The double-edged sword effect of women-only business networks

Entrepreneurial ecosystems are pivotal in supporting entrepreneurial activities within regions, and business networks are central to these ecosystems (Brush et al., 2019; Spigel and Harrison, 2018). These business networks are a distinct and influential subset of social networks, often membership-based and provide platforms to build relationships, identify, develop or act upon opportunities for business, share information and seek potential business partners for ventures (Abbas et al., 2019; Guercini and Ranfagni, 2016). However, scholars highlight that when a woman founder or owner-manager joins a mixed-gender business network – including both men and women – they experience gender barriers, unmet needs, low credibility, and low social capital (McAdam et al., 2019; Williams and McGregor, 2021; Woodwark et al., 2021) and even restricted access to business networks (Mitra and Basit, 2021).

These experiences of exclusion, resource limitations, and marginalisation within mixed-gender networks, stimulated the emergence of women-only networks across Europe (Gavara and Zarco, 2015). The main aim of these women-only networks is to provide a supportive platform for women entrepreneurs to connect, reduce isolation, enhance gender capital, bolster confidence, and augment legitimacy (McAdam et al., 2019; Williams and McGregor, 2021).

While women-only business networks provide several benefits, including network growth and enhanced credibility (McAdam et al., 2019; Williams and McGregor, 2021), they also present challenges. For example, some business networks may restrict women’s access to broader ecosystem networks, potentially limiting their growth and opportunities (Harrison et al., 2020; Marlow and Martinez Dy, 2018), though some manage to overcome discrimination and barriers through the strategic networks they build over time (Williams and McGregor, 2021; Wood et al., 2021). Moreover, participation in women-only business networks may affect symbolic capital and legitimacy, as women entrepreneurs may exhibit less strategic networking behaviours compared to their counterparts in mixed-gender business networks (McAdam et al., 2019).

This has led some scholars to critique women-only networks for unintentionally reinforce gendered inequalities rather than dismantle them (Ozkazanc-Pan and Clark Muntean, 2018), and even perpetuate women’s marginalisation, confining them to gender-specific niches (Harrison et al., 2020). Paradoxically, all business networks risk perpetuating gender gaps when they fail to fully embed women entrepreneurs into the broader entrepreneurial environment (Stoker et al., 2024). As a result of these benefits and limitations, women entrepreneurs often face the dilemma of whether and how to engage with women-only and with mixed-gender business networks (Woodwark et al., 2021). Understanding how women entrepreneurs utilise women-only and mixed-gender business networks to access resources within broader entrepreneurial ecosystems represents a critical yet underexplored research area (Stoker et al., 2024). There is a clear call for research investigating the specific roles played by mechanisms like gendered encounters, time constraints, and network consciousness in influencing how women entrepreneurs navigate their networking choices (Stoker et al., 2024; Harrison et al., 2024). Harrison et al. (2024) particularly highlight how gendered experiences within entrepreneurial ecosystems perpetuate systemic barriers for women entrepreneurs. Women-only business networks often fail to disrupt embedded masculinity and instead risk reproducing it in the absence of effective mechanisms for transformation.

Earlier research emphasises the importance of further research into which mechanisms shape women entrepreneurs’ access and use of connections and resources available in business networks. Therefore, the main research question in this paper is: which mechanisms shape women entrepreneurs’ decisions regarding membership-based business network engagement and their access to resources?

Furthermore, the existing literature underscores the necessity of examining gendered networking dynamics, focusing on women’s experiences shape their access to and utilisation of connections and resources available in business networks (Harrison et al., 2024). This highlights the need for further exploration into gendered encounters in professional settings. Gendered encounters, which include both empowering and limiting interactions within networking contexts, significantly affect women entrepreneurs’ decisions about their engagement with peers, mentors, and potential collaborators in either women-only or mixed-gender business networks (Harrison et al., 2024). Understanding these nuanced interactions remains essential to addressing systemic challenges. In line with these arguments, this study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of women’s networking practices in business networks, by investigating the roles played by gendered encounters, time constraints, and network consciousness.

Additionally, responding to aforementioned call, this paper examines how women entrepreneurs utilise women-only and mixed-gender business networks to access resources within broader ecosystems. The research specifically investigates the way that women entrepreneurs leverage gendered experiences and network behaviours when building their ventures and accessing critical resources. Consequently, this study seeks to address these research gaps by investigating the mechanisms that shape women entrepreneurs’ decisions regarding which membership-based business network to join and which resources to utilise. By doing so, we contribute to the field of women’s entrepreneurship with novel insights about the value of different types of business networks in access and their access to entrepreneurial opportunities.

To provide clarity and structure, this paper proceeds as follows: First, it reviews existing literature on business networks, network consciousness, gendered encounters, and time constraints faced by women entrepreneurs. Next, the methodology is outlined, detailing the methods used for qualitative and relational data collection and analysis. The findings section presents empirical insights into women entrepreneurs’ networking decisions and resource access. Finally, the discussion synthesises theoretical contributions and practical implications, closing with limitations and avenues for future research.

Networks have long been associated with entrepreneurial emergence and success (Anderson et al., 2010; Elfring and Hulsink, 2003; Greve and Salaff, 2003; Leyden et al., 2014; Zimmer and Aldrich, 1986). Generally, in the context of entrepreneurship, networks refer to sets of actors connected through relationships that enable the exchange of information, resources, and support (Burt, 1976). These networks span personal, professional, and informal domains, serving as a foundation for building trust, facilitating communication, and fostering cooperation in various social contexts.

Business networks, by contrast, are a specialised subset of social networks, distinguished by their structured focus on economic and professional goals. They are defined as structured systems of relationships specifically geared towards enabling entrepreneurs and business professionals to build meaningful relationships among its members, the identification and pursuit of promising business opportunities, the seamless exchange of information, and the quest for potential collaborators (Guercini and Ranfagni, 2016). Unlike general social networks, business networks are often membership-based, emphasising intentional engagement among entrepreneurs and business executives to achieve specific business-oriented goals (Abbas et al., 2019).

Being involved in business networks offers several benefits to entrepreneurs contributing to their business success and personal growth. These benefits include the rapid exchange of new information, the development of strategic alliances, increased business visibility, the acquisition of tacit, specialised knowledge, moral support and mentoring (Martens, 2020; Guercini and Ranfagni, 2016; Abbas et al., 2019). Such benefits are often framed within the concept of social capital, which underscores the value of network ties in accessing both tangible and intangible resources (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), which is defined as “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilised through that network” (p. 243). By leveraging social capital, entrepreneurs can tap into essential resources such as information, financial support, and human capital, which are critical for starting and scaling ventures (Adler and Kwon, 2002, 2009). The concept of social capital underscores the value of network ties in accessing tangible and intangible resources (Kuschel et al., 2017; McAdam et al., 2019). This interplay between business networks and social capital highlights their dual role: facilitating access to strategic resources while fostering trust and cooperation that underpin entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Social capital is a crucial asset for entrepreneurs, significantly enhancing their ability to access vital resources, identify opportunities, establish credibility, and navigate the complexities of business creation and growth (Adler and Kwon, 2002, 2009; Davidsson and Honig, 2003). Business networks that are founded on mutual trust and reciprocity foster an environment of support, where shared knowledge and cooperative efforts can help entrepreneurs navigate the uncertainties and risks inherent in new ventures (De Carolis et al., 2009). In addition, a high level of social capital assists entrepreneurs in gaining access to venture capitalists and competitive information, which is vital for business success (Liao and Welsch, 2003).

The concept of “network consciousness” builds on the theoretical foundation of social capital, emphasising how entrepreneurs can strategically develop and activate their networks to maximise both instrumental and emotional benefits. Network consciousness emerges as a critical mechanism through which social capital is strategically developed and activated, enabling entrepreneurs to transform their relational awareness into tangible decision-making advantages (Martens, 2020). Network consciousness, as conceptualised by Martens (2020), refers to the intentional awareness and strategic actions women entrepreneurs employ to cultivate and leverage relationships. In line with the concept of “network consciousness”, which emphasises intentional and strategic engagement with networks, the study by Rouse and Jayawarna (2011) suggests that disadvantaged entrepreneurs often need to navigate more complex relational landscapes to overcome systemic exclusions (2011). This involves not only building bridging and bonding social capital (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Granovetter, 1973) but also engaging in what Rouse and Jayawarna’s call “resource enactment”. This means the ability to apply the resources accessed through networks effectively within the entrepreneurial process (Rouse and Jayawarna, 2011).

By linking network consciousness and resource enactment to the framework of social capital, it can be understood as the ability to balance bridging social capital. As a result, accessing diverse, weak-tie relationships that broaden opportunities with bonding social capital (Granovetter, 1973), which offers emotional support and solidarity through strong, close ties (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Neumeyer et al., 2019). This framework clarifies how network consciousness enables women entrepreneurs to intentionally navigate their relational landscapes, balancing diverse opportunities with the emotional support necessary to address unique challenges in entrepreneurship (Martens, 2020).

Despite the potential benefits from business networks for underrepresented entrepreneurs (Brush et al., 2019; Spigel and Harrison, 2018) not all women entrepreneurs have equal access to these resources (Wood et al., 2021; Williams and McGregor, 2021; McAdam et al., 2019). Women entrepreneurs may experience distinctive networking challenges and potentially derive fewer benefits from their involvement in business networks (Neumeyer et al., 2019). These challenges stem from mechanisms of exclusion fuelled by societal norms, gender stereotypes, and gender bias, which may limit women’s participation in certain business networks or restrict their gains from such connections (Smallbone and Welter, 2001).

Gender stereotypes create a major barrier for women entrepreneurs affecting both their networking behaviour and how they are perceived in business networks. For example, women who exhibit confidence may be viewed as too assertive, leading to exclusion from a network, while adopting modest behaviour might undermine their credibility and opportunities (Gossé and Decramer, 2015). Structural barriers such as work-family conflicts (i.e. many network events are organised in the evening) (Forret and Dougherty, 2001; Greguletz et al., 2019), homophily effects (McPherson et al., 2001) or even, but less common outright gender exclusion (Greguletz et al., 2019) further aggravate these challenges (Brass, 1992). Social expectations and gender roles may also lead many women to perceive themselves as less competent in networking or to feel excluded from professional circles, prompting self-exclusion (Martens, 2020). Furthermore, women entrepreneurs face additional barriers in utilising social capital in business networks effectively. And structural barriers, including limited access to finance and exclusion from mainstream networks, significantly constrain the ability of these entrepreneurs to effectively leverage social capital (Rouse and Jayawarna, 2011). Particularly women entrepreneurs with family responsibilities experience practical issues such as having to arrange baby-sitters which often limits women’s ability to fully engage in networks (Rouse and Kitching, 2006). These gendered experiences have prompted the emergence of women-only business networks across Europe (Williams and McGregor, 2021), and are seen as a response to the lack of informal networks that typically benefit male entrepreneurs (Gavara and Zarco, 2015). Women entrepreneurs engage in women-only networks to connect, alleviate isolation, enhance gender capital, boost confidence, and augment legitimacy (McAdam et al., 2019). Additionally, members anticipate greater trust in these networks due to strong ties compared to their actual experiences in mixed-gender settings (Moletta et al., 2021). Interestingly while the existence of women-only business networks seems to empower women entrepreneurs to start and enlarge their business, it also has been seen in practice to have a double edge sword effect.

Business networks play a key role in transforming social capital of entrepreneurs into actionable strategic resources, thereby enabling them to effectively navigate and leverage their interconnected professional ecosystems. However, the capacity of entrepreneurs to access and utilise these networks are often shaped by limits of time and size of networks.

Entrepreneurs face constraints in building and maintaining their formal business networks due to the time invested in their ventures, dense networks, characterised by strong ties and high levels of trust (Greve and Salaff, 2003; Elfring and Hulsink, 2003), often require substantial time investments to cultivate meaningful relationships. While these networks offer critical support, such as sharing sensitive information and moral support, they may be less feasible for entrepreneurs with limited time. In contrast, open and diversified networks with many weak ties (Burt, 2000) demand less maintenance but may not always provide the depth of information and support entrepreneurs need for strategic decisions.

Similarly, the size of a network presents a dual challenge. While larger networks offer diverse information and connections that can facilitate opportunities identification and support, maintaining meaningful relationships with numerous members can strain an entrepreneurs’ capacity, potentially weakening trust and limiting the depth of connections, thereby reducing their effectiveness for critical support (Florin et al., 2003). Moreover, industry norms significantly shape networking practices. For instance, high-tech sectors often depend on specialised networks to access cutting-edge information and resources (Anderson et al., 2007), whereas entrepreneurs in mass markets may rely on more general networks to reach customers and secure resources. In contrast, entrepreneurs in less resource-intensive sectors may face challenges in accessing such networks.

Previous research suggests that women entrepreneurs are especially constrained in terms of the time they can allocate for networking due to balancing professional responsibilities with household duties (Meliou and Edwards, 2018; Sunderland and Litosseliti, 2002). As a result, this can result in fewer opportunities for spontaneous encounters in their entrepreneurial environment and thus smaller networks. Though, women employ strategies like leveraging existing networks and spousal support to cope with resource constraints (Meliou and Edwards, 2018). Membership-based networks offer a logical solution by providing structured environments tailored to advancing business objectives efficiently (Abbas et al., 2019). Amongst these membership-based business networks, women-only business networks, which emphasise shared experiences and emotional support, are particularly valued by women (McAdam et al., 2019). Harrison et al. (2024) argue that women-only networks serve as important spaces for challenging the structural inequalities of the entrepreneurial field by helping women accumulate social and symbolic capital. However, other scholars caution that these networks risk creating gendered silos that isolate women from broader entrepreneurial ecosystems rather than integrating them into them (Ozkazanc-Pan and Clark Muntean, 2018; Stoker et al., 2024). Conversely, mixed-gender business networks often prioritise instrumental goal and focus on professional legitimacy and strategic business development (McAdam et al., 2019; Casciaro et al., 2014). Women entrepreneurs frequently navigate tensions between the need for emotional support and the strategic benefits offered by these networks sometimes perceiving social interactions as detracting from professional growth (Roos, 2019). To navigate these tensions (Harrison et al., 2024) women entrepreneurs must weigh the benefits and risks of their network choices, women-only networks provide essential emotional support and community but can risk reinforcing isolation (McAdam et al., 2019). Mixed-gender networks, while providing broader access to strategic resources and opportunities, often come with gendered limitations (Wood et al., 2021; Woodwark et al., 2021). These dynamics highlight the importance of strategic decision-making in leveraging network opportunities to balance emotional and professional needs effectively.

Building on the insights from the previous sections, a conceptual framework (see Figure 1) emerges that explains how women entrepreneurs navigate membership-based business networks and access resources within entrepreneurial ecosystems.

This conceptual framework guides our empirical analysis by structuring the exploration of which mechanisms shape women entrepreneurs’ decisions regarding membership-based business network engagement and their access to resources. Specifically, the framework shows how women entrepreneurs’ awareness of the importance of social capital in business networks, the influence of past and present gendered encounters on their preferences for women-only versus mixed-gender networks, and the impact of time constraints shape the depth and breadth of their network engagement. First, building on Martens’ (2020) concept of network consciousness the framework highlights that entrepreneurs’ awareness of their network structure and ability to strategically engage with network ties influence the extent to which they access and mobilise resources (Martens, 2020). Women entrepreneurs must balance bridging social capital (i.e. weak ties that expand opportunities) with bonding social capital (i.e. strong ties that offer emotional and practical support) (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Their ability to cultivate both types of capital determines their level of embeddedness in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Second, the framework incorporates gendered mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion that influence women’s participation in business networks (McAdam et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2021). Women-only networks provide safe spaces for legitimacy-building but may also create gendered silos that limit access to broader networks (Harrison et al., 2024; Stoker et al., 2024). In contrast, mixed-gender networks provide diverse strategic opportunities but often come with implicit gender biases that affect women’s participation and visibility (Ozkazanc-Pan and Clark Muntean, 2018). Finally, the framework accounts for the structural limitations that shape women’s engagement in business networks, including work-life balance challenges and time investment requirements (Meliou and Edwards, 2018). Women entrepreneurs often have to make strategic decisions regarding where to allocate their networking efforts, opting for networks that maximise efficiency and align with their business goals (Abbas et al., 2019). Figure 1 visually represents a conceptual framework with the three key mechanisms that influencing network selection and resource access for women entrepreneurs.

First, building on Martens’ (2020) concept of network consciousness the framework highlights that entrepreneurs’ awareness of their network structure and ability to strategically engage with network ties influence the extent to which they access and mobilise resources (Martens, 2020). Women entrepreneurs must balance bridging social capital (weak ties that expand opportunities) with bonding social capital (strong ties that offer emotional and practical support) (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Their ability to cultivate both types of capital determines their level of embeddedness in entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Second, the framework accounts for the structural limitations that shape women’s engagement in business networks, including time constraints (Meliou and Edwards, 2018). Women entrepreneurs often have to make strategic decisions regarding where to allocate their networking efforts, opting for networks that maximise efficiency and align with their business goals (Abbas et al., 2019).

Finally, the framework incorporates gendered encounters of inclusion and exclusion that influence women’s participation in business networks (McAdam et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2021). Women-only networks provide safe spaces for legitimacy-building but may also create gendered silos that limit access to broader networks (Harrison et al., 2024; Stoker et al., 2024). In contrast, mixed-gender networks provide diverse strategic opportunities but often come with implicit gender biases that affect women’s participation and visibility (Ozkazanc-Pan and Clark Muntean, 2018).

This study adopts a qualitative research design, integrating semi-structured interviews including a resource generator to examine which mechanisms shape women entrepreneurs’ decisions regarding membership-based business network engagement and their access to resources. Such a qualitative approach is particularly well suited for capturing the complex and dynamic nature of gendered networking experiences and offers in-depth insights into motivations, relational dynamics, and structural barriers.

The study is based on 45 semi-structured interviews conducted between 2022 and 2023 with women entrepreneurs in the Netherlands. Participants were selected through purposeful sampling to ensure diversity in network type (women-only and mixed), sector and business size (Table I). The sample includes women entrepreneurs from various industries (e.g. finance, engineering, marketing), all operating opportunity-driven ventures with growth aspirations and holding at least a bachelor’s or master’s degree. SMEs were prioritised, given their prevalence in the Dutch economy (CBS, 2021). Although not a criterium, several of the participants had received regional or national nominations for best women entrepreneur or businesswomen in the past five years. The sample size aligns with qualitative research standards, emphasising depth over breadth and we were able to reach theoretical saturation (Small, 2009) thus ensuring a comprehensive understanding of gendered networking practices without redundant data collection.

To complement the interviews, we employed a qualitative resource generator (Van Der Gaag and Snijders, 2005), which is a structured tool assessing network structure, origin, and resource accessibility. A resource generator captures (albeit self-reported) objective data on entrepreneurs’ access to specific resources, distinguishing between tightly bounded, diversified, or constrained networks. The original instrument was modified for the entrepreneurial context (see Appendix) to include key resource dimensions. Specifically, we asked which individuals helped the entrepreneur in the past six months obtaining access to new business contacts, finance, knowledge, normative, policy and regulatory, and cultural factors (Isenberg, 2016; Malecki, 2018).

By combining qualitative narratives from the interviews with systematic network mapping using the resource generator, our methodological approach ensures that the findings are both contextually rich and analytically robust. This methodological design enables a holistic analysis of how gender dynamics intersect with entrepreneurial networking and resource acquisition, bridging subjective experiences with empirical network structures.

The interviews were conducted in 2022 and 2023 by junior researchers under the guidance of the lead author of this paper. These junior researchers underwent a training in interview techniques in March 2022 during which they were familiarised with the interview topics and the use of the resource generator in Qualtrics. To refine the interview guide, practice sessions were conducted, followed by a pilot interview with a woman entrepreneur on March 15, 2022. Both the training and the pilot interview ensured that the interviewers were well-prepared and capable of eliciting comprehensive and insightful responses from the women entrepreneurs.

All interviews, which lasted between 30 and 60 min, were conducted and recorded (with permission) on the software platforms Zoom and Teams. All interviews were recorded and transcribed ad verbatim for accuracy. Ethical approval was ensured through informed consent via a Qualtrics form, with strict confidentiality measures in place. Data was securely stored on Research Drive, accessible only to the authors.

The semi-structured interview encouraged dynamic engagement, allowing participants to freely express their perspectives (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). Participants were asked to discuss the characteristics of their business networks, including the composition, structure, and dynamics. This facilitated an understanding of the resources and support available to them and how these networks functioned in practice. Then, participants were prompted to reflect on their satisfaction with their networking experiences, delving into reasons for both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Throughout the interview networks affiliations, and relational data were systematically entered into Qualtrics while the interviewer kept guiding the participants to explore further their networking experiences within the business networks. Lastly, participants were invited to share their perspectives on social safety within their business networks, including any concerns or experiences related to trust, confidentiality, and supportiveness. All these topics collectively provided insights into the mechanisms between network characteristics and access to resources of women’s entrepreneurship.

The dataset consists of two complementary sources: (1) qualitative transcripts capturing women entrepreneurs’ experiences and (2) a structured database of relational ties stored in Qualtrics. Therefore, we used two methods for analysis. The first one is the qualitative coding of transcripts in MaxQda and the second a qualitative network analysis in NodeXL and Excel. We started with open coding based on the first six interviews, encompassing three participants from women-only and three participants from mixed-gender networks. Using an inductive approach, we identified key themes—network behaviour, relational advantages, and gendered experiences—while integrating post-interview reflective memos to refine a comprehensive coding scheme. A creative session involving all the authors of the paper in March 2024 gave a green light to systematically apply that scheme to all subsequent interviews. An iterative approach was followed to add emergent topics, new explanations for the mechanisms and relational insights of what happens inside business networks. To enhance analytical organisation, we used AI-assisted tools as a research assistant to develop a claim table and a storyboard based on Rockmann and Vough (2023), structuring emerging themes such as network consciousness (Table II), time constraints (Table III) and gendered encounters (Table IV). Our storyboard consists of illustrative quotes to visualise how claims interconnect across the findings, and it arranged the data in a logical flow, ensuring that the narrative captured the relationships. These themes in the storyboards were used to develop a framework (Figure 1) illustrating the observed patterns.

The second analysis included descriptive and weight analyses from relation data of the resource generator using NodeXL (an extendible add-in to Excel for network overview, discovery and exploration) and Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software to understand the access to different resources (Smith et al., 2009). The network analysis included five key measures: (1) proportional resource acquisition across categories (e.g. new business contacts, finance, new ideas, moral support, policy and regulation, and inspiration) across both women-only and mixed-gender networks; (2) the distribution of resources based on their origin (e.g. obtained from the business network, outside the business network, family/friends, or other sources); (3) the diversity of individual connections within a network (measured through the percentage of unique names within networks); (4) the variety or multiplicity of resource types accessed within a network and (5) the network size and the ties composition (e.g. strong ties vs. weak ties).

The findings are structured around three key mechanisms that shape women entrepreneurs’ networking experiences in mixed-gender and women-only business networks. The first mechanism is network consciousness reflecting a deliberate and contextually informed approach to networking, where women strategically assess opportunities and constraints within different types of networks. The second is the fact that women entrepreneurs experience time constraints and therefore make strategic decisions regarding where to allocate their networking efforts. The third one relates to the experiences of gendered encounters, where prior interactions with gender dynamics inform women’s strategic decisions about leveraging social capital and accessing resources. Each mechanism (Tables II–IV) is illustrated with selected narrative excerpts that best capture the core findings (Rockmann and Vough, 2023).

Networking extends beyond resource acquisition as it involves a strategic awareness of how to engage with others to exchange knowledge and support. We start this section by discussing how women entrepreneurs get access to resources and then later we shed light on how network consciousness leads to network selection.

To start with, we have found that women entrepreneurs primarily engage in membership-based networks to exchange knowledge and establish new business contacts. For instance, one participant explained to importance of knowledge exchange by stressing the following:

Across both network types, new business contacts emerged as the most frequently accessed resource, highlighting their central role in network participation. The findings from the resource generator indicate that 31% of resources in women-only networks and 27% in mixed-gender networks are related to new business contacts (Tables 1 and 2). These introductions often translate into tangible business outcomes, as highlighted by one participant: “Through a contact, I was able to develop and launch a new product. I would never have been able to do that without [name of network]” (10SGN22).

In women-only networks, 13% of the total resources accessed are categorised as new ideas. The majority of these came from external sources: 36% from connections outside the network and 28% from family and friends, while only 16% originated from the women-only network itself (Table 1). This pattern of connection origin indicates that while women-only networks facilitate idea generation, members also seek external sources to complement the insights gained within these networks. As in women-only networks, the new ideas category accounted for 15% of total resources in mixed-gender networks. However, a notable difference is that a greater portion of these ideas originated directly from within the business network itself (30%), highlighting its potential to facilitate internal idea exchange.

Other discrepancies arise regarding the resource policy and regulatory. The findings indicate that women-only networks provide 8% of resources related to policy and regulation, compared to 7% in mixed-gender networks. Although both percentages are low, women-only networks offer no direct regulatory connections within the business network itself (0% in Table 1), indicating a potential gap institutional access. Remarkably, moral support constitutes 15% of resources in mixed-gender networks (Table 2) thus reinforcing qualitative findings that suggest both challenges and a sense of inclusion: “Sometimes you feel like you’re playing basketball in a football team, a bit of an odd one out” (7SGN22). At the same time other participants also express feelings of inclusion that mixed-gender networks provide: “It’s just great to be part of a group of like-minded people with entrepreneurs (…) who encounter the same types of problems.” (5MGN22).

While knowledge exchange and new business contacts drive participation in both types of business networks, Table 3 shows that women-only networks exhibit a lower percentage of unique names compared to mixed-gender networks (40 vs. 57%). This suggests a more interconnected but potentially less diverse network structure.

Despite having fewer unique contacts (40 vs. 57% in mixed-gender networks), these networks excel at facilitating new business contacts, which represent 31% of resources accessed (Table 1). This suggests that while women-only networks lack the variety of connections seen in mixed-gender networks, their strong ties foster high-quality, trusted referrals and opportunities for business growth. The strong relational depth appears to compensate for their lower diversity, enabling women entrepreneurs to effectively leverage their networks for new contacts and collaborations. In contrast, mixed-gender networks are more diverse, providing greater exposure to new and varied contacts through bridging social capital. These structural differences not only shape the resources women entrepreneurs can access but also influence their networking strategies.

These findings bring us to the second part of the section to explore how women entrepreneurs consciously engage with business networks, leveraging trust and relational depth to build meaningful connections. Findings reveal that women entrepreneurs approach networking with a high level of consciousness, recognising that networking is not merely about accessing resources but also about actively fostering relationships that provide both strategic and emotional benefits. Across both women-only and mixed-gender networks, participants emphasised the importance of trust, reciprocity, and shared understanding in building meaningful connections. Moral support is a crucial aspect of network engagement. As one participant described the women only network as “[It] has always been the warm bath I could fall back on” (13SGN23), reflecting the emotional security as a form of moral support that these networks provide. Many participants highlighted that trust and cohesion play a fundamental role in how networks function, facilitating both new business connections and a sense of community. Despite having fewer unique contacts, women-only networks remain highly effective at facilitating business introductions, with 31% of resources accessed related to new business contacts (Table 1). Participants attributed this success to the strong relationships and trust-based referrals that form within these networks. One participant elaborated:

However, network engagement is not simply about receiving but also about contributing, which is an aspect that entrepreneurs across both women-only and mixed-gender networks emphasised. As one participant noted, “Networking is about give and take” (1SGN22), stressing the idea that mutual exchange is essential for building sustainable connections. Similarly, another participant from a mixed-gender network explained, “You first need to build trust with each other, and once you trust each other, you are willing to give each other business” (11MGN22). This highlights that across both network types, trust is a prerequisite for connections, and networking behaviours are rooted in reciprocity rather than one-sided resource acquisition. Another entrepreneur expressed a similar sentiment, stating, “I look for networks that can offer something on a professional level, but where I can also give something back” (2SGN22), demonstrating an awareness that successful networking relies on both contribution and benefit.

Women entrepreneurs also exhibited network consciousness in their choice of networks, selecting spaces that align with both their strategic and emotional needs. While mixed-gender networks provide a broader diversity of contacts, women-only networks offer a more intimate and supportive environment, particularly for those facing similar entrepreneurial challenges. One participant reflected on this, emphasising the value of shared experiences and mutual understanding: “It was really about feeling supported and having a group of women in your corner who know what you’re talking about and who are going through it themselves” (4SGN23). This awareness suggests that women entrepreneurs do not merely join networks for transactional benefits but also actively cultivate connections based on trust, alignment of values, and long-term collaboration.

This shift from transactional networking to relational engagement is a defining characteristic of how women entrepreneurs navigate business networks. In particular, many participants emphasised that women-only networks are perceived as safe spaces, where members feel empowered and supported. As one participant explained, “I think that’s why it feels relatively safe to be in a women’s network as a woman, because they just treat you differently as a person” (9SGN22). However, elements of trust-building and emotional support were also present in mixed-gender networks, reinforcing the idea that while network structures may differ, the importance of reciprocity, trust, and belonging remains consistent across both network types.

Ultimately, these findings highlight that women entrepreneurs do not passively participate in business networks but consciously navigate and cultivate them based on both strategic opportunities and relational depth. They demonstrate a keen awareness of the reciprocal nature of networking, the strategic benefits of different network types, and the importance of emotional support and trust in developing meaningful professional relationships.

Building on the emotional and trust support provided by business networks, it is essential to recognise that women entrepreneurs must also carefully manage and prioritise their time in these selected networks. One participant stated: “I am very selective about where I go and where I don’t go” (1MGN22). This reflects the intentional choices many of the participants make about where and how they invest their time prioritising meaningful connections over attending every opportunity. Given these time constraints, participants across network types carefully assess the value of their network engagements, frequently reevaluating their time investment in the networks. Or as participant 12SGN22 reflects: “If I don’t like it, I simply don’t go anymore … it’s a waste of my time”. These findings reveal how precious time is for many women entrepreneurs, and how they allocate their time efficiently because “otherwise, I’d be networking the entire week”, reflects 4MGN22.

With limited time, women entrepreneurs strategically make the most out of each networking opportunity, ensuring that it aligns with their objectives: “ … you can only spend your time once. And, because my experience with networking hasn’t been very positive, I often choose a different way to spend my time” (4SGN22). This finding underscores how networking in membership-based business networks requires women entrepreneurs to carefully balance professional commitments with personal responsibilities. As one participant described: “I could of course be working on my business 24/7, but I also really enjoy being involved in my network” (2MGN22). However, as women entrepreneurs engage in networking events, they want also to ensure that their personal lives, including family and self-care, are not neglected. One participant reflected on how during busy months in her venture, she prioritises family over networking events: “In the high season, I never have time for anything, especially not for drinks … then I just want to stay at home with my family” (6MGN22). And perhaps an obvious finding is that the balancing act between work and personal life seems similar for women entrepreneurs from both network types. Therefore, networks that understand this balance and offer flexibility are more appealing. In short, women entrepreneurs have learned to consciously manage their networking efforts to ensure that they maximise the return on their time investment while maintaining a healthy work-life balance.

Women entrepreneurs’ gendered encounters are shaped by both their prior interactions in the professional landscape and their engagement within business networks. These encounters shape how women entrepreneurs leverage social capital, access resources, and navigate networking environments. This section explores the ways in which women entrepreneurs encounter gendered expectations first in professional settings; and then within business networks; before examining how these experiences inform their strategic decisions in network selection.

Prevailing gendered assumptions in entrepreneurship appear to shape how women’s business activities are perceived. As women start their entrepreneurial journeys, their prior interactions with others shape their first gendered encounters. As illustrated by one participant’s experience when taking over a company: “When we took over the company, that man said: ‘How nice, did your father buy this for you?” (10MGN22). Such encounters reflect broader assumptions about gender and business ownership, where women’s entrepreneurial achievements may be attributed to external factors rather than their own efforts. These perceptions may influence how women engage with business networks, as they navigate expectations and credibility within different business contexts. Beyond these perceptions, some women face exclusion from informal male-dominated networking spaces, further limiting access to business opportunities. As one participant described:

Such forms of exclusion may restrict women’s ability to develop professional relationships and leverage informal networking opportunities, which are often essential for business growth. Beyond exclusion, some women entrepreneurs indicate that they are not always perceived as legitimate entrepreneurs. These perceptions also shape how women are viewed in entrepreneurial settings. As one participant shared: “At first, I was also seen as a girl who also has a little business. Sometimes you’re taken less seriously by men.” (14MGN22). In addition, one participant shared a deeply unsettling experience with a male colleague: “I even had a man once who asked me, How do you fill your sexual needs?” (3SGN, 2023). This highlights the inappropriate and uncomfortable gendered encounters that some women can face in professional settings.

While these experiences occur outside membership-based business networks, they may shape women’s strategic engagement with networking opportunities, influencing their decisions about where to invest time and build social capital. In a few cases, women also reported other experiences, as one participant expressed: “It’s very painful to see that it’s all men who help me. Only men, but not women.” (14SGN22). These findings indicate that previous gendered experiences both constrain and shape women’s networking choices. As a result, women entrepreneurs strategically select business networks that align with their business objectives and that foster meaningful engagements.

While business networks are designed to facilitate connections and resource access (Brush et al., 2019; Spigel and Harrison, 2018), women entrepreneurs continue to experience gendered expectations and exclusions within both mixed-gender and women-only networks. For many women, mixed-gender networks reinforce existing gendered power dynamics, making them feel like outsiders. One participant described the difference in relational dynamics, observing: “Men are often very focused on power and money. They aim for short-term goals, whereas women tend to be more empathetic and are more likely to seek connection.” (12SGN22). This difference in priorities can lead to women feeling out of place in male-dominated networking spaces, where discussions tend to centre on financial performance rather than relational or impact-driven goals. As one participant reflected: “Sometimes you feel like you’re playing basketball in a football team, a bit of an odd one out, which makes you feel different.” (7SGN22). However, women-only networks are not all inclusive or supportive for all women entrepreneurs either. While many participants described these networks as safe spaces, others reported experiences of exclusivity and competition. For example, participant stated (8SGN, 2022), “What I found annoying was that there was a clique [of women entrepreneurs] who thought they were really brilliant there”, reflecting the dynamics between women within some women-only networks. Similarly, another participant noted that women can sometimes be harsh and judgmental toward each other: “Women among each other can be really harsh and petty” (15SGN22). These findings suggest that, while women-only networks provide relational depth and emotional support, they can also reflect exclusionary dynamics.

Building upon the insights presented in the preceding sections (i.e. 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3), the following visual synthesis integrates these mechanisms into a coherent framework. Figure 2 presents a visual framework illustrating the key factors that influence how women entrepreneurs select and engage with business networks. The framework highlights three key mechanisms, namely network consciousness, time constraints and gendered encounters (in and outside membership-based business networks). Together, these mechanisms shape how women entrepreneurs select and engage with business networks, ultimately influencing how they access and utilise resources. The framework also highlights feedback loops, illustrating how the utilisation of resources informs future choices. This dynamic process means women’s engagement with networks continues to shape their future engagement and access to resources.

The conceptual framework functions as a lens understanding how women entrepreneurs strategically engage with business networks in response to their network consciousness, time constraints, and gendered encounters. Rather than viewing networks as static structures, the framework highlights how women entrepreneurs actively shape their participation based on their professional needs, social capital considerations, and lived experiences of inclusion or exclusion. The empirical findings reinforce these theoretical mechanisms by illustrating how women entrepreneurs consciously evaluate, select, and engage in business networks that align with their strategic goals.

First, women entrepreneurs exercise agency in deciding where, when, and how they participate in business networks, demonstrating a strong sense of network consciousness. Some women entrepreneurs opt out of women-only networks, viewing them as limiting rather than enabling professional growth. The statement, “It is a conscious decision not to be in women’s networks. I have no interest in them anymore” (12MGN22), exemplifies how women actively assess whether certain networks align with their aspirations. At the same time, other women entrepreneurs’ express interest in women-only networks but with conditions notably, if they focus on professional impact rather than gender. This is reflected in the statement: “If impact was placed at the centre [of the women-only networks], then I would be more interested. It should not be about being a woman, but about what we as women are really good at” (5SGN22). These insights underscore the framework’s assertion that women entrepreneurs are not merely embedded in networks, but they actively curate their engagement based on professional utility and alignment with their business goals.

Second, the empirical findings further validate the framework’s recognition of time constraints as a structural factor influencing network engagement. Given their multiple responsibilities, women entrepreneurs seek to optimise the return on investment of their networking efforts since “you can only spend your time once” (4SGN22). The selective engagement observed in the findings suggests that women entrepreneurs approach business networks with a calculated approach, ensuring that the networks they participate in provide meaningful, high-value connections. Women entrepreneurs are aware that networking is not just about participation but also about strategically positioning themselves within ecosystems where their time and energy yield tangible benefits.

Third, the conceptual framework’s emphasis on gendered encounters as a mechanism shaping network selection is particularly evident in the empirical findings. Women’s experiences in business networks are not uniform and some perceive gender as a barrier while others strategically leverage their gender as an advantage. As one participant illustrates, “For the content-focused part of my network, it’s largely made up of men … so as a woman, you’re in the minority and rise to the top quicker” (11SGN22). It shows how some women entrepreneurs view gender as a differentiating factor that enhances their visibility in male-dominated fields. However, this is not a universal experience. Other women face exclusionary dynamics that make mixed-gender networking more challenging. The framework accounts for this variation by recognising that gendered encounters can both constrain and inform women’s networking strategies. Women entrepreneurs, therefore, do not passively encounter gender biases but actively negotiate their participation in networks, aligning their engagement with context where they feel they can thrive professionally and socially.

In short, women entrepreneurs do not passively participate in business networks. Instead, they actively select, shape and refine their engagement, strategically navigating networks based on their network consciousness, time constraints, and gendered encounters. The framework provides a dynamic model that moves beyond a static understanding of networking, highlighting how women entrepreneurs exercise agency in curating their professional relationships.

The literature already indicated that the extent to which entrepreneurs are integrated into business networks significantly influences their entrepreneurial behaviour and outcomes (Jack and Anderson, 2002; Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022). In this study, we provide specific empirical insights about women entrepreneurs navigating both women-only and mixed-gender business networks, in line with a call from a previous study to further explore gendered networking dynamics Harrison et al. (2024). In addition, McAdam et al. (2019) argue that much of the existing research on women’s entrepreneurial networking either overlooks the dynamic, context-specific ways in which women navigate and engage with networks, or focuses primarily on structural exclusion from key networks, - a barrier that women-only networks aim to address (Woodwark et al., 2021; McAdam et al., 2019). Therefore, this study offers a more nuanced and situated perspective of how women navigate and select business networks by conceptualising mixed-gender and women-only networks as dynamic spaces, where agency, context, and lived experience intersect. Drawing on a conceptual framework derived from different theoretical perspectives, the empirical findings illuminate how women entrepreneurs actively select, shape, and adapt their engagement with both women-only and mixed-gender networks. In doing so, the study makes three key contributions to the gender and entrepreneurship literature.

Our first contribution is grounded in empirically refining and extending the concept of network consciousness (Martens, 2020), particularly in the context of women entrepreneurs’ strategic engagement with membership-based business networks. Building on Martens’ conceptualisation of network consciousness as a dual mechanism, consisting of network awareness and strategic networking, our findings illustrate how women entrepreneurs both recognise the structure and potential value of their networks (awareness), and act upon this understanding through intentional engagement and relationship cultivation (agency). As such, study contributes a contextualised and gendered perspective on how network consciousness operates in practice. It shows that women entrepreneurs engage in strategic networking not just to build social capital, but to navigate gendered challenges, time constraints, and emotional trade-offs within business networks. This intentional and context-sensitive form of engagement is further linked to the process of resource enactment (Rouse and Jayawarna, 2011). The findings demonstrate that women entrepreneurs who are highly network conscious, are also more likely to mobilise and utilise resources such as knowledge, trust, or contacts effectively within their ventures. Our data suggest that women’s awareness of network value is not only a cognitive orientation but also translates into concrete practices of resource mobilisation. Specifically, this study provides a more granular understanding of how women entrepreneurs convert relational potential into strategic outcomes. This empirical extension contributes to the gender and entrepreneurship literature by showing that network consciousness functions as a practical resource management strategy.

The second contribution of this study is to reframe time constraints not solely as a structural barrier, but as a strategic filtering mechanism through which women entrepreneurs assess and engage with business networks. While previous research has established that time scarcity disproportionately affects women due to caregiving responsibilities and social expectations (Meliou and Edwards, 2018; Sunderland and Litosseliti, 2002), this study provides empirical insight into how women actively manage these constraints by selectively engaging with networks that offer high-value returns. This contribution expands the literature by positioning time as a structuring condition which sharpens women’s evaluation of which networks align with their goals. It demonstrates that time scarcity leads not to disengagement, but to a form of strategic selectivity.

The third contribution of this study lies in offering a situated, empirically grounded understanding of how gendered encounters shape women entrepreneurs’ strategic engagement with business networks. While existing research has extensively documented the structural barriers women face in entrepreneurial ecosystems—including exclusion from informal networks, gender stereotyping, and legitimacy challenges (e.g. Rouse and Kitching, 2006; McAdam et al., 2019; Woodwark et al., 2021), this study adds nuance by showing how these experiences are interpreted and responded to by women themselves. The findings show that gendered encounters are not merely constraints but also function as filters that inform women’s network selection and participation strategies. Women reflect on past experiences and make strategic choices about which networks to engage in based on whether those environments feel legitimising, professionally useful, or emotionally safe. This insight builds on, but moves beyond, binary framings of women-only networks as inherently empowering or limiting. The study demonstrates that both mixed-gender and women-only networks can reproduce exclusionary dynamics, such as cliques, judgement, or misalignment with entrepreneurial goals. Conversely, some women also strategically leverage their minority status in male-dominated networks as a visibility advantage. This variability underscores the need to understand gender not as a fixed structural disadvantage, but as a situated and dynamic force that entrepreneurs actively navigate. It also contributes to feminist entrepreneurship research by revealing the complex trade-offs women face in all kinds of business networks when seeking access to resources, legitimacy, and support in gendered network environments.

Building upon these three contributions, this study offers a more dynamic and agentic account of how women navigate business networks, one that challenges dominant narratives in the literature. While prior research often frames mixed-gender networks as marginalising or legitimacy-limiting integrating gender specific challenges (Woodwark et al., 2021; Murnieks et al., 2020; Elam et al., 2019; Brush et al., 2019), and women-only networks may offer unique forms of support and resources tailored to women’s needs and experiences (Moletta et al., 2021; Williams and McGregor, 2021; Woodwark et al., 2021), our findings demonstrate that women’s network engagement is far more contingent and strategic than previously depicted. Women entrepreneurs make strategic, experience-based decisions about their network engagement, and both network types can offer value or reproduce exclusion depending on context. This dynamic, agentic account of network engagement adds new insights to feminist entrepreneurship literature by illustrating how structure and agency interact through mechanisms of filtering, reflexivity, and strategic relationality.

These findings offer actionable guidance for business network organisers, ecosystem developers, and entrepreneurship support organisations seeking to create more inclusive and effective contexts for women entrepreneurs.

First, business network organisers should recognise that women entrepreneurs engage selectively and strategically guided by perceived value, inclusivity, and time constraints. All programs and events should be designed with this in mind, offering flexible formats and tangible outcomes.

Second, support should be provided to help all members to map and reflect on their current networks. Tools such as peer discussions, training workshops, and guided reflection exercises can cultivate network consciousness and empower more intentional networking decisions.

Third, it is important to equip women with the skills to critically assess network dynamics and navigate challenges related to exclusion, stereotyping, or legitimacy. This includes creating safe spaces for sharing experiences and building resilience.

Finally, network organisers should facilitate meaningful and well-matched connections within networks. Curated matchmaking, inclusive leadership, and regular evaluation of network practices can enhance resource enactment and ensure ongoing relevance.

While this study employed rigorous qualitative methods to explore the networking practices of women entrepreneurs, certain limitations must be acknowledged. One potential limitation arises from the involvement of junior researchers, whose varying experience levels and interviewing styles may have introduced subtle inconsistencies in data collection. Despite comprehensive training, a standardised protocol, and ongoing guidance from the lead author, the absence of formal calibration sessions may have affected the uniformity of follow-up questioning and depth of responses. However, this risk is considered low to moderate, given the use of a standardised interview protocol, and resource generator across all interviews.

Second, our study conceptualises business networks mainly at the individual level, aligning with the resource generator approach proposed by Van Der Gaag and Snijders (2005). Yet in contemporary entrepreneurial contexts, group-level affiliations, such as LinkedIn communities or co-working spaces—play an increasingly prominent role in networking. This shift raises both methodological challenges and new opportunities for research. For instance, future studies could explore how digital, hybrid, or collective forms of networking reshape access to resources, symbolic capital, and legitimacy, especially for women entrepreneurs navigating gendered ecosystems.

Additionally, future research might investigate how network consciousness develops over time, or how mechanisms such as time constraints and gendered encounters play out in cross-cultural or sector-specific contexts. Longitudinal or comparative studies could offer deeper insight into how women adapt their networking strategies in response to ecosystem dynamics and life-stage changes.

By addressing these limitations and pursuing these avenues, future studies might extend our findings to better understand how structural and agentic forces interact in shaping entrepreneurial network engagement.

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and thoughtful feedback, which significantly strengthened the quality of this paper. Earlier versions of this work also benefited from insightful discussions and feedback at the RENT Conference 2022 and the Diana International Research Conference 2024. We are also grateful to the junior researchers involved in this project for their dedicated efforts and valuable contributions throughout the research process. In addition, we acknowledge the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4 (paid version) as a research assistant in the analysis of data for this paper. Specifically, ChatGPT-4 contributed to creating a storyboard and a claim table, leveraging its capabilities to organise and synthesise qualitative data. The following prompt is an example of how the Open AI was used for input and analysis. For instance, ChatGPT-4 categorised quotes on gendered encounters (negative, neutral, or positive) along two dimensions critical to building trustworthiness: comprehensiveness and vividness. This analysis resulted in four types of quotes: anchor quotes, workhorse quotes, tantalizing quotes, and partial quotes (Rockmann and Vough, 2023). This typology enhanced the rigor of our qualitative analysis by structuring and classifying the evidence systematically. In addition, to ensure ethical use and participant confidentiality, all data was anonymised prior to analysis with ChatGPT-4. Identifiable information was removed to maintain compliance with research ethics standards. Any interpretations or conclusions drawn from the outputs are solely the responsibility of the authors.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.