Next Article in Journal
Generational and Economic Differences in the Effectiveness of Product Placement: A Predictive Approach Using CART Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
A Conceptual Discussion of How Social Power Theory and the Extended Marketing Mix Can Be Used to Improve Alignment and Engagement in Organisations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/admsci16020060
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Entrepreneurial Coaching and Self-Efficacy as Catalysts for Business Growth Among Women Entrepreneurs in Gauteng, South Africa

by
Mahalia Lerato Molema
1,
Patrick Ebong Ebewo
1,* and
Elona Nobukhosi Ndlovu
2,*
1
Centre for Entrepreneurship Development, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
2
BizPreneur, 1122 Burnett Street, Hatfield, Pretoria 0083, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2026, 16(2), 60; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16020060
Submission received: 9 November 2025 / Revised: 6 January 2026 / Accepted: 13 January 2026 / Published: 23 January 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Entrepreneurship aims to contribute significantly to economic development, a trend that has been progressively growing over time. Nonetheless, female entrepreneurs continue to face substantial challenges, including limited access to financial resources and sociocultural barriers. The influence of Entrepreneurial Coaching (EC) offers a valuable perspective for analysing entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business growth. Grounded in Systems Theory, the research examines how EC interventions can bolster the confidence of women entrepreneurs and facilitate adaptive responses to business challenges. Utilising a quantitative, explanatory research design, the study employed convenience and snowball sampling to recruit 257 women entrepreneurs who received coaching. The relationships among EC, the six dimensions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE), and business growth outcomes were analysed utilising Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). Although seven hypotheses were proposed, only four were supported, whereas three were refuted. The findings show a positive correlation between EC and business growth. The supported hypothesis concerning coping with unexpected challenges, investor relations, and core purpose (value proposition) was accepted. Conversely, hypotheses regarding new product and market development, innovative environments, and the development of critical human resources were not supported. This research extends the existing literature on Entrepreneurial Coaching by demonstrating that the capacity to navigate unforeseen challenges, manage investor relations, and adhere to core purposes is correlated with business growth among women entrepreneurs. Thus, the significance of the study lies in the integration of Entrepreneurial Coaching, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Business Growth.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship was conceptualised in the 17th century, and since then, the term has had a long and evolving history. An entrepreneur is an individual who assumes risks to engage in economic exchange for profit, a definition coined by Cantillon in 1755 (Cantillon, 1755; Hébert & Link, 2009). While Knight (1921) stresses the importance of entrepreneurship as a process to which entrepreneurs strategically allocate resources to optimise efficiency (Peneder, 2009), Schumpeter (1934) suggests that an entrepreneur is an innovative agent who generates profit through invention, organisation of production and distribution processes (Hébert & Link, 2009). In other words, innovation is the primary means by which an entrepreneur can broaden the economy. Entrepreneurship is the capacity to foster sustainable business development that drives economic growth, job creation, and social inclusion (Ács et al., 2019; Rajnoha & Lorincová, 2015). Entrepreneurship involves two heterogeneous concepts: the first, which drives entrepreneurs to exploit market gaps, and the second, which drives necessity-driven entrepreneurs to establish enterprises to survive labour markets (Botha et al., 2007; Udimal et al., 2020). In the South African context, necessity-driven entrepreneurship is particularly prevalent, often compounded by limited access to financial resources, business skills, and supportive networks (Irene et al., 2025; Eister & Msimango-Galawe, 2024).
In South Africa, entrepreneurship plays a key role in socio-economic development, particularly in mitigating unemployment and alleviating poverty (Ebewo et al., 2025). The unemployment rate remains disproportionately elevated among women. The unemployment rate for men is 29.3%, whereas it is substantially higher for women at 35.1%, compared with the overall rate of 31.9% (Statistics South Africa, 2025). To mitigate the effects of the aforementioned unemployment rates, the development of small, micro, and medium-sized enterprises (SMMEs) is widely recognised as a crucial catalyst for employment generation and regional economic development (Bhorat et al., 2018; Meyer & Klonaridis, 2020). Nevertheless, entrepreneurial engagement in South Africa remains limited and exhibits gender disparities. The GEM Consortium (2020) reported that entrepreneurship activity accounted for 11.2% of economic activity in South Africa, with Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) estimated at 28.5%. Furthermore, women’s participation in entrepreneurship remains substantially lower than men’s, with 6.7% of women engaged in entrepreneurial activity compared with 16.5% of men. In addition, only 10.1% of women had established enterprises, compared to 21.4% of men, highlighting persistent gender disparities in entrepreneurial entry and sustainability (GEM Consortium, 2020).
These inequalities reflect not only lower levels of entrepreneurial engagement among women but also reduced business sustainability and growth potential. Researchers indicate that women entrepreneurs in South Africa encounter systemic barriers, including limited access to capital, restricted participation in high-growth sectors, a lack of entrepreneurial networks, and unequal market access (Ayandibu & Houghton, 2017; Bhorat et al., 2018; Matekenya & Moyo, 2022; Mbangiswano et al., 2025). As a result, many women entrepreneurs remain confined to survivalist enterprises, operating predominantly in low-value sectors. This constrains their capacity to scale their business, create employment, and achieve broader economic impact (Irene et al., 2025; Bhorat et al., 2018; Matekenya & Moyo, 2022; Eister & Msimango-Galawe, 2024).
Entrepreneurship provides women with financial independence and the opportunity to manage their economic futures. For many individuals, starting a business serves as a conduit to personal empowerment and greater societal engagement (Matekenya & Moyo, 2022). In a patriarchal context in which women’s access to formal employment remains constrained, entrepreneurship offers an alternative pathway to self-reliance and economic advancement (Bhorat et al., 2018; Lukhele & Soumonni, 2021). Women-owned businesses create jobs, contribute to community development by boosting the market, and contribute financially to their households (Bhorat et al., 2018; Matekenya & Moyo, 2022). However, women entrepreneurs still encounter challenges within their enterprises, including limited access to finance, societal and cultural expectations, and gender discrimination (Ayandibu & Houghton, 2017; Strawser et al., 2021; Sagar et al., 2023; Enwereji et al., 2024). These obstacles often constrain business growth, thereby hampering enterprise development (Ebewo et al., 2025).
This paper builds on the findings of Ndlovu (2023), who employed SEM to assess the Integral AQAL Model, by focusing on measurable performance outcomes and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism. This study is informed by three theoretical frameworks: Systems Theory, which highlights the interconnectedness of women entrepreneurs, extending within an ecosystem (Kahn, 2011; Beghni & Gourari, 2024), Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasises the importance of self-efficacy in shaping women entrepreneurs’ ability to pursue goals and overcome challenges, and Penrose’s (1959) Firm Growth Theory, which explains how enterprises use their resources to drive expansion. Together, these theories provide a multi-level lens for examining how EC enhances women entrepreneurs’ capabilities and business growth. By applying SEM and integrating these theoretical perspectives, the study enhances methodological rigour and contributes to the limited empirical research on EC in emerging economies, thereby addressing the scarcity of empirical coaching research in these contexts.
Although extensive research has examined the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business development (Dobrea & Maiorescu, 2015; Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Msimango-Galawe & Mazonde, 2024; Staniewski & Awruk, 2019), the role of EC as an intervention has not been thoroughly explored. Additionally, there is a lack of empirical evidence and literature on the effectiveness of entrepreneurial coaching in enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy and improving business success. However, EC is becoming recognised in the literature as an important catalyst for business growth and ESE, but the three are relatively under-researched in the context of women entrepreneurs in South Africa (Khalid et al., 2021; Pekkan, 2018; Andrews & Jones, 2024; Simarasl et al., 2024; Alene, 2020; Neneh & Welsh, 2022). The study’s objective is to address this gap by providing empirical findings on EC interventions that increase ESE and yield tangible business growth, including job creation, client expansion, and sales performance. The results will provide theoretical and practical implications for professionals, policymakers, and business support companies in designing targeted interventions that strengthen women entrepreneurs’ business growth in Gauteng, South Africa.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Women Entrepreneurship

Women-owned businesses have faced difficulties operating their enterprises due to gender bias, insufficient training and education, and limited funding (Mulaudzi & Schachtebeck, 2022; Mashapure et al., 2022). Owing to these challenges, women entrepreneurs are often discouraged from participating in economic activities and thus miss opportunities to seize potential business opportunities (Mahasha, 2016; Ngubeni et al., 2022). Moreover, women become entrepreneurs to support their families and to challenge societal and cultural norms (Nxopo, 2014; Mulaudzi & Schachtebeck, 2022). By focusing on women-owned businesses in South Africa, this investigation recognises the cultural, economic, and institutional contexts that shape women’s experiences and aims to support their entrepreneurial pathways (Nxopo, 2014; Ajani et al., 2021). Therefore, the findings can inform efforts to expand women’s roles in entrepreneurship (Qali, 2020; Siyaya, 2021; Irene et al., 2025).

2.2. Business Growth

Business growth (BG) is conceptualised as a process of organisational advancement reflected in enhanced profitability, increased assets, and market expansion (Funk, 2022; Schutte, 2019; Lukeš et al., 2019). The concept of business growth encompasses developmental processes involving sequential internal changes that transform organisational characteristics, manifesting as increased sales, higher profits, and greater assets (Funk, 2022). Entrepreneurial endeavours fundamentally pursue business expansion and profitability as core goals (Schutte, 2019; Lukeš et al., 2019). In the South African context, entrepreneurship functions as a mechanism for economic prosperity and social advancement, with flourishing enterprises contributing to wealth creation for owners and the wider society (Meyer & Klonaridis, 2020; Lukeš et al., 2019; Makola, 2022). Penrose’s (1959) Firm Growth Theory, expanded by Kor et al. (2016), highlights how enterprise-specific resources and competencies drive dynamic growth, shaped by the firm’s ability to exploit opportunities. According to Penrose, a firm’s growth is constrained and enabled by its resources, which are continually shaped by the enterprise’s capacity to identify and exploit market opportunities (Penrose, 1959). The theory emphasises that growth is dynamic rather than linear, shaped by a firm’s ability to adapt its strategies in response to changing internal and external conditions.
Indicators of business growth include job creation, expansion of the client base, equity, sales growth, and profitability (Meyer & Klonaridis, 2020; Achtenhagen et al., 2010; Schutte, 2019; Staniewski & Awruk, 2019; Fisher et al., 2014). Sales growth serves as a primary indicator of business success, reflecting an enterprise’s ability to increase revenue over time. Job creation is another crucial indicator, representing an enterprise’s capacity to expand its workforce in response to demand or operational scale. The second indicator reflects growth and contributes to economic development by reducing unemployment and enhancing community well-being (Meyer & Klonaridis, 2020; Achtenhagen et al., 2010). Profitability is essential for assessing an enterprise’s financial health and long-term viability. This indicates the enterprise’s ability to generate profit after expenses, enabling reinvestment, expansion, and stakeholder rewards (Schutte, 2019).
Building on the literature above, this study examines three main variables: entrepreneurial coaching, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business growth. Each variable is operationalised using specific dimensions and indicators as described. Furthermore, the literature presented discusses the variables individually. For example, some research has addressed the relationship between EC and ESE, while others have analysed how ESE relates to BG among women entrepreneurs (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Eister & Msimango-Galawe, 2024; Msimango-Galawe & Mazonde, 2024; Pierre Cronje et al., 2025). Furthermore, some scholars may examine the variables independently, and this literature builds on the work of Molema et al. (2024), who examined entrepreneurial coaching and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Therefore, in this study, the approach to the literature has been to examine the relationships among these variables and their mutual influence. The purpose is to emphasise the significance of their interaction and the critical role of the relationship for women entrepreneurs.

2.3. Entrepreneurial Coaching

Entrepreneurial coaching (EC) is a personalised and developmental process aimed at enhancing entrepreneurs’ skills, competencies, and entrepreneurial thinking (Ndlovu et al., 2025; Kotte et al., 2021; Saadaoui & Affess, 2015). Coaches in this domain assist and direct business owners in setting objectives, articulating their aspirations, and developing practical approaches to achieve these aims (Diller et al., 2022). For women entrepreneurs, EC provides structured guidance that supports both personal and professional growth, enabling clear goals, refining strategies, and building resilience in business contexts (Diller et al., 2022). This study focuses on EC for women entrepreneurs, delivered by experienced entrepreneurial coaches who address both their business and personal needs (Kotte et al., 2021; van de Kerkhof & Fredholm, 2020; Molema et al., 2024). Through this collaborative relationship, coaches transfer knowledge, develop capability, and facilitate transformative learning that enhances leadership, adaptability, and overall business performance (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Kotte et al., 2021; van Coller-Peter & Cronjé, 2020). Therefore, entrepreneurial coaching is a catalyst that yields multiple tangible benefits, including increased productivity, enhanced business performance, improved communication skills, effective goal attainment, and greater satisfaction in both professional and personal areas (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018). Entrepreneurial coaching develops heightened self-awareness, self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness, enabling women entrepreneurs to lead with confidence and resilience. Furthermore, EC enhances effectiveness by improving business operations, increasing efficiency, facilitating behavioural change, and sharpening problem-solving skills (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; van Coller-Peter & Cronjé, 2020; Cenenda & Saurombe, 2025). The intervention provides access to wisdom, experience, and expert guidance, indispensable for navigating entrepreneurial challenges. Drawing on Systems Theory, this study examines coaching holistically, considering its impact on the entrepreneur and their entity within the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem (Kahn, 2011; Beghni & Gourari, 2024). Entrepreneurial coaching is thus conceptualised as a systemic intervention influencing multiple facets of a woman entrepreneur’s development (Kahn, 2011). Hence, numerous scholars suggest that EC is positively associated with business growth and performance, as it provides diverse perspectives, develops adaptability, enhances communication skills, and improves entrepreneurial capabilities (Saadaoui & Affess, 2015; Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Ndlovu-Hlatshwayo & Msimango-Galawe, 2023).
Entrepreneurial coaching is a critical resource for women entrepreneurs, enhancing competencies and addressing gaps in expertise, experience, and business awareness (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Kotte et al., 2021; Koopman et al., 2021). Entrepreneurial coaching involves structured dialogues that incorporate active listening, reflective exercises, and thought-provoking questions, thereby promoting ownership, personal growth, and strategic decision-making (Molema et al., 2024). Entrepreneurial coaching enhances women entrepreneurs’ performance, aligns competencies with business objectives, and supports long-term success (Grover & Chaudhuri, 2016; Khalid et al., 2021; Dobrea & Maiorescu, 2015; Hunt et al., 2019). Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:
H1: 
Entrepreneurial Coaching and Business Growth.
H1: 
There is a positive association between entrepreneurial coaching and business growth.

2.4. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) is derived from Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy, referring to an entrepreneur’s belief in their ability to influence and control the circumstances and events that shape their lives (Bandura & Walters, 1977; Shaheen & Al-Haddad, 2018). ESE is a critical psychological construct that influences decision-making, persistence, and business success (Newman et al., 2019; Miao et al., 2017). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy represents entrepreneurs’ belief in their ability to execute entrepreneurial tasks and perform the numerous roles of an entrepreneur (C. C. Chen et al., 1998). The two definitions reflect the issues of belief, though they differ in emphasis. Bandura (1997) emphasises belief in controlling, while C. C. Chen et al. (1998) emphasise belief in execution. For this study, both are considered key to the success of women entrepreneurs’ businesses. This research targets entrepreneurial self-efficacy specifically, rather than self-efficacy in general, thereby examining the unique entrepreneurial skills and challenges women face in launching and managing their enterprises (Newman et al., 2019). By focusing specifically on entrepreneurial self-efficacy, this study examines the unique skills and challenges women face in launching and managing businesses (Newman et al., 2019; Msimango-Galawe & Mazonde, 2024).

2.5. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Dimensions

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be categorised into six dimensions: investor relationships, new products and market services, innovation environment, core purpose (value proposition), coping with unexpected challenges and developing critical human resources (Osterwalder et al., 2015; X. Chen & Zhou, 2017; Søndergaard & Harmsen, 2007; Huang & Knight, 2017; Kaiser & Berger, 2021; Fong et al., 2020; Saad et al., 2021). New Product and Market Services provide women entrepreneurs with the ability to access market information by increasing decision-making and confidence by identifying the clients’ needs and delivering value-driven products (Søndergaard & Harmsen, 2007; Block et al., 2017; Rapiya, 2019; Kazumi & Kawai, 2017; Rosca et al., 2020). An Innovative Environment enables women entrepreneurs to take risks, persevere through uncertainty, and pursue opportunities that enhance their business growth (C. C. Chen et al., 1998; Urban, 2019; Norena-Chavez, 2020). High ESE fosters a supportive ecosystem that includes mentorship, networks, and enabling policies (Jaziri & Sakly, 2022). Investor relationships serve as a critical connection with stakeholders that provides access to networks, mentorships and access to funding, which in turn reinforces ESE and facilitates business growth, while a lack of investor relationships creates a limited representation in the funding network and can undermine confidence (Huang & Knight, 2017; Kaiser & Berger, 2021; Alsos & Ljunggren, 2017).
Understanding the Core Purpose (Value Proposition) of a business equips women entrepreneurs to function effectively. These functions serve as strategic and psychological anchors, supporting decision-making, fostering attractive investor relationships, and increasing ESE (Osterwalder et al., 2015; Bailetti et al., 2020; Maitlo et al., 2020). Coping with Unexpected Challenges is another aspect, as women entrepreneurs can encounter internal and external challenges when operating a business that can influence their ESE. Internal challenges include self-doubt and imposter syndrome, and managerial skills; external challenges include funding barriers, market volatility, and regulatory shifts, which could have created an ESE that enables the entrepreneur to solve problems and fosters resilience (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Phillip, 2024). Finally, Developing Critical Human Resource Capabilities is essential, as women entrepreneurs operating businesses need to understand how to recruit, train, and maintain effective working relationships with their employees, which, in turn, will influence ESE and enable business scale-up (Bird, 1989; Hayton, 2005; Rožman et al., 2023).
In summation, entrepreneurial self-efficacy influences a woman entrepreneur’s choices, effort, and persistence, directly affecting business growth (Kazumi & Kawai, 2017; Bandura, 1986). High ESE enhances initiative, decision-making, and performance outcomes, while low ESE diminishes effort and performance outcomes (Caliendo et al., 2023a;. High ESE positively correlates with improved enterprise performance, market expansion, financial accessibility, and long-term sustainability (Miao et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2019; Msimango-Galawe & Mazonde, 2024). Customer satisfaction is a critical determinant of competitiveness, loyalty, resilience and profitability, reinforcing long-term growth and strategic advantage. Overall, ESE drives business growth across financial, non-financial, and strategic dimensions. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:
H2: 
New Product and Market Service.
H2: 
Entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between the ability to gain new products and market service and business growth.
H3: 
Building an Innovative Environment.
H3: 
Entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between the creation of an innovative environment and business growth.
H4: 
Investor Relationships.
H4: 
Entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between the ability for investor relationships and business growth
H5: 
Core Purpose (Value Proposition).
H5: 
Entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between core purpose (value proposition) and business growth.
H6: 
Cope with unexpected challenges.
H6: 
Entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between coping with unexpected challenges and business growth.
H7: 
Development of Critical Human Resources.
H7: 
Entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between the ability to develop critical human resources and business growth.

2.6. Conceptual Model

The literature review provides a comprehensive understanding of how EC can be developed efficiently and how it influences ESE (Pekkan, 2018; Saadaoui & Affess, 2015; Suci et al., 2020; Ndlovu et al., 2025). The EC intervention highlights the importance of women entrepreneurs developing the skills to operate their enterprises, thereby strengthening business skills and enhancing ESE, thereby increasing confidence in the execution of business tasks (Hunt et al., 2019).
Drawing on an integrated theoretical background, this study adopts a conceptual framework to examine the relationship among entrepreneurial coaching, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and business growth. The literature indicates that EC provides structured guidance, personal feedback, and problem-solving support for women entrepreneurs, thereby building their self-efficacy and ability to set and achieve goals (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018). Because women entrepreneurs face challenges such as limited access to funding, discrimination, and socioeconomic barriers, EC is a significant tool for enhancing their entrepreneurial journey and contributing to business growth. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy enables women entrepreneurs to enhance their confidence and engage more effectively in the market. Women entrepreneurs with high self-efficacy become more proactive in leveraging market insights while integrating innovative thinking into their entrepreneurial activities (C. C. Chen et al., 1998; Newman et al., 2019). EC moderates the relationship between the ability to acquire new products and market and business growth, whereas the investor relationship is equally important.
Access to funding, coaching and mentorship, and strategic guidance is often limited, which hinders the formation of relationships with investors (Huang & Knight, 2017; Block et al., 2017; Kaiser & Berger, 2021). Entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between investor relationship ability and business growth. A clear Unique Value Proposition (UVP) is essential to business viability and helps women entrepreneurs refine and communicate their value proposition. This in turn supports stronger business positioning and growth (Bailetti et al., 2020). Entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between core purpose (value proposition) and business growth.
Women entrepreneurs encounter both internal and external challenges that change how they engage with their enterprises. Internal difficulties, such as self-doubt and fear of failure, can reduce ESE. External challenges include access to funding and unexpected operation disruption (Carranza et al., 2018; Fong et al., 2020; Kushniruk et al., 2023). Entrepreneurial coaching supports women by helping them cope with these challenges and strengthening their link between resilience and business growth. Finally, human resource management activities, such as recruitment, training, and motivation, are vital to business performance. While traits such as innovation are important, deliberate HRM actions are necessary for business survival and growth (Kerr et al., 2018). Therefore, entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between the ability to develop critical human resources and business growth. EC is associated with business growth (Caliendo et al., 2023a; van Coller-Peter & Cronjé, 2020). Additionally, EC moderates the relationship between the ESE dimensions, which include new products and markets, innovative environment, investor relationship, core purpose (value proposition—to cope with unexpected challenges) and the development of critical human resources. Therefore, the study proposes that EC moderates the relationship between ESE (independent variables) and business growth (dependent variable).
Figure 1 presents the Structural Equation Model (SEM) used in this study, reflecting standard path modelling conventions. The figure clearly distinguishes between latent constructs (e.g., Entrepreneurial Coaching, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Business Growth) and their corresponding observed indicators, which are derived from validated survey items. Standardised path coefficients (β) are included on each path, offering insight into the strength and direction of the relationships among variables. Additionally, error terms for dependent variables are displayed, consistent with SEM reporting guidelines. The reflective measurement model is indicated by unidirectional arrows from the latent constructs to their indicators, demonstrating that the constructs give rise to the observed measures. This structure confirms that the model is both theoretically grounded and statistically appropriate. The figure is supported by an expanded caption that explains each component and its function within the model.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employed a quantitative approach to examine the effect of entrepreneurial coaching on the self-efficacy and business growth of women entrepreneurs. An explanatory research design was adopted, facilitating the investigation of causal relationships and the empirical testing of hypotheses through numerical data, thereby enabling clear insights and predictive understanding aligned with the research objectives (Creswell & Creswell, 2023; Mahat et al., 2024).
The target population comprised women entrepreneurs in Gauteng who had been coached and owned businesses that had been operating for more than three years. Gauteng was selected owing to its substantial contribution to South Africa’s economy and its high concentration of small, medium, and micro-enterprises (SEDA, 2022; Stats SA, 2022). Participants were accessed through incubator alumni networks and business development support programmes, with snowball sampling employed to reach additional eligible entrepreneurs (Tracy, 2020).
A target sample of 385 respondents was initially identified to achieve a 95% confidence level with a 5% margin of error, consistent with statistical recommendations for multivariate analyses (Raosoft.com, 2023). The final sample of participants required for robust statistical analysis comprised 257 completed responses.
The study used a self-administered online questionnaire (see Table 1 above) adapted from validated instruments measuring entrepreneurial coaching, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and business growth (Salem & Lakhal, 2018; Kotte et al., 2021; van Coller-Peter & Cronjé, 2020; van de Kerkhof & Fredholm, 2020; Ndlovu, 2023; Bandura, 1971, 1997; Schumpeter, 1947; Osterwalder et al., 2015; X. Chen & Zhou, 2017; Søndergaard & Harmsen, 2007; Huang & Knight, 2017; Kaiser & Berger, 2021; Fong et al., 2020; Saad et al., 2021). The questionnaire encompassed demographic characteristics and three sections aligned with the study’s primary constructs. The instrument items were adapted to align with the context of South African women entrepreneurs and the types of coaching interventions experienced, while retaining the original construct definitions and scaling. Two experts in entrepreneurship and coaching reviewed the adapted instrument and pilot-tested it with 12 participants to ensure clarity, cultural relevance, and applicability. Final analyses as per Table 2 below showed strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.787 to 0.916, confirming the instrument’s reliability.
Data were collected via an online questionnaire using Qualtrics to ensure participant convenience. Quantitative analyses were conducted in SPSS version 28, including descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and regression analyses using structural equation modelling (SEM) in STATA version 13, to examine relationships among entrepreneurial coaching, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and business growth. While reliability and validity (see Table 3) were rigorously established through established measures, test–retest procedures, and internal consistency checks, these procedures confirmed that the observed effects reflected genuine entrepreneurial coaching outcomes rather than measurement error (Erlinawati & Muslimah, 2021).
The SEM was selected for analysis because it can simultaneously assess measurement validity and examine structural relationships among latent constructs while accounting for measurement error, making it well-suited to theory-driven entrepreneurship research (Hair et al., 2022). The SEM analysis followed a two-step procedure: measurement model validation and subsequent structural model testing.
To assess the model fit, the study utilised multiple goodness-of-fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and the Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Improvements in model fit were interpreted alongside their theoretical plausibility to ensure transparency, rigour, and credibility in the SEM analysis (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
For research ethics, approval was obtained from the Tshwane University of Technology Ethics Committee, with ethics number HREC2024=09=004 (MS). Participants’ anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent and voluntary participation were strictly maintained throughout the study (Bryman, 2022). Overall, the methodological framework provided a systemic, rigorous and replicable approach to investigating the influence of entrepreneurial coaching on women entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy and business growth within the Gauteng context.

4. Results

Demographic Characteristics

The demographic profile of the sample is summarised in Table 3. The respondents’ characteristics included age, roles and responsibilities, business sector, educational level, and type of business.
The majority of participants were aged 26–40 years (66.5%), with the largest subgroup aged 31–35 years (25.7%). Most respondents were owners/founders (45.5%) or CEOs/Managing Directors (26.5%). Educational attainment was highest at NQF Level 7 (Bachelor’s/Advanced Diploma, 28%). The majority of businesses operated as private companies (59.1%), and the ‘other’ business sector accounted for 34.6% of respondents. These demographic characteristics provide critical context for interpreting the structural model outcomes. Figure 1 presents the initial conceptual framework used to assess the strength and significance of the proposed relationships.
Before estimating the structural model, preliminary analyses were conducted to confirm the suitability of the data for Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). All constructs were measured using valid instruments, ensuring accuracy and comparability (Creswell & Creswell, 2023). Cronbach’s alpha confirmed internal consistency, with all constructs exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.70. Business growth (α = 0.916) and entrepreneurial coaching (α = 0.907) demonstrated excellent reliability, while other constructs ranged from 0.787 to 0.825, indicating good to acceptable reliability. Structural equation modelling was conducted using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, which is suitable for continuous data and efficient for parameter estimation under the assumption of multivariate normality. Robust standard errors were applied to account for minor deviations from normality.
The initial conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 exhibited poor fit, with CFI = 0.414, TLI = −0.094, and RMSEA = 0.232 (χ2 = 222.76, p < 0.001; CD = 0.300), indicating that the model failed to adequately capture the observed data. No error covariances were allowed, and the evaluation was conducted conservatively without post hoc modifications.
The effects of new product and market service (β = 0.062, p = 0.521), innovative environment (β = −0.147, p = 0.195), investor relationship (β = 0.236, p = 0.164), core purpose (value proposition) (β = 0.197, p = 0.062), and developing critical human resource (β = 0.177, p = 0.189) on business growth are not statistically significant at conventional thresholds. Although CP approaches significance, the overall pattern suggests that these capabilities may not exert direct effects on growth within the conceptual model.
Even though the coefficient is theoretically meaningful, the overall model fit is poor. The likelihood ratio test against the saturated model is statistically significant (χ2(15) = 222.76, p < 0.001), indicating considerable inconsistency between the observed and model-implied covariance matrices. The fit indices further confirm the key constraints. In addition, the RMSEA value of 0.232, with a narrow confidence interval and a p-close of 0.000, indicates considerable population-level misfit. Correspondingly, the CFI (0.414) and TLI (−0.094) fall short of the recommended thresholds, and the SRMR (0.166) exceeds acceptable limits. Similarly, the conceptual model demonstrates a moderate proportion of variance in the endogenous construct CD = 0.3999; the fit statistic collectively indicate that the model does not sufficiently capture the underlying data structure. Table 4 presents the standardised path coefficients (β-values).
As shown in Table 5, the revised model demonstrated improved fit indices relative to the original conceptual model. The direct and indirect effects of EC on business growth both examined the key entrepreneurial capabilities dimensions, namely new product and market service (NP), innovative environment (IE), investor relationship (IR), core purpose (value proposition) (CP), coping with unexpected challenges (CC), and human resource development (HR). In addition, has indicated on the table indicates that coping with unexpected challenges has a positive influence on business growth (β = 0.537, z = 5.86, p < 0.001). The results imply that women entrepreneurs who demonstrate greater ability to manage uncertainty and unexpected challenges are more likely to achieve higher levels of business growth. Therefore, the results reveal that adaptability and resilience are critical drivers of growth in entrepreneurial contexts. Moreso, entrepreneurial coaching has a significant effect on business growth (β = 0.176, z = 4.87, p < 0.001). The findings demonstrate that higher levels of EC are associated with improved growth outcomes, independent of intermediary capability dimensions.
The conceptual model shows significant covariances among the error terms of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy construct (e.g., NP with IE, IR, CP, CC, and HR; p < 0.05). The covariances indicate that each capability dimension captures a distinct aspect of entrepreneurial function; however, in practice, they are interrelated and may share unobserved influences, such as contextual, environmental, or institutional factors. The model fit and overall evaluation show an excellent fit of the data. Firstly, RMSEA = 0.002, indicating a p-close of 0.589, with a close fit of the population covariance matrix. CFI = 0.999 and TLI = 0.9991, both exceeding recommended thresholds, confirm a strong comparative fit. The SRMR = 0.012, well below the recommended cutoff of 0.08, shows minimal residual discrepancies. In addition, the likelihood ratio test, which compares the saturated model, is statistically significant (χ2(10) = 55.82, p < 0.001). These findings are consistent with theory-driven SMEs with larger samples and do not undermine the overall model adequacy. Lastly, the coefficient of determination (CD = 0.208) indicates that the model accounts for a meaningful proportion of the variance in the endogenous constructs, particularly business growth.
Figure 2 presents the updated conceptual model illustrating the proposed relationships between entrepreneurial coaching, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and business growth. It depicts the direct and interactive pathways hypothesised in the study and serves as the basis for the structural equation modelling analysis.
Following model refinement, the revised conceptual model illustrated in Figure 2 traces the pathway from entrepreneurial coaching to business growth among women entrepreneurs. The results confirm that EC directly and positively influences BG, highlighting its important role in entrepreneurial development. Moreover, coping with unexpected challenges emerges as the most significant mediator, emphasising the importance of resilience, adaptability, and problem-solving skills in translating entrepreneurial coaching into sustainable growth. Core purpose (value proposition) (CP) showed a marginal effect, underscoring the relevance of strategic clarity and effective value communication. IR positively influences BG, whereas NP, IE, I, and HR did not significantly predict BG, suggesting that structural and contextual barriers may limit their influence in this context.
The analysis provided robust empirical support for the influence of entrepreneurial coaching on business growth among women entrepreneurs, primarily mediated by greater coping with unexpected challenges. The findings highlight the pivotal role of resilience and adaptability in mediating the relationship between coaching and measurable entrepreneurial success. Overall model fit indicates that the proposed model is significantly better than a saturated model (χ2(10) = 55.82, p < 0.001). Furthermore, this reveals that the model is non-replicable, as evidenced by the observed covariance matrix, which is uncommon in SEM, particularly in theory-driven models with complex interrelationships.

5. Discussion

The study’s findings demonstrate the significant role of entrepreneurial coaching in driving business growth among women entrepreneurs. Business growth in this study is reflected in measurable outcomes, including employment, sales, operational performance, client base, and profitability. The results reinforce a positive relationship between EC and business growth, supporting the literature that emphasises the importance of EC in enhancing ESE among women-owned businesses (Khalid et al., 2021; Pekkan, 2018). The results align with earlier research that underscores the importance of entrepreneurial coaching, an intervention that enhances ESE among women entrepreneurs and increases business growth (Saadaoui & Affess, 2015; Hunt et al., 2019; Caliendo et al., 2023b). Accordingly, the hypothesis proposing a positive relationship between entrepreneurial coaching and business growth is significant.
Beyond the direct effect of EC on business growth, the study addressed the crucial role of structured entrepreneurial coaching in preparing women entrepreneurs by equipping them with the requisite skills, confidence, and agile business strategies for operating in business environments. Moreover, EC increases measurable business growth outcomes. Therefore, these results align with system theory, which posits that internal factors, such as EC, interact with entrepreneurial processes to drive business growth (Ndlovu, 2023; Lynch et al., 2021).
The study further examined components of ESE and their relationship with business growth, drawing on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) as the underlying theoretical lens. The theory posits that behaviour and performance outcomes are shaped by the dynamic interaction among personal cognitive factors (e.g., coping with unexpected challenges), environmental influences (e.g., seizing opportunities to create investor relationships), and behavioural capabilities (e.g., articulating the business value proposition). Variables investigated included new products and market services, an innovative environment, investor relationships, core purpose (value proposition), and the development of critical human resources. Among these, core purpose (value proposition) demonstrated a marginally significant influence (β = 0.197, p = 0.062), suggesting that women entrepreneurs who clearly articulate and align their value proposition are more likely to achieve business growth. From an SCT perspective, a clearly defined core purpose enhances self-regulatory capability, goal clarity, and outcome expectations, which strengthen entrepreneurial behaviour. Importantly, consistent with previous studies, entrepreneurial coaching strengthened this relationship by enhancing the employee’s self-awareness and competitive positioning, thereby supporting the hypothesis that EC moderates the relationship between core purpose and business growth, despite the modest statistical effect (Msimango-Galawe & Mazonde, 2024; Ndlovu, 2023).
In addition, investor relationship was found to positively influence business growth.
Consistent with SCT, social networks and external feedback act as environmental enablers that reinforce efficacy beliefs through social persuasion and vicariously learning. The findings indicate that entrepreneurial coaching moderates the relationship between investor relationships and business growth by enhancing women entrepreneurs’ ability to build and leverage networks that provide access to funding, mentorship, and strategic partnerships. These results emphasise the value of EC in strengthening external stakeholder engagement and support the hypothesis regarding investor relationships, consistent with previous studies (Ndlovu, 2023).
The study identified the primary factor influencing business growth as the ability to cope with unexpected challenges, aligning with the internal and external obstacles outlined in the literature review. Women entrepreneurs who can cope with unexpected challenges in their businesses exhibit high ESE (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Caliendo et al., 2023a; Ncube & Chimucheka, 2019). With SCT, this reflects the role of emotional regulation and resilience in strengthening efficacy beliefs. These women entrepreneurs have an entrepreneurial optimism which can be motivating. Such entrepreneurial optimism fosters effective leadership and crisis decision-making, which can positively impact businesses (Ma et al., 2024).
In contrast, the findings do not support the hypothesised moderating role of entrepreneurial coaching in the relationship between gaining new products and markets and business growth. Although an innovative environment is widely recognised as a driver of competitiveness, the results indicate that an innovative environment alone did not translate into measurable growth outcomes in this context, even when supported by entrepreneurial coaching. Similarly, entrepreneurial coaching did not significantly moderate the relationship between the creation of an innovative environment and business growth. These findings suggest that external innovation stimuli and market expansion efforts may be insufficient to drive growth in the absence of strong internal psychological and strategic capabilities.
The hypothesis relating to the develop a critical human resource was also not supported. Although human resource development is theoretically associated with business growth, the findings indicate that resource development alone did not significantly influence it. This suggests that, for women entrepreneurs, growth is more strongly driven by internal capabilities such as resilience, self-efficacy, and decision-making competence than by structural or resource-based factors in isolation.
From the theoretical perspective, the findings extend Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) by showing that EC enhances coping mechanisms and ESE, which translate into measurable business growth. Through the lens of System Theory, internal factors such as EC, ESE, and resilience interact with entrepreneurial processes to produce growth outcomes, emphasising the systemic nature of entrepreneurial success (Lynch et al., 2021). Furthermore, the study contextualises women’s entrepreneurship in South Africa and provides empirical evidence that resilience-focused ESE, strengthened through EC, enables business growth even under restrictive institutional and cultural conditions (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Brush et al., 2022).
In practice, the findings emphasise the need for entrepreneurial coaches to balance a focus on developing the entrepreneur with a focus on the entity. These include confidence in decision-making, stress management, opportunity recognition in unstable environments, and effective stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, the results highlight the importance of integrating EC into broader policy frameworks that promote economic inclusion by improving access to funding, markets, and entrepreneurial networks. Addressing systemic barriers such as gender discrimination and the digital divide requires targeted, coordinated interventions that combine coaching with structural support mechanisms (Mohamed et al., 2024; Neneh & Welsh, 2022).

6. Conclusions

The study examined the influence of entrepreneurial coaching on women entrepreneurs in Gauteng, with a focus on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business growth. The literature review situated EC, ESE, and business growth within the broader context of women’s entrepreneurship, highlighting the unique challenges women face in accessing support, resources, and opportunities.
This study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence that EC is a critical development intervention for women entrepreneurs. By improving ESE, EC enables women-owned businesses to adapt to difficult business challenges and capitalise on growth opportunities. The findings underscore the need for policy initiatives that address the unique challenges faced by women entrepreneurs and provide structured support systems. Enhancing access to EC and tailoring support mechanisms to develop a more inclusive and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem can significantly improve the entrepreneurial landscape for women.
The study’s theoretical implications include that EC positively influences both ESE and business growth, aligning with Bandura’s (1997) Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasises the importance of self-efficacy in goal-directed behaviour and performance outcomes. EC provides practical experiences that illustrate how women entrepreneurs navigate socio-cultural and structural barriers, thereby linking theory to practice. Among the six dimensions of ESE analysed, ‘coping with unexpected challenges’ emerged as the most significant mediator, emphasising the critical roles of resilience and adaptability. Conventional factors such as innovation, investor relations, and product–market development showed limited influence, suggesting that coaching and policy interventions should prioritise psychological resilience and adaptive problem-solving skills.
Methodologically, the study presents a context-aware framework to promote inclusive entrepreneurship through targeted entrepreneurial coaching. However, the following limitations are noted. This study focused on women entrepreneurs in Gauteng Province, South Africa’s largest economic hub. While systemic challenges are common across South Africa, regional differences in infrastructure, policy implementation, and market conditions necessitate caution when generalising these findings (Meyer & Klonaridis, 2020).
Future research should expand to multiple regions in South Africa to improve generalisability, employ longitudinal designs to track changes in entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business growth over longer periods, and examine how the coaching intervention sustains as the women entrepreneurs grow their businesses. Incorporating gender and cultural frameworks will deepen understanding of how societal norms, structural inequalities, and local contexts influence women’s entrepreneurial outcomes. Additionally, exploring digital skills, technology access, and different coaching modalities is recommended. Mixed-methods approaches and evaluations of policy and institutional support can further inform evidence-based interventions to effectively empower women entrepreneurs. In conclusion, this research demonstrates that entrepreneurial coaching significantly supports women entrepreneurs’ business growth, primarily by enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.L.M. and E.N.N.; methodology, P.E.E. and M.L.M.; software, P.E.E. and M.L.M.; validation, E.N.N. and P.E.E.; formal analysis, M.L.M. and P.E.E.; investigation, M.L.M., E.N.N., and P.E.E.; data curation, M.L.M. and P.E.E.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.M.; writing—review and editing, M.L.M., E.N.N. and P.E.E.; visualisation, P.E.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Tshwane University of Technology (protocol code HREC2024=09=004 (MS) and date of approval 29 January 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Participants’ informed consent was obtained prior to completing the survey.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the peer support of the respondents for contributing their insights through the survey to the development of this research. GenAI has been used to edit language (Grammarly version 1.149.1.0). The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

BizPreneur is a company that specialize in research and training. Dr Elona, is the co-supervisor of Mahalia. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Achtenhagen, L., Naldi, L., & Melin, L. (2010). Business growth and business models: Lessons from small and medium-sized enterprises. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 291–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ajani, O. A., Gamede, B. T., & Mkhasibe, R. G. (2021). The impact of women entrepreneurs on national economic development in South Africa. African Journal of Business and Economic Research, 16(3), 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alene, E. T. (2020). Determinants that influence the performance of women entrepreneurs in micro and small enterprises in Ethiopia. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alsos, G. A., & Ljunggren, E. (2017). Entrepreneurial resource mobilization: The role of investor relationships. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(7–8), 584–606. [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrews, H., & Jones, R. J. (2024). Can one-to-one coaching improve selection success and who benefits most? The role of internship candidate generalised selfefficacy. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 17(2), 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ayandibu, A. O., & Houghton, J. (2017). The role of small and medium scale enterprise in local economic development (LED). Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 11(2), 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ács, Z., Szerb, L., & Lafuente, E. (2019). Global entrepreneurship index 2019. Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bailetti, T., Tanev, S., & Keen, C. (2020). What makes value propositions distinct and valuable to new companies committed to scale rapidly. Technology Innovation Management Review, 10(6), 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  13. Beghni, S., & Gourari, M. (2024). Women entrepreneurs and ecosystem support: An in-depth examination of selected experiences and dynamics within developing economies. Modern Research in Economics, 7(2), 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bhorat, H., Asmal, Z., Lilenstein, K., & Van der Zee, K. (2018). SMMEs in South Africa: Understanding the constraints on growth and performance (pp. 1–66). DPRU, University of Cape Town. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bird, B. (1989). Entrepreneurial behavior. Irwin. [Google Scholar]
  16. Block, J. H., Fisch, C. O., & van Praag, M. (2017). The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: A review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 61–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Botha, M., Nieman, G., & van Vuuren, J. (2007). Measuring the effectiveness of the women entrepreneurship programme on potential, start-up and established women entrepreneurs in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 10(2), 163–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boyd, N., & Vozikis, G. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brinkley, M.-L., & Le Roux, I. (2018). Coaching as a support function for potential entrepreneurs. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 10(1), a99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brush, C. G., de Bruin, A., & Welter, F. (2022). Advancing research on women’s entrepreneurship: Challenges and opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(3), 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bryman, A. (2022). Social research methods. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. (2023a). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business growth: Evidence from emerging markets. Small Business Economics, 60(4), 1025–1040. [Google Scholar]
  23. Caliendo, M., Kritikos, A. S., Rodriguez, D., & Stier, C. (2023b). Self-efficacy and entrepreneurial performance of start-ups. Small Business Economics, 61(3), 1027–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai sur la nature du commerce en général. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  25. Carranza, N., Dhakal, D., & Love, S. (2018). Women entrepreneurs in developing economies: Barriers and strategies. Small Enterprise Research, 25(1), 4–25. [Google Scholar]
  26. Cenenda, N. N., & Saurombe, M. D. (2025). Business incubator coaching for small, medium and micro enterprises in South Africa. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 17(1), 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, X., & Zhou, L. (2017). The role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in innovation. Management Decision, 55(7), 1554–1570. [Google Scholar]
  29. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  30. Diller, S. J., Brantl, M., & Jonas, E. (2022). More than working alliance, exploring the relationship in entrepreneurial coaching. Coaching Theories & Praxis, 8(1), 59–75. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dobrea, M., & Maiorescu, I. (2015). Entrepreneurial outcomes and organisational performance through business coaching. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 17(38), 247260. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/168914 (accessed on 24 July 2024).
  32. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Entrepreneurial strategies. California Management Review, 27(2). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ebewo, P. E., Schultz, C., & Mmako, M. M. (2025). Towards inclusive entrepreneurship: Addressing constraining and contributing factors for women entrepreneurs in South Africa. Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Eister, T., & Msimango-Galawe, J. (2024). Business development services training and entrepreneurial self-efficacy—A focus on necessity-and opportunity-driven entrepreneurs. Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 16(1), a858 . [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Enwereji, P. C., Innocent, B., & Aluko, T. O. A. (2024). Socio-economic challenges hindering women entrepreneurs’ business sustainability in Gauteng province. Research on Enterprise in Modern Economy, 1(38), 37–61. [Google Scholar]
  36. Erlinawati, E., & Muslimah, M. (2021). Test validity and reliability in learning evaluation. Bulletin of Community Engagement, 1(1), 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  37. Fisher, R., Maritz, A., & Lobo, A. (2014). Evaluating entrepreneurs’ perception of success: Development of a measurement scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 20(5), 478–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fong, E. Y., Jabor, M. K. B., Zulkifli, A. H., & Hashim, M. R. (2020). Challenges faced by new entrepreneurs and suggestions how to overcome them. In International conference on student and disable student development 2019 (ICoSD 2019) (pp. 223–227). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Funk, P. (2022). Business growth. Figshare. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363255945_Business_Growth (accessed on 22 May 2025).
  40. GEM Consortium. (2020). New gem South Africa national report: Early-stage entrepreneurs are growing into established businesses. Available online: https://www.gemconsortium.org/news/new-gem-south-africa-national-report:-early-stage-entrepreneurs-are-growing-into-established-businesses (accessed on 11 December 2025).
  41. Grover, D., & Chaudhuri, P. (2016, December 18–22). Data-driven 2D effects animation. Tenth Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing (pp. 1–7), Assam, India. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hayton, J. C. (2005). Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: A review of empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (2009). A history of entrepreneurship. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, L., & Knight, A. P. (2017). Resources and relationships in entrepreneurship: An exchange theory of the development and effects of the entrepreneur-investor relationship. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 80–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hunt, C. M., Fielden, S., & Woolnough, H. M. (2019). The potential of online coaching to develop female entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 34(8), 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Irene, B., Ndlovu, E., Felix-Faure, P. C., Dlabatshana, Z., & Ogunmokun, O. (2025). The role of financial institutions in bridging the financing gap for women entrepreneurs in Sub-Saharan Africa. Administrative Sciences, 15(8), 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jaziri, R., & Sakly, S. (2022). Key influences on innovativeness of women entrepreneurs in Tunisia: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Gender Studies in Developing Societies, 4(3), 262–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kahn, M. S. (2011). Coaching on the axis: An integrative and systemic approach to business coaching. International Coaching Psychology Review, 6(2), 194–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kaiser, M., & Berger, E. S. (2021). Trust in the investor relationship marketing of startups: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Management Review Quarterly, 71(2), 491–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kazumi, T., & Kawai, N. (2017). Institutional support and women’s entrepreneurial selfefficacy. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 345–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Xu, T. (2018). Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Khalid, R., Raza, M., Sawangchai, A., Allauca-Castillo, W. J., & Huerta-Soto, R. M. (2021). Women entrepreneurial innovative behavior: The role of lean start-up and business coaching. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(8), 946918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Knight, F. H. (1921). Cost of production and price over long and short periods. Journal of Political Economy, 29(4), 304–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Koopman, J., Conway, J. M., Dimotakis, N., Tepper, B. J., Lee, Y. E., Rogelberg, S. G., & Lount, R. B., Jr. (2021). Does CWB repair negative affective states, or generate them? Examining the moderating role of trait empathy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(10), 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T., Siemsen, E., & Tan, D. (2016). Penrose’s the theory of the growth of the firm: An exemplar of engaged scholarship. Production and Operations Management, 25(10), 1727–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kotte, S., Diermann, I., Rosing, K., & Möller, H. (2021). Entrepreneurial coaching: A two-dimensional framework in context. Applied Psychology, 70(2), 518–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kushniruk, V., Baneva, I., Kovalenko, D., Petrychuk, S., & Meish, A. (2023). Financial aspects of maintaining business activities in the face of unexpected changes. Economic Affairs, 68(1), 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lukeš, M., Longo, M. C., & Zouhar, J. (2019). Do business incubators really enhance entrepreneurial growth? Evidence from a large sample of innovative Italian start-ups. Technovation, 82–83, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lukhele, N., & Soumonni, O. (2021). Modes of innovation used by SMMEs to tackle social challenges in South Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 13(7), 829–837. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lynch, M., Andersson, G., & Johansen, F. R. (2021). Merging systems thinking with entrepreneurship: Shifting students’ mindsets towards crafting a more sustainable future. Sustainability, 13(9), 4946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ma, H., Khan, A. J., Fayyaz, S., Hameed, W. U., & Ullah, H. (2024). Unpacking the optimistic mindset of business students towards entrepreneurship. PLoS ONE, 19(2), e0297868. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mahasha, K. L. M. (2016). Balancing work and family responsibilities: The case of women in management positions in Nkangala District [Doctoral dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand]. [Google Scholar]
  65. Mahat, D., Neupane, D., & Shrestha, S. (2024). Quantitative research design and sample trends: A systematic examination of emerging paradigms and best Practices. Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 4(2), 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Maitlo, Q., Pacho, F. T., Liu, J., Bhutto, T. A., & Xuhui, W. (2020). The role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in resources acquisition in a new venture: The mediating role of effectuation. Sage Open, 10(4), 2158244020963571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Makola, Z. S. (2022). Mumpreneurs’ experiences of combining motherhood and entrepreneurship: A netnographic study. Journal of Contemporary Management, 19(si1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mashapure, R., Nyagadza, B., Chikazhe, L., Msipa, N., Ngorora, G. K. P., & Gwiza, A. (2022). Challenges hindering women entrepreneurship sustainability in rural livelihoods: Case of Manicaland province. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2132675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Matekenya, W., & Moyo, C. (2022). Innovation as a driver of SMME performance in South Africa: A quantile regression approach. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 13(3), 452–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mbangiswano, S. Z., Ndlovu, E., & Vuthela, Z. S. (2025). Empowering rural women agripreneurs through financial inclusion: Lessons from South Africa for the G20 development agenda. Administrative Sciences, 15(9), 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Meyer, N., & Klonaridis, R. (2020). The identification of female entrepreneurs’ business growth factors: Evidence from South Africa. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 12(1), 208–224. [Google Scholar]
  72. Miao, C., Qian, S., & Ma, D. (2017). The relationship between entrepreneurial selfefficacy and firm performance, a meta-analysis of main and moderator effects. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 87–107. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mohamed, F., Karoui Zouaoui, S., & Bel Haj Mohamed, A. (2024). The entrepreneurial support and the performance of new venture creation: The mediation effect of the acquisition of skills and the learning of novice entrepreneurs. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 2330142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Molema, L., Hlatshwayo, E., & Ebewo, P. (2024). Entrepreneurial coaching for the development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in women entrepreneurs. IJEBD (International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Development), 7(2), 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Msimango-Galawe, J., & Mazonde, N. (2024). The mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on business experience and performance of women-owned enterprises. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 22(2), 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mulaudzi, M., & Schachtebeck, C. (2022). Challenges faced by female entrepreneurs: The case of the South African learner transport industry. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science 2147-4478, 11(5), 523–531. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ncube, M. S., & Chimucheka, T. (2019). The effect of managerial competencies on the performance of small and medium enterprises in Makana Municipality, South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(5), 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ndlovu, E. N. (2023). Testing the application of the integral AQAL model in entrepreneurial coaching in South African business incubators. Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship Research, 4(2), 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ndlovu, E. N., Ebewo, P. E., Mlotshwa, S. H., & Shumba, K. (2025). Entrepreneurial Coaching and self-efficacy: A systematic review of its pedagogical integration into entrepreneurship education. Education Sciences, 15(2), 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ndlovu-Hlatshwayo, E., & Msimango-Galawe, J. (2023). The critical success factors for entrepreneurial coaching in South African business incubators. Journal Maksipreneur: Manajemen, Koperasi, dan Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Neneh, B. N., & Welsh, D. H. (2022). Family support and business performance of South African female technology entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(6), 1631–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 110, 403–419. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ngubeni, T. C., Ivanovic, M., & Adinolfi, M. C. (2022). Entrepreneurial challenges of marginalised women making souvenirs in Alexandra township in Johannesburg. African Journal of Hospitality Tourism and Leisure, 11(6), 1842–1859. [Google Scholar]
  84. Norena-Chavez, D. (2020). The mediation effect of innovative behavior on the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 8(4), 238252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Nxopo, Z. (2014). The role of government in empowering female entrepreneurs in the Western Cape: South Africa [Doctoral dissertation, Cape Peninsula University of Technology]. [Google Scholar]
  86. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2015). Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  87. Pekkan, N. Ü. (2018). Is it possible to improve self-efficacy with coaching. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 9(33), 2017–2032. [Google Scholar]
  88. Peneder, M. (2009). The meaning of entrepreneurship: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(3), 819–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Performance, European Journal of Marketing, 37, 476–497. [Google Scholar]
  90. Phillip, M. B. (2024). The role of gender stereotypes and societal pressures in creating impostor syndrome in black female entrepreneurs [Doctor’s thesis, Liberty University]. [Google Scholar]
  91. Pierre Cronje, J., Terblanche, N., & Theron-Wepener, M. (2025). Coaching and mentoring to foster self-efficacy for early-stage survival-driven entrepreneurs. South African Journal of Business Management, 56(1), 4884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Qali, N. (2020). Entrepreneurial resilience and success among women entrepreneurs in South Africa [Master’s thesis, University of Pretoria (South Africa)]. [Google Scholar]
  93. Rajnoha, R., & Lorincová, S. (2015). Strategic management of business performance based on innovations and information support in specific conditions of Slovakia. Journal of Competitiveness, 7, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Raosoft.com. (2023). Sample size calculator. Raosoft Inc. Available online: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html (accessed on 12 July 2021).
  95. Rapiya, X. L. (2019). The importance of understanding the market before introducing a new product: A case study [Master’s dissertation, University of Johannesburg (South Africa)]. [Google Scholar]
  96. Rosca, E., Agarwal, N., & Brem, A. (2020). Women entrepreneurs as agents of change: A comparative analysis of social entrepreneurship processes in emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rožman, M., Tominc, P., & Štrukelj, T. (2023). Competitiveness through. development of strategic talent management and agile management ecosystems. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 24(3), 373–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Saad, M. M., Gaber, H. R., & Labib, A. A. (2021). Investigating the impact of human resource management practices on employee engagement, and the moderating role of strategy implementation in Egypt. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Saadaoui, S., & Affess, H. (2015). Evaluating the role of coaching on developing entrepreneurial self-efficacy. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(11), 54–61. [Google Scholar]
  100. Sagar, G., Anand, B., Perumalla Varalaxmi, A. S., & Raj, S. (2023). The role of entrepreneurship in economic growth and development. Journal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences, 10(1S), 5940–5955. [Google Scholar]
  101. Salem, A. B., & Lakhal, L. (2018). Entrepreneurial coaching: How to be modeled and measured? Journal of Management Development, 37(1), 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  103. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. The Journal of Economic History, 7(2), 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Schutte, F. (2019). Small business incubator coaching in South Africa: Exploring the landscape. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  105. SEDA. (2022). Small business statistics report. Small Enterprise Development Agency. [Google Scholar]
  106. Shaheen, N., & Al-Haddad, S. (2018). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 7(10), 2385–2402. [Google Scholar]
  107. Simarasl, N., Tabesh, P., Munyon, T. P., & Marzban, Z. (2024). Unveiled confidence: Exploring how institutional support enhances the entrepreneurial self-efficacy and performance of female entrepreneurs in constrained contexts. European Management Journal, 42(1), 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Siyaya, N. D. (2021). Factors shaping the growth of women’s entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized retail enterprises in the eThekwini Municipality, Durban [Doctoral dissertation, Durban University of Technology]. [Google Scholar]
  109. Søndergaard, H., & Harmsen, H. (2007). Using market information in product development. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(4), 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Staniewski, M. W., & Awruk, K. (2019). Entrepreneurial success and achievement motivation—A preliminary report on a validation study of the questionnaire of entrepreneurial success. Journal of Business Research, 101, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Statistics South Africa. (2025). Beyond the unemployment rate: A broader look at labour underutilisation. Statistics South Africa. Available online: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=19007 (accessed on 31 December 2025).
  112. Stats SA. (2022). Quarterly labour force survey. Statistics South Africa. [Google Scholar]
  113. Strawser, J. A., Hechavarría, D. M., & Passerini, K. (2021). Gender and entrepreneurship: Research frameworks, barriers and opportunities for women entrepreneurship worldwide. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(Suppl. 1), S1–S15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Suci, N. M., Telagawathi, N. L. W. S., & Bagia, I. W. (2020, November 3–4). The role of coaching program and entrepreneur’s self-efficacy on business growth in SMES Context. 5th International Conference on Tourism, Economics, Accounting, Management and Social Science, (TEAMS 2020) (pp. 369–373), Virtual. [Google Scholar]
  115. Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  116. Udimal, T. B., Luo, M., Liu, E., & Mensah, N. O. (2020). How has formal institutions influenced opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship? The case of brics economies. Heliyon, 6(9), e04931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Urban, B. (2019). Entrepreneurial alertness and self-efficacy: A focus on social values and innovation performance. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. van Coller-Peter, S., & Cronjé, J. (2020). The contribution of coaching and mentoring to the development of participants in entrepreneurial development programmes. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 18(2), 51–67. [Google Scholar]
  119. van de Kerkhof, C., & Fredholm, J. K. (2020). Entrepreneurial coaching & well-being: An explorative study into the role coaches play within accelerators on entrepreneurial well-being [Master’s dissertation, Lund University]. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of the Study. Source: Adapted from Salem and Lakhal (2018); Kotte et al. (2021); van Coller-Peter and Cronjé (2020); van de Kerkhof and Fredholm (2020); Ndlovu (2023); Bandura (1971, 1997); Schumpeter (1947); Osterwalder et al. (2015); X. Chen and Zhou (2017); Søndergaard and Harmsen (2007); Huang and Knight (2017); Kaiser and Berger (2021); Fong et al. (2020); Saad et al. (2021).
Admsci 16 00060 g001
Admsci 16 00060 g002
Figure 2. Revised Conceptual Model. Source: Researchers’ Findings.
Figure 2. Revised Conceptual Model. Source: Researchers’ Findings.
Admsci 16 00060 g002
Table 1. Layout of the Measuring Instrument Compiled for the Study.
Table 1. Layout of the Measuring Instrument Compiled for the Study.
Variable Dimension Summary of Indicators
Entrepreneurial Coaching Entrepreneurial coaching (EC) is a personalised and developmental process aimed at enhancing entrepreneurs’ skills, competencies, and entrepreneurial thinking (Ndlovu et al., 2025; Kotte et al., 2021; Saadaoui & Affess, 2015).Support from the coach in achieving goals, guidance in developing self-awareness, self-management, and business management.
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy New Product and Marketing Service involve developing products or services that meet customer needs by leveraging market information and a strong market orientation (Søndergaard & Harmsen, 2007).Belief in their ability to identify new market opportunities, areas for potential growth and designing products that solve current problems.
An innovative environment is a business setting that fosters creativity and the development of new ideas, enabling entrepreneurs, particularly women, to transform opportunities into value and drive business growth (Schumpeter, 1947; Drucker, 1985).Belief in their ability to develop a work environment that encourages innovative thinking, being able to collaborate with others and develop an interactive work environment.
Investor Relationships refer to the connections entrepreneurs build with investors to access funding, mentorship, and strategic guidance, which are critical for business growth and enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy, particularly for women facing systemic barriers (Huang & Knight, 2017; Block et al., 2017; Kaiser & Berger, 2021).Belief in their ability to develop relationships with key people and identify sources of funding for the business.
Core Purpose (Value Proposition) refers to the clear articulation of the unique value a product or service delivers to customers, serving as a strategic and differentiating tool that guides business decisions and enhances entrepreneurial effectiveness (Osterwalder et al., 2015).Belief in their ability to articulate the vision of their business, inspire others to embrace it, and operationalise it.
Coping with Unexpected Challenges refers to the ability to manage and adapt to unforeseen internal and external obstacles that may impact business performance and growth (Fong et al., 2020).Belief in their ability to tolerate unexpected changes in business conditions, the ability to be persistent and resilient in the face of setbacks and to work well with uncertainty.
Developing critical Human Resources refers to the process by which entrepreneurs recruit, train, and manage employees to optimise performance and support business growth (Saad et al., 2021).Belief in their ability to identify and. Manage a team to develop their business, leverage their expertise, and develop contingency plans.
Business GrowthSales Growth: the steady increase in a business’s sales over time, indicating market strength, customer demand, and overall business sustainability (Achtenhagen et al., 2010)Increase in sales revenue compared to previous years.
Job Creation: an enterprise’s ability to expand its workforce, reflecting business growth, operational scaling, and contribution to the economy (Meyer & Klonaridis, 2020)Number of full-time and or part-time jobs created.
Profitability: an enterprise’s ability to generate financial gain after expenses, indicating its financial health, sustainability, and capacity for reinvestment and growth (Schutte, 2019).Increase in profits compared to the previous year.
Source: Author’s own findings.
Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha for Main Construct.
Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha for Main Construct.
ConstructCronbach’s AlphaNumber of Items
Entrepreneurial Coaching (EC)0.90716
New Product and Market Service (ESE) 0.8257
Innovative Environment (ESE)0.7935
Investor Relationships (ESE)0.8213
Core Purpose (Value Proposition) (ESE)0.7876
Coping with Unexpected Challenges (ESE)0.7926
Developing Critical Human Resources (ESE)0.8054
Business Growth (BG)0.9167
Source: Researchers’ Findings.
Table 3. Demographic Profile of the Sample.
Table 3. Demographic Profile of the Sample.
Demographic CharacteristicsCategoryFrequencyPercent
Age Group18–2051.9%
21–254316.7%
26–305320.6%
31–356625.7%
36–405220.2%
41+3814.8%
Role/ResponsibilityOwner/Founder11745.5%
CEO/Managing Director6826.5%
Operations Manager4919.1%
Marketing/Sales Manager155.8%
Financial Manager/Accountant51.9%
Human Resource Manager31.2%
Education LevelNQF 4 (Matric)3011.7%
NQF 5 (Higher Certificate)2810.9%
NQF 6 (Diploma/Advanced Certificate)6123.7%
NQF 7 (Bachelor’s/Advanced Diploma)7228.0%
NQF 8 (Honours/Postgraduate Diploma)5019.5%
NQF 9 (Master’s)155.8%
NQF 10 (Doctoral)10.4%
Business SectorAgriculture & Farming176.6%
Manufacturing & Production3212.5%
Construction & Infrastructure4617.9%
Transportation & Logistics207.8%
Professional Services2810.9%
Education & Training259.7%
Other8934.6%
Type of BusinessSole Proprietorship259.7%
Partnership249.3%
Close Corporation (CC)228.6%
Private Company (Pty) Ltd.15259.1%
Public Company (Ltd.)20.8%
Non-Profit Organisation3112.1%
Other10.4%
Table 4. Structural Equation Model: Conceptual Model.
Table 4. Structural Equation Model: Conceptual Model.
Coefficient OIM Std. Err. Z p > |z|
Structural
NP <-
 EC 0.1631744 0.0259555 6.29 0.000
 _cons 18.4673 1.787607 10.23 0.000
BG <-
 NP 0.0616938 0.0960143 0.64 0.521
 IE −0.1469614 0.113345 −1.30 0.195
 IR 0.23630380.1698817 1.39 0.164
 CP 0.1974606 0.1059647 1.86 0.062
 CC 0.4004888 0.1025221 3.91 0.000
 HR 0.1771838 0.1348637 1.31 0.189
 EC 0.152752 0.0379969 4.02 0.000
 _cons −8.566246 6.993496 −1.22 0.221
IE <-
 EC 0.0881643 0.0210406 4.19 0.000
 _cons 15.23351 1.449112 10.51 0.000
IR <-
 EC 0.0457667 0.0148773 3.08 0.002
 _cons 9.622072 1.024629 9.39 0.000
CP <-
 EC 0.0666281 0.0230391 2.89 0.004
 _cons 21.05011 1.586752 13.27 0.000
CC <-
 EC 0.0578465 0.0243323 2.38 0.017
 _cons 21.45372 1.676504 12.80 0.000
HR <-
 EC 0.0570986 0.0176802 3.23 0.001
 _cons 52.90475 1.217672 43.45 0.000
 var (e. NP) 10.00133 0.8822791
 var (e. BG)18.076291.594622
 var (e. IE)6.5722970.5797832
 var (e. IR)3.286840.2898644
 var (e. CP)7.8800980.6951525
 var (e. CC)8.7967550.7760165
 var (e. HR)4.6406010.4093763
Fit StatisticValueDescription
Likelihood ratio
Chi2 ms(15)222.760 model vs. saturated
p > chi20.000
Chi2 ms(28) 382.580 baseline vs. saturated
p > chi20.000
Population error
RMSEA0.232Root mean squared error of approximation
90% CI, lower bound,0.206
Upper bound0.260
pclose0.000Probability RMSEA ≤ 0.05
Information criteria
AIC10,540.313 Akaike’s information criterion
BIC10,636.138 Bayesian information criterion
Baseline comparison
CFI0.414 Comparative fit index
TLI−0.094Tucker–Lewis index
Size of residuals
SRMR0.166 Standardised root mean squared residual.
CD0.399Coefficient of determination
LR test of model vs. saturated: chi2(15) = 222.76, Prob > chi2 = 0.00. Source: Author’s own findings.
Table 5. Structural Equation Model: Revised Conceptual Model.
Table 5. Structural Equation Model: Revised Conceptual Model.
Coef. OIM Std. Err. Z p > |z|
Structural BG <-
 CC 5,371,8860.0916038 5.86 0.000
 EC 0.1760290.0361391 4.87 0.000
 _cons 3.2056233.150162 1.02 0.309
NP <-
 EC 0.16317440.0258429 6.31 0.000
 _cons 18.464731.77985 1037 0.000
IE <-
 EC0.08816430.0210406 4.19 0.000
 _cons 15.233611.449112 10.51 0.000
IR <-
 EC 0.04576670.0144365 3.17 0.002
 _cons 9.6220720.9942686 9.68 0.000
CP <-
 EC 0.06662810.0227244 2.90.003
 _cons 21.050111.565073 13.45 0.000
CC <-
 EC 0.0579465 0.0243423 2.380.017
 _cons 21.45372 1.676504 12.80 0.000
HR <-
 EC 0.0570986 0.0176802 3.23 0.001
 _cons 52.90475 1.217672 43.45 0.000
 var (e. BG) 18.970671.673521
 var (e. NP)9.914710.8659867
 var (e. IE)6.5722970.5797832
 var (e. IR)3.0940040.260279
 var (e. CP)7.662450.6619389
 var (e. CC)8.7967550.7760165
 var (e. HR)4.6406010.4093763
cov (e. NP, e. IE)2.6135280.5238064.990.000
cov (e. NP, e. IR)1.4626280.36297484.030.000
cov (e. NP, e. CP)1.5085620.52759032.860.004
cov (e. NP, e. IR)1.0488530.2791053.760.000
cov (e. NP, e. CP)1.6773050.30758915.450.000
cov (e. NP, e. CC)1.1048520.33753183.270.001
cov (e. NP, e.HR)0.49832150.23549412.120.034
cov (e. NP, e. CC)1.9410880.53730093.610.000
cov (e. NP, e. HR)1.2155290.38008823.200.001
cov (e. NP, e. HR)2.3153770.42391185.460.000
Fit StatisticValueDescription
Likelihood ration
Chi2_ms (3)3.347model vs. saturated
p > chi20.341baseline vs. saturated
Chi2_bs (28)382.589
p > chi20.000
Population error
RMSEA0.021Root mean squared error of approximation
90& CI, lower bound0.000
upper bound0.109
pclose0.589Probability RMSEA ≤ 0.05
Information on the criteria
AIC10,344.899Akaike’s information criterion
BIC10,483.313Bayesian information criterion
Baseline comparison
CFI0.999Comparative fit index
TLI0.991Tucker–Lewis index
Size of residuals
SRMR0.012Standardised root mean squared residual.
CD0.208Coefficient of determination
LR test of model vs. saturated: chi2(10) = 55.82 Prob > chi2 = 0.000. Source: Author’s output.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Molema, M.L.; Ebewo, P.E.; Ndlovu, E.N. Entrepreneurial Coaching and Self-Efficacy as Catalysts for Business Growth Among Women Entrepreneurs in Gauteng, South Africa. Adm. Sci. 2026, 16, 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16020060

AMA Style

Molema ML, Ebewo PE, Ndlovu EN. Entrepreneurial Coaching and Self-Efficacy as Catalysts for Business Growth Among Women Entrepreneurs in Gauteng, South Africa. Administrative Sciences. 2026; 16(2):60. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16020060

Chicago/Turabian Style

Molema, Mahalia Lerato, Patrick Ebong Ebewo, and Elona Nobukhosi Ndlovu. 2026. "Entrepreneurial Coaching and Self-Efficacy as Catalysts for Business Growth Among Women Entrepreneurs in Gauteng, South Africa" Administrative Sciences 16, no. 2: 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16020060

APA Style

Molema, M. L., Ebewo, P. E., & Ndlovu, E. N. (2026). Entrepreneurial Coaching and Self-Efficacy as Catalysts for Business Growth Among Women Entrepreneurs in Gauteng, South Africa. Administrative Sciences, 16(2), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16020060

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop