young, they may choose simply to run a small business. When their families are grown, they may choose to grow their businesses given that they have more time and energy to dedicate to that endeavour.

As we are aware, most the world’s most successful developed economies are driven by small, family-owned businesses of less than 10 people.

In the UK, there were 5.5 million small or medium-sized businesses in 2023, representing over 99% of their business population. SMEs accounted for 61% of UK employment and 7% of business turnover. The greatest proportion of these were micro-businesses – those with 0-9 employees – which accounted for 95% of all businesses.

And it is the sixth largest economy in the world.

The US, the world’s largest economy, has 33.3 million small businesses that contributes 43.5% of the country’s GDP, according to the US Small Business Administration. These small businesses were responsible for creating two-thirds of jobs between 1995 and 2021.

So small or micro businesses rather than being an indicator of failure are an indicator of growth and empowerment.

Is a female more successful if she has scaled her start-up to unicorn status than if she manages to keep it small but going while she raises her family?

Only by honestly and openly confronting vexing questions or situations can we grow.

So here’s a question for those who keep ruminating on the lack of unicorns led by females: is it possible that we should leave most women to run small / micro enterprises (that will allow them to be mothers and partners while also contributing financially) without pressuring them to scale?

We have all come to realise that no one can have it all.

Women, as the ones who give birth, are often the primary caregivers. Most women don’t want to change this. They just want latitude to exercise this right while also being able to determine their contribution in business / in the workplace.

So why don’t we let them and consider this success, given that they are, in addition creating jobs and contributing to GDP, also bringing up the next generation to ensure the future of the human race? – IOL

African industrialist Adam Molai