While the search for distinctiveness has been linked to the motivation to enhance one’s self-esteem (Abrams and Hogg 1988), theoretical work (Brewer 1991) and empirical studies (Brewer et al. 1993; Vignoles et al. 2000) have shown that the need for distinctiveness is a “universal human motive” (Brewer and Pickett 1999) enabling self-definition or comparative appraisal of people’s identity (Brewer 1991: 478) and that it is separate from self-esteem (Brewer 1991). Thus, we suggest that distinctiveness plays a central role in developing a meaningful sense of an entrepreneurial identity and therefore a notion of who one is as an individual (Vignoles et al. 2000).
Belonging
While people pursue distinctiveness , theory has suggested that doing so could come at the expense of fulfilling the need to belong (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Brewer 1991). According to Baumeister and Leary, the need to belong is a “powerful, fundamental, and extremely pervasive motivation ” (1995: 1). The majority of work on social identity has centered on the advantages of inclusiveness—namely, to be a member of a relevant in-group. Being a member of a group meets the need to belong and is embodied in a desire to develop and preserve long-lasting attachments to other people (Baumeister and Leary 1995). While a number of perspectives have described the benefits of inclusion within a group, the most prominent perspectives have been social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979a, b, 1986) and self-categorization theory (Oakes et al. 1994).
Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979a, b, 1986) proposes that people are motivated to interpret groups they are a member of favorably as a way to improve their own feelings of self-worth. In addition, work has shown that with more identification with an out-group (i.e., a group that is distinct from the mainstream), his or her perceptions of the mainstream group become more negative (Gramzow and Gaertner 2005). A great deal of work has shown that people often go to extremes to employ group membership in such a manner. Many psychologists, for instance, see the 1999 tragedy at Columbine High School—where two marginalized, outcast students fired on others in their class—as a powerful (even though rare) example of the potential mental consequences stemming from feelings of isolation, rejection, and not belonging. In line with social identity theory, self-categorization theory argues that the pervasiveness of an individual’s social identity depends on his or her comparison with others. Indeed, research on self-categorization theory has shown that the importance of a person’s social identity emerges from the specific comparisons with others in a social environment (Oakes et al. 1994).
Ultimately, there is substantial evidence showing that people have a strong need to belong and that they behave in a way that this need becomes satisfied. The feeling of belonging appears to be a strong human driver (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Said differently, individuals generate positive emotions from enhanced belongingness (McAdams and Bryant 1987; McAdams 1985) and negative emotions from reduced belongingness (Leary 1990). These negative emotions have been associated with loneliness and anxiety (Tice and Baumeister 1990)—negative emotions that can diminish one’s physical and psychological health .
The studies discussed above stress a potential tradeoff in fulfilling psychological needs related to individuals’ self-identity. Scholars argue that maintaining distinctiveness is essential for individuals to develop self-identity, yet feeling a sense of belonging and identifying with social groups are basic human motivations . Thus, for entrepreneurs distinctiveness appears to reduce belongingness and vice versa (Brewer 1991: 478). We will challenge this notion later.
Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
Optimal distinctiveness theory argues that people want to be affiliated with groups that enable them to optimally balance their belongingness need and the distinctiveness need (Brewer 1991, 1993). Studies have proposed an inverted U-shaped association between distinctiveness and its advantages (Brewer and Pickett 1999; Brewer and Weber 1994). These studies have argued that this association is caused by the conflict between the need for “differentiation of the self from others” and a need for “inclusion of the self into larger social collectives,” which counteract each other (Brewer 1993: 3; Vignoles et al. 2000: 339). Optimal distinctiveness theory is in line with Fromkin and Snyder’s (1980) theories of uniqueness. Fromkin and Snyder suggested that a moderate level of distinctiveness is the most acceptable and that both very high and very low levels of distinctiveness are the worst for the individual. Optimal distinctiveness theory, created by Brewer (1991), has been “restricted to the discussion of distinctiveness at the level of the group membership.” Extending this notion, Brewer and Gardner (1996) applied the same logic to self-representation at the individual and interpersonal levels. This application proposes that the conflicting assimilation and differentiation needs become manifest at the level of the individual in terms of similarity and uniqueness (Vignoles et al. 2000: 340).
The Identity Distinctiveness of Entrepreneurial Individuals
An entrepreneurial role generally enables people to meet their distinctiveness need in ways that are in line with the theoretical and empirical findings discussed above. This role provides people with autonomy (e.g. Akande 1994; Boyd and Gumpert 1983; Kuratko and Hodgetts 1995) that enables them to have more influence in their venture’s development and, more generally, more control over their lives (Kolvereid 1996; Longenecker et al. 1988). Entrepreneurs can situate their ventures in relation to other ventures (and maybe even other entrepreneurs) in a way that maximizes distinctiveness (Guth and Ginsberg 1991; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Naman and Slevin 1993), and they can build hurdles to imitation that help uphold their own and their venture’s distinctiveness (Yip 1982). Although a conventional strategy view would see such behavior as competitive maneuvering and the attempt to enhance one’s position in the market, social identity theory suggests that these behaviors also differentiate entrepreneurs from a potential “out-group.” This differentiation increases entrepreneurs’ notion of the self as being something that is different and unique (Teal and Carroll 1999).
Moreover, compared to more traditional careers , the “freedom” associated with an entrepreneurial role provides a great deal of control over and feedback for the advancement of one’s self-identity. In other words, the distinctiveness characteristic of the entrepreneurial process, together with the array of actions and behaviors individuals undertake to meet entrepreneurial ends (e.g., creating a new venture, exploiting a new opportunity ), offers these people a range of possibilities to distinguish themselves from other people. Narratives of new venture founders illustrated that some people see “the enterprise in terms of personal growth or fulfillment.” Such people believe that “life would not have been complete without proving one had the ability to successfully start a business” (Bruno et al. 1992: 297). In addition, Cova and Svanfeldt (1993) contended that some business founders “create a product that flows from their own internal desires and needs. They create primarily to express subjective conceptions of beauty, emotion , or some aesthetic ideal” (297). Overall, entrepreneurs appear to have substantial opportunities to undertake differentiation activities that align well with their desire to fulfill their need for a unique notion of self .
Scholars have been particularly interested in what makes entrepreneurs distinct from other individuals. Teachers of entrepreneurship classes tend to center their instruction on teaching students to “think outside the box” or to “color outside the lines” since most believe these actions will lead to success in the entrepreneurial context. Researchers explore how entrepreneurs are different from others in terms of their knowledge (Shane 2000), personality (Korunka et al. 2003), motivation (Naffziger et al. 1994), and cognition (Busenitz and Barney 1997). Given our interest in difference as being essential to entrepreneurial behavior and action (and constituting the basis for entrepreneurs’ fulfillment of their distinctiveness needs), it is crucial to concurrently think about existing studies suggesting that when individuals distinguish themselves as entrepreneurs, they may not be fulfilling their belongingn
ess needs. In turn, these unmet feelings for belongingness can ultimately diminish individuals’ psychological health .
For instance, some evidence has suggested that founders often put relationships within their personal environment including their family at risk (Ufuk and Ozgen 2001) and tend to feel isolated (Hannafey 2003), lonely (Akande 1994; Gumpert and Boyd 1984) and chronically stressed (Akande 1994). Research has shown that these types of feelings result in increased problems for one’s physical well-being (Buttner 1992; Ufuk and Ozgen 2001), psychological well-being (Jamal and Badawi 1995; Naughton 1987; Eden 1975), and satisfaction at work (Buttner 1992; c.f. Naughton 1987). Gumpert and Boyd (1984), for instance, reported that a little more than half of 210 small business owner-managers explained that they “frequently feel a sense of loneliness ” and experienced higher stress. The authors attributed the feelings of being lonely to the specific role of entrepreneurs. For instance, many of these individuals responded that they did not have a confidant with whom they could share their major worries, that the intense time requirements associated with business foundation and management isolated them from other people, and that “there’s this distance you have to maintain as [owner] manager” (Gumpert and Boyd 1984: 20).
These empirical findings and anecdotes illustrate the possible dark side of entrepreneurship. Yet, founders may vary in the extent to which they experience the dark side. For example, many new ventures are started by an entrepreneurial team (Ucbasaran et al. 2003; Breugst et al. 2015; Breugst and Shepherd 2017; Klotz et al. 2014). Members of this founding team unite to make shared decisions to reach collective venture goals (West 2007) and form team spirit (Lechler 2001). Thus, team members may help fulfill entrepreneurs’ belongingness needs and reduce the dark side of entrepreneurship.
Even within entrepreneurial teams , however, one individual typically emerges as the “lead entrepreneur” (Ensley et al. 2000). This structure is often necessary because without some kind of formalizing responsibilities and roles as well as putting someone in charge, the success of a venture is likely to decline (Sine et al. 2006; Stinchcombe 1965). Increased formalization structurally differentiates the lead entrepreneur from other founding team members, which can sometimes lead to conflict and negative interactions between the team’s members (Stinchcombe 1965). For instance, Boyd and Gumpert (1983) showed that more than two-thirds of founders who started a venture with partners eventually dissolved their founder teams . Regardless of the distinct role of the lead entrepreneur and potential conflict among team members, founding team members likely satisfy part of the individual entrepreneur’s need to belong.
We argue that while an entrepreneurial role may fulfill people’s need for distinctiveness, the need for belonging is often left unmet, thus ultimately diminishing psychological health . Thus, entrepreneurs who cannot find the right “balance” between distinctiveness and belonging may experience the dark side of entrepreneurship and the negative effects that result from it (see Kets de Vries 1985). Consider the following as an example:When Daniel C. chose to abandon his 20-year career as a corporate executive and acquire a small structural steel company, he assumed that his prime concerns would be financing the venture and marketing his wares. Certainly these have been challenges, but they paled beside the unexpected demon that surfaced in his new life and for which he was totally unprepared. Its name, for a want of a better, is loneliness . Daniel reflects: “I’d never thought about loneliness before because I’d never met it. In corporate life, there was always someone to share ideas with—my boss or another colleague. They knew what I was saying because they had been there. . . . Now it seems I have no one. Sure, there is an association of structural steel people, but they are my competition. I learned early on that pricing talk is resolutely avoided at association meetings, but even if we don’t talk about prices, there are tensions between us simply because we’re competitors.” . . . To his surprise, Daniel realized that his new role aggravated the headaches and the ulcer that were his usual signs of stress. Daniel’s feelings and experience are common among small-company owners [Based on a survey of 450 small business CEOs]. (Gumpert and Boyd 1984: 18)
The next section introduces our framework to clarify the association between belonging and distinctiveness when entrepreneurs (try to) manage the borders separating their micro -identities (see Shepherd and Haynie 2009a).
Entrepreneurs’ Optimal Distinctiveness and Psychological Health
Research usually view people as psychologically healthy when their life is “congruent or meshing with deeply held values that are holistically or fully engaged” (Ryan and Deci 2001: 146). Specifically, optimal distinctiveness theory proposes that medium levels of distinctiveness lead to psychological health. The association is illustrated in Fig. 5.1, where the Y-axis represents psychological well-being, the X-axis represents the distinctiveness level, and the curve represents the individual’s psychological well-being at different distinctiveness levels. As the figure shows, at low distinctiveness levels (far left), a specific identity offers minimal distinctiveness, so the person shows low psychological well-being. His or her psychological well-being improves with growing distinctiveness until an optimum is reached. After that point, further growing distinctiveness (going right on the X-axis) leads to decreased well-being (due to lower belongingness levels). The upper point of the inverted-U curve signifies this optimum for a particular person and represents the point at which belonging and distinctiveness are well-balanced and there are maximum levels of psychological well-being and health.
Fig. 5.1Optimal distinctiveness for an entrepreneuring individual’s identity
For entrepreneurs, the question then becomes whether they can “reshape” their psychological well-being curve to lessen the tradeoff between belonging and distinctiveness. By lessening this tradeoff, entrepreneurs may be able to counteract the implications stemming from the dark side of their entrepreneurial career . To begin to address this issue, my (Dean) colleague and I (Shepherd and Haynie 2009a) integrated the notion of “balance” from optimal distinctiveness theory with studies proposing that people can manage several micro -identities (Ashforth et al. 2000; Pratt and Foreman 2000). Based on this integration , we created a framework to understand how entrepreneurs can optimally balance belonging and being distinct and at the same time pursue the highly distinctive role identity associated with being a founder. We argued that through the maintenance and management of various micro-identities , entrepreneurs can develop a super-ordinate identity curve. This super-ordinate identity is a holistic representation of a founder’s various micro-identities . Some micro-identities may be associated with belonging and others with distinctiveness, which can help mitigate the tradeoff between the two (Shepherd and Haynie 2009a). This relationship is shown in Fig. 5.2.
Fig. 5.2 Micro-identities and the ‘super-ordinate’ identity
Entrepreneurs’ micro-identities can be defined by the degree to which they maintain multiple role identities (Greenhaus and Powell 2006). Overall, the number of micro-identities a particular person maintains depends on the number of role identities that he or she incorporates when constructing an overall self-identity (the super-ordinate identity curve). While an entrepreneurial identity is itself likely formed from various micro-identities , this added complexity is unnecessary for model development.
Individuals define their identities by the peripheral and central traits characteristic of a specific role (Ashforth et al. 2000: 475). A person may define his or her “entrepreneurial identity” as encompassing a set of central (e.g., strategic orientation , commitment to opportunity, control of resources [Brown et al. 2001]) and peripheral attributes, which together form this person’s entrepreneurial identity.2 This same person may also see his or her “parent” role identity as encompassing a set of central (e.g., role model, protector) and peripheral (e.g., repair person, kids’ taxi, etc.) traits, which in sum form the parenthood role identity. All micro-identities have their own curve describing the distinctiveness-
well-being relationship, with the maximum of the inverted-U curve representing the best balancing of distinctiveness and belonging with respect to the particular micro -identity. The optimal distinctiveness when an individual enacts an entrepreneurial identity differs from the optimal distinctiveness level when that same person enacts other micro-identities . This optimum is also different from an entrepreneur’s super-ordinate identity curve (if he or she has more than one micro-identity ) as we will outline in more detail below. As an example, the distinctiveness need is more likely to be fulfilled by a person’s entrepreneurial identity than by his or her parent identity.
There are boundaries between each of these micro-identities , also known as identity boundaries, or the “physical, temporal, emotional, cognitive, and/or relational limits that define entities [identities] as separate from one another” (Ashforth et al. 2000: 474). An identity boundary may, for example, be defined by a building: once the person enters his or her workplace, that person takes on the identity associated with his or her vocation. Yet, identity boundaries can also be less tangible (e.g., than a building) and more cognitive in nature . Consider a founder who gets a phone call from a business partner while driving. Even though he or she may be heading to the mountains for a weekend getaway, the business call requires an identity transition defined by the person’s entrepreneur micro-identity boundary . Although we detail the characteristics that define identity boundaries later, it is important to note here that entrepreneurs who maintain only one identity aligning to their ventures are likely less psychologically healthy than entrepreneurs who additionally maintain micro-identities related to belongingness .
Entrepreneurial Cognition Page 20
