Masculinity in Scandinavian tech entrepreneurship: male technology entrepreneurs negotiating gender (in)equality

Abstract

Purpose

Both entrepreneurship and technology are significantly gendered, and when combined in technology entrepreneurship, they make up a fundamentally masculine field. This article investigates men tech entrepreneurs' negotiations of gender and gender (in)equality. The purpose is to gain knowledge on masculinity in tech entrepreneurship and to explore what role this might play in any change towards more gender-equal entrepreneurship.

Design/methodology/approach

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten Swedish and Norwegian male tech entrepreneurs in tech incubators. The interviews dealt with gender (in)equality and masculinity in tech entrepreneurship. The data were coded in NVivo and inductively analysed using thematic analysis. We apply a social constructivist understanding of gender.

Findings

We categorise the male entrepreneurs' views of gender equality along “privileged”, “paradoxical” and “potential” articulations of gender (in)equality. Building on these articulations, we discuss the potential entrepreneurial men and masculinities could have for changing gender inequality in the Scandinavian tech entrepreneurship context. The findings are applicable to several entrepreneurial contexts.

Originality/value

The study contributes to further the theoretical understanding of tech entrepreneurship as a gendered phenomenon, its dynamics and its potential for change, particularly in promoting gender equality in tech entrepreneurship. Empirically, it investigates the perceptions about gender (in)equality and gender as negotiated concepts amongst male tech entrepreneurs.

Citation

Balkmar, D., Lindvert, M. and Ljunggren, E.C. (2024), "Masculinity in Scandinavian tech entrepreneurship: male technology entrepreneurs negotiating gender (in)equality", International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-314. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-04-2023-0103

Introduction

Entrepreneurship, technology, and high-tech enterprises are often coupled with the assumption that they contribute to the innovation economy, job creation and economic growth (Dautzenberg, 2012). Both entrepreneurship and technology are significantly gendered, hence when combined in technology entrepreneurship they make up a fundamentally masculine field (Wheadon and Duval-Couetil, 2019). A persistent gender bias continues to exist in entrepreneurship discourses and practices, affecting who obtains support within and from the entrepreneurial ecosystem (McAdam et al., 2019; McAdam, 2022). Despite decades of policy interventions to address gender inequality, in both entrepreneurship and technology environments, these domains are still dominated by men and have strong masculine connotations (Callerstig et al., 2024; Marlow and McAdam, 2012).

Studies on gender in entrepreneurship have mostly focussed on how gender influences women's entrepreneurship, emphasising how entrepreneurial discourses are rooted in masculinity and establish men as the norm (Ahl, 2006; Bruni et al., 2004; Marlow and Martinez Dy, 2018). Little is known about how male entrepreneurs are affected by dominant masculinity formations in entrepreneurship and how they view gender equality in this context (Giazitzoglu and Down, 2017; Jernberg et al., 2020; Hytti et al., 2023; Smith, 2010, 2022). Considering that entrepreneurship “is premised on hegemonic forms of masculinity,” Marlow and Martinez Dy (2018, p. 9) argue for the need to study “diverse and discrete articulations of masculinity and how they are performed and reproduced by male entrepreneurial actors.” On a similar note, stressing the importance of context, Giazitzoglu and Down (2017, p. 53) point to how entrepreneurial masculinities can be performed in different ways in different contexts by different types of male entrepreneurs. Furthermore, Smith (2022) emphasises the importance of studying the role men play in shaping gendered entrepreneurship, and by doing so, explicitly gendering men and masculinities. Yet, a focus on technology entrepreneurship with an explicit perspective on masculinity is rare (Mendick et al., 2021) and even rarer when the focus is on Scandinavian contexts with a reputation to score high on gender equality indices (Global gender gap report, 2023).

We draw on these calls to engage with male entrepreneurs to understand their views on tech entrepreneurship, gender (in)equality, how to mitigate the gender gap and their own roles in achieving this goal. Scandinavia is an interesting context for this study's topic: policies and means to strengthen women's entrepreneurship have been in place for more than 50 years. However, the gender divide in entrepreneurship still prevails, for instance male entrepreneurs have better access to funding, resources and networks compared to female entrepreneurs (Alsos and Ljunggren, 2017). It is therefore of particular importance to study how Scandinavian male technology entrepreneurs negotiate gender (in)equality to reveal their perceptions of their role in achieving a more gender equal tech entrepreneurship – and change. Against this background, we ask: What perceptions do male tech entrepreneurs have of gender and gender (in)equality? How do they discursively negotiate gender (in)equality in tech entrepreneurship?

Our study is built on a social constructivist understanding (Burr, 1995) of reality as mediated via language, emphasising the ways that the interviewees articulate gender (in)equality and how this “dictate what is expected, possible and meaningful in relation to the articulated” – in a given context and time (Johansson and Ringblom, 2017, p. 632). This implies that we understand gender as a relational and continuously enacted activity to achieve and embody what are considered desirable ways of being a man or woman in specific contexts (West and Zimmerman, 1987). We analyse how the interviewed men articulate their views on gender (in)equality and tech entrepreneurship and how they reflect on the issues that arise. The entrepreneurs' understandings of problems and solutions lead us to three overarching analytical patterns; “privileged”, “paradoxical” and “potential” articulations of gender (in)equality. Building on these articulations our findings suggests that male technology entrepreneurs understand gender (in)equality differently and with contradictory meanings. To understand how entrepreneurial men can play a role to make tech entrepreneurship more inclusive and gender equal, we need to understand what they identify as a problem, why it is important to them and who they believe should act for change.

The article is structured as follows: First, we outline how masculinity relates to technology and entrepreneurship. Then we present the Scandinavian context. Next, we explain the methodology and analytical approach we have used. Lastly, we present and discuss our findings and their implications.

Masculinities in technology entrepreneurship

In this section, we first outline our understanding of masculinity and how the concept relates to entrepreneurship and technology entrepreneurship. By combining tech masculinity and entrepreneurship masculinity, we may better understand the significance masculinity has as an underlying gendered configuration of technology entrepreneurship in the Scandinavian context.

Masculinity and entrepreneurship have been studied with different approaches (cf. Ahl, 2004, 2006; Ahl and Marlow, 2012; Bruni et al., 2004; Smith, 2010). However, Connell's concept of “hegemonic masculinity” has been very influential (Duong and Brännback, 2023; Gather et al., 2016; Giazitzoglu and Down, 2017; Hechavarria and Ingram, 2016; Smith, 2022). By invoking intersections of age, ethnicity, sexuality and class, Connell's theory maps out several masculinity formations, i.e. masculinities in plural. We define masculinity as a number of accumulated and changeable imaginings, practices and positions, which form the basis for masculine identities at a certain time and place (Nordberg, 2005, see also Smith, 2022). This definition opens up the concept of masculinity as not fixed to male bodies, since hegemonic traits of masculinity can be performed by both males and females (Duong and Brännback, 2023).

Masculinity is an underlying gendered configuration of tech entrepreneurship (Mellström et al., 2023). Typically, the figure of the tech entrepreneur can be exemplified by entrepreneurs of big tech companies, such as Tesla's Elon Musk and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. Both represent global entrepreneurs who are simultaneously powerful and influential yet combine masculinities associated with the typical entrepreneurial superhero with that of the nerdy geek (Mendick et al., 2021). Tech entrepreneurship is a form of masculinity that has taken centre stage as a dominant form of masculinity in global business masculinities (Connell and Wood, 2005), social media representations and films (Mendick et al., 2021). Following this, technology is co-constructed with new forms of hegemonic and emerging masculinities (including more gender egalitarian forms), which are shaping the future of technological entrepreneurship (Mellström et al., 2023). We understand entrepreneurial and technology masculinities to underpin the articulations of the entrepreneurial selves of the men interviewed, taking into consideration contextual factors such as their situatedness in gender equal Scandinavia (more on this below).

Our research addresses how male tech entrepreneurs' reason about gender (in)equality and gender in tech entrepreneurship, i.e. their negotiations of gender. Reasoning, negotiating and debating gender (in)equality lead to a deeper understanding of gender relations and can potentially lead to increased acceptance of gender equality over time. Over decades, gender equality politics and the demands made by feminist movements to make men share care and parental responsibilities more equally, have put pressure on traditional gender relations in Scandinavia. This has implications for entrepreneurial men and their negotiations of entrepreneurial and parental hegemonic masculinities (Hytti et al., 2023). Hence, male entrepreneurs may construct different (hybrid) forms of masculinities, with implications for the ways hegemonic masculinities can be “maintained, restructured, and resisted” (Hytti et al., 2023, p. 4). Men and masculinities play an essential part in gender equality reforms (Connell and Wood, 2005; Christofidou, 2021).

Like Bacchi (1999), we understand gender (in)equality as a “doing” and an empty signifier that can be filled with (sometimes contradictory) meaning depending on the ideological context. For example, over the last 30 years, the construction of gender equality in companies has changed to emphasise competitive advantage rather than social justice (Johansson and Ringblom, 2017; Mayes and Pini, 2014). The so-called business case approach builds on the idea that promoting gender equality is assumed to be good for business (Johansson and Ringblom, 2017). Rather than emphasising conflicts, power and politics, the business case builds on the needs of the business (owners) to construct gender equality to secure the supply of skills, marketing gender equality as a sales argument and strengthening innovation capacity (Mayes and Pini, 2014). The emphasis on competitive advantage is also part of the context of Scandinavian tech entrepreneurship, where business and gender equality are assumed to benefit each other [1].

The Scandinavian context

This study's context is Scandinavia, i.e. Sweden and Norway, as the two countries' gender equality trajectories have many common features. We understand gender equality as expressed in Swedish and Norwegian policy: equal participation in society, including education, work life and politics; fairness; and not being exposed to gender-based violence. Gender equality has been politically advocated in Scandinavia since the 1970s as a part of broader feminist politics. Family policy has been an important part of promoting gender equality in Scandinavia, including affordable kindergartens and maternity and (later) paternity leave. In recent decades, gender equality policies and means have sought to facilitate change for women and men by lowering the thresholds for moving across the gender divide in paid and unpaid work contexts.

However, the picture is somewhat different in the business sector. Both Sweden and Norway have low numbers of female entrepreneurs (GEM, 2023 [2]) and low numbers of women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) roles (when compared to men). Policies to strengthen women's entrepreneurship have been in place since the 1980s, and both Swedish and Norwegian innovation agencies continue to work for gender equality in entrepreneurship, business growth and innovation (Handlingsplan, 2019; Fürst Hörte, 2009). For instance, Innovation Norway introduced a quota for female entrepreneurs to receive start-up grants (Alsos et al., 2006), but later rescinded it. Norway also introduced legislation on quotas for boards of publicly owned firms in 2004 and for listed companies in 2006, demanding at least 40% of board members should be women.

Despite these efforts, progress in gender equality has been slow in the Scandinavian business sector. After at least 4 decades of specific policies directed towards promoting female entrepreneurs, the ratio has not increased significantly. We note that outspoken policies and means have been largely directed towards women to correct the imbalance in representation or to help potential female entrepreneurs. We reverse this perspective and look at entrepreneurship with a focus on men and masculinities to explore whether this can help us understand why progress has been slow. Against this background, we understand the interviewees' responses as particularly situated within and related to a Scandinavian societal context that places a strong emphasis on gender equality.

Data, methodology and analysis

Applying a qualitative research approach, five male founders were interviewed in each country (N = 10). The interviewees were recruited via incubators in Sweden and Norway, applying a snowball technique [3]. The male founders were relatively young; six were between 18 and 35 years and the other four between 36 and 49 years. Of the 10 founders interviewed, four were married/in a relationship and two had child dependents. All interviewees were tenants of tech incubators. Six of them were first-time founders, whilst the remaining four had been through the start-up process at least once before. The younger interviewees had recently graduated from university, whilst the older mainly had private sector work experience. They were all in a relatively early stage of their business founding and in the process of acquiring capital. Several of them were also in the process of recruiting employees. Seven of the teams where all male, three were gender mixed. In the responses, we could not see any differences between how representatives of mixed teams responded compared to those in strictly male teams.

We found the sample to be representative of male tenants of technology incubators, which was our target group of interviewees.

The interviews lasted about an hour and took place either face-to-face at the incubator or online through Zoom. The semi-structured interview guide focussed on everyday practices, entrepreneurship challenges and gender stereotypes – including the interviewees' views on gender (in)equalities in tech entrepreneurship. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymised and translated into English. NVivo R1 was used to code all data inductively, and the coding process was discussed amongst the authors on several occasions. The sample was limited, with some variation regarding the interviewees' age, family situation and type of tech industry (Table 1). For our purposes, it was sufficient to obtain information about emphasised themes, how they reason and negotiate gender (in)equality and to point to differences in their perspectives and positions.

Guided by concepts of gender equality, power, change and questions such as what is understood as a problem with gender (in)equality, why it should be addressed and who should act, we used an interpretive approach to analyse the data. We noted the problems the interviewees articulated and how they viewed causes and constructed solutions to the problem of gender (in)equality (Johansson and Ringblom, 2017). Drawing on Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 79) we conducted thematic analysis, which is a method of “identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data”. This method is particularly suitable when data consist of open-ended responses because it enables in-depth analysis of the data. Following Castleberry and Nolen (2018), we took the following steps in the process: (1) interviews were transcribed and sorted; (2) data were grouped into meaningful codes (both pre-defined and emerging); (3) codes were grouped into themes and sub-themes; (4) data were interpreted and patterns identified; and finally; (5) conclusions were drawn in relation to the purpose of the study.

As illustrated in Figure 1, several sub-themes were first identified, representing different articulations expressed by the interviewed men (step 2). Based on these empirical data, the following dominant themes emerged in our data analysis process (step 3); (a) gender (in)equality as a problem for tech entrepreneurship; (b) tech entrepreneurship as not suitable for everyone; (c) gender equality as something primarily benefitting women; (d) how to change tech entrepreneurship; and (e) men being part of the solution. From these dominant themes, we identified three overarching patterns of negotiating gender (in)equality (step 4), labelled as privileged, paradoxical and potential articulations (Figure 1). Together, they make up contemporary and emergent elements constituting potential changes in entrepreneurial masculinities with regard to gender (in)equality, which we discuss in the concluding discussion (step 5).

Articulating gender (in)equality in tech entrepreneurship

The following sections map out and exemplify how the men interviewed envisioned gender (in)equality as a problem for tech entrepreneurship. We address how they viewed the causes of gender (in)equality and their reasoning around their own role as male tech entrepreneurs when addressing gender (in)equality.

Gender (in)equality as a problem for tech entrepreneurship

All the interviewees considered gender (in)equality to be a problem of some kind for entrepreneurship, most often because gender (in)equality limits good ideas:

I strongly believe that ideas and team are the most important aspects rather than gender, so if we miss out on a lot of good ideas from the entrepreneurial person because it is arranged the way it is done, then it is incredibly important that the research can contribute [with knowledge on how to address the problem]. (Fredrik, 36)

For Fredrik, gender (in)equality in the technical field is a problem since “we” (i.e. the team, his fellow entrepreneurs) miss out on good ideas. The idea takes precedence over gender. Thomas (27) argues along similar lines that society misses out on skilled entrepreneurs: “It's a shame if some skilled entrepreneurs, if they are female, choose not to engage in entrepreneurship, if they are skilled, because society needs it.” For Thomas and Fredrik gender (in)equality hinders good ideas and skilled persons from becoming entrepreneurs. This is a potential loss for other entrepreneurs and for society as a whole. Gender (in)equality is primarily framed as a failure to recognise individual (female) talent. However, Erik frames the problem as having to do with how certain men and masculinities are biased with regard to funding.

My opinion is that “May the best company win.” And if I was sitting with a pile of money, I would look at the business idea, not between the legs of the entrepreneur, which is quite irrelevant in this case. (Erik, 35)

Erik ascribes the problem to the biased judgement of former generations of affluent men who focussed on the wrong things, such as gender instead of the idea. Whilst situating his younger self as gender equal, he did this through perceptions of age and generation that stereotype certain men and masculinities as backward and unable to change (Hearn and Parkin, 2021). In contrast, Jonny sees a problem with gender (in)equality beyond bias and generation, emphasising the larger picture and the significance that masculine culture may have for excluding women and minorities.

I think it's a very simple argument to make since the best strategy is to be as unethical as possible and also you could say, if you take Donald Trump as a very illustrative example: you don't have to follow the law, you can be very aggressive and break laws, because no one can afford to challenge the smaller misdemeanours. Then this becomes a very dangerous environment for women, other people with immigrant backgrounds, people who are outside the norm who can be targeted by basic bullying or threats as these methods are available and effective, they will be used. I think it's a simple argument like that. (Jonny, 43)

Jonny cites competitive and unethical forms of entrepreneurship in conjunction with aggressive and law-breaking ways of doing business to exemplify the causes and effects of gender (in)equality in entrepreneurship. His critique corresponds to the form of “Cityboy” entrepreneurial identity discussed by Smith (2010), where aggressiveness, competitiveness, arrogance and unethical business behaviour forms a celebrated and heroic masculine ideal. Jonny and Erik view some men and masculinities as the problem (i.e. former generations of men in power were biased), whilst younger men and future generations are considered as part of the solution (i.e. not biased). Taken together, gender (in)equality is a problem as it leads to the loss of great minds and ideas, which is a problem for entrepreneurship. Gender (in)equality is associated with certain men and masculinities, producing biased financing opportunities and even toxic work conditions for non-normative subjects.

Tech entrepreneurship – not for everyone

In the interviews, entrepreneurship was articulated as not suitable for everyone. Thomas recognises his female friends are talented, but he hesitates to say that they should pursue an entrepreneurial career: “I know that it usually takes a very long time before you get anywhere with it, if you get anywhere with it at all.” Implicitly, entrepreneurship demands a specific kind of person, someone who is able and willing to put in the effort and time, which is often implicitly male. Previous research has discussed the many ways that entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are constructed around the idealised figure of the heroic man (Johnsen and Sörensen, 2016), often portraying him as a risk taker, yet rational, controlling and powerful (Giazitzoglu and Down, 2017; Hytti et al., 2023). For Thomas, however, entrepreneurship is not necessarily a rational choice:

So, it's not really a rational choice to become an entrepreneur. Just becoming an entrepreneur should not be an end, because there are many who … have lost many years of their life … then being completely burned out. If the goal is to get more entrepreneurs, then I think maybe one should take a step back and think about what we really want to achieve. Is it innovation we want to achieve, and then maybe more female entrepreneurs, because then we also get more innovation on products and services that can be relevant […] on the women's side, then it may be a good thing? But sort of just “We should have more female entrepreneurs”, whatever … I think it's a bit like a cheap goal. What exactly do we want to achieve? (Thomas, 27)

Entrepreneurship is constructed as a non-choice by Thomas, a passionate entrepreneur and as something genuinely risky with potentially a high price to pay. Even though more women entrepreneurs could fill gaps “on the women's side”, Thomas says that calls for more entrepreneurs in the name of gender (in)equality should be viewed with great caution. He raises the need to take a step back to (re)consider what entrepreneurship should contribute and at what price. Success as an entrepreneur demands not only long hours in the office but also blurred boundaries between work and family life:

I know I work too much, and everyone else does. We can't combine this with family life. It would have been difficult if I were a dad too, but it might be even harder if you're a mom, and we're not the only ones working 12-hour days, so that's a factor too. (Espen, 26)

For Espen, who is single with no children, the tension between the entrepreneurial lifestyle and family responsibilities is a concern. Whilst working too much is a way of performing heroic entrepreneurial masculinity, the interplay of fatherhood and entrepreneurial masculinity causes tensions between family and work time in countries with strong gender equality discourses (Hytti et al., 2023). Whilst Espen notes that female entrepreneurs may face even harder decisions in starting a family and becoming a parent, it is also an issue for young men. Fredrik talks about how he and his partner planned when would be a good time to start a family vis-à-vis starting a company. Due to the unstable position that being an entrepreneur entails, family plans were delayed by entrepreneurship:

It had been clarified at home that it was okay, and getting some funding and some support from the family, I felt that then it was just to try. […] There is a reason that it's now the child is coming and not in 2017 … (Fredrik, 36)

Negotiations such as these can be illustrative of how the making of the gender-based identity of the entrepreneur is not only a process between the individual and society, but also within the household, in order to combine family and entrepreneurship (Gather et al., 2016). In their research on self-employed men supported by female breadwinners, Gather et al. (2016) note that the reversion of the breadwinner role to the female partner does not necessarily reverse the distribution of the domestic workload. The fact that Fredrik is now running his business, and his spouse will be taking care of their child, also reflects where his priorities lie. In Fredrik's case, the breadwinner role in the household seems more levelled compared to the distribution of the domestic workload.

Gender equality benefitting women

Truls, one of the Norwegian game developers, says he “over time [has] become much more concerned about [gender equality], trying to learn and understand ….” He has spent time reading several books, on recruitment and diversity and even attended a conference on female entrepreneurship. He explains that he is aware of his privileged position: “I have not felt [bias/stigma] about myself, especially as a young white man […].” When asked why there are so few women in the tech start-up sector, he sees a hindering factor in the ways that technological interest can form tight bonds between young boys:

We've always played computer games together, from the first year, from kindergarten …. […] It can be a little difficult to socialise if you are a girl [sic], to fit in here; however, if you have the same interests, there is no problem, there is no gender discrimination in that sense. (Truls, 29)

For Truls, it is men's tech socialisation, and not discrimination, that keeps women out of tech entrepreneurship. Scholars working in the field of technology and masculinity studies have shown the central role technology plays in men's relationships, upbringing and identity-forming processes and how such relations influence their technological careers as adults (Holth, 2014). Technology represents a social continuity from childhood to adulthood where tight bonds between male friends are of key importance for understanding their technical trajectories and future careers (Holth, 2014). In Truls' case, the solution to gender (in)equality is individual. It is up to the individual woman to perform the relevant tech knowledge “to fit in” in a way that entrepreneurial men find legitimate. Whilst socialisation into specific spheres of interests is presented as excluding individual women (“it can be difficult […] to fit in”), it is assumed that a shared interest in technology (e.g. gaming) will make it possible for individual women to overcome men's tech-based relations. This reasoning on how technology creates informal entry barriers to women resonates with discussions in the literature about the limited possibilities women have to claim a position as entrepreneur (Ahl, 2006). Ahl and Marlow (2012, p. 544) argue that “given the current focus upon individualised attainment within an entrepreneuring epoch, women are positioned in deficit unless they acknowledge and subscribe to a masculinised discourse”. In our case, gender (in)equality measures that target women as a group are met with suspicion. Here Truls talks about what gender (in)equality implies for his male team:

Then I thought, now we may not only beat those who are just as good as us, we must beat those who are less competent than us too [implying women who are getting support because they are women]. It feels very unfair. (Truls, 29)

Gender (in)equality measures are construed by Truls as women being rewarded primarily for being women, not primarily for their tech competence or business skills, which makes female teams “less competent” than male teams. Truls' reasoning expresses a clash between an individualistic approach (it is up to the individual woman to fit in) and a more structural approach (equality in tech entrepreneurship as a political concern). Men's and boys' socialisation into technology and the benefits this brings are viewed as outside the political realm of gender equality. Measures that aim to strengthen women's underrepresentation in tech entrepreneurship can thereby be construed as illegitimate and unjust to men. Furthermore, belonging to the underrepresented gender can even be considered beneficial for women:

There are some programmes to promote women, to get more female entrepreneurs and such. So, it can be an advantage, [for women] it can be easier to get into such programmes. (Thomas, 27)

The underrepresentation of women in tech entrepreneurship makes women a target group for reaching gender equality goals. Being a woman makes you more visible, Thomas argues, and individual women can leverage their minority position to get into highly competitive programmes.

Whilst Truls and Thomas both emphasise their support for gender equality in tech entrepreneurship, both place the burden of change on individual women, requiring women to enact credible identities to fit in, and by doing so, address the tensions arising due to stereotypical notions of the tech entrepreneur, or to use their minority position as a career steppingstone. Gender equality measures that suggest structural measures to support women as a group are taken to be unfair, infringing on the idea that tech competence is gender neutral and unbiased.

Mitigating gender (in)equality

The following section deals with the interviewees' views on mitigating gender (in)equality on individual and structural levels. Erik is the father of two girls. In a previous quote he reflected upon change in the context of funding and older generations of men being biased. For him, the problem lies with former generations of men, now in powerful positions, who focus on the gender of the entrepreneur rather than the entrepreneur's idea (as discussed above). As he puts it, the statistics will show more gender equality in 10–20 years' time, “thanks to our children now getting a different upbringing, a different culture, so to speak”. Erik positions himself as someone who will make a difference for gender (in)equality in entrepreneurship, as someone who can see beyond the gender divide and as a father he emphasises the significance that upbringing can have for gender (in)equality.

Fredrik says there are no gender differences in having the ability to come up with ideas and wanting to create and build something, “but if there are gender differences in risk tolerance or risk appetite, it may be more important to motivate and create female role models”. Fredrik analyses the gender divide in tech entrepreneurship primarily by focussing on women's “risk tolerance”, implying that women put strains on themselves. Further, he suggests that this problem could be solved by more female role models serving as inspiration for women. In his view, potential female entrepreneurs lack other women to identify with, i.e. women who can prove entrepreneurship is worth the risk. This form of understanding mirrors an often-repeated assumption about women's entrepreneurship as lacking something that men's entrepreneurship does not (Ahl, 2004). It follows a gendered dualistic logic of mutually excluding categories, i.e. “to be a risk taker is not to be risk averse; to be a woman is not to be a man” (Ahl and Marlow, 2012, p. 547).

Ola, 45, a serial entrepreneur who is currently in a mixed founding team, argues differently. He states that there is a gender difference in risk tolerance and that women “think security is more important”. But instead of changing women (or men) to become more risk tolerant, he argues that we need to change the way entrepreneurship is framed with regard to risk:

We must start saying that [entrepreneurship] is not about risk, it is not to jump with a parachute which may be broken. I think women think better about this, it's about risk elimination. Women have a lot more control over risk. Men have a much greater chance of doing idiotic things, so I think we must go back and just imprint it from a younger age, that this is not dangerous, it's not scary, this is going to work, this is about creating safety. (Ola, 45)

According to Ola, to attract more women, entrepreneurship needs to be represented not along the line of risk but by the ability to control. Change can be achieved by emphasising risk elimination and reducing the typical masculine connotation of entrepreneurship as inherently risky (Smith, 2010). Such a shift in the discourse of entrepreneurship would, according to Ola, potentially open more space for women to enter entrepreneurship. However, it is a way of reasoning that builds on gender stereotypes associating women and men as opposites, with their respective abilities, traits and interests.

Jonny refers to speeches by Peter Thiel, one of the world's most prominent entrepreneurs, who claims that start-ups should aim to achieve monopoly in their sector, a statement he also feels suggests why gender (in)equality is so hard to change:

Venture capital activity is based on gaining the system, finding weaknesses in the legal systems and social systems, to try to leverage as much growth and power as possible. Then of course, you can leverage the weaknesses in social structures and in people, and since there are imbalances between the genders, it is natural to leverage that too for a venture capital firm. This is how it is. The problem itself is not that there needs to be more systems for gender equality, because the underlying problem is much larger and will not accommodate that anyway. (Jonny, 43)

Jonny's way of arguing situates gender (in)equality in conflict with business. During the interview Jonny refers to Donald Trump to exemplify how “the most famous entrepreneur in the world carries out his business”. He concludes by stating this is “how it looks, if you want to be in the venture capital atmosphere, then it's really anarchy”. His way of reasoning contrasts significantly with the idea that business and gender (in)equality go hand in hand by suggesting that venture capital can leverage gender inequalities for profit (Johansson and Ringblom, 2017). This is tightly intertwined with ideals associated with masculinity and the power dynamics in venture capitalism, including how some entrepreneurial men can be understood as troublemakers and hinder change towards increased gender equality (see Smith, 2010; Malmström et al., 2017).

The examples above show how differently in scope, depth and framing the men interviewed see change: changes in how children are being raised is assumed to change entrepreneurial culture, more female role models will attract more women, and a change in the risk discourse will better match what is perceived as women's need for control. Constructs of change focus mainly on women, apart from Ola, who suggests the perception of risk in entrepreneurship should be changed, and Jonny, who emphasises the need for systemic change in the venture capital sector, including change amongst certain dominant men and masculinities.

Men as part of the solution?

Whilst some of the men interviewed critiqued idealised men and masculinities in tech entrepreneurship, the interviewees very rarely reflected upon their own position and privileges as men. When we asked the male tech entrepreneurs how they thought their gender impacted their entrepreneurial lives, it was common to respond as Espen did when reflecting on his own trajectory:

I haven't thought about it very much, really. I do not know. I have not started a company with a woman either and do not know if it would be different. (Espen, 26)

Espen's response articulates the privileged position of belonging to the norm, exemplifying the difficulty most of the men interviewed had in providing any reflections about their own masculinities, or what being a man meant for their entrepreneurial careers. However, in response to a direct question, most of the men interviewed did see themselves as wanting to change gender (in)equality. Patrik, for example, talks about his responsibility as an employer to strive for a mixed workspace:

[…] because I really believe, and I think this has been proven, in scientific reports as well, that diversity is key for true innovation and great solutions. So, I really believe in diversity, in general. (Patrik, 23)

As an employer he strives to achieve a mixed workspace that is positive for innovation and business. Whilst gender equality is considered to bring more perspectives and dynamics to companies and teams, the challenge for many of the interviewees is how to recruit more women, as required by financers and incubators. Mats says that “the negative thing is that you are more or less expected to have co-founders and employees who are women, and it is difficult to get hold of them”. Patrik says jokingly that it would be much easier to recruit female developers if he were female himself, “not that I wish I was, but it would have been a hell of a lot easier”. Patrik reflects on his personal network as “segregated”, built around sports and interest in technology. “It's the same for my co-founders, so when we've been recruiting, it's easier to find males than females.” Male dominance in STEM subjects in universities is normalised. Truls says, “You don't really ask ‘Oh, are there only guys here?” Patrik notes that it is easier for men to be friends with “guys” but at the same time reflecting on how he might feel if the situation were the other way around. “If I am a guy and there are 10 girls [sic] around me, then it may not feel as comfortable.”

Both Mats and Patrik talk about themselves subscribing to the idea that gender equality should somehow benefit their start-up business. However, because of gender segregated networks, they find it hard to live up to such demands. Whilst women are expected to add better dynamics and innovation capacity to the teams, this is not expected to be friction-free. Patrik compares his experiences communicating with women and communicating with men:

I always must strive to know what my girlfriend thinks, even though I, you know, I've been dating her for two years. I always, always, struggle to understand her. But I understand men, so I think that's why the incubator is mostly male dominated, I think that it's easier for men to connect with other men in the incubator. […] I have a little – what do you call it? Yeah, advantage. (Patrik, 23)

Patrik refers to his girlfriend to represent all women as he reflects on how complicated it is communicating with women compared to men. He identifies it as a gendered advantage being a man and being able to communicate with other men. Entrepreneurs like Mats and Patrik consider themselves as contributing to increased gender equality through their ambition to recruit women. However, what exactly such recruitment can add to their teams remains vague – even potentially problematic, because men may experience problems communicating with women.

Yet another element is added by Thomas, who says that he and his team are positive about involving women, but argue that they, at this point, must primarily focus on solving problems.

We have plans to reach a global market, so we are interested in having a … not a homogeneous team because it reflects very poorly in the market we want to meet, so we are very open to have people with other backgrounds. In other words, preferably from abroad, collaborate with people from the whole world and have a gender balance in the team, precisely because we think it may contribute to us hitting the market we want to hit. But right now, it's more like “Okay, now we have a critical challenge, let's find out how we can solve it”, and it's kind of in focus. (Thomas, 27)

For Thomas, the most important thing is to find the most competent person to solve a specific “challenge” – not gender equality. His reasoning suggests that he is not confident about finding the right competence amongst women – thereby reproducing a culture that dismisses women as “peripheral” entrepreneurs (Ahl, 2006). Gender equality is a market-driven long-term goal. Being a player on a global market can boost diversity primarily for the sake of business, by hitting the market.

Concluding discussion

Five dominant themes emerged from the data, as discussed in our analysis above and presented in Figure 1. Building on the male entrepreneurs' negotiations about gender (in)equality and masculinity in tech entrepreneurship, and drawing on the dominant themes emerging from the interviews, we categorise the interviewees' responses as privileged, paradoxical and potential articulations of gender (in)equality. The arrows from dominant themes toward overarching patterns in Figure 1 illustrate that the interviewees did not necessarily belong exclusively to one category. We found that several of the interviewees expressed different, sometimes opposing, views simultaneously.

Privileged articulations build on the invisibility of male gender and typically leave men and masculinity outside the focus of critical attention – the technology entrepreneurship male norm remains intact, and status quo is the expressed outcome. Consequently, this reinforces assumptions that the typical technology entrepreneur is a man (Wheadon and Duval-Couetil, 2019). It mirrors how most of the interviewed men had not reflected on the implications of gender for their own entrepreneurship, which makes the significance of masculinity and normative positions in entrepreneurship invisible.

Paradoxical articulations are expressions of an inconsistency between reflections on male privileges on the one hand and ambiguity about change on the other. To illustrate one paradoxical articulation: whilst the interviewees subscribe to the idea of gender equality, they also express the view that female tech entrepreneurs benefit unrightly from gender equality measures. This paradoxical articulation reflects a narrow and individual perspective on gender equality, exemplified by views such as: (1) women benefit from gender equality policy; (2) there are deficiencies with women; and (3) gender equality measures that seek to strengthen women as a group vis-à-vis men as a group are unfair to men. This narrow perspective places the burden to act for change on individual women – to address the “assumed deficit” through appropriate interventions (Ahl and Marlow, 2012, p. 544). The interviewees regard gender equality measures as infringing on the idea that tech entrepreneurship is gender neutral, unbiased and has no formal entry barriers (Ahl and Marlow, 2012). Gender equality measures (and policy) are perceived to collide with the idea of the market as a gender-neutral construct in which the best ideas and the most capable teams will “win”. This articulation does not question the current concept of capitalism. For example, it takes for granted that the market is a fair distributor in the sense that the most capable competitor succeeds. The paradoxical articulation does not accept women gaining power because this is perceived to happen at the expense of men's legitimate and rightfully earned privileges. This articulation needs to be situated in its historical, deep-rooted and often taken-for-granted connection between technology and masculinity (Wheadon and Duval-Couetil, 2019; Mellström et al., 2023).

Potential articulations emphasise the potential for change for both men and women tech entrepreneurs, exemplified in how the interviewees address change in gender dynamics across themes such as entrepreneurship and family life, change of entrepreneurial culture and by critiquing venture capital for being gender biased. Family-oriented entrepreneurial men express a will to combine entrepreneurship with being involved in their own family life. Such articulations challenge the idea of the heroic married-to-his-work male entrepreneur. As fathers, some of the interviewees expressed that they wanted to take part in raising children, unconstrained by gender stereotypes. As Hytti et al. (2023) argue, such work-family tensions indicate how male entrepreneurs must negotiate different masculinities, integrating feminine caring dimensions with entrepreneurial masculinities. This opens for entrepreneurial masculinities to be reconfigured and incorporated into hybrid hegemonic masculinities. Even though feminine caring practices are listed as important for entrepreneurial men, unequal gender relations may be maintained within the household and at work (Hytti et al., 2023). The potential for change remains to be realised.

Building on the three overarching analytical patterns outlined above, we contribute to the theoretical implications for understanding the potential existing in entrepreneurial men and masculinities for changing gender (in)equality in the Scandinavian tech entrepreneurship context. Whilst all interviewed men saw themselves being for gender equality, the overarching patterns we have identified shows the existence of overlapping and sometimes contradictory ways of understanding gender (in)equality and how to address this problem. The interviewees show a relatively high knowledge of gender (in)equality in general, emphasising the importance of diversity in entrepreneurship. We interpret this as an effect of how the pervasive discourse of gender equality in Scandinavia makes it likely that the interviewed men want to present themselves in ways that associates them with gender equality. Furthermore, they see a potential in gender equality benefit their business endeavour. However, the privileged, paradoxical and potential articulations of gender (in)equality also display how male technology entrepreneurs understand gender (in)equality sometimes very differently and with contradictory meanings. Building on Bacchi (1999), the ways that the men understand and “do” gender (in)equality is not coherent, rather, their understandings build on contradictory problematisations and solutions to the problem of gender (in)equality. This in turn suggests that, to theorize men's role in changing tech entrepreneurship, several tensions need to be considered, especially related to power relations, gender justice and change.

One set of tensions is the interviewees' negotiation of an individualistic approach to gender (in)equality visa vie a structural social justice approach; the former puts the emphasis on women to change or to add something to mixed teams, whilst the latter emphasises how gender structurers uphold unequal power relations (Johansson and Ringblom, 2017, p. 639). Typically, some of the interviewees argued along similar lines as Scandinavian innovation and entrepreneurship policies: more women and greater diversity increase creativity and innovation capacity in tech teams. In the long run, more diversity is anticipated to strengthen the business case, building on a view that position women as inherently different from men (Johansson and Ringblom, 2017). The potential for change is limited with this approach to gender equality, as the interviewees rarely had an idea of why gender equality matters beyond mere gender representation and the business sphere. In fact, gender equality becomes an issue to be solved by the market, not necessarily implicating change in men and masculinities, nor as a question about conflicting interests and power relations.

We also note contradictory arguments in this pattern, as some of the interviewees expressed that some men and masculinities prevent necessary steps towards gender equality from being taken, e.g. previous generations of men with financial resources. This way of othering men based on their age made it possible for some of our interviewees to situate themselves as representing the next generation of more gender-equal “modern” tech entrepreneurs. They ascribe themselves to an “unbiased” vision that enables them to change the entrepreneurial culture. This suggest that younger men embody more easily the “cult of the new” in tech entrepreneurship, a context where non-old masculinities are the unmarked norm (Callerstig et al., 2024; Hearn and Parkin, 2021, p. 15). Whilst articulations like these could be read as expressing attitudes as being more inclusive of women and further genders traditionally marginalised by hegemonic masculinity (Anderson, 2009), change in attitudes does not say much about to what extent they actively challenge patriarchal relations and structural inequality (Christofidou, 2021).

In contrast to previous studies on gender and entrepreneurship, centring on women's perspectives and experiences, our contribution builds on male entrepreneurs' views and negotiations of gender (in)equality. Men are in majority in tech entrepreneurship and are the main occupants of positions of power, therefore a significant potential for change relies on how male entrepreneurs manage to construct more gender equal forms of tech masculinities to support gender equality reforms (Hytti et al., 2023; Christofidou, 2021). Our findings add to this discussion by emphasising that the ways male entrepreneurs construct gender (in)equality is illusive and may lead to contradictory outcomes; dependent on what form of problem gender (in)equality is considered to be (individual-structural); why it is important (for the business endeavour or social justice) and dependent on who should take action for achieving gender (in)equality: women, specific men with financial and normative power or the male entrepreneurs themselves).

Despite the interviewees' general lack of discussion of structure, there is potential for change, and some of our interviewees did articulate a need for broader structural changes in the start-up industry. They expressed a critical stance towards dominating masculine norms in entrepreneurship, such as competition, unethical business strategies and bullying of minorities. However, this potential relies on the extent to which entrepreneurial men refrain from adopt oppressive masculine discourses. Male entrepreneurs opposing dominant entrepreneurial masculinities and considering more family-centred masculinities in tech entrepreneurship, are a much-needed contrast to the often hyper-individualistic and heroic images of the global entrepreneurs of big tech companies. This suggest a potential challenge to what Smith (2022, p. 462) refers to as the “masculine doxa” of entrepreneurship, a doxa that “shapes the image of the entrepreneur as being male; a lone operator; materialistic who has achieved success as opposed to having been ascribed it by inheritance”. However, even if shifts in men's gendered manifestations may be observed in the ways men talk about their own role in gender (in)equality, persistent gender bias continues to exist in entrepreneurship. To carry out change, men would have to accommodate a more peripheral position in tech entrepreneurship by actively supporting women to acquire power as tech entrepreneurs and by engaging in the care and reproduction work which their entrepreneurship depends on.

Implications and further research

Our findings implicate that the key to making entrepreneurship more inclusive and better at accommodating women is to challenge the male norm. Masculine norms are dominant within technology entrepreneurship environments, implicating a narrow form of masculinity, excluding many men and different masculinities (Balkmar et al., 2022). Our findings show that masculine norms are being challenged by the expansion of new conceptualisations of tech entrepreneurship, as exemplified by the potential articulations outlined above (Figure 2). This suggests a need to expand the “missing women” approach to explore the role of men in gender equality work and policies, including countries with weaker gender equality discourses compared to the Scandinavian countries.

Callerstig et al. (2024) have addressed the gender divide in technology entrepreneurship by exploring how the different national contexts of Sweden, Norway, Ireland and Israel impact gender equality policies and policy implementation. Whilst there are clear differences with regard to gender equality policies between the four countries, technology entrepreneurship remains male dominated across all four countries compared, which in turn “creates very similar outcomes in terms of the entrenched gender divide” (Callerstig et al., 2024, p. 14). The authors conclude that for policies to challenge the male norm in entrepreneurship effectively, there is a need for more gender sensitivity in entrepreneurship policy and programmes. To achieve long-term change, joint efforts are needed to challenge structures that perpetuate gender inequalities. Hands-on tools are made to raise gender awareness in tech entrepreneurship, to promote inclusive entrepreneurship in different national contexts and by the entrepreneurs themselves (Balkmar et al., 2022). However, more awareness and work remains to achieve social justice in business.

Figures

Figure 1

Overview of thematic analysis

Figure 2

Potential for change

Table 1

Overview of interviewees

Name	Age	Country	Family/children	Team composition	Type of tech
Erik	35	Sweden	Married, child dependents	4 men	Software as service
Mats	42	Sweden	Single, no children	Solo	Security management
Jonny	43	Sweden	Married, child dependents	4 men, 1 woman	Software systems
Patrik	23	Sweden	In a relationship, no children	3 men	Software systems
Stefan	32	Sweden	Single, no children	Solo	Software property management
Thomas	27	Norway	Single, no children	4 young men (friends from university)	Game development
Espen	26	Norway	Single, no children	3 young men (2 of them brothers)	Elderly care, memory device
Fredrik	36	Norway	Married, expecting first child	3 men, 1 woman	Food industry
Truls	29	Norway	Single, no children	2 young men	Game development
Ola	45	Norway	Single, no children	5–6 founders, mixed team	Kitchen device

Notes

1. https://www.almega.se/app/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/guide-till-tech-jamstalldhet-_version-10.pdf.

2. According to GEM-data, 11.0% of males and 7.1% of females (aged 18–64) in Sweden were involved in early-stage entrepreneurship in 2022. In Norway, 8.3% of males and 4.5% of females were engaged in early-stage entrepreneurship.

3. All participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study.