1 we do what we are: entrepreneurship as the
TRANSCRIPT
1
WE DO WHAT WE ARE: ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS THE EXPRESSION OF VALUES AND IDENTITY
MICHAEL CONGER University of Colorado, Boulder
Leeds School of Business 995 Regent Drive, 419 UCB
Boulder, CO, 80309 Tel: (303) 476-3657
e-mail: [email protected]
JEFFREY G. YORK University of Colorado, Boulder
Leeds School of Business 995 Regent Drive, 419 UCB
Boulder, CO, 80309 Tel: (303) 492-3783
e-mail: [email protected]
TYLER WRY University of Pennsylvania
Wharton School of Business 2031 SHDH
3620 Locust Walk Philadelphia, PA, 19104
Tel: (215) 573-3399 Fax: (215) 898-0410
Working Paper: Please do not cite or share without permission
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Robert H. and Beverly A. Deming Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado, Boulder for this research and the assistance of
the Deming Center staff: Patty Graff, Paul Jerde, and Jody Reale.
2
WE DO WHAT WE ARE: ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS THE EXPRESSION OF VALUES AND IDENTITY
ABSTRACT
The creation of social and/or environmental benefits by entrepreneurs has emerged as an area of
scholarly interest, yet we have little understanding of why some entrepreneurs pursue these
goals. Building on a growing literature that uses theories of identity to study entrepreneurial
intention and action, we build and test a model of value-expressive person identities and social
and economic role identities. Our results suggest that value-expressive person identities affect
the kinds of goals entrepreneurs set for their ventures, both directly and indirectly, through the
alignment of important, complementary role identities in the entrepreneur’s self-concept. These
findings extend current understanding of the role of identity in entrepreneurship and provide a
more fine-grained explanation of why entrepreneurs pursue non-economic goals.
3
WE DO WHAT WE ARE: ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS THE EXPRESSION OF VALUES AND IDENTITY
To know who you are is to be oriented in moral space, a space in which questions arise about what is good and bad, what is worth doing and what is not, what has meaning and importance for you and what is trivial and secondary.
- Taylor (1989: 27)
Entrepreneurship scholars have long focused on why some individuals become
entrepreneurs and others do not (Amit, Muller, & Cockburn, 1995; Baker & Nelson, 2005;
Baron, 2004; Busenitz, 1999; Cooper, Woo, & Dunkelberg, 1988; Evans & Leighton, 1989;
Herron & Sapienza, 1992; Kolvereid, 1996; Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas, Hunkin, & Spector,
2008; Shane, 2000; Stewart & Roth, 2001). Only recently have scholars begun to focus on the
type of entrepreneurs individuals chose to become (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011) and to examine
social entrepreneurs who seek to utilize market mechanisms to address social problems (M. T.
Dacin, P. A. Dacin, & Tracey, 2011; Miller, Grimes, McMullen, & Vogus, 2012). However, we
have little theory, and even less empirical evidence, of why some entrepreneurs are content to
pursue economic profitability while others incorporate broader social or environmental concerns
into the fabric of their ventures (Miller et al., 2012; York & Venkataraman, 2010). In this study
we build on a growing literature that uses theories of identity to study entrepreneurial intention
and action. This literature examines the venturing process as a means through which
entrepreneurs seeks expression and confirmation of their self-concept (Cardon, Wincent, Singh,
& Drnovsek, 2009; Farmer, Yao, & Kung-Mcintyre, 2011; Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Hoang &
Gimeno, 2010; Murnieks & Mosakowski, 2007; Murnieks, Mosakowski, & Cardon, 2012; Navis
& Glynn, 2011; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009). These formative works suggest that the
entrepreneur’s concept of who she is, as both an individual and a social actor, may have a
4
profound effect on the entrepreneurial process.
However, entrepreneurship scholars have only scratched the surface of what identity theory
has to offer. Prior studies have focused almost exclusively on role identity, limiting their
examination to the founder role (But see Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). However, identity theorists
commonly recognize another important source of identity that has been ignored in prior studies.
Person identities are based on culturally recognized characteristics, internalized by the
individual, that make him or her a unique individual (Burke, 2004; Burke & Stets, 2009).
Examples include characteristics such as how sociable/likeable (Stets & Cast, 2007), moral
(Stets, Carter, Harrod, Cerven, & Abrutyn, 2008), or environmentally conscious (Stets & Biga,
2003) a person is, or the person’s personal values (Gecas, 2000; Hitlin, 2003, 2011). Also absent
in prior studies is a consideration of the multiple identities in the entrepreneur’s self-concept and
how the relationships among them affect emotions, behavior, and social interactions; prior work
has focused almost exclusively on the entrepreneur role however, identity theorists have long
recognized that the self is comprised of a myriad of identities (Burke, 2003, 2006; James, 1890).
These overlooked aspects of identity are critical because entrepreneurship makes significant
demands on the time, resources, attention, and emotions of the entrepreneur (J. W. Carland, Hoy,
Boulton, & J. A. C. Carland, 1984) both as a firm founder and across other aspects of their life.
In addition, key characteristics of entrepreneurs, including their values and beliefs about who
they are as an individual and as a social actor, are imprinted on the ventures they create (Bettis &
Prahalad, 1995; Boeker, 1989). In sum, who the entrepreneur is likely shapes what the venture
becomes; prior work that considers only the founder role identity is unlikely to capture important
personal and holistic aspects of the self that impact the entrepreneurial process.
In the present study, we suggest that the intersection of identity theory (Burke, 1980;
5
Stryker, 1968, 1968) and values theory (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992, 1994) enhances our
understanding of how entrepreneurs views of themselves as unique individuals, comprised of a
distinctive set of values-based person identities, shapes the goals they pursue through their
ventures. Person identities are particularly well suited for this purpose since they are thought to
form the essential core of the self (Burke, 2004) and are directly related to values (Gecas, 2000;
Hitlin, 2003). Person identities also serve as a guiding standard for other identity commitments
(Burke, 2004; Deaux, 1992; Reid & Deaux, 1996). Their verification, both through direct action
and through other identities, provides feelings of authenticity (Burke & Stets, 2009; Gecas,
2000). For this reason, person identities may help us to better understand how entrepreneurs
organize the multiple role identities they hold to reinforce their commitment to value-expressive
venture goals.
By examining the role of person identity in entrepreneurship, we contribute to the literature
on social entrepreneurship, as well as identity and entrepreneurship in several ways. First, we
seek to introduce the concept of person identity into the entrepreneurship context using an
established theoretical model of values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Second, we expand this model to
show the complimentary relationships between person identities and the role-based identities in
the entrepreneur’s self-concept. Third, our empirical results demonstrate: a) how entrepreneurs’
value-expressive person identities affect the balance of social and economic goals they set for
their ventures, and b) the mediating function of role identities in the relationship between person
identity and goals.
6
THEORY & HYPOTHESES
Human beings are driven to find meaning in their actions and in their very existence. This
drive is fueled by the self-concept, which facilitates self-reflection, meaningful interaction with
one’s environment, and ultimately, survival (McCall & Simmons, 1978; Mead, 1934). The self is
comprised of multiple identities that represent the meanings of different aspects of the individual
(Burke, 1991; Burke & Stets, 2009; Thoits, 1983). Identity theorists commonly recognize three
important bases of identities: individualized characteristics, roles within society, and alignment
with social groups. Person identities are based on characteristics that individuals internalize and
use to define themselves as unique individuals (Burke, 2004; Stets, 1995; Stets & Burke, 1994).
For example, individual may see him or herself as a moral person, a powerful person, a creative
person, an engaging or pleasant person, a devout person, a socially conscious person, and an
independent person. Role identities are based on the various social positions that individuals hold
within the social structure (Burke, 1980; McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1980; Thoits &
Virshup, 1997). For example, an individual may hold the identities of entrepreneur,
environmentalist, sister, mother, social activist, guitarist, and baseball fan, all based on roles she
occupies in the various social structures in which she interacts. Social identities are based on
individuals’ identification with various social groups (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Abrams,
1988). For example, individuals might form their social identities based on being members of
their genders, races or ethnicities, religions, nationalities, their families, the schools they
attended, the companies they work for, and civic organizations to which they belong.
Although they have different bases person, role, and social identities operate in a very
similar manner. Each of these identity types exist within a structure of symbolic interactionism
(Cooley, 1902; James, 1890; Mead, 1934; Stryker, 1968, 1980) and are subject to a system of
7
perceptual control (Burke, 1980, 1991; Powers, 1973). The symbolic interactionist perspective
views the self and society as reflectively linked (James, 1890; Mead, 1934). Individuals hold
multiple identities with societally determined meanings and, in turn, contribute to those
meanings as they enact the identities (Stryker, 1980). As a result of this recursive process,
identities have meanings that are commonly understood by both the individual and by others
with whom she interacts and that can be used as identity standards within various social
interactions (Stryker, 1980).
Identity standards are central to the perceptual control system described by Burke’s Identity
Control Theory (Burke, 1991, 1996; Cast & Burke, 2002). In this system, identity standards are
used as a benchmark against which individuals compare their perceptions of the social
interactions in which they engage. Like a thermostat, constantly comparing a set temperature
standard to a temperature measurement, the individual takes action to reduce differences between
their identity standards and their perceptions. This often means adjusting their own behavior but
can also mean acting to alter their environment or the behavior of others (Burke, 1991). When
individuals successfully remove the discrepancies between standards and perceptions, their
identities are verified.
Confirmation or disconfirmation of the self-concept through identity management and
identity verifying behavior has a powerful effect on self-esteem and well-being (Cast & Burke,
2002; Cast, Stets, & Burke, 1999). Successful verification of one’s identities leads to increased
feelings of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and authenticity (Gecas, 2000). Conversely, failure to
verify leads to anxiety and even depression (Burke, 1991, 1996; Gecas, 2000; Kiecolt, 2000).
For these reasons, identities are believed to significantly affect the goals individuals set and
pursue.
8
In this study, we examine the identity structures of entrepreneurs to explain the
heterogeneity in emphasis on economic and social goals they pursue through their ventures. We
offer and test a theoretical model in which we argue that entrepreneurs’ person identities affect
venture goals both directly and through the alignment of complimentary role identities. We
illustrate this model in Figure 1. We begin with a discussion of person identities.
--------------------------------------------------- Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------------------------- Person Identities
Person identities are based on culturally recognized characteristics, that are internalized by
an individual, and make him/her unique (Burke & Stets, 2009). The simplest example of a person
identity is an individual’s name. This characteristic is uniquely held by the individual and is also
recognized and understood by others with whom the individual interacts. Despite their basis in
the characteristics of the individual, person identities differ from personality traits. Person
identities are not habitual predispositions to act in a particular way but are meaning standards by
which perceptions of self-confirmation are regulated and maintained (Burke, 2004; Hitlin, 2003).
For example, a person may have the trait of conscientiousness and the person identity of self-
disciplined person. Both the trait and identity may be complimentary and together contribute to
the person keeping a tidy desk or being punctual. However, the trait is a predisposition toward
paying attention to detail or acting dutifully (“I like order”) whereas the identity is a standard by
which the individual evaluates him or herself in a social interaction (“What does it mean to be a
self-disciplined person in this situation, and am I being one?”). The identity involves a meaning
standard relevant to a social situation and self-reflective comparison to that standard where the
trait does not.
Person identities share the essential structural and perceptual control functions of role and
9
social identities. Person identities have meanings that are derived from symbolic interaction;
their verification relies on these meanings being recognized and understood by both the
individual and others with whom the individual interacts (Burke, 2004; Burke & Stets, 2009). In
this way, person identities provide structure for self-verification and social relationships. Person
identities are also subject to the perceptual control process; they comprise the individual’s
concept of him or herself as a unique and distinctive person and will be used as the standard to
which his or her perceptions of relevant events are compared (Burke, 1991).
Because of their basis in qualities or characteristics of the unique individual person
identities differ from role and social identities in several important ways. First, person identities
serve as standards of meaning that persist across varied situations and that the individual and
others can rely upon to understand who the individual is and who others are in relationship to
him or her (Burke, 2004; Burke & Stets, 2009). Since person identities are trans-situational, they
are always active and are constantly subject to verification.1 Verification is achieved through
identity-consistent action across situations and causes feelings of authenticity - that one is being
one’s true self. Second, person identities are presented more often, more consistently, and to
more people than role or social identities; consequently, they tend to be of high importance and
salience in the individual’s self-concept and will likely be favored over other identity types
(Burke, 2004).2 Finally, person identities may serve as master identities, setting a standard for
regulation of multiple identities through the alignment of role commitments and group
affiliations (Burke & Stets, 2009; Reid & Deaux, 1996; Stets, 1995).
Values As Person Identities
1 This view differs from that of Social Identity Theory in the psychology literature which suggests that, as group-based identities are activated, individuating personal identities are suppressed (Hogg, 2006; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). 2 The reverse may be true in more closed societies where individuals are less able to choose or change their roles and group memberships (Burke, 2004).
10
Identity scholars have examined many individual characteristics that form the bases for
various person identities (Burke, 2004; Stets, 1995; Stets & Biga, 2003; Stets & Burke, 1994;
Stets & Carter, 2006; Stets et al., 2008; Stets & Cast, 2007) including the individual’s personal
values (Gecas, 2000; Hitlin, 2003, 2011). Prince-Gibson & Schwartz define values as “…trans
situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or
group” (1998: 49). Values, like identities, are active across situations, organized hierarchically
relative to one another and provide overarching standards for behavior (Rokeach, 1973). Similar
to identities, values are individually held and prioritized but their meanings are collectively
understood (Prince-Gibson & Schwartz, 1998; Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 1996). In other words,
individuals are heterogeneous in their prioritization of values, but homogeneous in their
understanding of what values mean and how values relate to one another.
Values are particularly promising as a means of studying identities and their effect on
entrepreneurial goals (Hemingway, 2005). Values can be identified and measured using
established scales (Hitlin, 2003; Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Although values are not strictly
identities, the way they are expressed in the self-concept, as guiding principles of the person’s
life, allows them to effectively function as person identities (Burke, 2004; Burke & Stets, 2009;
Gecas, 2000; Hitlin, 2003). For example, individuals who hold the value of forgiveness as a
fundamental guiding principle in their lives will also think of themselves as “a forgiving person”
and use this identity as a standard for self-evaluation in various social interactions.
Building on early scale development work by Rokeach (1973), Schwartz has developed a
widely accepted model for classifying and measuring values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Schwartz’s
model has been extensively tested and found to be valid across cultures and countries (Prince-
Gibson & Schwartz, 1998). In Schwart’s model, values with similar motivational goals are
11
grouped together in compatible type groupings while those with dissimilar goals are grouped as
conflicting value types. For example, values with the goal of stimulation or excitement will be
relatively more compatible with values expressing self-direction and relatively less compatible
with values expressing security or tradition (Schwartz, 1992). The ten types Schwartz identifies
and their relationships are illustrated in Figure 2. In this format, the two higher-order dimensions
of value structure, conservation vs. openness to change and self-enhancement vs. self-
transcendence, can be easily seen. The self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence dimension is
defined as “…the extent to which [the values] motivate people to enhance their own personal
interests (even at the expense of others) versus the extent to which they motivate people to
transcend selfish concerns and promote the welfare of others, close and distant, and of nature”
(Schwartz, 1992: 43). Because we seek to examine entrepreneurs’ values as a type of person
identity that will affect the economic and social goals they set for their ventures, we focus on the
prioritization of value identities along this dimension of Schwartz’s model.
--------------------------------------------------- Insert Figure 2 about here
--------------------------------------------------- Self-enhancing values such as social power, pleasure, ambition, and wealth are
complementary and represent motivational goals to benefit only the entrepreneur. We theorize
that person identities expressing self-enhancing values will positively affect entrepreneurs’ focus
on economic and professional success, and that this focus will be reflected in a greater emphasis
on pursuing economic goals through their ventures. We view individuals for whom self-
enhancing identities are dominant as economically-oriented entrepreneurs, defined as
commercial entrepreneurs focused primarily on creating economic profit for themselves and their
investors.
12
Hypothesis 1: The greater the importance of person identities in the entrepreneur’s self-concept that are based on self-enhancing values the greater the prominence of economic goals in the venture.
Self-transcending values such as social justice, equality, helpfulness, forgiveness, and
protecting the environment represent motivational goals to benefit entities beyond the
entrepreneur such as vulnerable or marginalized people, natural ecosystems, and society at large
(Miller et al., 2012). Because strong person identities expressing self-transcending values
increase the entrepreneur’s focus on the welfare of others and on the creation of societal and/or
environmental value, this focus should be reflected in a greater emphasis on pursuing social
goals through entrepreneurial action.
The growing literature on social and environmental entrepreneurship focuses on this
process, by examining entrepreneurs with a sustained commitment to addressing social and
environmental problems through the venturing process (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004; Austin,
Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006; M. T. Dacin et al., 2011; P. A. Dacin, M. T. Dacin, & Matear,
2010; Hall, Daneke, & Lenox, 2010; Mair & Marti, 2009; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Short,
Ketchen, Shook, & Ireland, 2010; Zahra, Rawhouser, Bhawe, Neubaum, & Hayton, 2008).
According to prior studies, social and environmental entrepreneurs are not be content to start a
“traditional” business, opting instead to create a venture with an explicit mission to serve the
public good such as renewable energy (Meek, Pacheco, & York, 2010; Sine & B. H. Lee, 2009)
or microfinance (Battilana & Dorado, 2010). For such entrepreneurs, the goal of the business is
directly linked to social or environmental benefits. We view individuals for whom self-
transcending identities are dominant as socially-oriented entrepreneurs, defined as social
entrepreneurs with an emphasis on creating social value for a broad set of stakeholders beyond
investors and employees.
13
Hypothesis 2: The greater the importance of person identities in the entrepreneur’s self-concept that are based on self-transcending values the greater the prominence of social goals in the venture.
While we expect that entrepreneurs’ consideration of economic and social goals will be
dependent upon values-indicative person identities, we also recognize that entrepreneurs can and
do pursue multiple goals simultaneously (Cyert & March, 1963). As scholarship in the area of
social entrepreneurship has grown, so has the concept of the hybrid or double/triple bottom line
venture wherein the focus of value creation is on generating “total wealth” (Zahra et al., 2008:
519) defined as the simultaneous pursuit of both economic and social/environmental goals.
According this perspective, it is not only the trade-off between social or economic goals that an
entrepreneur must consider but also the appropriate balance of the two that will allow the venture
to pursue both sustainably (M. T. Dacin et al., 2011). Because social entrepreneurs hope to make
a lasting impact and continue to address social and environmental problems over the long run,
they should be more likely to pursue balanced goals than the typical commercial entrepreneur.
This is because while a commercial enterprise can (arguably) persist over time without
incorporating explicitly social or environmental goals, entrepreneurs seeking to address social or
environmental issues through a new venture cannot survive without also pursuing economic
sustainability. Thus, entrepreneurs’ person identities expressing self-transcending values should
positively affect the balance between economic and social goals while those expressing self-
enhancing values should not.
Hypothesis 3: The greater the importance of person identities in the entrepreneur’s self-concept that are based on self-enhancing values the greater the balance of social and economic goals in the venture.
14
The Mediating Function of Role Identities
Thus far we have argued that person identities have a direct effect on entrepreneurial goals.
Identity scholars have also shown a similar relationship between person identities and role
identities (Hitlin, 2003; Reid & Deaux, 1996; Stets, 1995). Drawing on this work, we now
examine the function of complimentary role identities in the entrepreneurial process.
Recall that both person and role identities operate within a system of perceptual control;
each identity type allows individuals to analyze how social interactions either confirm, or
disconfirm, to their unique being (person identity) or their social position (role identity). Within
this system, multiple identities may be activated and regulated simultaneously, organized around
common meaning structures (Burke & Stets, 2009; Stets, 1995). Individuals manage their
identities, and the social interactions in which identities are enacted, to minimize conflicts
between identity perceptions and meanings and to facilitate identity verification; this is true
across identity types (Hitlin, 2003; Reid & Deaux, 1996; Stets, 1995). When multiple person and
role identities an individual holds can be verified simultaneously, they reinforce each other and
strengthen the self-concept (Burke, 2004; Burke & Stets, 2009; Stets, 1995). The individual,
therefore, seeks to hold person and role identities that can be verified together and engages in
interactions and activities that will allow for optimal verification of them (Cast & Burke, 2002;
James, 1890).
As discussed above, person identities are more likely to achieve master status because they
are trans-situational and more frequently enacted, whereas role identities are generally aligned to
a specific social context. Therefore, individuals may enact important personal identities through
complementary role identities. For example, in a study of students’ role and person identities,
Hitlin (2003) found a significant relationship between students’ value-based person identities and
15
their commitment to a “volunteer” role identity. These findings suggest that person identities
form a “core of the self” around which various roles are organized (Hitlin, 2003: 124). Person
identities, are stable and always present; their consistent influence is expressed through roles the
individual enacts in various social interactions.
Entrepreneurs are likely subject to these same processes. Specifically, entrepreneurs’ person
identities will serve as master identities that shape the goals of their ventures (H1-H3) but these
master identities will also form the basis for common identity meaning standards that may be
expressed through role identities.
Entrepreneurs, like all individuals, engage in role-appropriate behaviors in order to verify
their role identities and produce feelings of self-efficacy (Cardon et al., 2009). Person identities
are simultaneously active in role relationships, and the individual will regulate both person and
role identities simultaneously, bringing them into alignment based on common meanings. Thus,
entrepreneurs’ self-enhancing and self-transcending person identities will be related to socially-
oriented and economically-oriented role identities, just as they are to social and economic goals.
Furthermore, the effect of these person identities on goals will take place through entrepreneurs
enacting roles that confirm their person identity. For example, the entrepreneur with dominant
person identities based on self-enhancing values should place greater importance on role
identities such as “business person” or “professional person” which have meaning standards
linked to the pursuit of economic goals, while entrepreneurs with dominant self-transcending
values may place importance on roles such as “activist” or “citizen”. Therefore, role identities
will, at least partially, mediate the relationship between role identities and venture goals.
Hypothesis 4: Person identities in the entrepreneur’s self-concept will affect venture goals indirectly through the presence of complementary role identities in the entrepreneur’s self-concept.
16
DATA AND METHODS
Sample and Data Collection
To test our hypotheses administered an online survey to 312 entrepreneurs associated with
an entrepreneurship center at a large, state-funded university. A personalized email invitation
was sent to 2,133 recipients of the center’s opt-in mailing list. This group includes entrepreneurs
nearby areas as well as well as other people formally or informally connected to the center.
Email tracking software showed that 420 recipients did not receive the email due to
unknown/undeliverable addresses, server-level blocking, or other errors. We estimate that as
many as 1,713 received at least one invitation to participate in the survey. In total, 440 fully or
partially completed surveys were received. Since our study is focused on the motivations and
perceptions of entrepreneurs, we removed all cases where the respondent indicated they had no
entrepreneurial experience, nor any intention to start a firm in the foreseeable future. This
resulted in a total usable sample size of 312 individual entrepreneurs and a response rate of just
over 21.5%. The entrepreneurship center staff estimates there are approximately 400 known
entrepreneurs connected to the center; therefore, we feel confident that our response adequately
represents the intended potential sampling frame.
Our respondents were nascent, active, or recently active entrepreneurs. Of these, 8% were
in the process of starting a venture, 41% had started one venture sometime in the last 10 years,
and 43% had started two or more ventures in that time. In terms of gender, 75% of respondents
were male. The majority, 82%, identified their race as white. Respondents self-identified as
African-American, Asian, and Hispanic at 3%, 6%, and 6%, respectively. The age range of
respondents varied; 19% were under the age of 35, 35% between 35 and 50, 33% between 51
and 65, and 9% over 65. Approximately 16% lived in a major city, 14% in a large suburban area,
17
39% in a medium-sized city or adjoining suburbs, 20% in a small city, and 9% in a small town or
rural area.
The ventures the respondents founded were typically small in size. Of the ventures
reported, 36% had less than 10 employees, 34% between 10 and 49, 6% between 50 and 99.
Only 5% employed 100 or more people. In terms of firm scope, 42% of the firms operated
locally, 29% at the state level, 40% nationally, and 43% internationally. Several firms reported
operating across more than one of these geographic designations.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all multi-point, scales were presented to respondents using a
continuous drag-and-drop style slider control within the web-based survey. To help reduce the
possibility of common method variance due to item framing effects, display order of all items in
the survey was automatically randomized in real time as the survey was loaded for each
respondent.
Dependent Variables: Goals. These variables appear in this text and in tables as
SocialGoals and EconomicGoals. Respondents were given brief, precise definitions of “social
value” and “economic value”. They were then asked to independently rate the importance of
each to the central mission of the venture they founded on a five-point response scale with
responses ranging from 0 (not at all important) to 4 (extremely important). These values were
recoded to a 1-5 scale for analysis. We also constructed a variable representing the relative
balance of emphasis on social vs. economic goals. An absolute value of the difference between
SocialGoals and EconomicGoals was calculated and reversed so higher coefficients represent
more balance (i.e. more similar scores between social and economic goals.) This variable appears
in this text and in tables as GoalBalance.
18
Independent Variables: Person Identities. Following Hitlin (2003), we determined the
prioritization of value-expressive person identities drawing from Schwartz’s (1992, 1994, 1996)
values scale. We included 17 items from Schwartz’s scale related to the self-enhancement vs.
self-transcendence dimension. Following Schwartz, we asked respondents to rate each value on
an eight point scale from -1, representing a value that is “against my principles,” to 7,
representing a value that is “a guiding principle in my life.” Each item was presented with an
accompanying descriptive statement to make clear the exact meaning of the value statement. The
individual items were a) broadmindedness, b) equality, c) forgiveness, d) helpfulness, e)
protecting the environment, f) social justice, g) world of beauty, h) world at peace, i) honesty, j)
wisdom, k) authority, l) social power, m) pleasure, n) enjoying life, o) ambition, p) success, and
q) wealth.
Again, following Hitlin (2003) we conducted a factor analysis with varimax rotation to
discover the loading of these items and inform the construction of latent values variables. We
also computed the interterm correlations for each of these factor groupings. The results of our
factor analysis and corresponding Cronbach alpha coefficients are reported in Table 1. We
observed four potential factors emerging from this analysis that conceptually support our
theorized values groupings. Although eigenvalues for factors 3 and 4 did not exceed unity and
alpha coefficients for factors 2 and 4 did not meet the 0.7 threshold, the pattern of item loadings
in all four factors did correspond with the category groupings in Schwartz’s schema (see Figure
2).
Because our goal was to analyze value-expressive person identities categorized according
to Schwartz’s model along the self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence dimension, we chose to
use our theorized groupings to construct our latent measures. We constructed two variables using
19
averages of related values variables, based on our theorized groupings of self-transcending
values (items a-g above, loading on factor 1) and self-enhancing values (items k-p above,
combing factors 2-4). These variables appear in this text and in tables as Self-Transcending
(alpha=0.71) and Self-Enhancing (alpha=0.87). A few items (honesty, wisdom, and wealth) did
not load on any particular factor and were examined more closely as potentially important
measures in their own right. Honesty and wisdom, did not change the results in any of our models
and were excluded from our analysis. Wealth, on the other hand, was significant and
significantly affected the effects of both self-enhancing and self-transcending composite
measures in all of our models. While Wealth is theoretically related to self-enhancement it was
clear that, for our sample, it is a distinct dimension of value-expressive person identity. Given the
fact that all respondents in our sample were entrepreneurs, it is reasonable to assume that some
non-trivial portion of their livelihoods was tied to their ventures. It is therefore unsurprising that
the relative importance of wealth as a guiding principle for their lives (be it high or low) would
have a significant impact on the way they view themselves as individuals. Therefore, we
included Wealth in all of our models and conceptually treat the Self-Enhancing variable as a
measure of the importance of person identities expressing self-enhancing values above and
beyond these Wealth.
-------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 1 about here
--------------------------------------------------------
Independent Variables: Role Identities. To our knowledge, no scales to measure multiple
economically or socially relevant role identities currently exist. Studies measuring role identities
tend to measure a particular identity in isolation, and the roles underlying these identities tend to
20
be study specific.3 However, at least two studies in the identity literature do simultaneously
measure the relative importance or prominence of multiple role identities (Stets & Biga, 2003;
Stryker & Serpe, 1994). We follow these studies, presenting respondents with a list of role
identities and asking them to rate their relative importance. Since our aim was to measure the
relative importance of economically-oriented and socially-oriented role identities in order to
assess their relationships with person identities and entrepreneurial goals, we sought to identify
role definitions that broadly capture economic and social meanings. To accomplish this, we
drew from Thornton’s (2004) typology of society-level institutional logics and created survey
items that were related to economic or social logic and represented widely understood role
identity types to which many people might have commitments. The five role identity items
included in the instrument were: a) political activist/participant role, b) environmentalist role, c)
community member/citizen role, d) professional role, and e) business role.
These items were presented with an accompanying descriptive statement making clear their
meaning specifically as roles. We asked respondents to rate each role in terms of importance “to
the way I think about myself” using a 5 point scale from 0 (“not at all important”) to 4
(“extremely important”). The result is a profile of multiple role identity ratings measuring both
the importance of each identity, and a hierarchical relationship between identities. Our
measurement method complies with three key aspects of Burke’s widely cited standard for
assessing measures of role identities (Burke, 1980): 4 1) we recognize the relationships and
distances between identities by capturing their hierarchical arrangement and relative salience, 2)
we locate identities in semantic space defined by common meaning by grouping and positioning
3 Identity research in entrepreneurship is unique in that the entrepreneur or founder role identity has been specifically considered in multiple studies. 4 The other three standards Burke proposes relate to the identity “image” which is the real-time instantiation of identity in a given situation (Burke, 1980). Since our study does not involve direct observations of identity enactments as they happen, meeting these standards was not possible.
21
them as economically-oriented or socially-oriented and, 3) we link internal identities with
external role performance via our hypotheses.
In order to inform the identification of the latent variables related to the items above, we
conducted a factor analysis with varimax rotation. The covariance of the resulting item groupings
was also analyzed and alpha coefficients determined. The results of our factor analysis and
corresponding Cronbach alpha coefficients are reported in Table 2. We observed two potential
factors emerging from this analysis that conceptually support our theorized values groupings.
-------------------------------------------------------- Insert Table 2 about here
-------------------------------------------------------- We expect that items a-c above should represent socially-oriented role identities while
items d and e should represent economically-oriented role identities. Our factor analysis
supported combining items a-c as a latent construct (alpha=0.71) and suggested the expected
relationship between items d and e. Accordingly we constructed a variable using the average of
the socially-oriented role identity items from factor 1 (items a-c). This variable appears in this
text and tables as Socially-Oriented. We also constructed a variable using the average of the
economically-oriented role identity items from factor 2 (items d and e). This variable appears in
this text and tables as Economically-Oriented. Given that only two items were included in this
measure, it is unsurprising that an acceptable alpha was not achieved (alpha=0.55). We tested
each of our models including these two items as separate variables and was no substantive
difference in the results. For the sake of greater clarity and brevity, the models presented below
use the composite variable.
Control variables. Control variables were collected relating to the individual entrepreneur
and the firm that were the focal point of each survey response. Entrepreneur-related variables
included gender and age. In addition we controlled for region (CitySize) and experience
22
(EntrepreneurialExperience) through five binary values measuring whether the entrepreneur has
a particular level of experience. Firm-related control variables included the firm size (FirmSize)
and scope (FirmScope). Firm size was measured by number of employees and the scope of the
firm was measured as five binary values indicating whether the firm operates in a particular level
of market breadth (local, state-wide, national, and international). These items were dummy
coded.
Procedures
Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were tested using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models.
Hypothesis 4 was tested with a series of indirect effects models wherein role identity is an
intervening variable in the relationship between person identity and goals. To avoid recently
identified limitations to indirect effects analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen,
2010), we employed the statistical methods presented in Preacher and Hayes (2004) utilizing
bias-corrected, bootstrapped estimates of confidence intervals for the population values of
unstandardized indirect effects. Bootstrapping corrects for power limitations inherent in product
of coefficient tests recommended in traditional approaches (e.g. Sobel’s mediation test).
RESULTS
The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables in our study can be found
in Table 3. Results from our models testing Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are presented in Table 4. The
results of our three indirect effects models testing Hypothesis 4 are included in Table 5. Overall,
these correlations reflect the expected relationships between the variables and the correlations are
relatively small (typically below 0.3.) Given these results, we expect that multicollinearity was
not an issue in testing our models.
23
-------------------------------------------------------- Insert Tables 3, 4, and 5 about here
--------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis 1 proposed that the importance of person identities in the entrepreneur’s self-
concept that are based on self-enhancing values would be positively related to the prominence of
economic goals in her venture. As shown in Model 1 of Table 4, the relationship between Self-
Enhancing person identities and EconomicGoals was not significant. Hence, Hypothesis 1 is not
supported. The predictor representing Self-Transcending person identities was negative and
significant (p=0.067), and the predictor representing the Wealth person identity was positive and
significant (p<0.001).
Hypothesis 2 proposed that the importance of person identities in the entrepreneur’s self-
concept that are based on self-transcending values would be positively related to the prominence
of social goals in her venture. As shown in Model 2 of Table 4, the relationship between Self-
Transcending person identities and SocialGoals was positive and significant (p<0.001). These
results support Hypothesis 2. The Wealth person identity variable was also positive and
significant in this model (p=0.008).
Hypothesis 3 proposed that the importance of person identities in the entrepreneur’s self-
concept that are based on self-transcending values would be positively related to greater balance
of social and economic goals in her venture. As shown in Model 3 of Table 4, the relationship
between Self-Transcending person identities and GoalBalance was positive and significant
(p>0.001). These results support Hypothesis 3. The Wealth person identity variable was also
positive and significant in this model (p=0.047).
Hypothesis 4 suggested that the entrepreneur’s person identities described above would be
indirectly (positively) related to venture goals through important role identities in the
24
entrepreneur’s self-concept. Table 5 shows the results of three tests of the hypothesized indirect
effects corresponding to the direct effects tested in Hypotheses 1-3. Since these models
simultaneously test direct and indirect effects, the bootstrapped unstandardized effect
coefficients, standard errors, z-scores, p values, and bias-corrected confidence intervals for both
are reported in the table. The first model shown in Table 5 tests the indirect effect of Self-
Enhancing person identities on EconomicGoals through Economically-Oriented role identities.
The indirect effect in this model is positive and significant (p=0.042), with a 95% bias-corrected
confidence interval of 0.009 to 0.091. Consistent with our results from testing Hypothesis 1, the
direct effect in this model was not significant (p=0.877). The second model shown in Table 5
tests the indirect effect of Self-Transcending person identities on SocialGoals through Socially-
Oriented role identities. The indirect effect in this model is positive and significant (p=0.001),
with a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval of 0.079 to 0.280. Consistent with our results from
testing Hypothesis 2, the direct effect in this model was also positive and significant (p=0.036).
The last model shown in Table 5 tests the indirect effect of Self-Transcending person identities
on GoalBalance through Socially-Oriented role identities. The indirect effect in this model is
positive and significant (p=0.009), with a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval of 0.041 to
0.234. Consistent with our results from testing Hypothesis 3, the direct effect in this model was
also positive and significant (p=0.029). Together these results support Hypothesis 4.
Common Method and Source Error
Several management scholars have recently argued that the detrimental effects common
method variance may be of considerably less concern than has been commonly believed
(Conway & Lance, 2010). Nevertheless, we took measures to address the possibility of inflated
25
correlations between measures due to collecting our data from a common source. Following
Podsakoff et al. (2003), we addressed this issue through careful wording of question prompts to
increase clarity and spur cognitive engagement. In addition, we randomized question ordering
and direction, creating proximal and psychological distance between related questions through
spacing and order of question blocks to mitigate framing effects, and ensuring anonymity for
respondents. Also to introduce temporal distance between responses, we administered a follow-
up survey to 72 of our respondents approximately six months after the original survey asking
them the same goal and role identity questions. A comparison of individual responses from each
sample showed that, on average, individual item responses differed by 19% between samples.
We also tested the correlation of original survey goal and role identity items to the corresponding
follow-up items. All item pairs were significantly correlated (p < 0.001). The average the
correlation coefficient as 0.72, with a minimum of 0.61 and a maximum of 0.96. These results
suggest that respondents conception of the incorporation of economic and/or social goals into the
venture was stable across time, and not influenced by our survey questions.
DISCUSSION
Our findings suggest that entrepreneurs’ identities affect the kinds of goals they set for their
ventures. Person identities based on self-transcending values had a positive association with the
entrepreneur’s commitment to social goals. This effect occurred both directly (H2) and
indirectly through socially-oriented role identities (H4). Similarly, self-transcending person
identities were both a directly (H3) and indirectly positively associated (H4) with the
entrepreneur seeking balance between social and economic goals. In addition, person identities
based on self-enhancing values were positively associated with the prominence of economic
26
goals. However, this relationship occurred only indirectly through economically-oriented role
identities. Interestingly, self-transcending person identities had a direct, negative association with
economic goals. Although not hypothesized, this finding supports the theory that economic
goals are generally less important to socially-oriented entrepreneurs than those with a stronger
economic orientation (M. T. Dacin et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2012). Taken together, our findings
support our theory that person identities are enacted through the alignment of complementary
role identities. It appears that, in the case of economic goals, entrepreneurs are able to effectively
use their role commitments to enact the value-expressive aspects of their self-concept. Social
goals, on the other hand, require direct enactment of entrepreneurs’ self-transcending person
identities.
Perhaps the meaning and relevance of economically-oriented roles are less ambiguous in
the context of entrepreneurship while the appropriateness of socially-oriented roles is less clear
and must be augmented by stronger person identities. Our findings also suggest that the relative
importance of person identities based on valuing wealth are quite important to the goal
commitments of entrepreneurs. In all of our models, the importance of wealth person identities
was positively related to the prominence of economic goals and negatively related to the
prominence of social goals. It appears that the wealth value identity tends to influence goals as
predicted for self-enhancing identities in general but it seems that this value may not be easily
combined with other self-enhancing or self-transcending values in the context of
entrepreneurship. Further clarifying the relationship between the wealth identity and the
entrepreneur’s other identities may be important for future studies.
One could argue that, even if value-expressive person identities and complementary role
identities do affect social and economic goals, that other characteristics of the entrepreneur or
27
environment may explain our results. However, we have controlled for these other factors by
including several variables related to characteristics of the individual entrepreneur (e.g.
experience) and the venture (e.g. firm size). On the whole, these controls were not significant.
This simultaneously strengthens the case for our results and underscores the limitations of our
sample, which we discuss in greater detail below. Clearly replication of this study with additional
samples would strengthen our findings. We leave such replication to future studies.
The current study makes several important contributions to entrepreneurship research and
to the study of identity in the context of organizations. First, we broaden the theoretical
perspective on entrepreneurial motivation. The literature on entrepreneurship is largely
dominated by an emphasis on economic motivation (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Shane, Locke, &
Collins, 2003) with the default assumption that entrepreneurs are motivated by personal financial
gain (J. W. Carland et al., 1984). Moreover, psychological theories used to explain the
motivational constructs of entrepreneurs typically center on individual predispositions to action
such as the need for achievement, locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity, and a desire for
independence (Rindova, Barry, & Ketchen, 2009; Shane et al., 2003). This study suggests that
these theoretical perspectives as necessary, but not sufficient; our results suggest that self-
expression and identity verification are important factors in determining the nature of
opportunities that entrepreneurs pursue. This study illustrates the need for a richer
conceptualization of entrepreneurial goals, acknowledging their manifold, blended, and
heterogeneous nature and their underlying basis in the entrepreneur’s self-concept. The simple
view of the entrepreneur as one who pursues only economic goals is, at best, incomplete.
However, our findings suggest that considering social goals alone is equally myopic. Instead,
future research should recognize that entrepreneurs pursue many types of goals simultaneously
28
through the opportunities they pursue and the ventures they create. Entrepreneurs blend and
balance their goals, guided by their personal values and self-concept. For this reason, the goals
that define an entrepreneurial venture are truly heterogeneous, not only in degree, but also in
kind and in terms of their relationship with each other. Future studies could focus on the
relationships between goals (e.g. H3) and on the effects of blended goals on other parts of the
venturing process such as opportunity recognition, stakeholder management, risk propensity,
persistence, choice of organizational form, funding and equity decisions, and exit decisions.
Our study also extends the application of identity as a key theoretical concept in
entrepreneurship research. Recent work in this area has demonstrated the potential of identity to
explain entrepreneurial passion (Cardon et al., 2009; Murnieks et al., 2012), the entrepreneur’s
well-being (Shepherd & Haynie, 2009), the likelihood of engaging in entrepreneurial action
(Farmer et al., 2011; Hoang & Gimeno, 2010), the perceptions investors have about the
entrepreneur (Navis & Glynn, 2011), and the strategic decisions entrepreneurs make regarding
markets, products, and resources (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). Whereas these studies focus on the
entrepreneur role and its effect on the venturing process, our study is the first to introduce
person identities to the entrepreneurial context and the first to empirically test the relationships
between multiple identities in the entrepreneur’s self concept.
Person identities may provide a new theoretical perspective with which to examine the
unique characteristics of the individual entrepreneur. The identity perspective is unique in that it
considers the ways that entrepreneurs may actively manage their individuating attributes using
the perceptual control system and shape their behavior or environment to confirm them. Future
research should consider other characteristics, apart from values, that form the basis of
entrepreneurs’ person identities. For example, the environmental or eco-centric person identity
29
has been empirically shown to affect pro-environmental behavior (Stets & Biga, 2003). The
ecocentric person identity might be particularly useful in explaining why some entrepreneurs
focus their efforts exclusively on environmentally-relevant opportunities while others do not.
Future studies should also consider person identities as dependent variables. A rich literature
exists on the topic of identity work, the ways in which individuals change their self-concept over
time (Creed, Dejordy, & Lok, 2010; Dutton, Roberts, & Bednar, 2010; Ibarra & Barbulescu,
2010; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). It seems likely that the venturing process could
profoundly affect the way entrepreneurs think about themselves leading to significant identity
change.
Our use of value-expressive identities also demonstrates that person identities can be used
to empirically examine the entrepreneur’s beliefs or convictions and their relationship with
entrepreneurial intention and action. Person identities could provide an important bridge between
empirical work on entrepreneurial action and outcomes and more abstract concepts such as
ideologies, theology, and morality. For example, an entrepreneur’s commitment to particular
person identities may influence the way she prioritizes her commitments to various stakeholders.
Future researchers might consider an identity perspective to link theories of entrepreneurship and
social movements (Sine & B. H. Lee, 2009), collective action (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006),
stakeholder theory (Venkataraman, 2002), or other theoretical areas with prominent normative or
ideological emphases.
Empirical study of multiple identities in the entrepreneurial context may also allow identity
relationships to be used in answering a broader variety of research questions. Considering
multiple identities may be particularly profitable in studying situations where entrepreneurs face
complex decisions or conflicting objectives (e.g. Shepherd & Haynie, 2009). Future researchers
30
should consider interactions between multiple complimentary and conflicting identities to see
how they affect entrepreneurial intentions and actions, and how the relationships between
identities may change over the course of the venturing process.
As with all empirical research, our study is not without limitations. First, our study is based
on cross-sectional data from a single, targeted sample of entrepreneurs concentrated in a
particular geographic area. This may limit the generalizability of our findings. Replication of this
study with different sample groups will help address this limitation. Second, our data was
collected exclusively via a survey instrument comprised of items with potentially limited scale
precision and construct validity. Other, parallel measures of our constructs from independent
sources would help address this limitation. Third, our survey was comprised entirely of self-
reported items. For this reason, bias due to common methods variance may affect the validity of
our findings. Non-trivial variance due to collecting multiple measures from a common source or
rater and using a single instrument can significantly inflate correlations between measures (Doty
& Glick, 1998; P. M. Podsakoff et al., 2003). As discussed above, we attempted to address this
potential limitation through instrument design and statistical testing following Podsakoff et al.
(2003).
Recently, some management scholars have argued that concerns about bias due to common
methods may be overestimated in many cases, especially when a strong theoretical argument can
be made that self-report measures are appropriate (Conway & Lance, 2010). Accordingly, we
argue that measures of self-concept, as expressed through identity, and personal goals are
uniquely understood by the individual who holds them and cannot be adequately captured
through third-party reporting or even direct observation. Forming and understanding the self-
concept is, by definition, an act of introspection. Still, it is clear that obtaining independent
31
measures of our constructs, social and economic goals in particular, would help allay concerns
due to self-report biases and survey measurement reliability limitations (P. M. Podsakoff et al.,
2003).
Our findings have important practical implications for entrepreneurs and for those with
prominent non-economic goals in particular. The realization that multiple, blended goals exist in
any entrepreneurial opportunity and that the importance of different goals will vary based on the
individual’s self-concept may be important to the way the entrepreneur forms her venture. This is
especially critical in terms of her interaction with a diverse pool of stakeholders. Recognizing
that individual stakeholders’ goals are driven by their beliefs about themselves can profoundly
influence the entrepreneur’s ability to work effectively with those stakeholders. Likewise, the
entrepreneur may gain a greater appreciation for involving stakeholders with identities that
compliment the venture’s goals. This point is of particular importance for social entrepreneurs as
blended goals are inherent to the social venture (Hervieux, Gedajlovic, & Turcotte, 2010).
CONCLUSION
This study is a first step in understanding the linkages between values, identity and
entrepreneurial goals. Our model and results suggest that a much wider consideration of both the
values, and relevant important identities of entrepreneurs leads to an enhanced comprehension of
how and why entrepreneurs pursue specific types of opportunities. Only by understanding the
multi-faceted aspects of the entrepreneur’s identity can we understand the heterogeneous and
blended goals that emerge in the venturing process.
32
REFERENCES
Abrams, D. E., & Hogg, M. A. 1990. Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. Springer-Verlag Publishing.
Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. 2006. Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. 2004. Social Entrepreneurship and Societal
Transformation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3): 260 –282. , February 23, 2011.
Amit, R., Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. 1995. Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2): 95–106.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. 2006. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): 1–22.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 329–366.
Baron, R. A. 2004. The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s basic “why” questions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2): 221–239.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1419–1440.
Bettis, R. A., & Prahalad, C. K. 1995. The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1): 5–14. , May 10, 2012.
Boeker, W. 1989. Strategic Change: The Effects of Founding and History. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 489–515. , May 10, 2012.
Burke, P. J. 1980. The Self: Measurement Requirements from an Interactionist Perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(1): 18–29.
Burke, P. J. 1991. Identity Processes and Social Stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6): 836–849.
Burke, P. J. 1996. Social identities and psychosocial stress. Psychosocial stress: Perspectives on structure, theory, life course, and methods, 141–74.
Burke, P. J. 2003. Advances in identity theory and research. Springer. Burke, P. J. 2004. Identities and Social Structure: The 2003 Cooley-Mead Award Address.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1): 5–15. , February 25, 2012. Burke, P. J. 2006. Identity Change. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1): 81 –96. , July 2, 2011. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. 2009. Identity theory. Oxford University Press. Busenitz, L. W. 1999. Entrepreneurial Risk and Strategic Decision Making. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3): 325 –340. Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. 2009. The nature and experience of
entrepreneurial passion. The Academy of Management Review (AMR), 34(3): 511–532. Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. 1984. Differentiating Entrepreneurs
from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 354–359.
Cast, A. D., & Burke, P. J. 2002. A Theory of Self-Esteem. Social Forces, 80(3): 1041–1068. , April 3, 2012.
Cast, A. D., Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. 1999. Does the Self Conform to the Views of Others?
33
Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(1): 68–82. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. 2010. What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding
Common Method Bias in Organizational Research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1–10.
Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner. Cooper, A. C., Woo, C. Y., & Dunkelberg, W. C. 1988. Entrepreneurs’ perceived chances for
success. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2): 97–108. Creed, W. E. D., Dejordy, R., & Lok, J. 2010. Being the change: Resolving institutional
contradiction through identity work. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1336–1364.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future
Directions. Organization Science, 22(5): 1203–1213. , April 19, 2012. Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. 2010. Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don’t Need a
New Theory and How We Move Forward From Here. The Academy of Management Perspectives (formerly The Academy of Management Executive)(AMP), 24(3): 37–57.
Deaux, K. 1992. Personalizing identity and socializing self. Social psychology of identity and the self-concept, 9–33.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4): 374.
Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. The Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 265–293.
Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. 1989. Some Empirical Aspects of Entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 79(3): 519–535.
Farmer, S. M., Yao, X., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. 2011. The Behavioral Impact of Entrepreneur Identity Aspiration and Prior Entrepreneurial Experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2): 245–273.
Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. B. 2011. Darwinians, Communitarians and Missionaries: The Role of Founder Identity in Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5).
Gecas, J. 2000. Value identities, self-motives, and social movements. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. White W. (Eds.), Self, Identity, and Social Movements: 93–109. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. 2010. Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5): 439–448. , April 19, 2012.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2006. A COLLECTIVE ACTION MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION. The Academy of Management Review ARCHIVE, 31(4): 864–888. , September 18, 2011.
Hemingway, C. A. 2005. Personal Values as A Catalyst for Corporate Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3): 233–249.
Herron, L., & Sapienza, H. J. 1992. The Entrepreneur and the Initiation of New Venture Launch Activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1): 49.
Hervieux, C., Gedajlovic, E., & Turcotte, M. F. . 2010. The legitimization of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 4(1): 37–67.
34
Hitlin, S. 2003. Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2): 118–137.
Hitlin, S. 2011. Values, Personal Identity, and the Moral Self. Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, 515–529.
Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. 2010. Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1): 41–53.
Hogg, M. A. 2006. Social Identity Theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories: 111–136. Stanford: Stan.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. E. 1988. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. 1995. A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4): 255–269. , October 26, 2010.
Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. 2010. Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. The Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 135–154.
James, W. 1890. The principles of psychology, Vol I. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-16192-000, August 6, 2011, New York, NY, US: Henry Holt and Co, Inc.
Kiecolt, K. J. 2000. Self-change in social movements. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. White W. (Eds.), Self, Identity, and Social Movements: 110–131. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Kolvereid, L. 1996. Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(3): 23.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. Where is the“ me” among the“ we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5): 1031–1057.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 419–435.
McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. 1978. Identities and interactions: an examination of human associations in everyday life. Free Press.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (1st ed.). University Of Chicago Press.
Meek, W. R., Pacheco, D. F., & York, J. G. 2010. The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5): 493–509.
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. 2012. Venturing for Others With Heart and Head: How Compassion Encourages Social Entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Review, 37(4).
Murnieks, C. Y., & Mosakowski, E. F. 2007. WHO AM I? LOOKING INSIDE THE “ENTREPRENEURIAL IDENTITY.” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 27(5): 5.
Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E. F., & Cardon, M. S. 2012. Pathways of Passion: Identity Centrality, Passion, and Behavior Among Entrepreneurs. Journal of Management. http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0149206311433855, March 9, 2012.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. 2011. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity:
35
Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. The Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 479–499.
Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. 2008. Is the Tendency to Engage in Entrepreneurship Genetic? Management Science, 54(1): 167–179.
Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. 2006. TOWARD A THEORY OF COMMUNITY-BASED ENTERPRISE. Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 309–328.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.
Powers, W. T. 1973. Behavior: The Control of Perception. Chicago: Aldine. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4): 717–731. , May 1, 2012. Prince-Gibson, E., & Schwartz, S. H. 1998. Value Priorities and Gender. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 61(1): 49–67. Reid, A., & Deaux, K. 1996. Relationship between social and personal identities: Segregation or
integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6): 1084–1091. Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J. 2009. Entrepreneuring as Emancipation. Academy of
Management Review, 34(3): 477–491. Rokeach, M. 1973. Understanding Human Values (Original.). Free Press. Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the structure and content of values: Theoretical advances and
empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 25: 1–65. Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human
Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4): 19–45. Schwartz, S. H. 1996. Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value
systems. The psychology of values, 8: 1–24. Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Organization Science, 11(4): 448–469. Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. 2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource
Management Review, 13(2): 257–279. Shepherd, D. A., & Haynie, J. M. 2009. ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS AN IDENTITY BRIDGE:
RESPONSES TO DISCONTINUOUS LIFE EVENTS (INTERACTIVE PAPER). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(4). http://digitalknowledge.babson.edu/fer/vol29/iss4/17, September 8, 2010.
Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Shook, C. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2010. The Concept of “Opportunity” in Entrepreneurship Research: Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 36(1): 40 –65. , March 29, 2011.
Sine, W. D., & Lee, B. H. 2009. Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the US wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1): 123–155.
Stets, J. E. 1995. Role Identities and Person Identities: Gender Identity, Mastery Identity, and Controlling One’s Partner. Sociological Perspectives, 38(2): 129–150. , March 1, 2012.
Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. 2003. Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology. Sociological Theory, 21(4): 398–423. , April 29, 2012.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. 1994. Inconsistent Self-Views in the Control Identity Model. Social Science Research, 23(3): 236–262. , May 10, 2012.
Stets, J. E., & Carter, M. J. 2006. The moral identity: A principle level identity. Purpose,
36
meaning, and action: Control systems theories in sociology, 293–316. Stets, J. E., Carter, M. J., Harrod, M. M., Cerven, C., & Abrutyn, S. 2008. The Moral Identity,
Status, Moral Emotions, and the Normative Order. In J. Clay-Warner & D. T. Robinson (Eds.), Social Structure and Emotion: 227–252. Elsevier.
Stets, J. E., & Cast, A. D. 2007. Resources and Identity Verification from an Identity Theory Perspective. Sociological Perspectives, 50(4): 517–543. , July 2, 2011.
Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. 2001. Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 145–153.
Stryker, S. 1968. Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 30(4): 558–564.
Stryker, S. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. The Blackburn Press. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. 1994. Identity Salience and Psychological Centrality: Equivalent,
Overlapping, or Complementary Concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1): 16–35. Thoits, P. A. 1983. Multiple Identities and Psychological Well-Being: A Reformulation and Test
of the Social Isolation Hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 174–187. , April 3, 2012.
Thoits, P. A., & Virshup, L. K. 1997. Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social identities. Self and identity: Fundamental issues. 106–133. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Thornton, P. H. 2004. Markets from culture: institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford University Press.
Venkataraman, S. 2002. Stakeholder Value Equilibration and the Entrepreneurial Process. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics, 2002: 45–57.
York, J. G., & Venkataraman, S. 2010. The entrepreneur-environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5): 449–463. , April 7, 2011.
Zahra, S. A., Rawhouser, H. N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D. O., & Hayton, J. C. 2008. Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(2): 117–131.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2): 197–206. , May 1, 2012.
TABLES & FIGURES
37
Figure 1 - A Model of Identity and Venture Goals
Figure 2 – Schwartz’s Model of Relations Among Motivational Value Types
38
39
40