Entrepreneurial identity
Ha Hoang and Javier Gimeno
Entrepreneurial identity refers to a person’s set of meanings, including attitudes and beliefs, at tributes, and subjective evaluations of behavior, that define him or herself in an entrepreneurial role. The construct of entrepreneurial identity encompasses how a person defines the entrepreneurial role, and whether he or she identifies with that role. Individuals with different entrepreneurial identities behave differently in similar environmental contexts. Therefore, a focus on entrepreneurial identity can help answer ques tions such as: Why do some people actively search their environments for entrepreneurial opportunities, while others ignore the opportunities available to them? Why do some individuals become entrepreneurs while others in similar contexts never try or give up in their efforts? It is because entrepreneurial activity depends in part on whether the individual defines him or herself as entrepreneurial. Thus far, entrepreneurship scholars have focused on objective, entrepreneurial identity 87 economic factors, such as human and financial capital or environmental opportunities, that facilitate entrepreneurial activity, while largely ignoring subjective, sociocognitive factors such as identity. A mismatch between a person’s behaviors and identity may lead to disengagement from the entrepreneurial role. Therefore, attention to the formation and commitment to an entrepreneurial identity complements and extends our understanding of successful entrepreneurial behavior.
Identity, a part of a person’s self concept, is important because it moderates a person’s inter actions with the environment. Individuals with different identities may respond differently to similar contextual clues. Because of its role in motivating behavior, interest in identity in the social sciences is strong (Gecas, 1982) and has shed light on a number of diverse phenomena, such as career transitions (Ibarra, 2003), racial and gender identities (Burke and Tully, 1977; Sellers et al., 1998), language assimilation in former Soviet republics (Laitin, 1998), and perceptions of racial discrimination (Sellers and Shelton, 2003). Our conceptualization of entrepreneurial identity draws on research in the sociology and social psychology literature that links identity to roles (Gordon, 1968). Roles are social positions that carry expectations for behavior as well as values and beliefs that are internalized through socialization and identification processes. Understanding entrepreneurial identity thus requires an exploration of the entrepreneurial role, and how identification with that role evolves over time.
Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Identity
Research in the conceptualization and measurement of roles commonly argues that identities are multi dimensional constructs (Hoelter, 1985). Accordingly, we identify four dimensions that characterize entrepreneurial identity. An important dimension that consistently characterizes roles is the set of attributes and traits that an individual uses to describe the role (Burke and Tully, 1977; Burke, 1980). Hence, one dimension of entrepreneurial identity is perceived attributes or distinguishing traits usually associated with people who occupy the entrepreneurial role. For example, entrepreneurs may be characterized as ‘‘dynamic,’’ ‘‘opportunistic,’’ or ‘‘risk taking.’’ These characteristics are perceived traits that in turn may be based on an individual’s direct experience in the role, on relationships with entrepreneurs, or on ideal types propagated by the media. Individuals may differ in their attribution of entrepreneurial traits, although social processes may achieve some shared social meaning. The overlap be tween traits attributed to the entrepreneurial role and traits that individuals believe that they possess, can provide insight into the strength of an entrepreneurial identity.
Because there is no widely held definition of entrepreneurship, attributes ascribed to entrepreneurs may depend in part on what the individual defines as entrepreneurial activity. The research literature reflects the diversity of definitions of entrepreneurship. The most common definitions are starting a business, self employment, and building a business around a novel product or technology. Moreover, some researchers argue that opportunity identification and exploitation are the principal activities of entrepreneurs (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Thus, another relevant dimension of entrepreneurial identity encompasses an individual’s perceptions of what constitutes entrepreneurial activity. In turn, the definition can help to frame the way in which the person defines him or herself and serve as a guide for action. For example, individuals who associate the entrepreneurial role with the creation of inventions or new patents may fulfill their identity without creating new businesses. Because different definitions may have different implications for behavior, a better understanding of content attributions helps to explain variation across individuals in the entrepreneurial activities that they undertake.
The previous dimensions outline an individual’s meanings ascribed to an entrepreneurial role, but do not capture the extent to which the person defines him or herself as entrepreneurial. The third dimension, identity centrality, reflects the importance of an entrepreneurial identity to one’s self definition. The notion implies that the entrepreneurial identity occupies a salient position within a hierarchy of multiple social identities (e.g., ‘‘father,’’ ‘‘neighbor,’’ ‘‘citizen,’’ etc.) that forms the self concept or ‘‘the totality of an 88 entrepreneurial identity individual’s thoughts and feelings having reference to oneself as an object’’ (Rosenberg, 1979: 7). More central identities are those that are enacted across a wider variety of social relations (Stryker, 1968). Thus, individuals with central entrepreneurial identities may enact that identity in other social contexts, such as with family and friends, or among church or school acquaintances.
The last dimension, identity regard, acknowledges that the traits and activities associated with the role may be viewed positively or nega tively. Research has found that personal evaluative judgments can differ from what individuals believe are the broader society’s view of the role identity (Sellers et al., 1998). Thus, we differentiate between public and private regard, reflecting the positive to negative attributions of being entrepreneurial that an individual holds (private regard), which may differ from the individual’s perception about society’s evaluation of the entrepreneurial role (public regard). Positive or negative evaluations of the entrepreneurial role may naturally explain the extent of the individual’s identification with the role. Given that these judgments carry a valence, they are likely to have motivational power if both private and public regard of entrepreneurial activity is positive. However, some individuals may view entrepreneurship as a revolutionary act, and may gain motivation from a perceived negative public regard for entrepreneurship.
Building on this multi dimensional model of entrepreneurial identity, a number of relation ships across the dimensions are possible and worthy of empirical study. It is expected that those with central entrepreneurial identities would have more positive opinions of entrepreneurs and their activities. Thus, the relationship between identity centrality and private regard should be positive. A high regard for entrepren eurs should also be related to positive attributions of entrepreneurs. High private regard may also be related to a definition of entrepreneurial activity that emphasizes its socially beneficial role, for example, in the creation of novel technologies, products, or services. Finally, because personal opinions are influenced by the views of others, private regard will also tend to be correlated with public regard.
Formation of Entrepreneurial Identity
How does an entrepreneurial identity take root and develop? Although more research is needed to answer this question, social networks are likely to be an important facilitator of entrepreneurial identity. Thus far, the role of social ties in entrepreneurial activity has emphasized the concrete resources that contacts can provide in the start up effort. Greater attention to identity dynamics suggests that network contacts may also be important in defining and adapting to an entrepreneurial role. In particular, ties to role models help to make the entrepreneurial ac tivitymore concrete and to illuminate what entrepreneurs do. Direct links to role models serve as a referent for appropriate role behavior, attributes, and attitudes. The importance of role models may explain a consistent finding in longitudinal studies of entrepreneurial activity that link the likelihood that an individual will be self employed to having parents, friends, or family members who owned a business (Carroll and Mosakowski, 1987; Evans and Leighton, 1989). Moreover, evidence suggests that entrepreneurs whose parents owned a business are not necessarily more economically successful, but are more likely to persist in the role (Gimeno et al., 1997).
Two other types of network contacts that we term cheerleaders and coaches may also support the development of an entrepreneurial identity. Cheerleaders provide social and emotional sup port, which is important for maintaining high self esteem in the process of role transition. Coaches, through their knowledge of the individual gained from past interactions, help individuals evaluate the potential for fit with the entrepreneurial role. Coaches are trusted advisors whose past experience can provide an important source of input as to whether the individual has the knowledge and personal attributes thought to be important for the entrepreneurial undertaking at hand. The emergence of an entrepreneurial identity may also be hindered by social relationships anchored in previous iden tities, such as former colleagues in a previous job, who are critical of such transitions (Ebaugh, 1988).
In contrast to personality traits previously studied in entrepreneurship research, which are entrepreneurial identity 89 viewed as stable over time (e.g., need of achievement, locus of control, and risk orientation), entrepreneurial identity is a dynamic construct. In particular, individuals moving into entrepreneurship must grapple with the identity im plications of their activities, resulting in assessments of whether they want to be and can be an entrepreneur. This notion is supported by research on individuals making significant role transitions that find identities change in adapting to role changes (Ebaugh, 1988; Ibarra, 1999; Markus and Nurius, 1986). As the discussion of social networks suggests, a key element of the transition process focuses on the development of new social relationships and a reconfiguration of existing ties to support an identity change.
Consequences of Entrepreneurial Identity
Clearly, an entrepreneurial identity is not sufficient for success in entrepreneurial activities, but may influence the choice of activities and the commitment to realizing the venture. Entrepreneurial identity may influence the set of entrepreneurial behaviors emphasized in the early stages of venture formation. As captured in the activity dimension, entrepreneurial identity includes perceptions of important entrepreneurial activities that are influenced by the individual’s past experiences and skills, as well as by role models and coaches. Thus, nascent entrepreneurs with different identities may place different emphases on technical, financial, and marketing activities that in turn have consequences for the venture’s subsequent performance.
Entrepreneurial identity may also influence the continuation or dissolution of ventures through its role in generating commitment to the entrepreneurial process. Individuals with high private regard for entrepreneurship will likely experience an increase in self esteem when performing entrepreneurial activities that encourages them to remain in entrepreneurial roles even if alternatives with better economic outcomes exist. Indeed, identity can mediate the consideration and evaluation of alternatives; individuals with strongly held entrepreneurial identities may not evaluate alternative roles. The consequences of identity for continuation may be particularly critical during the early stages of a venture (nascent and founding stages), because identity may encourage exploration and discovery in contexts of high uncertainty about future outcomes. In those situations, feedback signals from the environ mental stakeholders may not be entirely positive. Individuals with a central entrepreneurial identity may be more willing to persist in those early activities, while those with a less central identity may give up earlier. Thus, an identity based perspective suggests that researchers could benefit from increased attention to the process of entrepreneurial identity formation and its facilitators in order to shed light on why some, and not others, become entrepreneurs.
Bibliography
Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43: 18 29.
Burke, P. J. and Tully, J. C. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55: 881 97.
Carroll, G. R. and Mosakowski, E. (1987). The career dynamics of self-employment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 570 89.
Ebaugh, H. R. F. (1988). Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Evans, D. S. and Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 79 (5): 19 35.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8: 1 33.
Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., and Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 750 83.
Gordon, C. (1968). Self-conceptions: Configurations of content. In C. Gordon and K. Gergen (eds.), The Self in Social Interaction. New York: Wiley, 115 32.
Hoelter, J. W. (1985). The structure of self-conception: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 1392 407.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 764 91.
Ibarra, H. (2003). Working Identity: Unconventional Strategies for Reinventing Your Career. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Laitin, D. (1998). Identity in Formation: The Russian Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41: 954 69.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., and Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African- American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2: 18 39.
Sellers, R. M. and Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 1079 92.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25: 217 26.
Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30: 558 64.
Tags