of social and traditional entrepreneurs submitted to...

Human Values of Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Analysis of the Human Values

of Social and Traditional Entrepreneurs

Submitted to Regent University

School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Organizational Leadership

Laurie A. McCabe

May 2012

Human Values of Entrepreneurship ii

Human Values of Entrepreneurship iii

Abstract

There is yet no empirical evidence supporting emergent theoretical definitions of

social entrepreneurship. This research provides the lacking empiricism with

analysis of the human values of social entrepreneurs—the individual catalysts of

the process. In a quantitative method to collect and analyze data, 89 subjects

completed the Rokeach Value Survey and provided a rank order listing of their 18

instrumental values and 18 terminal human values. Among the most influential

values for all subjects and both types of entrepreneurs are (a) a sense of

accomplishment, (b) health, (c) family security, (d) wisdom, (e) courageous, (f)

honest, (g) imaginative, (h) helpful, and (i) broad-minded. Among the values with a

different influence by entrepreneur type were (a) equality, (b) freedom, (c)

salvation, and (d) a world at peace. Theoretical implications of the research are that

human values are a reliable source to describe and predict behavior; and the

influence of these values will contribute to the emerging definitions of social

entrepreneurship. Practical implications will likely be training or funding for social

entrepreneurs done according to these values. Research recommendations include

further analysis of correlations among subsets of values, validations of the

aforementioned differences, and extrapolations of how these values affect

motivations.

Human Values of Entrepreneurship iv

Dedication

I dedicate my life and this research to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I

could never thank you enough for the opportunity to serve in the earth and your

sacrifice so that I can spend eternity in the glory of your loving presence.

Human Values of Entrepreneurship v

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the faculty and committee; your wisdom and confidence in

me have deeply impacted my life. Thank you, Dr. Winston, whose voice of wisdom

plays through my mind constantly; Dr. Bocarnea, who I will always remember

saying “God is good”; Dr. Carr, for reminding me “your future is bright”;

Dr. Fields, for your continued contributions to my abilities as a researcher; and

Dr. Bekker, for helping me to read God’s Holy Word in a way that will forever

enrich my walk.

Thank you to the friends who were there to inspire and encourage—

Katherine, Janice, Anissa, and Ray—and to my dad who has always taught me to

persevere, keep running, and God’s will does prevail.

Human Values of Entrepreneurship vi

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................... iii

Dedication ................................................................................................................ iv

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... v

List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................ 1

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 5

Research Questions ............................................................................................. 6

Significance of This Research ............................................................................ 6

Method and Analysis .......................................................................................... 7

Limitations .......................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2 – Literature Review ................................................................................. 10

Entrepreneurship and the Entrepreneur ............................................................ 10

Social Entrepreneurship .................................................................................... 15

Social Enterprise: A New Type of Capitalism .................................................. 20

Human Values ................................................................................................... 25

Establishing Values ................................................................................... 26

Measuring Values as Variables ................................................................. 26

Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 28

Influence on Behavior ................................................................................ 28

Structure of Human Values ....................................................................... 30

Influencing Values ..................................................................................... 32

Individual and Collective ........................................................................... 34

Leadership Considerations ................................................................................ 35

Entrepreneurial Leadership ........................................................................ 35

Servant Leadership .................................................................................... 37

Chapter 3 – Method .................................................................................................. 39

Research Questions ........................................................................................... 39

Variables ........................................................................................................... 39

Sample and Survey ........................................................................................... 40

Profile of Subjects ............................................................................................. 42

Human Values of Entrepreneurship vii

Survey Questions .............................................................................................. 43

Analysis............................................................................................................. 43

Chapter 4 – Results .................................................................................................. 45

Research Design................................................................................................ 45

Data Collection ................................................................................................. 45

Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 46

Additional Analysis: Similarities and Differences ........................................... 53

Terminal Values: Similarities ........................................................................... 55

Terminal Values: Differences ........................................................................... 56

Instrumental Values: Similarities ...................................................................... 58

Instrumental Values: Differences ..................................................................... 59

Chapter 5 – Discussion ............................................................................................ 60

Defining Entrepreneurs According to Values ................................................... 60

Entrepreneurs’ Instrumental Values .......................................................... 61

Entrepreneurs’ Terminal Values ................................................................ 62

Contrast by Entrepreneur Type .................................................................. 62

Developing Social Entrepreneurs ..................................................................... 63

Future Research ................................................................................................ 64

Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 65

References ................................................................................................................ 66

Appendix A – Sample Discussion Posting Requesting Subjects ............................. 77

Appendix B – Participant Questionnaire.................................................................. 78

Appendix C – Human Subject Research Board Form ............................................. 83

Human Values of Entrepreneurship viii

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Schwartz value structure. .......................................................................... 31

Table 1: Linked In Groups for Discussion Postings ................................................ 40

Table 2: Social Entrepreneurs Terminal Values (n = 60) ........................................ 47

Table 3: Social Entrepreneurs Instrumental Values (n = 60) ................................... 48

Table 4: Traditional Entrepreneurs Terminal Values (n = 29) ................................. 49

Table 5: Traditional Entrepreneurs Instrumental Values (n = 29) ........................... 50

Table 6: Mann–Whitney U Test for Differences in Terminal Values by

Entrepreneur Type (n = 89)............................................................................... 52

Table 7: Mann–Whitney U Test for Differences in Instrumental Values by

Entrepreneur Type (n = 89)............................................................................... 53

Table 8: Terminal Values Similarities ..................................................................... 54

Table 9: Terminal Values Differences ..................................................................... 56

Table 10: Instrumental Values Similarities .............................................................. 57

Table 11: Instrumental Values Differences.............................................................. 58

Human Values of Entrepreneurship 1

Chapter 1 – Introduction

A significant body of research has demonstrated increasing attention toward

defining social entrepreneurship as a theoretical construct (Alvord, Brown, & Letts,

2002; Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Christie & Honig, 2006; Dees,

2001; Sharir & Lerner, 2006; Thompson, Alvy, & Lees, 2000; Weerawardena &

Mort, 2006); still, definitions describing the process or people have been supported

only conceptually and lack empirical evidence (Goldstein, Hazy, & Silberstang,

2008; Haskell, Haskell, & Kwong, 2009). Therefore, it remains that empirical

evidence is essential for defining social entrepreneurship as a theoretical construct,

while also useful for practical applications such as education and development of

social entrepreneurs (Austin et al., 2006; Mair & Marti, 2006; Weerawardena &

Mort, 2006).

Austin et al. (2006) advocated for the theoretical underpinnings of social

entrepreneurship to be explored through comparative analysis with traditional

entrepreneurship. Similarly, Massetti (2008) explained that while there has been a

concerted effort to differentiate traditional entrepreneurial efforts from those of

social entrepreneurial, consensus has not been reached; and some efforts have done

more to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. Thompson (2002) explained that

while the phrase social entrepreneurship is more widely adopted, “Its meaning is

not widely understood” (p. 412). Dees (2001) explained, “Though the concept is

gaining popularity, it means different things to different people” (p. 1). Thomson et

al. (2000) described social entrepreneurship like traditional entrepreneurship but

with a different purpose of mission; social entrepreneurs are people with qualities

and behaviors that mirror those of a traditional business entrepreneur, but they are

motivated by a concern or need to provide care or help to others more than they are

motivated by making money. In a similar regard, Hemingway (2005) argued that

personal values of the individual may make the difference between the private or

public sector entrepreneur and the social entrepreneur.

The purpose of this study was to understand different types of entrepreneurs

according to relations or distinctions in their individual human values. A salient

concern that has been addressed is that the categorization of entrepreneur type


influences the theoretical and practical implications concluded from the research.

The theoretical rationale for this study is that human values are descriptive as well

as predictive of behavioral tendencies (Rokeach, 1973, 1979; Schwartz & Bilsky,

1987) and can be influenced through methods of confrontation (Rokeach & Ball-

Rokeach, 1989). If there is a role for values in the development of social

entrepreneurs, those values must be identified (Haskell et al., 2009). Theory of

reasoned action (TRA) explains intentions are predictive of behavior; and

intentions themselves are directly influenced by attitudes, which are values applied

to circumstances or people (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993). The

theoretical contributions of the research and analysis will be empirical evidence

describing the human values of entrepreneurs, including the categorical difference

between social and traditional entrepreneurs.

For centuries, entrepreneurial functions have been recognized and studied as

a vital component of societal economic growth and development (Baumol, 1990;

Brooks, 2009; Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Cole, 1968). Among the theoretical models

describing entrepreneurship are behavioral tendencies of the firm and/or the

individual; this research has looked exclusively at entrepreneurs as individuals and

not collectively. Though entrepreneurship is not a new concept, social

entrepreneurship is (Thompson et al., 2000; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006). In an

attempt to understand what makes social entrepreneurship social, there has emerged

agreement for three reasons or sources for social entrepreneurship occurring

(Alvord et al., 2002; Mair & Marti, 2006; Peredo & McLean, 2006). Firstly, it

might occur when a traditional not-for-profit organizations determines to employ

entrepreneurial methods in response to competitive environmental conditions.

Secondly, some will seek to be socially responsible either to fulfill business or

personal missions that address somehow the needs, or solve problems, of others.

Thirdly, there are those, like Muhammad Yunus (2007), who have viewed and

practiced social entrepreneurship as a means to catalyze and sustain radical social

transformation.

Yunus (2007), arguably the most recognizable and influential social

entrepreneurs of this modern era having won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, placed


the social entrepreneur and the process of social entrepreneurship into a context of

social business. He stated consistently in print, and demonstrated in lifestyle, that

people care about the world and are led by a natural desire to make a better life for

their fellow humans, if they can. Although Yunus agreed that people are

multidimensional and functioning according to an array of personal values, those

interests fall into two broad categories of motivation—profit and social benefit.

Yunus affirmed, “While everyone is familiar with traditional entrepreneurs, [and]

we feel we understand their values and motivations . . . the same is not true for the

founders of the social business” (p. 37).

Also similar to traditional entrepreneurs, it is clear that social entrepreneurs

have an ability to conceive of opportunity; and opportunity, along with mission, are

indivisible from the entrepreneur (Sarason, Dean, & Dillard, 2006). Opportunity

recognition has been discussed in the literature of entrepreneurship at some length

and is critically different for a social entrepreneur. As mentioned, the reason social

entrepreneurship occurs is someone’s natural desire to end needless suffering for

others; this, coupled with the rise in global population and increased complexities

of global information networks, means awareness of social problems and the

opportunities to provide social value are seemingly endless on the micro- or

macroscale. Such as was the case for Yunus who lived among the problems of

destitute poverty, entrepreneurs observed opportunities in their environment.

Opportunities are predicated by entrepreneurs’ awareness to problems and the

ongoing ability to secure social or financial resources to initiate and sustain an

effect. Opportunity recognition is perceived by some to be a cognitive trait of an

entrepreneur (Baron, 1998; R. Mitchell et al., 2002). Human cognition, how one

attempts to navigate and achieve within the complex world around them (Gordon,

1992), is behaviorally influenced by human values, which themselves are cognitive

representations of three types of universal human requirements, including

biologically based needs, social interactional requirements, and interpersonal

coordination for group welfare and survival (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987).

Extensive in the literature is the theoretical basis that intention is predictive

of behavior, including entrepreneurial activity (Gartner, 1989; Huefner & Hunt,


1994; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000; Meeks, 2004; Quince & Whittaker, 2003).

Intention is the immediate antecedent of behavior and the best-known predictor of

behavior—even more so than exogenous factors (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger & Carsrud,

1993). Attitudes are established when human values are applied specifically to a

person or circumstance. Intention as a precursor of behavior is influenced by the

attitude toward the behavior, attitudes about the subjective and social norms

regarding the behavior influence the intention, and the perceived behavioral control

or the ability to fulfill a behavior and accomplish the goal.

The term value is used in all social sciences with different though not

unrelated meanings; along with being interdisciplinary in science, values are global

beliefs transcendental in effect (Hofstede, 2001; Rokeach, 1973). As previously

indicated, values when applied specifically to circumstances or people become

attitudes. Regardless of context, values have intensity and direction—or

mathematically, a size and sign, which establish desirability. Human values are

defined consistently as desirable goals that vary in importance and serve as a

guiding principle for the attitudes people hold and behaviors they manifest

(Kluckholn, 1951; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). Schwartz and Bilsky

(1987) identified five features of values, including (a) they are concepts or beliefs,

(b) about desirable end states or behaviors, (c) that transcend specific situations, (d)

guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and (e) are ordered by relative

importance. Values have been measured empirically for decades and with that have

shown to be predictive and descriptive of human behavioral tendencies, including

distinguishing between men and women, rich and poor, educated and uneducated,

and occupation and lifestyle, including religious beliefs (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998;

Rokeach, 1979). As variables, on the dependent side, values are a result of all the

cultural, institutional, and personal forces that act upon people throughout their

lifetime; on the independent side, they have far-reaching effects on virtually all

areas of human endeavor in which scientists across all social sciences are likely

interested (Rokeach, 1973).

Human values are understood to have a structure, meaning they will tend to

occur together in subsets (Rokeach 1973, 1979; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987); with


that, each individual creates a personal and flexible hierarchy out of the values

available in culture (Debats & Bartelds, 2010). Structures or domains of human

values have been empirically validated by correlations among values (Feather,

1979; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). This structurization is beneficial for understanding

by subsets the human values most common among those actively engaging in

social entrepreneurship and how that compares with traditional entrepreneurs.

Desirability, as previously stated, is the manifest effect of values; and

desirability, like valence, is comprised of magnitude or intensity and a direction.

This makes human values something easy to observe empirically. Hofstede (2001)

explained that the consequence of scientific empiricism and the proliferation of

research are multiple definitions of the construct and valid instruments by which to

measure. Others have agreed the challenge of there being many options of

empirical measurements is identifying the best method (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998).

Agle and Caldwell (1999) explained that although the choice is not clear-cut, there

are theoretical advantages to using either rankings or ratings. Agle and Caldwell

also suggested participants rank and rate values simultaneously on the Rokeach

Value Survey (RVS); this suggestion is executed in this research.

Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed by this study is the fact that social entrepreneurship

remains a weak theoretical construct due to a lack of descriptive or predictive

empirical evidence to support a definition. At present, all definitions have been

conceptual; there has been no empirical evidence to describe the theory of values

motivating the reasoned action of entrepreneurship and the distinction of a social

orientation. Consistent among the definitions of social entrepreneurship are

philosophical parallels and differences with traditional entrepreneurship; still, no

empirical evidence describing either, including no analysis of individual human

values, exists within the entrepreneurship literature. The categorization of subjects

as either a social or traditional entrepreneur influences the interpretation of data and

is addressed accordingly by the research method. Ultimately, identifying the most


influential values of social entrepreneurs and how that differs from the most

influential values of traditional entrepreneurs addresses this problem.

Research Questions

This study intended to answer the following research questions:

R1a: What are the most influential terminal values among those

categorized as social entrepreneurs?

R1b: What are the most influential instrumental values among those


R2a: Is there a difference in the most influential terminal human values

between those categorized as social entrepreneurs and those

categorized as traditional entrepreneurs?

R2b: Is there a difference in the most influential instrumental human

values between those categorized as social entrepreneurs and those


Significance of This Research

This was an exploratory study with significant implications for a theoretical

definition of social entrepreneurship, how it differs from otherwise traditional

entrepreneurship, and ultimately developing and supporting future social

entrepreneurs. Human values are ubiquitous in their influence of human behavior.

As such, they are the source attitude that motivate behavior and reasoned action.

Not only are human values a theoretical concept useful for understanding

desirability among different types of entrepreneurs, they are also an effective means

of intentionally developing social entrepreneurs, because through various means of

confrontation, personal values are influenced (Rokeach & Grube, 1979).

The world faces epochal challenges. Collectively, each one of us exists

within a global pandemic consisting of environmental and economic collapse,

threat of war and mass annihilation, incurable disease, famine, overpopulation, and

the destitute poverty of more than two thirds of the world’s population (Elkington

& Hartigan, 2008). Poverty, according to economist and Nobel Peace Laureate

Yunus (2007), is the absence of all human rights and a man-made phenomenon that


threatens peace on all levels. Because the problem is man-made, so will the

solutions be. These solutions, which need human energy and creativity, first require

an understanding of the motivating human values. Knowledge of human values

among social entrepreneurs, therefore, contributes to the theoretical definition and

delivers immediate practical benefit for developing social entrepreneurs.

Method and Analysis

The research questions asked,











The research method used was quantitative for data collection and analysis.

Data were collected via an online survey posted to discussion boards in LinkedIn.

Discussion boards made the survey visible and accessible to more than of one half

million entrepreneurs connected by 31 different LinkedIn groups dedicated to either

social or traditional entrepreneurial interests. Additionally, effort was made to

contact social entrepreneurs from the Schwab Foundation and the Skoll

Foundation. A minimum of 74 survey subjects was required for analysis.

As previously stated, a salient matter was consistent criteria distinguish

social from otherwise traditional entrepreneurs. The distinguishing criterion

provided in the survey to guide subjects as they categorize themselves by

entrepreneur type was extracted from this longer version directly from Martin and

Osberg (2007):


The social entrepreneur, however, neither anticipates nor organizes to create

substantial financial profit for his or her investors—philanthropic and

government organizations for the most part—or for himself or herself.

Instead, the social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of large-scale,

transformational benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of

society or to society at large. Unlike the entrepreneurial value proposition

that assumes a market that can pay for the innovation, and may even

provide substantial upside for investors, the social entrepreneur’s value

proposition targets an underserved, neglected, or highly disadvantaged

population that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve the

transformative benefit on its own. This does not mean that social

entrepreneurs as a hard-and-fast rule shun profit making value propositions.

Ventures created by social entrepreneurs can certainly generate income, and

they can be organized as either not-for-profits or for-profits. What

distinguishes social entrepreneurship is the primacy of social benefit. (p. 35)

The RVS was the instrument used to collect data describing human values.

Subjects ranked in order of importance 36 values divided across two lists—terminal

and instrumental values. The result was 36 dependent variables. Analysis to

identify the most influential terminal and instrumental values among social

entrepreneurs included descriptive statistics and Mann–Whitney U to answer

Research Question 2.

Limitations

Some limitations were encountered during research and analysis. Studying

an analysis of relationship or difference across groups of entrepreneur type is

influenced by the categorization of entrepreneur type; the survey required subjects

categorize themselves as either a social or traditional entrepreneur. This categorical

classification influences the analysis and is dependent on the subjects’

understanding of the difference and, then, where along that difference they perceive

themselves. During a pilot run of data collection, several subjects indicated the

survey was tedious because it was difficult to determine what values were more


important than others; as they continued in the process of ranking, they found that

they were changing rankings. Because the survey was designed to allow one rank

to each value and each rank to be used once, changing a ranking or attempting to

use a ranking twice meant that the rank assigned to another disappeared. To assist

future respondents, the survey was adjusted with instruction to begin by ranking the

five most influential values, followed by the five least influential and finally

placing the remaining eight within the middle.


Chapter 2 – Literature Review

The focus for reviewing the literature is first and foremost entrepreneurial

theory. Not as historic, though still prevalent, is the literature attentive toward

defining theoretically a distinction known as social entrepreneurship, wherein the

motives and outcomes are expectedly different from traditional entrepreneurship.

Finally, according to decades of thorough research in a broad range of social

sciences, there exists a preponderance of research evidence indicating that virtually

all aspects of human social behavior are influenced by human values. Though

values are globally transcendent and foundational, values are still transient and

susceptible to change through methods of self-confrontation.

Entrepreneurship and the Entrepreneur

Entrepreneurship is held as one of the mysterious forces of human nature

(Austin et al., 2006). With this mystery, there are those who have argued, “The

body of entrepreneurship research is stratified, eclectic, and divergent . . . [it]

generates many theories and frameworks . . . [and] had been duly criticized for

having an ill-defined paradigm” (Murphy, Liao, & Welsch, 2006, p. 13). Bruyat

and Julien (2001) agreed that while many researchers are attentive to it, there is no

consensus about the research object; therefore, empirical research is limited. Still,

entrepreneurship is most often associated with the creation of new enterprise (Holt,

1992; Low & MacMillan, 1988). Despite the fact it has historically represented

modernization and economic stimulation, in itself it is not a new or novel concept.

For centuries, entrepreneurial functions have been recognized and studied as a vital

component of societal economic growth and development (Baumol, 1990; Brooks,

2009; Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Cole, 1968). Murphy et al. (2006) explained that

entrepreneurship, originally recognized as trade and barter, is as old as civilized

society. As civilization emerged, entrepreneurial activity continued as experience

and skill became more instrumental in the offering of new goods and service. As it

remains, the ongoing civilization of society is influenced by entrepreneurship; and

entrepreneurship is influenced by the ongoing civilization of society in that national

and organizational cultures, including policy systems of governing, impact levels of


entrepreneurship (Kreiser, Marino, Dickson, & Weaver, 2010). This research looks

directly at individual entrepreneurs and not their collective units; still, social

contingencies of entrepreneurship are a reality that bind every entrepreneur. The

literature is rich with research and understanding about the collective phenomenon

of entrepreneurship contextualized into corporate and institutional concepts.

Similarly, as revealed later, there is extensive literature describing personal as well

as collective or aggregate concepts or measures of human values; the collective is

that which ultimately becomes a culture (Hofstede, 2001).

The word entreprendre, meaning to undertake, was coined in the 19th

century by French economist Jean-Baptiste Say. What entrepreneurs undertake is a

shift of economic resources out of an area of lower production into an area of

higher yield and production; therefore, entrepreneurship is a process, the essential

act of which is new entry, often pursuant of opportunity irrespective of existing

resources (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). It is the entrepreneurial process that achieves

new balances of social equilibrium (Dees, 2001).

As economists began to question what disrupts a particular economic

equilibrium, they began to perceive entrepreneurship as both constructive and

destructive. Thompson et al. (2000) explained that entrepreneurship, regardless of

its context, involves three key elements, including vision, leadership skill, and

willingness to disrupt something for the sake of establishing and sustaining

something new. Schumpeter (1934) was among those who early on asserted that

these successful new combinations alter the equilibrium by deconstructing previous

components thereof. The important result of reequilibrating is almost always the

creation of opportunity, which is often described as essential to entrepreneurship

because opportunities do not exist a priori waiting to be discovered but are

manifested as part of the venturing process (Sarason et al., 2006; Shane &

Venkataraman, 2000). Using a structuration theory-based view of entrepreneurship,

Sarason et al. (2006) explained the sources of opportunity occur because of the

structuring process of deconstructing and reconstructing, portraying also that the

entrepreneur and opportunity exist as a duality in that each is interdependent upon

the other. The entrepreneur is enabled and constrained by the sources of


opportunity and the structured processes of venturing. Ultimately, the structuration

explains that the entrepreneur and social systems coevolve. For this to occur, the

entrepreneur is constantly creating, learning, and influencing others within an

environment of a complex network of social, political, and economic contingencies

(Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). The individual cognitive capacities or motives of

entrepreneurs are important and have been discussed in a variety of literature that

spans decades.

Baumol (1968) introduced the entrepreneur as

one of the most intriguing and elusive characters in the cast that constitutes

the subject of economic analysis. He has long been recognized as the apex

of the hierarchy that determines the behavior of the firm and thereby bears a

heavy responsibility for the vitality of the free enterprise society. (p. 64)

Similarly, the absence of the entrepreneur is cited as a significant source of

difficulties. Baumol also stated, “Only Schumpeter . . . succeeded in infusing him

[the entrepreneur] with life and in assigning to him a specific area of activity to any

extent commensurate with his acknowledged importance” (p. 64). It was

Schumpeter who originally personified the entrepreneur by his or her fiery or wild

spirit—the spirit that makes things work in the economy of a nation.

Holt (1992) is among those who distinguished entrepreneurs by what they

do (e.g., incubate new ideas) rather than who they are. Bruyat and Julien (2001)

expounded that entrepreneurs and new value creation are never mutually exclusive;

one is not an entrepreneur if he or she is not creating new value. With this

assessment, they are following the Schumpeterian functionalist approach, which

explicates entrepreneurs as people who perform the function of reforming or

revolutionizing the production system, and they continue to be entrepreneurs for as

long as they perform that function.

Baron (1998) was among those who looked at entrepreneurs and wrote

about who they are and ultimately characterized them as creative and imaginative.

Martin and Osberg (2007) explained that entrepreneurs are attracted to a

suboptimal equilibrium because they see the embedded opportunity it presents.

Shapero (1992) added the quality of being optimistic, such as to recognize and


activate new ideas, expounding also that the prime motivation for the entrepreneur

is control over one’s own life, independence and freedom. Others have suggested

the motivation is a sense of belonging (Mayo, 1949), the need for responsibility

(McGregor, 1966), or the need to achieve (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell,

1953). Still, despite some of these general personality characteristics among

entrepreneurs, Baron injected that neither research nor observation has revealed any

profound distinctions among entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs when considering

various aspects of personality; rather, the distinctions appear in the realm of human

cognition and how they attempt to navigate and achieve within the complex world

around them.

Social cognition essentially describes people’s capability to construct

reality, self-regulate, encode information, and perform behaviors (Neisser, 1967).

Social cognitive theory also validates the significance of the environment in a

mediating influence with the individual and his or her behavior (Bandura, 1986).

This three-way reciprocating continuum relationship among cognition, behavior,

and environment describes how individuals influence, and are influenced by, their

environment. Leibenstein (1968) explained early in publication that entrepreneurs

fill the gap; decades later, others (Sarason et al., 2006) are in bold agreement that

awareness to the environment for opportunities and resources is paramount for

successful entrepreneurship and reequilibrating economic and social realities.

As mentioned previously, the recognition or identification of opportunity is

essential to entrepreneurship and the result of the entrepreneurial process of

structuration, including deconstructing. Martin and Osberg (2007) explained, “The

entrepreneur is attracted to suboptimal equilibrium, seeing embedded in it an

opportunity” (p. 32). Opportunities do not exist a priori waiting to be discovered

but are manifested to the entrepreneur as part of the venturing process (Sarason et

al., 2006; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Opportunity recognition is not mutually

exclusive from the individual but is idiosyncratic to the individual and his or her

behavior. Though the individual cognitive landscape of entrepreneurs will vary

considerably, it remains that entrepreneurs are consistently making decisions in a

highly uncertain context and arguably at a more conscious executive level of


thought and mental processing (Gordon, 1992). Many have confirmed that

opportunity recognition is conceptually and empirically a distinct characteristic and

mental schema of the entrepreneur (Gaglio & Katz, 2001; Gregoire, 2005; R.

Mitchell et al., 2002). Kirzner (1973) was the first to recognize entrepreneurs have

an ability to notice opportunity without deliberate search; these aha experiences

were also referred to as a flash of insight. J. Mitchell, Friga, and Mitchell (2005)

validated this as explaining entrepreneurial orientation of the individual includes a

cognitive capacity of opportunity alertness they referred to as intuition.

Entrepreneurial intuition is a dynamic process by which entrepreneurial alertness

cognitions interacting with domain competence bring to consciousness an

opportunity to create new value (J. Mitchell et al., 2005). Although to some extent

cognition is innate, it still requires consistency with intention of certain behaviors.

Within the entrepreneurial literature, many have considered intention

important for its predictability of particular entrepreneurial activity and

rationalizations that differentiate entrepreneurs from nonentrepreneurs (Gartner,

1989; Huefner & Hunt, 1994; Krueger et. al., 2000; Meeks, 2004; Quince &

Whittaker, 2003). Intention is the cognitive representation of a person’s readiness

to perform a given behavior and is considered the immediate antecedent of

behavior and therefore a predictor of behavior. Intentions are among the best

known predictors of behavior, even more so than exogenous factors (Ajzen, 1991;

Krueger & Carsrud, 1993 ). Intentions and the underlying attitudes are perception-

based and learned (Ajzen, 1987; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994) and generally depend

on perceptions of personal attractiveness, social norms, and feasibility according to

the theory of planned behavior and reasoned action (Ajzen, 1991). Theory of

reasoned action (TRA) was formulated as a result of assessment of discrepancies

between attitude, intention, and behavior. Accordingly, intention as a precursor of

behavior is influenced by the attitude toward the behavior; attitudes about the

subjective and social norms regarding the behavior influence the intention and the

perceived behavioral control or the ability to fulfill a behavior and accomplish the

goal.


Using a model of entrepreneurial intentionality, Bird (1988) defined

intention as a state of mind that focuses on a person’s attention, experience, and

behavior toward a specified object or method of behaving. The characteristic

differences among entrepreneurs are as Bird described structured by both rational

and intuitive thinking and ultimately fulfilling intention to align goals unto the

fulfillment of vision. Boyd and Vozikis (1994) modified Bird’s model of

entrepreneurial intentionality to incorporate antecedent factors that explain the

strength of relationship between intentions and behavior, specifically that perceived

behavioral control, or self-efficacy, is a useful construct for explaining the dynamic

evaluation and choice surrounding the development of intentions and subsequent

decisions to engage in entrepreneurial behaviors. Similarly, Markman, Balkin, and

Baron (2002) found that entrepreneurs who have started businesses tend to have a

higher degree of self-efficacy than nonentrepreneurs. Self-efficacy is notably an

effective predictor of performance in a task; and since it is task-specific the concept

has been modified to be specific to entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Chen, Greene, &

Crick, 1998). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers to the strength of the individual’s

belief that he or she is capable of successfully performing the roles and task of an

entrepreneur.

As intention and self-efficacy are predictive and descriptive of behavior, so

are personal values (Rokeach, 1973, 1979; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Personal

values are critical components in the process of human perception, attitude

formation, and subsequent decisions and behaviors (Ajzen, 1991; Rokeach, 1973).

Guth and Tagiuri (1965) were among the earliest management scholars to

recognize that “personal values are important determinants in the choice of

corporate strategy” (p. 123). Hemingway (2005) stated that personal values

influence and differentiate entrepreneurial behavior toward socially responsible

activity or otherwise.

Social Entrepreneurship

The basis for social entrepreneurship is obviously entrepreneurship, which

from a theoretical basis describes a context of opportunity identification and


innovative pursuit unto a particular outcome. Social entrepreneurship has emerged

as a global phenomenon in the context of social and environmental pressures and,

according to most, is a new breed of pragmatic, innovative, and visionary social

activity and impact (Nicholls, 2008). The rationale for this statement includes both

an increase in the quantity of social ventures or social enterprise and the scale of

impact that has been achieved (Nicholls, 2008). The emergent interests signal the

imperative to drive social change (Martin & Osberg, 2007).

As described earlier, opportunity recognition is an essential function of

entrepreneurship; and within social entrepreneurship, the social opportunities are

recognized often when there is a failure in a social market and the result is a social

need. Martin and Osberg (2007) explained the entrepreneurial process as sensitive

to unjust equilibrium and, with that opportunity, develops a new social equilibrium

that ultimately forges a new stable equilibrium that releases potential or alleviates

suffering for a targeted group. The innovative pursuit to meet a need by

reequalizing injustices becomes the social mission (Nicholls, 2008). Failures in the

social market occur from an array of possible dysfunction, hence the need for

public sector intervention. As with creative disruption wherein the entrepreneur

intentionally creates a disruption for the sake of meeting a need, the failure of

social markets provides sufficient dysfunction such that opportunities to adjust the

balance of social context exist without end. The salient purpose for this research is

to understand those who invest in social mission and then how to motivate others to

do the same; likewise, it considers closely the distinction of social and other types

of entrepreneurship.

Massetti (2008) explained that while there has been a concerted effort to

differentiate traditional entrepreneurial efforts from those that are social

entrepreneurial, the efforts have done more to confuse the issue than to clarify it.

Despite any confusion, there remains affirmation from many that social

entrepreneurship is entrepreneurial activity but with social purpose (Austin et al.,

2006). Similarly, Dees (2001) asserted that social entrepreneurship combines the

passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline and spirit of

innovation. Alvord et al. (2002) explained that like traditional entrepreneurship,


social entrepreneurship implies innovative solutions to opportunities and resource

mobilization for sustainable transformation. Others have agreed that social

entrepreneurship is the emerging innovative approach for combing resources to

pursue opportunities and catalyze social change addressing complex social needs

(Johnson, 2001; Mair & Marti, 2006). Martin and Osberg (2007) indicated the

critical distinction between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship as the

value proposition whereby the

social entrepreneur aims for value in the form of large-scale,

transformational benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of

society or to society at large. Unlike the traditional entrepreneurial value

proposal that assumes a market that can pay for the innovation . . . the social

entrepreneur value proposition targets an underserved, neglected, or highly

disadvantaged population that lacks the financial means or political clout to

achieve the transformative benefit on its own. (p. 34)

This same distinction will be provided to the subjects during the survey and is

intended to serve as a control for the subjects when distinguishing themselves as

one or the other.

Despite the obvious similarities between traditional entrepreneurship and

social entrepreneurship, there remain significant differences; such elements include

the mission, method, and measure of social value. The process of generating social

value or social regeneration is not new. Still many have agreed there remains

limited evidence from empirical data to describe it; therefore, there exists research

interest toward its understanding (Bornstein, 2007; Brooks, 2009; Drayton, 2006;

Nicholls & Young, 2006; Santos, 2009). Weerawardena and Mort (2006) recalled

that recent years have documented an increase in interest, discussion, and published

research. Still, there remains substantial controversy regarding the

conceptualization, much less measurement, of a social entrepreneurship construct.

This lack of coherent theoretical framework necessary to substantiate consensus of

a definition validates the need for further research. Mair and Marti (2006) agreed,

“We still do not have a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon and lack a clear

understanding of how social entrepreneurship should be studied” (p. 37). Although


Mair and Marti affirmed these early days of scholarly endeavor, social

entrepreneurship research is still largely phenomenon-driven. Most studies are

typically based on anecdotal evidence or case studies. Mair and Marti added “that

knowledge on social entrepreneurship can only be enhanced by the use of a variety

of theoretical lenses and a combination of different research methods” (p. 40).

Anderson and Dees (2006) agreed that reliable and responsible research guiding the

philosophical rhetoric dominating the discussions around social entrepreneurship

remains necessary and that passionate rhetoric without some validation is

dangerous; “rhetoric without research has the potential to harm practitioners who

take actions based on unproven claims . . . and rhetoric without research yields a

fragile knowledgebase that is vulnerable by attack to skeptics” (p. 145). Still,

Nicholls and Young (2006) explained that the quest for a clear and concise

definition of social entrepreneurship, while seemingly dominating research

activities, is a “sterile activity” (p. xii); therefore, they preferred an umbrella

approach. Santos (2009) agreed that the concept of social entrepreneurship has

become an all-encompassing notion of activities set forth to somehow enhance

social value or with social purpose.

The literature consistently has supported social entrepreneurship as a

multidimensional construct of entrepreneurially virtuous behavior to achieve social

mission (Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2003). Boschee (2001) explained that

social entrepreneurs “are passionately committed to their mission” (p. 15), which is

something of social value. Peredo and McLean (2006) agreed that the mission is a

central attribute to a social venture. Dees (2001) agreed that a social mission is

explicit and the central motivating criterion—not wealth creation; wealth is a

means to the end of the social mission but not the goal. Mort et al. (2003) described

how social mission is a theme that goes hand-in-hand with another prominent

theme of sustainability, which is the resulting balance of entrepreneurial drivers of

innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk management.

Several researchers have drawn attention to a need for clarity in the

definition by understanding what is meant by social—the difference being in the


motive or mission (Mair & Marti, 2006; Trexler, 2008). Martin and Osberg (2007)

differentiated social entrepreneurship by dispelling a myth that it is a profit motive:

Entrepreneurs are rarely motivated by the prospect of financial gain,

because the odds of making lots of money are clearly stacked against them.

Instead, both the entrepreneur and the social entrepreneur are strongly

motivated by the opportunity they identify, pursuing that vision relentlessly,

and delivering considerable psychic reward from the process of realizing

their ideas. (p. 34)

Others have contributed that commercial and social endeavors differ in their

mission as well as performance measurement, or the measurement of value (Austin

et al., 2006; Dees, 2001). Santos (2009) argued that the distinction between

economic and social value is critical and should not be forgotten because the

dichotomy poses problems for theory development—that being a presumption that

economic value is not social or social value does not beget economic value.

Accordingly, definitions of social value are different, and broader, than wealth

creation because the stakeholders are always a dispersed larger majority. It is these

stakeholders upon whom the social value will have impact such that the

stakeholders come to experience a more desirable social existence.

Martin and Osberg (2007) justified it is important to establish boundaries

and provide examples of activities that are in fact social entrepreneurship and

distinguish that with other forms of socially valuable activity, which include social

service and social activism. Social service is not necessarily designed to achieve

large-scale impact that leads to a new, superior equilibrium and is, therefore, not

social entrepreneurship. The difference is the scope and sustainability of the social

impact. Social activism differs from social entrepreneurship in that the social

activist may or may not take direct action and still have influence. Although

successful activism can yield substantial improvements and even result in a new

equilibrium, the strategic nature of the action is not direct. Likewise, because of its

perceived social value, Elkington and Hartigan (2008) inferred that environmental

entrepreneurship is a domain of social entrepreneurship; however environmental

entrepreneurs do not agree and are typically commercial for-profit firms.


The motive and mission for the social entrepreneur are native to them

personally because of their environment, such as was described from traditional

entrepreneurial theory. Building on Granoveter (1985), Mair and Marti (2006)

argued that it is impossible to detach the entrepreneurial agent from the structure of

environment. Santos (2009) affirmed this by indicating social entrepreneurship

typically happens with small local efforts targeting the problems closest and

sometimes most obvious, such as was the case with Mohammed Yunus.

Granoveter’s concept of embeddedness is explaining that economic behaviors are

heavily embedded in social relations in premarket societies; and although this was

or is true, Granoveter also stipulated that with modernization, economic

transactions are no longer defined by the need for social or kinship obligations, and

with modernization economic behavior has become rational transactions.

Regardless of the entrepreneurs’ proximity to the opportunity and its environment,

the rational transactions and subsequent manifest observable behaviors are

somehow being motivated from within the entrepreneur.

Santos (2009) agreed that social entrepreneurs are motivated to help others,

and that motivation sustains them as economic agents. Martin and Osberg (2007)

explained that the social entrepreneur neither anticipates nor organizes to create

financial profit for investors or self. Mair and Marti (2006) drew attention to

motivating influences by stipulating that what appears as ethical motives or moral

responsibility may in fact be the desire for personal fulfillment and not altruism.

Peredo and McLean (2006) agreed that even some social entrepreneurs might have

selfish motives behind their social mission. Pursuant to these realities that social

entrepreneurship is typically not profit-oriented comes the reality that most

literature in the field is intertwined within the literature on not-for-profit

organizations (Austin et al., 2006; Peredo & McLean, 2006).

Social Enterprise: A New Type of Capitalism

According to Yunus (2007), capitalism is a half-developed structure

established in a narrow view of human nature assuming that people are only

motivated by the pursuit of maximum profits. This view of capitalism that


postulates entrepreneurs are contributing to society if they are concentrated on

getting the most for self and a small set of others is responsible for various market

failures, including the lack of equal access to financial services for everyone,

including the poor. The new views of capitalism recognize the multidimensional

nature of human beings; the resulting structure of these new views is social

business. Social business is not a philanthropic or charitable pursuit; it is a business

with the same requirement to recover costs, while also achieving a social objective.

Social business, according to Yunus, is a nonloss, nondividend enterprise dedicated

entirely to achieving a social goal.

Earned income is then not a requisite to qualifying for social

entrepreneurship because social entrepreneurship is not justified by a financial

outcome, but rather the social impact. Social entrepreneurship is developing new

and better ways to deliver social values. Social entrepreneurship is achievable with

and without a model of earned income. However, there is earned income, the

organization is broadly referred to as a social enterprise. The social enterprise exists

alongside the traditional capitalistic structure, therefore competing for the same

resources including human and financial. Yunus (2007) identified two types of

social business—one that recovers cost while providing social benefit without

maximizing profit and one that maximizes profit for businesses owned by the

radically poor and disadvantaged.

Massetti (2008) and Dart (2004) explained that in order to fully grasp the

potential of social entrepreneurship as a force for economic change, consensus

regarding the concept of social enterprise is essential, because the people launching

social enterprise are social entrepreneurs. Within the literature and lexicon of social

enterprise is the general consensus that earned income is part of something broader

called blended value. The phrase blended value was coined to contradict traditional

understanding of value that delimits economic and social as distinct or divisible;

subsequently all enterprises create blended value maximizing some combination of

a triple bottom line of financial, social, and ethical impact (Norman & MacDonald,

2004). The blended value concept is demonstrated by Massetti with a continuum-

based model showing socially based missions and market-oriented missions are on


opposite ends of the spectrum, explaining that the social enterprise will change in

both mission and targeted measures of value internal and external to the perceived

boundaries of the organization. Similarly, Peredo and McLean (2006) stipulated the

social enterprise might function differently and with slight modifications of a

mission at different points in its emergence life cycle. Likewise, Boschee (1998)

added that the firm must also maintain a balance of moral imperatives and profit

motives.

Earned income models are the effect of relentless market forces driving

nonprofits—those institutions traditionally serving the social-sector to ameliorate

problems such as hunger, homelessness, environmental pollution, drug abuse, and

domestic violence (Dees, 2001)—toward becoming more innovative for things

such as funding. Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship then have been

framed by scholars as an encompassing set of strategic responses to these

environmental turbulences (Emerson & Twersky, 1996; Leadbeater, 1997). Dees

(2001) maintained that social enterprises are typically private organizations

dedicated to solving social problems, serving the disadvantaged, and providing

socially important goods that are not, in their judgment, adequately provided by

public agencies or private markets.

Boschee (2006) defined social enterprise as any organization, in any sector,

that uses earned income strategies to pursue a double bottom line or a triple bottom

line, either alone (as a social sector business) or as part of a mixed revenue stream

that includes charitable contributions and public sector subsidies. Alter (2007)

explained that the social enterprise is driven by two strong forces, specifically the

nature of the desired social change and the organizational sustainability with

diversification of services and funding streams. Among the purposes for profit are

reducing the need for donated funds, providing a more reliable diversified funding

base, and enhancing the quality of the programs and market disciplines (Alter,

2007). Alter also affirmed that nonprofit organizations have become stronger

because they are also more innovative and entrepreneurial; still, Dees (2001)

warned, “The drive to become more businesslike, however, holds many dangers for

nonprofits” (p. 56) because nonprofits face operational and cultural challenges in


the pursuit of commercial funding and commercial operations that will undercut an

organization’s social mission.

Royce (2007) contributed that while functions are common (e.g., human

resources management), social enterprises are essentially different from the private

sector, public sector, and traditional nonprofit sectors. Alter (2007) inferred that

social enterprise is the dynamism of shifting stakeholder expectations varying

between social impacts and funding—the result of which is referred to as the hybrid

model of social enterprise, whereby the motive, methods, goals, and destination

vary among practitioners. Goldstein et al. (2008) used complexity theory to

describe the constraining and enabling influences that will ultimately define the

process of creating social value, as well as the measure of its impact. Others have

also agreed that financial self-sufficiency is foundational to social enterprise and

the impact of its social value (Anderson & Dees, 2006; Boschee & McClurg,

2003). Self-sufficiency gives way to sustainability, which is embedded within the

triple bottom line (Norman & MacDonald, 2004).

Trexler (2008) helped stimulate ubiquitous appeal of long-lasting effects by

explaining sustainability as value that cuts across philosophical or theoretical lines

because it represents a stabilizing dynamic among relationships between the earth’s

system and a system of human culture. Arguing still on behalf of sustainability to

be something more than a passing fad, Trexler explained that social entrepreneurs

“strive to promote a sustainable environment, a sustainable social order, sustainable

non-profit or for-profit enterprises—an array of goals often described as the triple

bottom line” (p. 65). Trexler’s passion for sustainability of social enterprises in

their mission to do good is justified with conviction that within the system

dynamics the same invisible hand that guides the complexities of the universe also

provides insight into the revolutionary disruptive innovation of a strategic

symbiotic mimesis that prolongs legitimate organizational altruism. So rather than

trying to describe social entrepreneurship by observing distinctions or similarities

among function or structure, or even personality, Trexler employed the universal

concept of systems theory to demonstrate social enterprise by their replicating

values that ultimately motivate and propel them to sustain an organizational unit


and mission of doing good for others. He added, “From this perspective social

enterprise is more than merely a descriptive category—it functions instead as a

generative code. The repeated expressions of this algorithm across diverse

environments produce an array of distinct yet self-similar values” (p. 68). Trexler

also affirmed that embedded within the social component of enterprise is the

aggregate fusion of individuals’ values. Argyris (1978) affirmed that sustainable

progress is not a top-down effort but rather a team commitment to a common

direction, which requires the pain of continually examining and reexamining

fundamental values.

According to Fowler (2000), sustainability of society is one of the

compelling realities why nongovernmental [development] organizations (NGOs or

NGDOs) have come into existence. Fowler explained that NGDOs exist to help

create sustainable, equitable, and just societies and that the growing dependency on

tax-based finance is corrupting both the civic legitimacy and moral grounding.

Fowler advocated social entrepreneurship, a paradigm for development beyond aid,

as a new framework for NGOs; inherently social entrepreneurs of known moral

judgmental capacity are required. For the record, Fowler characterized social

entrepreneurship as surplus-generating activities, simultaneously creating social

benefits and advocating that sustainability of society in any scale requires proper

leadership.

While it is obvious that social enterprise and social entrepreneurship are

similar, they are not the same, according to Yunus (2007). All those involved in

social enterprise are social entrepreneurs, but not all social entrepreneurs are

engaged in social enterprise. The social entrepreneurship movement is more

expansive than the presence of NGOs or even social enterprise. Yunus explained

that there is likely a hybrid of social enterprise that allows for social entrepreneurs

to exist outside of social enterprise exclusively, suggesting therefore it is a

motivation or behavioral tendency innate to the person who begets a social

entrepreneur rather than the legal or financial structure of the organization. This

multidimensional precept of human beings and entrepreneurs affirms that people

function according to subsets of multiple values. How these values compare for


those engaged in traditional capitalism or a new form of capitalism are expectedly

different.

Human Values

Since the earliest of the recognized philosophers—Socrates, Aristotle, and

Plato—values have been a preeminent topic of social discussion. Connor and

Becker (1979) elaborated that the subject ranges from abstract contemplations by

philosophers and political theorists to empirical scrutiny by quantitative

psychologists. Originally, values were conceived as philosophical concepts tied to

virtuous living and morality (Perry, 1926). It was several decades later that values

were typologically defined and associated with behaviors for the sake of fulfilling

desirability (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1960). Values serve the function of

providing a person with a “comprehensive set of standards to guide actions,

justifications, judgments, and comparisons of self and others and to serve needs for

adjustment, ego defense, and self-actualization” (Rokeach, 1973, p. 216).

The term value is used in all social sciences with different though not

unrelated meanings (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; Kluckholn, 1951). While explaining

the powerful concept of values for a means of understanding human behavior,

Rokeach (1973, 1979) asserted that values are as much sociological as

psychological, therefore, global beliefs that transcendentally guide actions and

judgments across specific objects and situations. As well, values are learned and

employed transcendentally to govern behavior of individuals by providing

preferences and evaluative standards unto social, political, ideological, and

religious issues (Rokeach, 19973; Williams, 1951). Through a review of the

literature and the abundance of definitions, Schwartz (2005) identified five features

in common. Values are (a) concepts or beliefs (b) about desirable end states or

behaviors that (c) transcend specific situations or events and (d) guide selection or

evaluation of behavior or events and (e) are structurally ordered by relative

importance.


Establishing Values

The major determinants of human values are culture, society, and its

institutions, such as religious, political, economic, and educational (Rokeach,

1979). These various institutions facilitate their transmission of values, and all have

a values-inculcation program. These components of social systems are interrelated,

interdependently, and characterized by conflict. Therefore, the transmission of the

hierarchical structure of an individual’s values is the result of this interinstitutional

competition as well as the reinforcement of where the institutions complement one

another. Ultimately, each individual creates a very personal and flexible hierarchy

out of the values available in culture and the social institutions of which it is

comprised.

Measuring Values as Variables

Regardless of context, values have intensity and direction, which establish

desirability; this makes human values something easy to observe empirically.

Hofstede (2001) explained that the consequence of scientific empiricism and the

proliferation of research are multiple definitions of the construct and valid

instruments by which to measure. A challenge of there being many options of

empirical measurements is identifying the best method (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998).

Agle and Caldwell (1999) agreed the choice is not clear-cut, and there are

theoretical advantages to using rankings; however, clear theoretical and

methodological advantages using ratings.

The normative technique of ranking has subjects rate their perceived

influence from a particular value; while the ipsative technique of ranking requires

subjects to lower rank order a value for the sake of giving another a higher rank,

representing the competitive reality of values. The normative method renders an

empirical measurement independent of one another; however, it is argued that the

ipsative method is a better representation of individuals’ true values rather than an

endorsement for a socially desirable stance (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998).

Ipsative data emerge from the seminal works in human values facilitated by

Rokeach (1973). Rokeach developed a theoretical perspective on the nature of

values and an instrument to describe this perspective empirically. The belief system


from which Rokeach’s work emerged places values at the center or hub of an

individual’s personality; they serve to guide behavior as well as self-esteem and

other attitudes. The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) consists of two lists of 18

values—a list of instrumental values about modes of behavior and terminal values

indicating end states. Subjects will rank in order or importance each of the two

lists. The rank ordered ordinal data are not independent of themselves and therefore

not suited for factor analysis. The data are most commonly analyzed by mean

scores; and proposed herein, the mode will also be used to identify or validate

subsets.

As independent variables, values have been shown to have moderating

effects on decision making (England, 1967), moral development (Weber, 1993),

organizational commitment (Wittig-Berman & Lang, 1990), managerial success

(Jaskolka, Beyer, & Trice, 1985), job choice (Judge & Bretz, 1992), and consumer

behavior (Rokeach, 1973). Values have been shown to influence predispositions in

self-presentations (Goffman, 1959), impression management (Tedeschi, Schlenker,

& Bonoma, 1971), and interpersonal competence and expectations of morality

(Festinger, 1954). As dependent variables, values are a result of all the cultural,

institutional, and personal forces that act upon a person throughout his or her

lifetime and have been demonstrated empirically to be significantly related to

variations in socioeconomic status, age, gender, race, religion, and lifestyle and are

significant predictors of social attitudes and behaviors (Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach,

1989).

Agle and Caldwell (1999) reported test reliabilities for terminal values

range from .78 at 3 weeks to .69 over 16 months. Instrumental values reliabilities

range from .71 to .61 in test–retest across the same time periods. The median

reliability is .69 for terminal values and .61 for instrumental values. Construct and

predictive validity across a wide variety of populations and settings has also been

documented extensively (Braithwaite & Scott, 1991; Feather, 1971; Rokeach,

1973). Rokeach (1979) found no meaningful rank order correlations despite

numerous manipulations of factor analysis; however, others have identified

underlying factors within the RVS (Braithwaite & Scott, 1991; Feather, 1971).


Instrumentation

Most value instruments are self-report (Bilsky & Koch, 2011). Other

instruments for measuring value include Morris’ (1956) 13 ways to live, which

measures individuals’ ethical and religious orientations whereby the descriptive

value profiles are prioritized to demonstrate a distribution across distinguishable

types of values, including operative, conceived, and objective. Some have argued a

problem with this instrument is the individual bias in discernment between what is

desirable and desired (Braithwaite & Scott, 1991); also a concern is the complexity

of the life paths described by the instrument (Bilsky & Koch, 2011). In an attempt

to address these concerns, Dempsey and Dukes (1966) modified the instrument to

shorten as well as purify it. The Kilmann Insight Test (KIT) was devised on the

basis that there exist mental categories through which an individual perceives and

interprets the desirable and undesirable features of interpersonal behavior

(Kilmann, 1975). The instrument uses a Likert scale to assess the presumed

influence, or relevance, or different independent-value constructs. Factor analysis

has helped to reveal four factors on two different two-dimensional continuums—

good fellowship versus functional task activity and interpersonal restraint versus

boldness. Also from the popular cross-sector work in motivation, McClelland

(1991) distinguished between two motives: implicit-based on biological needs and

explicit motivations, which are typically more social in nature. Explicit needs are

cognitively established and, according to McClelland, can be assessed by self-

report in what he called the Personal Value Questionnaire, which ultimately

describes explicit motives like values in that they objectively influence beliefs,

goals, and behavior.

Influence on Behavior

The array of values involved in influencing behavior of entrepreneurs is the

salient issue addressed in this study. Value priorities influence behavior in

systematic and predictable ways (Schwartz, 2006); likewise, the priority of the

value makes it more accessible and, therefore, relate to more behavior. Not all

values will be predictable to a given behavior—only the main ones values

(Rokeach, 1973). The linking process of values engaged to become predictable


behavior initiates with value activation; values only affect behavior if they are

activated, which may or may not entail conscious thought about a value. Value-

relevant aspects of situations activate values; and activating values stimulates

motivation and causes behavior.

Values are similar and yet different from attitude, social norm, needs, traits,

and interests and have their own systemic orientation. Values, when applied to

specific stimuli (e.g., objects or situations), become recognized as attitudes.

According to Connor and Becker (1974), attitudes are applications of values;

ultimately, behavior is a manifestation of attitudes and values. Values and attitudes

are both intervening variables to determine or understand social behavior (Rokeach,

1973). Values are singular beliefs, while attitudes refer to an organization of several

beliefs focused on a given object. Values transcend objects and situations and are

standards; whereas an attitude is objectively specific. A person has many but not

unlimited values or learned beliefs about modes of conduct; attitudes could

conceivably be unlimited. Values differ also from social norms, which are

prescription or proscription to behave in specific ways in specific situations and are

often culturally specific. Values, while similar to needs, are different in that needs

apply to every living creature; values, preferred modes of behavior and desired end

states, do not. Although values and traits, or personality characteristics, are global

and everyone has them, values tend to be more transient and more readily available

to alteration.

As mentioned, values like needs induce valences that motivate toward

possible actions (Feather, 1995). Schwartz (2006) contributed, values influence

most if not all motivated behavior” (p. 38). Among the more popular explanations

of motivation for predicting behavior is expectancy theory, often associated with

Victor Vroom, who defined motivation as a process governing choices among

alternative forms of voluntary activity; voluntary activities are thusly all motivated.

Ivancevich, Konopaske, and Matteson (2005) presented that numerous studies have

tested the accuracy of expectancy theory in predicting behavior. According to

expectancy, the process of motivation entails first- and second-level outcomes,

instrumentality, valence, and expectancy. First-level outcomes of performance (i.e.,


such as showing up for work) give way to second-level outcomes such as pay (e.g.,

merit) increase and benefits of socialization. Instrumentality is the perception that

the first-level outcomes or performance are in fact associated with the second-level

outcomes, the rewards. Valence is the distinguishing characteristic because it

represents strength of preference. The valence concept applies to both first- and

second-level outcomes and is influenced by expectancy. Expectancy refers to the

belief regarding the likelihood that a particular behavior in fact leads to a particular

outcome. Values influence this process in that they “may influence attractiveness of

actions even without conscious weighing of alternatives and their consequences”

(Ivancevich et al., 2005, p. 29). Although values motivate people to act, they are

unlikely to act unless they believe they have the capacity to carry out the action to

the desired outcome (Feather, 1995).

The reality that attitudes are the best predictors of behavior is supported

empirically as TRA. TRA was formulated as a result of assessment of discrepancies

between attitude, intention, and behavior. Accordingly, intention as a precursor of

behavior is influenced by the attitude toward the behavior, attitudes about the

subjective and social norms regarding the behavior influence the intention, and the

perceived behavioral control or the ability to fulfill a behavior and accomplish the

goal. TRA explains intentions are predictive of behavior; and intentions themselves

are directly influenced by attitudes, which are values applied to circumstances or

people (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993).

Structure of Human Values

Desirability or valence preempt values toward existing within a structure;

with that, the notion of structure, values existing in subsets—is significant and

common in the literature. Johnston (1995) asserted that despite countless

applications of factor analysis, the RVS still has no meaningful rank order

correlations between the individual values; still, there remains compelling evidence

indicating an underlying subset of values does exist. The factor loadings reported

range from 44.7% to 69.4% of variance. Still, discrepancy exists because of the

ipsative data being normalized for the sake of factor analysis. Setting out to

determine if there is an underlying structure or subset of values within the RVS and


what it is, Johnston triangulated the RVS and the Maslowian Assessment Survey

(Maslow, 1959) and ultimately validated and described structure using motivational

continuums.

Also describing structure according to motivational continuums were

Schwartz and Bilsky (1987). Their theorized structure is established by 11

motivationally distinct value orientations that people in all cultures recognize; it

specifies the dynamics of conflict and congruence among them such that they are

sorted into likely groups.

Figure 1 shows the Schwartz (1992) value structure to which the values

from the RVS were mapped. The structure is comprised of two dimensions of

supergroupings representing competing resources—self-enhancement or self-

transcendence—and openness to change or conservation and 11 different

motivational domains, including (a) self-direction (b) stimulation, (c) hedonism, (d)

achievement, (e) power, (f) security, (g) conformity, (h) tradition, (i) spirituality, (j)

benevolence, and (k) universalism.

Figure 1: Schwartz value structure.


Using the motivational domains, Schwartz (1992) gave additional structure

to the Rokeachean values by providing conceptual organization of their similarities

or differences, arguing that the structuring of the Rokeachean values into domains

enhances their research impact. Along with the 11 motivational domains there are

four supergroupings that represent a continuum of competing resources.

Rokeachean values included within the self-enhancement grouping and the

achievement domain are (a) ambitious, (b) capable, (c) intelligent, and (d) self-

respect. The self-transcendent grouping contains the values (a) broad-minded, (b)

wisdom, (c) equality, (d) a world at peace, (e) inner harmony, and (f) a world of

beauty, all within the universalism domain; along with (a) helpful, (b) honest, (c)

forgiving, (d) responsible, (e) loyal, (f) true friendship, (g) mature love, (h)

obedience, (i) self-control, and (j) politeness within the benevolence domain. The

conservation supergrouping contains the values (a) clean, (b) national security, (c)

family security, and (d) healthy within the security domain and (a) courage, (b)

imagination, (c) independent, (d) an exciting life, and (e) imaginative within the

openness to change domain. Not all of the Rokeachean 36 values are mapped to the

Schwartz structure with the same wording; some have been transcribed. For

instance, a sense of accomplishment is referred to by Schwartz as meaning in life or

choosing own goals.

The benefit of understanding values as a structure explains “the impacts of

values as independent values on attitudes and behavior can be predicted, identified,

and interpreted more effectively and reliably by using indexes of the importance of

value domains as opposed to single values” (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, p. 550).

Similarly, the effects of different social structural variables (e.g., economic,

political, religious, ethnic) on values as dependent variables can be predicted,

identified, and interpreted more effectively by using value domains.

Influencing Values

As mentioned previously, values are cognitively established, being

confronted by social realties; there is also self-confrontation. Self-confrontation is a

proposed method that allows the individual to change and reinforce values

(Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). Self-confrontation provides the necessary


feedback to individuals about chronic contradictions between values and self-

conceptions; and awareness to such inconsistencies arouses a state of self-

dissatisfaction. Self-confrontation assumes that individuals have an idealized

conception of themselves as competent and moral. When provided other

information about themselves, they are asked to confront privately a measure of

their idealized self and behavior. If after self-confrontation the individual is

dissatisfied, one of two things will occur—either the conformation in behavior to

idealized values or a change in the values themselves.

There are two drivers to value changes—socialization and depravation.

Changes can develop on the short or long term (Inglehart, 1985). Rokeach (1979)

agreed that socialization is the source of values and a constant mediating influence.

The process of socialization is inherently a cognitive process of learning culture

and how to exist within it; this cognitive process is mediated by self-regulation,

itself a mechanism of self-observation and then evaluation, which is accomplished

entirely by values. Though values become relatively stable throughout life, a great

deal of research documents changes as values are prioritized differently at different

life stages based on relative need (Agle & Caldwell, 1999; Schwartz, 2005). From

studying the change and stability in American value systems, Rokeach asserted that

long-term changes in values, attitudes, or behaviors might occur naturally by

everyday life as well as in methods specifically designed to influence values.

Values change in some relation with the changing salience of social problems.

According to Rokeach, “Values not related with the emergence or alleviation of

major societal problems should remain relatively stable” (p. 131). Schwartz (2006)

explained, “Individual value priorities arise out of adaption to life experiences; and

adaptation may take the form of upgrading attainable values and downgrading

thwarted values” (p. 37). Values are also transferred through behavioral modeling

and vicarious experience. In either mode, self-regulative or vicarious observation,

the transmission is mediated by the preferences for outcomes—what motivational

theorists or chemists refer to as valence.

Changes in human values are desirable for various reasons; advertising

professionals, as well as medical professionals, use different mediums to influence


values. Through the decades, values do not decay, rather they ascend and descend

in their importance (Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). The implications of the

volatility of values raises important ethical questions as to the possible abuses of

self-confrontation treatment or vicarious experiences that might be used to

manipulate values arbitrarily. Rokeach and Grube (1979) argued that arbitrary

experimental manipulations could beget changes cognitively or behaviorally. An

important consideration when contemplating value changes is the direction of

influence and understanding the subjects’ perception of unidirectional or

bidirectional influence either via self-confrontation and/or vicarious.

Pedagogical applications of values have been recorded for the sake of

evaluating and influencing values. Epp (1979) recalled a method of distributing the

RVS to a college philosophy class and then submitting the results to the larger

sample for review and discussion. The students were asked to discuss the results

and then to reassess. The changes of the results were once again discussed. Epp

referred to this as a Socratic technique and dialectic approach whereby the

philosopher becomes the teacher.

As previously explained, interdependent, complementary, or competing

societal institutions transmit values. Among religious institutions, the values of

forgiving and salvation are influenced within the hierarchy; political involvement is

most likely to influence values such as freedom and equality (Rokeach, 1979).

Because developing social entrepreneurs is a matter addressed in this study, the

four most influenced terminal values predisposed to influence by educational

institutions include (a) a sense of accomplishment, (b) self-respect, (c) wisdom, and

(d) freedom. The four most influenced instrumental values are (a) responsible, (b)

capable, (c) broad-minded, and (d) intellectual (Rokeach, 1973).

Individual and Collective

Unlike other psychological constructs, values are relevant for the individual

as well as collective unit, thus making it a particularly powerful concept for all

social sciences (Mayton, Ball-Rokeach, & Loges, 1994; Rokeach, 1979). After a

diligent review of hundreds of articles, Agle and Caldwell (1999) established a

model of analysis at five levels, including (a) personal, (b) organizational, (c)


institutional, (d) societal, and (e) global. They also documented several noteworthy

fallacies about macro-values analysis, including false assumptions regarding the

effect of aggregation or socialization. Similarly, as evident by the variation of

instrumentation assessing group values, either by aggregation of group members’

individual values or perception of group members, there remains ambiguity in

macrolevel analysis (Leidtka, 1989). Rokeach argued that institutional values are

socially shared cognitive representations of institutional goals and demands;

however, individual values and institutional values are opposite sides of the same

coin. To substantiate his point, Rokeach referenced Bronowski’s essay Science and

Human Values (Bronowski, 1965) in which Bronowski explained the problem of

values arises only when men try to fit together their need to be social creates and

their need to be free; and there are no values necessary until men want to do both.

Therefore, the concept of values is profound and difficult to grasp because they

accomplish two opposing desires—exist in society and preserve freedom.

Similarly, Williams (1951) defined institution by its coherence to institutional

norms and a socially important complex of values. Institutions like people are

expected to specialize in certain areas—just as individuals demonstrate different

value sets. The focus of the research and literature review remains the study of

human values of the individual not institutional values.

Leadership Considerations

Leadership is arguably a precursor to entrepreneurship at large. Leadership,

though a collective phenomenon of influence, remains an ontological reality of the

individual; as such, it is influenced by the individuals maintained. The ideals of

entrepreneurial and servant leadership are reviewed herein for relevance unto the

emergence of the social entrepreneurship distinction.

Entrepreneurial Leadership

Gupta, MacMillan, and Surie (2004) defined entrepreneurial leadership as

“leadership that creates visionary scenarios that are used to assemble and mobilize

a ‘supporting cast’ of subjects who become committed by the vision to the

discovery and exploitation of strategic value creation” (p. 242). They develop the


concept of entrepreneurial leadership as the fusion of entrepreneurship

(Schumpeter, 1934), entrepreneurial orientation (Covin & Slevin, 1991), and

entrepreneurial management or corporate entrepreneurship with leadership, the

result of which are specific entrepreneurial behaviours classified by three

dimensions, including (a) being inclined toward some business-related risk, (b)

favouring change and innovation for the sake of competitive advantage, and (c)

competing aggressively with other firms.

There are three specific cross-cultural, universal, perspectives of leadership

identified as relevant to the context of entrepreneurial leadership: (a)

neocharismatic or transformational leadership, (b) team-oriented leadership, and (c)

values-based leadership. Entrepreneurial leadership is akin to transformational

leadership because the leader inspires performance, including innovation or change,

regardless of risk toward the vision. Team-oriented leadership focuses on leaders’

wisdom to elicit group participation by associating individual strengths with

dynamically differentiated roles, while also resolving conflict. Values-based

leadership requires the leader to articulate the vision into ideological terms

appealing to or influencing the values of the followers and other stakeholders.

There are two interrelated challenges entrepreneurial leaders contend with:

enacting the vision and enacting the cast of subjects. As they contend therewith,

entrepreneurial leaders are satisfying five specific roles: (a) framing, (b) absorbing

uncertainty, (c) path clearing, (d) building commitment, and (e) specifying limits.

The first three roles are associated with vision enactment, while the remaining two

with cast enactment. Framing entails presenting the vision and associated risks in

such a way that they inspire the desire necessary to achieve and endure, while

exploiting the individual and collective capacities or resource of those involved.

When absorbing uncertainty, the leader is formulating the vision of a future state

with accountability to the risk associated with being wrong about certain

presumptions or expectations that have been articulated. Path clearing involves the

entrepreneurial leader with internal and external negotiations, anticipating

resistance, eliminating obstacles, and marshalling necessary resources. These roles

help to enact the scenario, the vision; the remaining two roles are associated with


enacting the cast. Entrepreneurial leaders are going to build commitment among

individuals and collectively; whereby individuals become committed to the vision

and the teams. There is also the ongoing role of specifying limits, whereby the

entrepreneurial leader sustains commitment through the stages of uncertainty or

risk and continually reshaping the perceptions individuals maintain.

Servant Leadership

As indicated, many recognize the mission distinction between traditional

and social entrepreneurs as focus away from self onto others. Likewise, recent

decades of leadership literature has revealed a similar emergent philosophy of

provision or service to others, rather than self. Greenleaf (2002), in the seminal

works in servant leadership, advocated for leaders who are first servant; he

explained that the servant wants first to serve and then with a conscious choice

aspires to lead. This person who is servant first is sharply different from that who is

leader first. Distinguishing servant leadership in practice is challenging because

most of the definitions are philosophical or anecdotal; and there is a lack of

empirical support for the concept (Bowman, 1997). Rhetorically and affectively,

Greenleaf distinguished the servant-first leader by suggesting ongoing questions,

such as (a) How can I use myself to serve best? or (b) Are those being served

becoming somewhat healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely

themselves to become servants? Continually posing such questions seems to draw

awareness away from self onto others. Greenleaf also proposed what seems to be an

action plan for those who are servant first; this plan is similar philosophically to the

unifying mission of social entrepreneurship. “They are challenging the pervasive

injustices with greater force, and they are taking sharper issue with the wide

disparity between the quality of society they know is reasonable and possible with

known resources” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 23). Greenleaf recognized also, this reality

of leader being servant first requires a new, and critical, consideration toward

matter of power and authority. Specifically, in order for servants to be recognized

as leaders, people are required to learn to relate in less coercive and more creative,

supportive ways.


In pursuit of a theoretical model for servant leadership, Farling, Stone, and

Winston (1999) assimilated the literature-based variables of vision, influence,

credibility, trust, and service. Unlike other models of theoretical leadership, which

are behavior-based, servant leadership emerges from the leader’s principles, values,

and beliefs (Greenleaf, 2002). Patterson (2003) presented a theoretical model of

servant leadership as a logical extension of transformational leadership theory.

Servant leaders defined therein are “those who lead an organization by focusing on

their followers, such that the followers are the primary concern and the

organizational concerns are peripheral” (Patterson, 2003, p. 5). In doing so, servant

leaders are, according to Patterson, guided by seven virtuous constructs that define

and shape their attitudes, characteristics, and behavior. The servant leader (a)

demonstrates agapao love, (b) acts with humility, (c) is altruistic, (d) is visionary

for the followers, (e) is trusting, (f) empowers followers, and (g) serves.

Ultimately, the values of servant leaders will emerge distinct from those

that are clearly not of servant leaders; leaders who are more autocratic are going to

likely espouse values that are self-enhancing rather than self-transcendent.


Chapter 3 – Method

As revealed in the literature, social entrepreneurship is an innovative

process for the purpose of generating social value, and social entrepreneurs have

some motives distinct from otherwise traditional entrepreneurs. The literature has

also revealed that human values consistently describe and predict virtually all

aspects of human behavior and intention for reasoned action.

Research Questions

There are primarily two research questions; however, because there are also

two lists of values being measured, each research question has two parts. Using a

quantitative method of data collection and analysis, the research answers the

following questions.











Variables

Answering both research questions required data to represent human values

as dependent variables and classification of entrepreneur type as an independent

variable. The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) renders rank order ipsative ordinal data

best analyzed with descriptive and nonparametric statistics. Subjects were asked to

categorize themselves as either a social or traditional entrepreneur; and because the

categorization of the independent dataset representing entrepreneur type influences


the analysis, the subjects were provided criteria that distinguish social from

otherwise traditional entrepreneurship at the beginning of the survey.

Sample and Survey

The growing interest in social entrepreneurship is marked by the presence

of foundations, educational institutions, and network groups dedicated to the

discussion and practice thereof. Similarly, groups dedicated to the networked

development of entrepreneurship also exist. The letter in Appendix A was among

those posted to discussion boards to solicit subjects; the hyperlink contained therein

goes to the online survey shown in Appendix B.

A sample set of at least 74 was required for analysis; this was determined

by calculating the sample size for a t test and adding 15% (Lehmann, 1998). Using

alpha .05, confidence 95%, and power .8, a two-tail t test requires a sample size of

64; adding 15% (10) for the non-parametric tests means the minimum sample for

this study is 74. Sample subject ts were recruited from the Schwab Foundation or

the Skoll Foundation websites and from the LinkedIn social groups listed in Table

1. Depending on the activity of the group, at least one discussion, and in many

instances several discussions, were posted for discussion.

Table 1: Linked In Groups for Discussion Postings

No. Group name

1 Social Enterprise Alliance

2 Social Enterprise Network–MojaLink

3 Social Entrepreneur Empowerment Network

4 Social Entrepreneurs and the Third Sector

5 Social Entrepreneurship and Education Consortium

6 International Network of Social-Eco Entrepreneurs (INSE)

7 MojaLink–Non Profit Network

8 Ashoka


No. Group name

9 Young Social Entrepreneur (YSE) Group

10 Entrepreneurs in Central VA

11 Innovation and Entrepreneurship Society

12 Ivy League Entrepreneurs and Business Owners

13 On Startups–The Community for Entrepreneurs

14 Saudi Arabia Business and Professional Network

15 Startup Specialists

16 Young Indian Entrepreneurs

17 Entrepreneur Magazine

18 Small Business Network

19 Israel Entrepreneur Network

20 Executive Suite

21 Impact Entrepreneur

22 European Entrepreneurship & Innovation @ Silicon Valley

23 Band of Entrepreneurs

24 British Library UK Entrepreneur Network

25 CrowdSourcing & CrowdFunding for Entrepreneurs & Investors

26 DFW Entrepreneur Network

27 Edinburgh Entrepreneurs

28 Entrepreneur’s Network

29 Entrepreneurship–Start Up–Innovation–Accelerated Growth

30 Global Entrepreneurship Week

31 International Entrepreneur Club

In an effort to guide subjects as they distinguished themselves as either a

social or traditional entrepreneur, the survey contained the following statement to

provide understanding of a critical distinction between entrepreneurship and social

entrepreneurship: The social entrepreneur provides value on a large scale with


substantial transformational benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of

society or to society at large. Unlike the traditional entrepreneurial value proposal

that assumes a market that can pay for the innovation, the social entrepreneur’s

value proposition targets an underserved, neglected, or highly disadvantaged

population that lacks the financial means or political clout to achieve the

transformative benefit on its own.

Profile of Subjects

As previously indicated, a minimum sample size of 74 was necessary for

the nonparametric analysis being conducted. A total of 95 people responded to the

survey before the cut-off; of those, six were categorized as nonentrepreneurs and

were not included in the analysis. Among the 89 respondents classified as some

type of entrepreneur, 67.4% (n = 60) were social entrepreneurs and 32.6% (n = 29)

were traditional entrepreneurs.

A total of 59.6% of subjects were male (n = 53) and 40.4% female (n = 36).

The native cultures represented included 56.2% (n = 50) Anglo (United States;

United Kingdom; Australia), 15.7% (n = 14) Western European, 10.1% (n = 9)

classified as other, 4.5% (n = 4) Eastern European, 4.5% (n = 4) Asian Pacific,

3.4% (n = 3) Arab, 2.3% (n = 2) Sub-Saharan African, 2.3% (n = 2) South

American Hispanic, and 1.1% (n = 1) from a Colonial Territory.

A total of 51.7% (n = 46) had completed a master’s degree, 21.3% (n = 19)

a bachelor’s degree, 10.1% (n = 9) a doctorate, 5.6% (n = 5) had some college,

4.5% (n = 4) had a 2-year degree, 4.5% (n = 4) had a professional degree (e.g., JD

or MD), 1.1% (n = 1) had a high school diploma or equivalent, and 1.1% (n = 1)

had completed less than high school.

The religious affiliations represented included 21.3% (n = 19) Protestant

Christian, 16.9 % (n = 15) classified as other, 13.5% (n = 12) Roman Catholic,

13.5% (n = 12) atheist or agnostic, 11.2% (n = 10) Evangelical Christian, 9.0% (n =

8) Jewish, 5.6 % (n = 5) Hindu, 4.5 % (n = 4) Muslim, and 4.5 % (n = 4) Buddhist.

The ages ranged by 36.0% (n = 32) 40-49, 30.3% (n = 27) 50-59, 18.0% (n

= 16) 30-39, 7.9% (n = 7) 60-69, 6.7% (n = 6) 20-29, and 1.1% (n = 1) over 70.


Survey Questions

The survey questioned subjects’ perception of social entrepreneurship for its

value, difference, and potential. Among the total subjects, 89.9% (n = 80) agreed in

some measure that they have a clear understanding of social entrepreneurship; and

42.9% of total respondents (n = 39) strongly agreed. The majority, 91.0% (n = 81),

also agreed in some measure that social entrepreneurship should be taught or

developed with 41.6% (n = 37) indicating they strongly agreed. Among the total

subjects, 60.7% (n = 54) agreed to some measure that societies would benefit

further with more social entrepreneurship and less traditional entrepreneurship,

28.1% agreed strongly, 24.7% (n = 22) disagreed to some measure, and 14.6% (n =

13) were neutral. As it pertains to social entrepreneurship being a relatively new

phenomenon, there was a more equal distribution wherein 38.2% disagreed in some

measure, 7.9% (n = 7) neutral, and 53.9% (n = 48) agreeing in some measure, with

the largest percentage 34.8% (n = 31) agreeing only somewhat. Finally, 71.0% of

total respondents (n = 63) agreed in some measure that social entrepreneurs are

different from traditional entrepreneurs. The profile of responses supports the

purpose of this study, specifically that there is a difference between social and

traditional entrepreneurs that can be explained empirically, and the implications of

empirical data describing the human values that are most influential to social

entrepreneurs will contribute to the future development thereof.

Analysis

The survey was designed to capture quantitative data for answering the

research questions about the relationship between the independent and dependent

variables. The independent variable distinguishing entrepreneur type—traditional

or social—is categorical; the dependent variables, the values, are available in

ordinal datasets.

The first research question asked, What human values are most influential

among those categorized as social entrepreneurs? Answering Research Question 1

required the categorical data for entrepreneur type along with descriptive statistics

and a calculated weighted average of rankings. Once the subsets of the most


influential terminal and influential values have been identified, the second research

question, which asks if the most influential values are different for social and

traditional entrepreneurs, was answered using the Mann–Whitney U nonparametric

test for differences in central tendency.


Chapter 4 – Results

This chapter discusses the findings of this research and answers the

following questions: What human values are most influential among those

categorized as social entrepreneurs? How does this differ with the most influential

values of those categorized as otherwise traditional entrepreneurs? A brief

description of the research design, data collection procedure, the sample method,

and analysis techniques is provided in this chapter.

Research Design

This was a quantitative study utilizing an online survey for collecting the

data used in analysis. The benefit of using an online survey was the ease of

distribution and data transcription and for creating a sample of entrepreneurs from

around the world.

Data Collection

The social networking site LinkedIn was used as the primary source for data

collection, specifically the 31 groups listed in Table 1 that are dedicated to either

social or otherwise traditional entrepreneurship. In addition to the groups, the social

entrepreneurs listed on the Skoll Foundation website were contacted either through

their organization or by searching for them on LinkedIn. Each LinkedIn group had

at least one discussion posted describing the survey and its purpose; several of the

larger, more active groups had as many as three or four discussion posts. In each

discussion posting, an explanation of the survey was provided, what instrument was

in use, the research questions, and purpose for the research.

The survey provided the subjects the following explanation of social and

traditional entrepreneurs, which intended to help differentiate the two: The social

entrepreneur provides value on a large scale with substantial transformational

benefit that accrues either to a significant segment of society or to society at large.

Unlike the traditional entrepreneurial value proposal that assumes a market that can

pay for the innovation, the social entrepreneur’s value proposition targets an


underserved, neglected, or highly disadvantaged population that lacks the financial

means or political clout to achieve the transformative benefit on its own.

Data Analysis

The research questions sought to learn the most influential values of social

entrepreneurs and how they differ with the most influential values of traditional

entrepreneurs. Answering Research Question 1 requires descriptive statistics, in

particular the mean scores for each value, which is presented in ascending order in

Tables 2 to 5. The means are sorted in ascending order presenting the values with

the most influence near the top of the list. Answering Research Question 2 requires

analysis of difference in means and is answered with the results of the Mann–

Whitney U nonparametric statistical test presented in Tables 6 and 7. Additional

analysis of value influence across groups is conducted according to criteria set by

the researcher for the sake of discussion; those data are presented in Tables 8 to 12.

The topic of structure remains a salient matter for analysis, as well as

answering the questions about the most influential values. As previously noted,

human values establish structure according to the correlations and competitions that

occur among them. Given that each list contains 18 values, only some number of

those can be considered the most influential for the sake of discussion. For the sake

of discussion the upper quartile of the list (i.e., four or five values with the lowest

mean) will be the size of the subset referenced as most influential. Subsets are also

useful for grouping values for prescribing continued research.

The first research question identifies the most influential values among

social entrepreneurs. The nature of the rank order listing establishes a value’s

influence by the mean score and the rank ordered position on the list. From Tables

2 to 5, the most influential values are those with the lower means positioned near

the top of the list. Looking exclusively at social entrepreneurs, and answering R1a,

the subset of the most influential terminal values for social entrepreneurs includes

(a) a sense of accomplishment, (b) health, (c) family security, (d) wisdom, and (e)

equality. Answering R1b, the most influential instrumental values are (a) honest,

(b) courageous, (c) broad-minded, (d) imaginative, and (e) helpful.


Table 2: Social Entrepreneurs Terminal Values (n = 60)

No. Value M SD

1 Sense of accomplishment 6.44 4.75

2 Health 6.47 4.54

3 Family security 6.82 4.76

4 Wisdom 7.45 4.51

5 Equality 8.37 4.33

6 True friendship 8.48 4.36

7 Freedom 8.48 4.97

8 Self-respect 8.65 4.18

10 Inner harmony 8.77 4.70

11 A world at peace 8.90 5.29

12 An exciting life 9.34 4.73

9 Mature love 9.58 4.40

13 A comfortable life 10.84 5.09

14 A world of beauty 11.66 4.64

15 Social recognition 12.00 4.46

16 Pleasure 12.48 4.63

17 Salvation 12.90 6.54

18 National security 13.35 4.49


Table 3: Social Entrepreneurs Instrumental Values (n = 60)

No. Value M SD

1 Honest 6.27 4.32

2 Imaginative 6.42 4.53

3 Courageous 6.58 4.89

4 Broad-minded 7.00 5.12

5 Helpful 7.27 4.57

6 Ambitious 7.34 3.97

7 Capable 7.52 4.16

8 Independent 7.85 4.33

9 Responsible 8.69 4.16

10 Intellectual 9.23 4.36

11 Loving 9.52 5.25

12 Loyal 10.58 4.36

13 Forgiving 10.65 4.75

14 Logical 10.95 4.19

15 Self-controlled 12.48 4.16

16 Polite 12.97 3.95

17 Obedient 14.55 4.70

18 Clean 15.13 4.00


Table 4: Traditional Entrepreneurs Terminal Values (n = 29)

No. Values M SD

1 Health 6.07 4.23

2 Sense of accomplishment 6.96 4.79

3 Freedom 7.50 4.60

4 Family security 7.54 5.75

5 Wisdom 7.61 4.20

6 True friendship 7.64 3.43

7 Self-respect 8.32 4.38

8 Comfortable life 8.75 5.10

9 Exciting life 8.29 5.54

10 Inner harmony 9.64 4.40

11 Equality 10.82 4.52

12 Mature love 9.96 4.62

13 Salvation 12.25 7.39

14 Social recognition 10.86 5.23

15 World at peace 11.54 5.47

16 Pleasure 11.75 3.82

17 National security 12.54 3.91

18 World of beauty 13.96 4.34


Table 5: Traditional Entrepreneurs Instrumental Values (n = 29)

No. Values M SD

1 Honest 6.07 4.78

2 Courageous 6.29 4.46

3 Ambitious 6.36 5.05

4 Capable 7.50 4.15

5 Broad-minded 7.64 5.06

6 Helpful 8.32 4.46

7 Imaginative 8.46 5.20

8 Intellectual 8.64 4.33

9 Independent 8.68 5.02

10 Loyal 9.46 4.17

11 Logical 9.50 3.85

12 Responsible 9.93 4.90

13 Forgiving 10.54 3.88

14 Self-controlled 10.71 5.94

15 Loving 11.61 4.05

16 Polite 12.61 3.97

17 Obedient 14.04 4.93

18 Clean 14.64 5.15


The second research question identifies the difference among the most

influential values for both categories of entrepreneurs. The Mann–Whitney U

nonparametric statistical test was used to determine if there was a difference in the

central tendencies of the values when comparing social and traditional

entrepreneurs. The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7; values with a significant

difference are noted. Traditional entrepreneurs share four of the five most

influential terminal values with social entrepreneurs and three of the five most

influential instrumental values. According to the Mann–Whitney U test, however,

none of the most influential values have a statistically significant difference by

entrepreneur type.


Table 6: Mann–Whitney U Test for Differences in Terminal Values by

Entrepreneur Type (n = 89)

No. Value Traditional M

rank order

Social M

rank order Z

1 Sense of accomplishment 6.96 6.44 -.47

2 Health 6.07 6.47 -.27

3 Family security 7.54 6.82 -.14

4 Wisdom 7.61 7.45 -.44

5 Equality 10.82 8.37 -1.94*

6 True friendship 7.64 8.48 -.48

7 Freedom 7.50 8.48 -1.10

8 Self-respect 8.32 8.65 -.55

9 Inner harmony 9.64 8.77 -.70

10 A world at peace 11.54 8.90 -2.28*

11 An exciting life 8.29 9.34 -.07

12 Mature love 9.96 9.58 -.44

13 A comfortable life 8.75 10.84 -1.73

14 A world of beauty 13.96 11.66 -2.38*

15 Social recognition 10.86 12.00 -.97

16 Pleasure 11.75 12.48 -.98

17 Salvation 12.25 12.90 -1.87*

18 National security 12.54 13.35 -.94

*p = .05.


Table 7: Mann–Whitney U Test for Differences in Instrumental Values by

Entrepreneur Type (n = 89)

No. Value Traditional M

rank order

Social M rank

order Z

1 Honest 6.07 6.27 -.35

2 Courageous 6.29 6.58 -.28

3 Ambitious 6.36 7.34 -1.62

4 Capable 7.50 7.52 -.07

5 Broad-minded 7.64 7.00 -.22

6 Helpful 8.32 7.27 -1.42

7 Imaginative 8.46 6.42 -1.58

8 Intellectual 8.64 9.23 -.76

9 Independent 8.68 7.85 -.27

10 Loyal 9.46 10.58 -1.13

11 Logical 9.50 10.95 -1.78

12 Responsible 9.93 8.69 -1.28

13 Forgiving 10.54 10.65 -.22

14 Self-controlled 10.71 12.48 -1.08

15 Loving 11.61 9.52 -1.99

16 Polite 12.61 12.97 -.35

17 Obedient 14.04 14.55 -.89

18 Clean 14.64 15.13 -.30

Additional Analysis: Similarities and Differences

For the sake of discussion, analysis, and research recommendations, the

data already presented in Tables 2 to 5 are reformatted to compare both types of

entrepreneurs and provided in Tables 8 to 11. Tables 2 to 5 contain two relevant

columns of data, the rank order position of the value, and its mean. With a slight

modification, these same two columns are used to format Tables 8 to 11. The


criteria used to create Tables 8 and 9 are the mean rank order and the mean

difference for each value. Values with a similar influence for both categories of

entrepreneur type have an adjacent rank order position, or the difference in mean is

< 1.0. Values without an adjacent rank order position, or the difference in mean is >

1.0, have a difference influence across both categories of entrepreneur type. The

data in these tables are the same data displayed in Tables 2 to 5 but present the data

in a direct comparative relationship according to entrepreneur type. Displaying the

data a second time with data from both types of entrepreneurs presented

comparatively in the same table provides opportunity for additional analysis and

discussion.

Table 8: Terminal Values Similarities

Terminal value Rank order

(traditional)

Rank order

(social)

M rank order

difference

Health 1 2 -0.40

A sense of

accomplishment

2 1 .52

Family 4 3 .72

Wisdom 5 4 .16

True friendship 6 7 -.84

Self-respect 7 8 -.33

Inner harmony 10 9 .87

Mature love 12 12 .38

Pleasure 16 16 -.73

National security 17 18 -.81


Terminal Values: Similarities

Referencing the data in Table 8, the likely similarities among the terminal

values are discussed. Accordingly, there are four terminal human values that appear

consistently as the most influential values for both types of entrepreneurs; they are

(a) health, (b) a sense of accomplishment, (c) family security, and (d) wisdom. It

can be stated, therefore, that entrepreneurs in general are influenced by a core

subset of terminal values. This is a basis for future research—to study how this

compares with nonentrepreneurs.

The terminal state of health was determined to be the most influential

terminal value for traditional entrepreneurs and the second most influential for

social entrepreneurs. The difference in means was .37. Thie terminal value of sense

of accomplishment was the second most important value for traditional

entrepreneurs and the most influential for social entrepreneurs. The difference in

means was .16. The terminal value of providing for a family—family security—

was the fourth most influential value traditional entrepreneurs and the third most

influential for social entrepreneurs. The difference in means was .71. The terminal

value wisdom was fifth most influential value for social traditional entrepreneurs

and fourth most influential for social entrepreneurs. The difference in means was

.16.


Table 9: Terminal Values Differences

Terminal value Rank order

(traditional)

Rank order

(social)

M rank order

difference

Freedom 3 6 -.98

Equality* 11 5 2.45

World at peace* 15 10 2.64

An exciting life 9 11 -1.05

A comfortable life 8 13 -2.09

Social recognition 15 14 -1.14

Salvation* 13 17 -.65

World of beauty* 18 14 2.30

*p = .05.

Terminal Values: Differences

Consistently through the literature, social and traditional entrepreneurs are

motivated by a different mission or a different outcome of their effort, suggesting

that there would be an important difference in the terminal values somewhere.

Differences have been presented for discussion in Tables 6 and 9, which contain the

results of the nonparametric statistical test Mann–Whitney U and the criteria

established by the researcher. According to the Mann–Whitney U test, several

terminal values were shown to have a statistically significant difference by

entrepreneur type: (a) salvation, (b) world at peace, (c) world of beauty, and (d)

equality. Referencing Table 9, the influence of the terminal value freedom was also

different by entrepreneur type.

The terminal value salvation was ranked as the 13th most influential for

traditional entrepreneurs and 17th for social entrepreneurs. According to the Mann–

Whitney U, the value salvation is different by entrepreneur type with statistical

significance. This is not attributable to the difference in means, which was -.65;

rather, it is attributable to the standard deviations. Referencing Tables 2 and 4, the


value salvation had a standard deviation of 7.39 among traditional entrepreneurs

and a standard deviation of 6.54 among social entrepreneurs.

The terminal value a world at peace was the 15th most influential value for

traditional entrepreneurs and 11th for social entrepreneurs; the difference in means

was 2.64. According to the Mann–Whitney U, the value a world at peace is

different by entrepreneur type with statistical significance. This is attributable to

the difference in means, which was 2.64, and the standard deviations, which were

5.47 for traditional entrepreneurs and 8.90 for social entrepreneurs.

The terminal value a world of beauty was ranked last for traditional

entrepreneurs and 14th for social entrepreneurs; the difference in means was 2.3.

The terminal value equality was ranked as the 11th most influential value among

traditional entrepreneurs and 5th among social entrepreneurs; the difference in

means was 2.45. According to the Mann–Whitney U the value equality is different

by entrepreneur type with statistical significance. The terminal value freedom was

ranked the 6th most influential value for traditional entrepreneurs and 6th for social

entrepreneurs; and the difference in means was -.98.

Table 10: Instrumental Values Similarities

Instrumental value Rank order

(traditional)

Rank order

(social)

M rank order

difference

Honest 1 1 -.20

Courageous 2 3 -.29

Broad-minded 5 4 .64

Helpful 6 5 1.05

Independent 9 8 .83

Forgiving 13 13 -.11

Polite 16 16 -.36

Obedient 17 17 -.51

Clean 18 18 -.49


Instrumental Values: Similarities

Instrumental values describe and predict how the individual behaves to

achieve a desired end state. Using the criteria established by the researcher, Table

10 presents the similarities in the instrumental values for both types of

entrepreneur; they included (a) broad-minded, (b) courageous, (c) honest, and (d)

helpful.

The instrumental value broad-minded was ranked as the 7th most influential

for traditional entrepreneurs and 2nd for social entrepreneurs; the difference in

means was 2.04. The instrumental value courageous was ranked as the 2nd most

influential value for traditional entrepreneurs and 3rd for social entrepreneurs; the

difference in means was -.29. The instrumental value honest was the most

influential for both types of entrepreneurs; the difference in means was -.20. The

value helpful was the 6th most influential value for traditional entrepreneurs and

5th for social entrepreneurs; the difference in means was 1.05.

Table 11: Instrumental Values Differences

Instrumental value Rank order

(traditional)

Rank order

(social)

M rank order

difference

Imaginative 7 2 2.04

Ambitious 3 6 -.98

Capable 4 7 -.02

Responsible 12 9 1.24

Intellectual 8 10 -.59

Loving 15 11 2.09

Loyal 10 12 -1.12

Logical 11 14 -1.45

Self-controlled 14 15 -1.77


Instrumental Values—Differences

The Mann–Whitney U test results reported in Table 7 did not reveal any

significant differences among the mean scores of the instrumental. Using the

criteria established by the researcher Table 11, the values with the most influence

that are different according to entrepreneur type are (a) imaginative, (b) ambitious,

and (c) capable.

The instrumental value imaginative was ranked as the 7th most influential

value for traditional entrepreneurs and 2nd for social entrepreneurs; the difference

in means was 2.04. The instrumental value ambitious was ranked as the 3rd most

influential value for traditional entrepreneurs and 6th for social entrepreneurs; the

difference in means was -.98. The instrumental value capable was ranked as the 4th

most influential value for traditional entrepreneurs and 7th for social entrepreneurs;

the difference in means was -.02.


Chapter 5 – Discussion

The objective of this chapter is to discuss the implications of measured

values of influence for two different types of entrepreneurs as it describes them

behaviorally or by the impact of their mission. In Chapter 4, the analysis of

individual values’ measures was presented and, in some instances, according to

subsets. Subsets were established to identify among two types of values,

instrumental and terminal; values measured to have the most influence for two

different types of entrepreneur; and subsets according to the apparent similarity or

difference a particular value could have on different types of entrepreneurs.

Altogether, from the lists comprised of 36 independent variables and personal

values, 16 were identified in with some analysis for the sake of discussion. Through

this discussion, the data that represent values with the most influence are used to

further define the two different types of entrepreneurs according to their similarities

and differences. The data are practical as they can be used to develop and support

entrepreneurs; and it provides some basis for continued research that could

eventually reveal predictability for entrepreneur type according to values.

Defining Entrepreneurs According to Values

The first research question required data that were measured as the values

with the most influence for at least the group of social entrepreneurs. For the sake

of discussion, the most influential values for traditional entrepreneurs were also

measured and analyzed. There are four different subsets of values referenced in this

part of the conversation; they are two subsets according to different types of values

(i.e., instrumental and terminal) and sorted according to the type of entrepreneur.

The discussion eventually concludes that the values of highest measured influence

are observably influencing the behavioral tendencies of each type of entrepreneur,

providing also a theoretical basis for predictability studies including perhaps the

option of a hybrid model of entrepreneur. This hybrid is similar conceptually to the

models of enterprise that show different profit motives; it is an individual bearing

measurable impact but still empirically distinct from either the purely social or

traditionally profit-centric entrepreneur.


Entrepreneurs’ Instrumental Values

The subset of instrumental values that are most influential to social

entrepreneurs, listed in order of measured influence highest to lowest, are (a)

honest, (b) imaginative, (c) courageous, (d) broad-minded and (e) helpful. Among

these, three of the values were also included among the subset of the most

influential instrumental values for traditional entrepreneurs. Included in that subset

was also ambitious and capable—and less influential was imaginative and helpful.

These values contribute to definitions of social entrepreneurship, which is seen by

most as the means to catalyze and sustain radical social transformation. Following

is a concluding definitional statement referencing these values: Social

entrepreneurs demonstrate courage while also behaving honestly as they catalyze

and sustain social change. They prefer to remain broad-minded and open to

imagine possibilities of social change that is helpful toward others. As others have

indicated (Thompson et al., 2000), social entrepreneurs mirror the behaviors of

otherwise traditional entrepreneurs, but are still distinct; traditional entrepreneurs,

while also behaving with honesty and courage for the sake of catalyzing and

sustaining change, use their broad-mindedness to fulfill more personally focused

ambitions they see themselves capable to fulfill.

The instrumental values with the highest measured influence for both types

of entrepreneurs align well with other concepts to define entrepreneurship

behaviorally, which was presented through the literature. They include

entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial alertness, and entrepreneurial

leadership. According to entrepreneurial alertness, for instance, the entrepreneur

must remain broad-minded for the purpose of conceiving opportunity; they are

likely courageous and honest as they communicate the vision of that opportunity

among other likely stakeholders. This entire process is affected by the

entrepreneur’s sense of self-efficacy, which itself relies on courage and a sense of

ability, as well as the desire to accomplish goals. Finally, according to Gupta et al.

(2004), the entrepreneurial leader perceives an opportunity and enables a vision

among an array of stakeholders who will function, despite risk or uncertainty,

according to their individual and collective strengths toward that vision. Again, it is


clear that the instrumental values with the most influence are being manifest by

entrepreneurial leaders as they perceive a vision because they remain broad-

minded, while also maintaining the sense of courage to achieve goals that create

and sustain some measure of change.

Entrepreneurs’ Terminal Values

The terminal values describe the end states that entrepreneurs are influenced

toward achieving. The subset of terminal values that are most influential to social

entrepreneurs, listed in order of measured influence highest to lowest, are (a) a

sense of accomplishment, (b) health, (c) family security, (d) wisdom, and (e)

equality. Among these, four were also included among the subset of the most

influential terminal values for traditional entrepreneurs with the only difference

being social entrepreneurs tending to be more interested in equality whereas

traditional entrepreneurs valued more highly a state of freedom. These values

contribute to definitions of social entrepreneurship, which is seen by most as the

means to catalyze and sustain radical social transformation. A concluding

definitional statement referencing these values is social entrepreneurs desire to

realize a sense of accomplishment associated with goals to maintain health and

provide security for their family, using and attaining wisdom for the sake of

delivering equality in some means to others who are in need of some social impact

of change. Traditional entrepreneurs desire also to realize a sense of

accomplishment; they are hardworking in that process depending on the skills they

perceive themselves to possess. Accomplishment will be realized in the areas of

maintaining health, obtaining security for a family, pursuing wisdom, and

ultimately achieving freedom for self.

Contrast by Entrepreneur Type

Contrasting the two, social entrepreneurs recognize they are capable, while

recognizing also a need to be imaginative with their mind focused toward others;

their purpose for others is perhaps to engage them for achieving the social change

of equality they are motivated toward. The traditional commercial and profit-

minded entrepreneur appears to be more personally centric with ambition for

relying on and achieving a personally centric capability, security, and finally


freedom. Building on the speculated hybrid model of enterprise, referencing a

continuum of organizational pursuit occurring between the profit-centric focus of

traditionally commercial enterprises and socially minded impact of the social

enterprise (Massetti, 2008; Yunus, 2007) there is reason to question if there is also

a hybrid model of the entrepreneur, whereby an individual who has performed as a

traditional entrepreneur can transition toward or choose to perform as a social

entrepreneur. If this transition occurs, does it happen organically through the

attainment of wisdom or perhaps other personal goals, such as achieving the

freedom associated with wealth; and can it be purposefully facilitated by a

curriculum of learning?

Developing Social Entrepreneurs

Human values were selected as the construct because they would be useful

in defining social and traditional entrepreneurs according to methods and purposes

of behavior with empirical evidence for support; values were also selected because

they are continually influenced through methods of socialization, including

education and other means of developmental support (e.g., financial, political,

and/or religious). As revealed through the literature, social entrepreneurship has an

increased presence as a topic of research, which also parlays into purposed learning

or development. As evidence that there is an increased interest in social

entrepreneurship is the existence of numerous higher-level education foundations

of learning and several private foundations for finance. Higher education

establishments specific to social entrepreneurship include Stanford University, the

Center for Social Innovation; Duke University, the Center for the Advancement of

Social Entrepreneurship; New York University, the Catherine B. Reynolds

Foundation Program in Social Entrepreneurship; and Columbia Business School,

the Social Enterprise Program. Additionally, Tulane University and Stanford offer

advanced degrees in the subject of social entrepreneurship. Noteworthy financial

foundations brokering resources to social entrepreneurs globally include the Skoll

Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, Schwab Foundation for Social

Entrepreneurship, Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, Ashoka, Synergos, and the


Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Governments are also focused on social

entrepreneurship for its necessary effect of social innovation. This is evident by the

White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation; the Alliance for

Social Entrepreneurship between U.S. Agency for International Development,

Synergos, Ashoka, and Schwab; and the Qatar National Food Security Program.

Along with financial and political interests, religious affiliations are also giving

attention to the progression of social entrepreneurship because it is perceived as a

fulfillment or outcome of their ascribed religious doctrine.

According to Rokeach (1979), the values most likely to be influenced by

educational institutions include the terminal values (a) a sense of accomplishment,

(b) self-respect, (c) wisdom, and (d) freedom and the instrumental values (a)

responsible, (b) capable, (c) broad-minded, and (d) intellectual. Several of these

values were also identified as among the most influential for both types of

entrepreneurs; they are (a) sense of accomplishment, (b) wisdom, (c) freedom, (d)

broad-minded, and (e) capable. There are additional values within the subset of the

influential values for social entrepreneurs that ought to be purposefully designed

into the curriculum; they include (a) courageous, (b) honesty, and (d) equality.

Other venues for socialization and influence of values include religious and

political arenas. Religious institutions are likely to affect people as it pertains to

being forgiving and loving, while also achieving salvation; and political

involvement is most likely to influence values such as freedom and equality

(Rokeach, 1979).

Future Research

Future research is recommended, therefore, to explore the possibility of a

hybrid categorization of entrepreneur type—a classification that is empirically

observable. Traditional entrepreneurs might be expected to use their freedom by

investing wealth toward those minded exclusively toward a social impact; as

financiers of social missions, are these entrepreneurs are experiencing a transition

of values whereby once freedom is realized equality for others becomes the focus

for impact.


Conclusion

The empirical data collected and analyzed in this study are the first of their

kind and useful to describe the human values of entrepreneurs. As expected, there

were many similarities among the instrumental and terminal values for the two

different categories of entrepreneurs, and there were also noteworthy differences.

The measure of values’ influence contributes to the definitions of entrepreneurship,

accordingly, and provides a basis for continued research and development in the

field.

The definitions presented conclude that social entrepreneurs, like traditional

entrepreneurs, prefer to behave with courage, honesty, and broad-mindedness for

the purpose of achieving a sense of accomplishment as it pertains to maintaining

health and family security, while also attaining wisdom. The difference of interest

explains that social entrepreneurs tend to be imaginative for the sake of achieving a

state of equality for others, while maintaining some degree of security; and

traditional entrepreneurs are influenced by their ambition and sense of capability

toward achieving a sense of freedom as well as security.

The empirical data are also useful for those seeking to fund or train social

entrepreneurs. Foundations seeking to fund social entrepreneurs might find it

worthwhile to conduct a values assessment as part of the selection process, and

educational institutions can propose curriculum to prompt these values of interest.

These empirical data are also useful to support ongoing research efforts that

seek to further refine the categorization of entrepreneur type, which remains a

salient matter because how subjects view themselves continues to influence the

emergent definitions.


References

Agle, B., & Caldwell, C. (1999). Understanding research on values in business: A

level of analysis framework. Business and Society, 38(3), 326-387.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior

in social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 1-

63.

Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Allport, G., Vernon, P., & Lindzey, G. (1960). Study of value. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Alter, K. (2007). Social enterprise typology. Virtue Ventures LLC. Retrieved from

http://www.virtueventures.com/typology

Alvord, S., Brown, L., & Letts, C. (2002, November). Social entrepreneurship and

social transformation: An exploratory study (Hauser Center for Nonprofit

Organizations Working Paper No. 15). Retrieved from

http://ssrn.com/abstract=354082 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.354082

Anderson, B., & Dees, J. (2006). Rhetoric, reality, and research: Building a solid

foundation for the practice of social entrepreneurship. In A. Nicholls (Ed.),

Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp.

144-168). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Argyris, C. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial

entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and

Practice, 30(1), 1-22.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when

entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business

Venturing, 13(4), 275-294.

http://www.virtueventures.com/typology


Baumol, W. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. The American Economic

Review, 58(2), 64-71.

Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive.

Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893-921.

Bilsky, W., & Koch, M. (2011). On the content and structure of values: Universal

or methodological artifacts? Retrieved from http://miami.uni-

muenster.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-1802/Bilsky_Koch.pdf

Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention.

Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442-453.

Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the

power of new ideas. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Boschee, J. (2001). Eight basic principles for nonprofit entrepreneurs. Nonprofit

World, 19(4), 15-18.

Boschee, J. (1998). Merging mission and money: A board member’s guide to social

entrepreneurship. Retrieved from

http://128.121.204.224/pdfs/MergingMission.pdf

Boschee, J. (2006). Migrating from innovation to entrepreneurship: How

nonprofits are moving toward sustainability and self-sufficiency. Retrieved

from http://www.socialent.org/

Boschee, J., & McClurg, J. (2003). Toward a better understanding of social

entrepreneurship: Some important distinctions. Retrieved from

http://legacy.volunteercenter.org/se/pdf/Boschee_Mcclurg_Essay.pdf

Bowman, M. (1997). Popular approaches to leadership. In P. Northouse (Ed.),

Leadership theory and practice (pp. 239-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boyd, N., & Vozikis, G. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development

of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and

Practice, 18(4), 63-78.

Braithwaite, V., & Scott, W. (1991). Values. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L.

Wrightsmann (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological

attitudes (pp. 661-670). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bronowski, J. (1965). Science and human values. New York, NY: Julian Messner.


Brooks, A. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: A modern approach to social value

creation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bruyat, C., & Julien, P. (2001). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship.

Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165-180.

Chen, C., Greene, P., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy

distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing,

13, 295-316.

Christie, M., & Honig, B. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New research findings.

Journal of World Business, 41(1), 1-5.

Cole, A. (1968, May). The entrepreneur: Introductory remarks. American Review of

Economics, 60-63.

Connor, P., & Becker, B. (1974). Values and comparative organizational research.

Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 18, 88-94.

Connor, P., & Becker, B. (1979). Values and the organization: Suggestions for

research. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values: Individual

and societal (pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Free Press.

Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm

behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-25.

Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. NonProfit Management and

Leadership, 14(4), 411-424.

Debats, D., & Bartelds, B. (2010). The structure of human values: A principal

components analysis of the Rokeach Value Survey. Retrieved from http://

dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/ppsw/1996/d.l.h.m.debats/c5.pdf

Dees, J. (2001). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.” Retrieved from

http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf

Dempsey, P., & Dukes, W. (1966). Judging complex value stimuli: An examination

and revision of Morris’s Paths of Life. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 26(4), 871-882.

Drayton, W. (2006). The citizens sector transformed. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social

entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. 45-55).

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.


Elkington, J., & Hartigan, P. (2008). The power of unreasonable people: How

social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business Press.

Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success,

challenge, and lesons of non-profit enterprise creation. San Francisco, CA:

Roberts Foundation.

England, G. (1967). Personal alue systems of American managers. Academy of

Management Journal, 10(1), 53-68.

Epp, R. (1979). An approach to the teaching of philosophy. In M. Rokeach (Ed.),

Understanding human values: Individual and societal (pp. 270-274). New

York, NY: Free Press.

Farling, M., Stone, A., & Winston, B. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage

for empirical research. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 49-72.

Feather, N. (1971). Test–retest reliability of individual values and value systems.

Australian Psychologist, 6, 181-188.

Feather, N. (1979). Value correlates of conservatism. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 37(9), 1617-1630.

Feather, N. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the

perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 68, 1135-1151.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations,

7(2), 117-140.

Fowler, A. (2000). NGDOs as a moment in history: Beyond aid to social

entrepreneurship or civic innovation? Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 637-

654.

Gaglio, C., & Katz, J. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification:

Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16(2), 95-111.

Gartner, W. (1989). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and

characteristics. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, Fall, 27-37.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of the self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.


Goldstein, J., Hazy, J., & Silberstang, J. (2008). Complexity and social

entrepreneurship: A fortuitous meeting. Emergence: Complexity &

Organization, 10(3), 9-24.

Gordon, S. (1992). Implications of cognitive theory for knowledge acquisition. In

R. Hoffman (Ed.), The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and

empirical AI (pp. 99-120). New York, NY: Spring-Verlag.

Granoveter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of

embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.

Greenleaf, R. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate

power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Gregoire, D. (2005). Opportunity acknowledgement as a cognitive process of

pattern recognition and structural alignment. Retrieved from

http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/ResearchAndPolicy/EmergingScho

lars/KDFP/gregoire-denis.pdf

Gupta, V., MacMillan, I., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership:

Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business

Venturing, 19(2), 241-260.

Guth, W., & Tagiuri, R. (1965). Personal values and corporate strategy. Harvard

Business Review (September-October), 123-132.

Haskell, D., Haskell, J., & Kwong, J. (2009). Spiritual resources for change in hard

places: A values-driven social entrepreneurship theory of change. In J. A.

Goldstein, J. K. Hazy, & J. Silberstang (Eds.), Complexity science & social

entrepreneurship: Adding social value through systems thinking (pp. 529-

557). Naples, FL: ISCE.

Hemingway, C. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social

entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233-249.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,

instituions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holt, D. (1992). Entrepreneurship: New venture creation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.


Huefner, J., & Hunt, H. (1994). Broadening the concept of entrepreneurship:

Comparing business and consumer entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship:

Theory and Practice, 18(3), 61-76.

Inglehart, R. (1985). Aggregate stability and individual-level flux in mass belief

systems: The level of analysis paradox. American Political Science Review,

79(1), 97-116.

Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. (2005). Organizational behavior

and management. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Jaskolka, G., Beyer, J., & Trice, H. (1985). Measuring and predicting managerial

success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26(2), 189-205.

Johnson, S. (2001). Social enterprise literature review. Edmonton, Alberta:

Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.

Johnston, C. (1995). The Rokeach Value Survey: Underlying structure and

multidimensional scaling. The Journal of Pscyhology, 129(5), 583-597.

Judge, T., & Bretz, R. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261-271.

Kilmann, R. (1975). A scaled-projective measure of interpersonal values. Journal

of Personality Assessment, 39(1), 34-40.

Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: Chicago

University Press.

Kluckholn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action. In T.

Parsons & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388-

433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kreiser, P., Marino, L., Dickson, P., & Weaver, M. (2010). Cultural influences on

entrepreneurial orientation: The impact of national culture on risk taking

and proactiveness in SMEs. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34(5),

959-983.

Krueger, N., & Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential

entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91-104.


Krueger, N., & Carsrud, A. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory

of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4),

315-330.

Krueger, N., Reilly, M., & Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of

entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432.

Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. Retrieved from

http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/socialentrepreneur

Lehmann, E. (1998). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks (revised).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Leibenstein, H. (1968). Entrepreneurship and development. The American

Economic Review, 58(2), 72-83.

Leidtka, J. (1989). Value congruence: The interplay of individual and

organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 805-815.

Low, M., & MacMillan, I. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future

challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161.

Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of

explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36-44.

Markman, G., Balkin, D., & Baron, R. (2002). Inventors and new venture

formation: The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking.

Retrieved from http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/

article/110811960_5.html

Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2007). So*cial en*tre*pre*neur*ship: the case for

def*i*ni*tion. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28-39.

Maslow, A. (1959). New knowledge in human values. New York, NY: Harper.

Massetti, B. (2008). The social entrepreneurship matrix: A “tipping point” for

economic change. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 10(3), 1-8.

Mayo, E. (1949). The social problems of industrial civilization. London, England:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Mayton, D., Ball-Rokeach, S., & Loges, W. (1994). Human values and social

issues: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 9-18.


McClelland, D. (1991). The personal value questionnaire. Boston, MA: McBer &

Company.

McClelland, D., Atkinson, J., Clark, R., & Lowell, E. (1953). The achievment

motive. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

McGregor, D. (1966). Leadership and motivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Meeks, M. (2004, July). Antecedents to the entrepreneurial decision: An empirical

analysis of three predictive models. Retrieved from http://www.kauffman.

org/uploadedFiles/ResearchAndPolicy/EmergingScholars/KDFP/meeks-

michael.pdf

Meglino, B., & Ravlin, E. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts,

controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351-389.

Mitchell, J., Friga, P., & Mitchell, R. (2005). Untangling the intuition mess:

Intuition as a construct in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship:

Theory and Practice, 29(6), 653-680.

Mitchell, R., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P., Morse, E., & Smith, B. (2002).

Entreprenurial cognition theory: Rethinking the people side of

entrepreneurship research. Entreprneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 93-

104.

Morris, C. (1956). Varieties of human value. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Mort, G., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entreprneruship;

Towards conceptualization. International Journal of Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76-88.

Murphy, P., Liao, J., & Welsch, H. (2006). A conceptual history of entrepreneurial

thought. Journal of Management History, 12(1), 12-35.

Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-

Crofts.

Nicholls, A. (2008). Introduction. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship:

New models of sustainable social change (pp. 1-35). New York, NY:

Oxford Unviversity Press.


Nicholls, A., & Young, R. (2006). Preface to paperback edition. In A. Nicholls

(Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change

(pp. vii-xxiii). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of “triple bottom

line.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243-262.

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership theory: A theoretical model (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

(UMI No. 3082719)

Peredo, A., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the

concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56-65.

Perry, R. (1926). General theory of value: Its meaning and basic principles

construed in terms of interest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Quince, T., & Whittaker, H. (2003, September). Entreprneurial orientation and

entrepreneurs’ intentions and objectives. Retrieved from

http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/wp271.pdf

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values. New York, NY: Free Press.

Rokeach, M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1989). Stability and change in American value

priorities 1968-1981. American Psychologist, 44(5), 775-784.

Rokeach, M., & Grube, J. (1979). CAn values be manipulated arbitrarily? In M.

Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values: Individual and societal (pp.

241-256). New York, NY: Free Press.

Royce, M. (2007). Using human resource management tools to support social

enterprise: Emerging themes from the sector. Social Enterprise Journal,

3(1), 11-19.

Santos, F. (2009). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Retrieved from

http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/social_entrepreneurship/rese

arch_resources/documents/2009-23.pdf

Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of

individual and opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business

Venturing, 21, 286-305.

http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/social_entrepreneurship/research_resources/documents/2009-23.pdf

http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/social_entrepreneurship/research_resources/documents/2009-23.pdf


Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Schwartz, S. (2005). Basic human values: An overview. Retrieved from http://segr-

did2.fmag.unict.it/Allegati/convegno%207-8-10-05/Schwartzpaper.pdf

Schwartz, S. (2006). Basic human values: Theory, methods, and applications.

Retrieved from http://segr-did2.fmag.unict.it/Allegati/convegno%207-8-10-

05/Schwartzpaper.pdf

Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of

human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-

562.

Schwartz, S., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and

structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92-116.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field

of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-226.

Shapero, A. (1992). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In D. S. C. Kent, The

encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90). Englewood Cliffs, NY:

Prentice Hall.

Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiatved

by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41, 6-20.

Tedeschi, J., Schlenker, B., & Bonoma, T. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private

ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist, 26(8), 685-695.

Thompson, J. (2002). The world of the social entrepreneur. The International

Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(5), 412-431.

Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship: A new look at

the people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5), 328-338.

Trexler, J. (2008). Social entrepreneurship as an algorithm: Is social enterprise

sustainable? Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 10(3), 65-85.


Weber, J. (1993). Exploring the relationship between personal values and moral

reasoning. Human Relations, 46(4), 435-4662.

Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A

multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21-35.

Williams, R. (1951). American Society: A sociological interpretation. New York,

NY: Knopf.

Wittig-Berman, U., & Lang, D. (1990). Individual value systems, organizational

investments, and personal constraints as predictors of organizational

commitment: Direct or indirect effects? International Journal of Value-

Based Management, 3, 65-76.

Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the

future of capitalism. New York, NY: Public Affairs.


Appendix A

Sample Discussion Posting Requesting Subjects

Please take brief survey for research: “Human Values of Entrepreneurship: an

Empirical Analysis of the Human Values of Social and Traditional Entrepreneurs”

* The survey uses a decades old instrument, the Rokeach Value Survey, which has

been shown valid for describing and predicting virtually all aspects of human

behavior.

* Research Questions: are there common values to entrepreneurs, and is that

somehow different between social and traditional entrepreneurs?

* Purpose: to reconcile a lack of empirical evidence to describe either traditional or

social entrepreneurs. The implications of which, is newly introduced theoretical

knowledge useful for the development of entrepreneurs and environments for

sustaining entrepreneurship.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SocialEntrepreneurResearchPilot1

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SocialEntrepreneurResearchPilot1


Appendix B

Participant Questionnaire

The purpose of this survey is to better understand the human values of

social and otherwise traditional entrepreneurs. To assist you in this process, please

consider this distinction:

The social entrepreneur provides value on a large-scale with

substantial transformational benefit that accrues either to a significant

segment o society or to society at large. Unlike the traditional

entrepreneurial value proposal that assumes a market that can pay for the

innovation, the social entrepreneur’s value proposition targets an

underserved, neglected, or highly disadvantaged population that lacks the

financial means or political clout to achieve the transformative benefit on

its own.

1. If you are currently an entrepreneur or planning to be an entrepreneur please

indicate if you consider yourself a social entrepreneur; a traditional entrepreneur; or

neither.

Traditional entrepreneur

Social entrepreneur

2. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree (1-7) with each statement.

You consider yourself to be a social entrepreneur?

You consider yourself to be a traditional entrepreneur?

Social entrepreneurship is a relatively new phenomenon?

I have a clear understanding of what social entrepreneurship means?

Social entrepreneurs are distinct from traditional entrepreneurs?

Societies would benefit further with more social entrepreneurship and less

traditional entrepreneurship?

Social entrepreneurship can be taught or developed?

Traditional entrepreneurship can be developed or developed?


3. These are terminal values and describe desired end states of existence; goals a

person would like to achieve during his or her lifetime. Rank each value in

order of importance (1 is most important); how much each value may act as a

guiding principle in your life. The survey will allow you to use each number

rating only one time so that each value gets a unique rating from 1-18. Every

value (row) will require a number. Most people find that it is quickest to rate

your top five; then bottom five; and let the eight in between fall randomly.

A comfortable; a prosperous Life

Equality; brotherhood and equal opportunity for all

An exciting life; a stimulating, active life

Family security; taking care of loved ones

Freedom; independence and free choice

Health; physical and mental well-being

Inner harmony; freedom from inner conflict

Mature love; sexual and spiritual intimacy

National security; protection from attack

Pleasure; an enjoyable, leisurely life

Salvation; saved, eternal life

Self-respect; self-esteem

A sense of accomplishment; a lasting contribution

Social recognition; respect and admiration

True friendship; close companionship

Wisdom; a mature understanding of life

A world at peace; a world free of war and conflict

A world of beauty; beauty of nature and the arts


4. These are instrumental values and describe the preferable modes of behavior, or

means of achieving the terminal values. Rank each value in order of importance

(1 is most important); how much each value may act as a guiding principle in

your life. The survey will allow you to use each number rating only one time so

that each value gets a unique rating from 1-18. Every value (row) will require a

number. Most people find that it is quickest to rate your top five; then bottom

five; and let the eight in between fall randomly.

Ambitious; hardworking and aspiring

Broad-minded; open minded

Capable competent; effective

Clean; neat and tidy

Courageous; standing up for your beliefs

Forgiving; willing to pardon others

Helpful; working for the welfare of others

Honest; sincere and truthful

Imaginative; daring and creative

Independent; self-reliant, self-sufficient

Intellectual; intelligent and reflective

Logical; consistent, rational

Loving; affectionate and tender

Loyal; faithful to friends or the group

Obedient; dutiful, respectful

Polite; courteous and well-mannered

Responsible; dependable and reliable

Self-controlled; restrained, self-disciplined


5. Please provide your own definition of social entrepreneurship (1,000

characters); including perhaps characteristics of the social entrepreneur and the

social effects. (optional)

6. What do you perceive to be different among social and other types of otherwise

traditional entrepreneurship; are the efforts different, or only the outcomes?

Most important, why did you classify and rate yourself as you did in questions

1 & 2? Please share about yourself as an entrepreneur.

7. Are you Male or Female?

8. What is your age?

9. What do you consider your native culture?

Other (please specify)

10. What is your highest level of education?

Less than High School

High School Diploma or GED equivalent

Some college

Associates 2 year college/university degree

Bachelors 4 year college/university degree

Masters Degree

Doctoral Degree

Professional Degree (JD, MD)

11. What is your religious affiliation?

Protestant Christian

Roman Catholic

Evangelical Christian

Jewish

Muslim

Hindu

Buddhist

Other (please specify)


12. Do you want to participate in a short (15-30 minute) interview about your

human values as an entrepreneur? Participants answering yes, please provide

contact details.


Appendix C

Human Subject Research Board Form

of social and traditional entrepreneurs submitted to...

Documents