Received: 14 November 2017
Revised: 15 April 2019
Accepted: 19 April 2019
DOI: 10.1002/job.2374
THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW
Entrepreneurial motivation: A review of the literature and an
agenda for future research
Charles Y. Murnieks1
|
Anthony C. Klotz1
|
Dean A. Shepherd2
1
College of Business Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon
Summary
2
Mendoza College of BusinessNotre Dame
University, Notre Dame, Indiana
Given the substantial impact that new ventures have on the global economy, under-
Correspondence
Charles Y. Murnieks, Oregon State University,
College of Business, 443 Austin Hall, Corvallis
OR 97331.
Email: charles.murnieks@oregonstate.edu
importance. Although research on the nature, causes, and consequences of entrepre-
standing what motivates entrepreneurs is of both practical and theoretical
neurial motivation has grown rapidly, it has evolved in distinct theoretical silos that
tend to isolate motives based on the phase of business development (e.g., initiation,
growth, and exit) rather than acknowledge that individuals often traverse all these
phases and experience multiple types of motivation throughout their entrepreneurial
journey. To advance the study of motivation in the fields of entrepreneurship and
organizational behavior and provide a means through which these advancements
can contribute to our understanding of how motivation drives the start‐up, growth,
and exiting of businesses, we organize and review the extant literature on entrepreneurial motives based on the phases of the new venture process. In doing so, this article develops a roadmap of the current state of entrepreneurial motivation research
and its nomological network and provides suggestions to guide future research in
extending our understanding of motivation in the entrepreneurship domain as well
as in traditional organizational settings.
K E Y W OR D S
entrepreneurial motivation, entrepreneurial passion, exit, growth, initiation
1
|
I N T RO D U CT I O N
motivation in organizations more generally. However, as the study of
entrepreneurial motivation has proceeded, it has done so in a some-
Motivation—the set of energetic forces that originate within as well as
what unorganized manner, leaving us with an incoherent “big picture”
beyond individuals to initiate behavior and determine its form, direc-
of the role of motivation in the entrepreneurial process.
tion, intensity, and duration (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003; Pinder, 1998)
Studies of entrepreneurial motivation tend to focus on single
—has been a core topic in psychological science and organizational
phases of the business development process, namely venture initia-
behavior (OB) for over a century (Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017;
tion, growth, or exit. This approach has produced many insights into
Mowrer, 1952). During this time, a number of subdomains within the
why entrepreneurs act the way they do in each of these individual
literature have emerged based on specific theories of motivation and
phases. However, to borrow from Ployhart (2008, p. 54), “Frankly,
upon how motivation operates in specific contexts. One particularly
for most real‐world problems, who cares about motivation at a single
active subdomain focuses on understanding what motivates entrepre-
point in time?” Ployhart's sentiment may be especially true for entre-
neurs to start, grow, and exit their ventures. This research, which
preneurs as their motives can change between different phases of
examines motivation in the distinct and often extreme entrepreneurial
their endeavors. Indeed, entrepreneurs like Paul Allen (Microsoft)
context, has not only advanced our understanding of what motivates
and Yvon Chouinard (Patagonia) experienced significant shifts in their
entrepreneurs but has also produced insights into the dynamics of
motives over the course of founding and growing their organizations
J Organ Behav. 2019;1–29.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1
2
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
(Chouinard, 2005; Rich, 2003). Although studies based on different
motivation in the field of OB. Regarding the field of entrepreneurship,
phases explain unique aspects of entrepreneurial actions, focusing
this review will (a) provide the field with a nomological network of the
on one stage or another has left the field without a holistic framework
causes, types, consequences, mechanisms, and moderators associated
for understanding how various motives influence the entrepreneurial
with entrepreneurial motivation; (b) build a framework to bridge the
process. Moreover, although scholars acknowledge that management
study of entrepreneurial motivation across the three phases of
research needs to consider time explicitly as a pertinent variable
the new venture process; (c) identify understudied motives, the direct
(Shipp & Cole, 2015), when it is addressed, researchers tend to
and moderating effects of which have the potential to explain mean-
dedicate only a few paragraphs to motivation and temporal issues
ingful variance in new venture outcomes; and (d) discuss methodolog-
(Grant & Shin, 2012). Given the frequent and unpredictable change
ical advances in other fields that may be useful to the study of
inherent in entrepreneurial environments, this context provides an
entrepreneurial motivation. Regarding the field of OB, this review will
ideal setting in which to examine changes in motivation over time.
(a) summarize what we have learned from studying motivation in the
Also, studies of entrepreneurial motivation tend to emphasize either
extreme context of entrepreneurship; (b) highlight aspects of entre-
the role of endogenous factors like self‐regulatory or affective con-
preneurial motivation that have the potential to advance our under-
structs (e.g., identity congruence and entrepreneurial passion) or the
standing of employee motivation more generally (e.g., passion); and
influence of exogenous elements like goals or financial rewards as
(c) provide a template for better understanding leader, team, and
drivers of entrepreneurial behavior (Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003).
employee motivation across career transitions and organizational
In other words, this research concentrates on either intrinsic or extrin-
changes by reviewing entrepreneurial motivation research throughout
sic motivators. On the one hand, considering intrinsic motives is novel
the new venture process.
in light of the traditional views of economists who focus on financial
drivers of entrepreneurial action (e.g., Hebert & Link, 1988;
Schumpeter, 1934). On the other hand, independently investigating
2
|
OVERVIEW OF THE REVIEW
intrinsic or extrinsic motivation may be misleading given research
suggesting that both types of motives, and many others, drive
Although some scholars highlight the need to examine certain areas of
entrepreneurial behavior; indeed, the two can interact in powerful
the entrepreneurial motivation literature more deeply (e.g., Carsrud &
ways (e.g., Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Powell & Baker, 2014).
Brannback, 2011; Shane et al., 2003), no comprehensive review of the
Moreover, despite evidence that extrinsic rewards can attenuate
entrepreneurial motivation literature exists. We followed the proce-
(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) and facilitate (Cerasoli, Nicklin, &
dures outlined by Shepherd, Williams, and Patzelt (2015) and
Ford, 2014) intrinsic motivation, these contingent relationships have
Hodgkinson and Ford (2014), to perform a systematic search for
been insufficiently explored in the context of founding, growing, and
articles to review. We conducted keyword searches in the Web of
exiting organizations.
Science and Business Source Premier databases across prominent
Finally, investigating motivation in the entrepreneurial context pro-
OB journals (Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied
vides the opportunity to take stock of what we currently understand,
Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
question and extend theoretical boundaries, and highlight the need for
and Personnel Psychology), management journals (Academy of Manage-
(and inform the formation of) new theories of motivation. These
ment Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science
research opportunities arise in the entrepreneurial context given its
Quarterly, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies,
extreme nature; it is extreme in terms of its high uncertainty
Management Science, Organization Science, and Strategic Management
(McMullen & Shepherd, 2006), intense time pressure (Baron, 1998),
Journal), and entrepreneurship journals (Entrepreneurship Theory and
challenges associated with assembling resources (Baum & Locke,
Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business
2004; Delmar & Wiklund, 2008), and elevated levels of organizational
Management, Small Business Economics, and Strategic Entrepreneurship
termination (DeTienne, McKelvie, & Chandler, 2015; Ucbasaran,
Journal). Following directly from our definition of motivation, we
Westhead, Wright, & Flores, 2010). In new ventures, relationships
searched titles, keywords, and abstracts for articles containing any of
between motivation and other affective, cognitive, and behavioral
the words “entrepreneur” (entrepreneur*), “founder” (founder*), or
constructs are brought into sharper focus by these extreme condi-
“opportunity” (opportunit*) and any of the words “motivation”
tions. Indeed, entrepreneurs represent a unique category of working
(motiv*), “energy” (energ*), or “initiate” (initiat*). This search generated
individuals; they make significant financial and psychological invest-
a list of 520 articles, which we refined by excluding articles that
ments in their organizations relative to other employees. Thus, in the
did not investigate entrepreneurial motivation or when motivation
entrepreneurial context, we can explore theoretical boundaries that
was not central to the study. In total, we excluded 449 articles. As
are obscured by perceptions of predictability and organizational stabil-
shown in Table 1, we categorized the remaining 71 articles by venture
ity more prevalent in the less entrepreneurial contexts of established,
phase and motivation type and summarized the findings related in
bureaucratic organizations.
each study.
In conducting a systematic review of the entrepreneurial motiva-
The field of entrepreneurship examines how individuals discover,
tion literature, we contribute to the study of motivation in the field
evaluate, and exploit opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000),
of entrepreneurship and to the study of leader and employee
which covers the continuum from starting businesses to growing them
Phase
Initiation
Exit
Growth
Initiation
Initiation
Study
Adkins, Samaras, Gilfillan,
and McWee (2013)
Akhter, Sieger, and Chirico
(2016)
Almandoz (2014)
Almandoz (2012)
Amit, MacCrimmon, Zietsma,
and Oesch (2000)
51 founders
271 founding teams
225 founding teams
18 founders (49 firms)
432 founders
Sample
Motivation and entrepreneurial effects studies
TABLE 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intrinsic
X
EI interacta
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
Extrinsic
X
X
X
Intensity
X
Duration
ET AL.
(Continues)
Wealth attainment is less
important to entrepreneurs
compared with other
motives like innovation,
vision, independence, and
challenge.
Founding teams motivated
by financial logic are less
likely to persist in founding
a bank. Teams motivated
by community logic are
more likely to persist. In
economic turbulence,
teams high on both
motives are less persistent.
During economic stability,
this interactive effect is
reversed (i.e., it is positive).
Financial logic motivation
leads to focus on profit
maximization and riskier
strategies whereas
community logic
motivation leads to focus
on community needs (and
less on profits) as well as
less risky strategies.
Identity‐related motivations
play a key role in the
decision to shut down (vs.
sell) a satellite venture.
These relationships are
moderated by goals to
recycle assets, to restart
the satellite, and
performance decline.
Entrepreneurial motivation to
manage work‐life balance
leads to increased work–
family culture in the venture.
Study findings
MURNIEKS
3
Phase
Growth
Growth
Growth
Initiation
Initiation
Growth
Baron, Mueller, and Wolfe
(2016)
Baum and Locke (2004)
Baum, Locke, and Smith
(2001)
Benzing, Chu, and Kara
(2009)
Block, Sandner, and Spiegel
(2015)
Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt,
and Klaukien (2012)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
124 employees
1,526 founders
139 founders
307 founders
229 founders
167 founders
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
Extrinsic
X
X
X
X
Intrinsic
EI interact
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
X
X
X
X
Intensity
Duration
(Continues)
Perceptions of entrepreneurs'
passion for inventing and
developing increase
employee affective
commitment; passion for
founding reduces
employee affective
commitment.
Entrepreneurs motivated by
creativity are more willing
to take risks.
Extrinsic factors (income,
security) are more
important motives behind
the choice to start a
venture than intrinsic
ones.
Situation‐specific motivation
mediates the effects of
traits and competencies on
venture growth.
Motivation (in the form of
communicated vision and
goals) drives venture
growth. Passion drives
some types of motives, but
it does not lead directly to
venture growth.
Self‐efficacy positively
relates to goal difficulty,
but is attenuated by self‐
control. Goal difficulty
motivates higher firm
growth, but this
relationship is curvilinear
(inverted).
Study findings
4
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
Phase
Initiation
Growth
Initiation, Growth
Initiation, Growth
Initiation, Growth
Growth
Initiation, Growth
Brockner, Higgins, and Low
(2004)
Burmeister‐Lamp, Levesque,
and Schade (2012)
Cacciotti, Hayton, Mitchell,
and Giazitzoglu (2016)
Cardon, Post, and Forster
(2017)
Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens,
and Patel (2013)
Cardon and Kirk (2015)
Cardon, Wincent, Singh, and
Drnovsek (2009)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
Conceptual paper
129 founders
158 founders
Conceptual paper
65 founders
25 founders
Conceptual paper
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Extrinsic
X
X
X
X
Intrinsic
X
EI interact
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
X
X
Intensity
X
X
X
X
Duration
(Continues)
Entrepreneurial passion
motivates opportunity
recognition, venture
creation, and growth by
enhancing creative problem
solving, persistence, and
absorption.
Passion for both inventing
and founding mediate the
effect of self‐efficacy on
persistence.
Entrepreneurial passion for
inventing and founding
each motivate creativity.
Entrepreneurial passion for
developing motivates
persistence.
Team entrepreneurial
passion motivates venture
team performance and
improves quality of team
processes.
Fear of failure motivates
inhibition and withdrawal
or persistence and striving
behaviors.
Promotion focus drives greater
time investment when this
results in greater risks, but
lower time investment when
this results in less risk.
Prevention focus operates in
the opposite manner.
Promotion and prevention
regulatory motivations
provide advantages to
distinct elements of
venture initiation.
Study findings
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
5
Phase
Initiation
Initiation
Exit
Growth
Initiation
Exit
Carsrud and Brannback
(2011)
Chen, Yao, and Kotha (2009)
Collewaert (2012)
Delmar and Wiklund (2008)
DeMartino and Barbato
(2003)
DeTienne et al. (2015)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
189 founders
497 founders
673 founders
72 founders
126 students (Study 1),
55 investors (Study 2)
Review paper
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intrinsic
EI interacta
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
Extrinsic
Intensity
Duration
MURNIEKS
(Continues)
Extrinsic motivation
negatively relates to
preference for stewardship
exit strategies, but
autonomous motivation
positively relates to it.
Regarding antecedents to
entrepreneurial intentions,
women entrepreneurs
ranked family friendly
policies, family obligations,
and spouse employment
higher than male
entrepreneurs, and wealth
creation lower than
males.
Growth motivation drives
subsequent growth
motivation and actual firm
growth.
Entrepreneurial motivation
to exit is elevated when
higher task and goal
conflict are perceived
between entrepreneurs
and angel investors.
Perceived affective passion
among entrepreneurs does
not influence decisions to
invest in ventures;
perceived cognitive
passion (or preparedness)
increases the desire to
invest.
Entrepreneurs can be
motivated to start firms for
intrinsic reasons or for
external rewards (or
both).
Study findings
6
ET AL.
Phase
Exit
Growth
Growth
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
DeTienne, Shepherd, and De
Castro (2008)
Drnovsek, Cardon, and Patel
(2016)
Dunkelberg, Moore, Scott,
and Stull (2013)
Edelman et al. (2010)
Farmer et al. (2012)
George, Kotha, Parikh,
Alnuaimi, and Bahaj (2016)
Gregoire and Shepherd
(2012)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
98 founders (Study 1),
51 founders (Study 2)
1,049 households
563 nascent founders
401 founders
2,994 founders
122 CEOs
89 founders
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Extrinsic
X
X
X
Intrinsic
EI interact
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
X
Intensity
X
Duration
(Continues)
Motivation to start a
business moderates the
relationship between
structural similarity and
opportunity beliefs.
Social structure
disintegration in
households motivates
venture initiation actions.
This effect is moderated
by gender of the head of
household.
Entrepreneurial identity
aspiration strength
motivates discovery and
exploitation behaviors.
Expectancy beliefs are key
motivators behind starting
a venture, among a
number of other intrinsic
and extrinsic motivators
underlying venture
initiation.
Nonmonetary goals motivate
founders to use more of
their own and family labor
(and less employee labor).
Goal commitment partially
mediates the positive
relationship between
passion for developing and
venture growth.
Personal investments and
high extrinsic motivation
increase persistence with a
failing firm; extrinsic
motives increase the
importance of personal
options.
Study findings
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
7
Phase
Initiation
Growth
Initiation
Initiation
Growth
Growth
Grunhagen and Mittelstaedt
(2005)
Hallen and Pahnke (2016)
Haynie and Shepherd (2011)
Huyghe, Knockaert, and
Obschonka (2016)
Jaskiewicz, Combs, and Rau
(2015)
Kang, Matusik, Kim, and
Phillips (2016)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
105 individuals
21 firms
2,308 researchers
10 founders
785 founders
192 founders
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
Extrinsic
X
X
X
X
Intrinsic
EI interact
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
Intensity
Duration
MURNIEKS
(Continues)
Risk‐taking climate moderates
the relationship between
passion for inventing and
employee innovative
behavior.
Entrepreneurial “legacy”
motivates incumbent and
next‐generation owners to
engage in strategic activities
that foster transgenerational
entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial passion
motivates higher spin‐off
and start‐up intentions.
Obsessive scientific
passion motivates spin‐off
intentions. These
relationships are mediated
by entrepreneurial self‐
efficacy and affective
organizational commitment.
Motivations to become
entrepreneurs after
traumatic combat injuries
include both push (e.g.,
physical and psychological
limits) and pull (e.g.,
passion, competence, and
security) motives.
Motivation to access
information positively
relates to the accuracy of
evaluations of venture
capitalists.
Intrinsic motivation (personal
entrepreneurial ambition)
is more prevalent among
sequential multi‐unit
founders (vs. area
developer founders).
Study findings
8
ET AL.
Phase
Exit
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
Khan, Tang, and Joshi (2014)
Kollmann, Stockmann, and
Kensbock (2017)
Kuhn and Galloway (2015)
Li, Chen, Kotha, and Fisher
(2017)
McMullen and Shepherd
(2006)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
Conceptual paper
170 students (Study 1), 180
students (Study 2), and 120
students (Study 3)
343 founders
71 students (Study 1), 204
nascent founders (Study 2),
and 355 nascent founders
(Study 3)
943 founders
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
X
EI interacta
X
Intrinsic
Motivation type and characteristics studied
Extrinsic
Intensity
Duration
(Continues)
Entrepreneurial action is a
function of perceived
uncertainty and
motivation.
Entrepreneurial motivation
determines the criteria
used to decide whether
third‐person opportunities
represent first‐person
opportunities as well.
Displayed passion from
entrepreneurs motivates
crowdfunders to invest
greater funding in the
entrepreneurs' projects.
Business motivation leads to
higher value on promotion
and business advice
support. Creative
expression motives lead to
higher value on emotional
support, friendship, and
production advice.
Business motives, not
creative expression
motives, positively
relate to self‐rated
performance.
Fear of failure motivates
more negative opportunity
evaluation, through lower
perceptions of desirability
and feasibility.
Entrepreneurial motivation
(goal commitment)
negatively relates to
disengagement. This
relationship is moderated
by competitive intensity.
Study findings
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
9
Phase
Growth
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
Growth
Initiation
Growth
McMullen and Warnick
(2015)
Miller and Le Breton‐Miller
(2017)
Miller, Grimes, McMullen,
and Vogus (2012)
Mitteness, Sudek, and
Cardon (2012)
Moen, Heggeseth, and Lome
(2016)
Morgan and Sisak (2016)
Morris, Miyasaki, Watters,
and Coombes (2006)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
50 founders
Conceptual paper
247 firms
64 angel investors
Conceptual paper
Conceptual paper
Conceptual paper
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intrinsic
EI interacta
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
Extrinsic
X
X
Intensity
X
X
Duration
MURNIEKS
(Continues)
Both extrinsic and intrinsic
factors (e.g., desire to be rich,
challenge, prove oneself,
happiness, and satisfaction)
and high identification with
the business motivates high‐
growth founders, relative to
modest‐growth founders.
Fear of failure suppresses
motivation to become an
entrepreneur, but it can
motivate additional
investment by ambitious
entrepreneurs.
Growth motivation
influences revenue and
employment growth.
Perceived passion among
entrepreneurs results in
higher evaluations of
funding potential from
prospective investors.
Compassion motivates social
entrepreneurship by working
through the mechanisms of
integrative thinking,
prosocial cost‐benefit
analysis, and commitment to
alleviate others' suffering.
Negative personal
circumstances motivate
adaptive efforts that may
foster work discipline, risk
tolerance, social skills, and
creativity.
Supporting the psychological
needs of successors
motivates them to commit
to the family business.
Study findings
10
ET AL.
Phase
Growth
Growth
Growth
Initiation
Initiation
Mueller, Wolfe, and Syed
(2017)
Murnieks, Cardon, Sudek,
White, and Brooks (2016)
Murnieks, Mosakowski, and
Cardon (2014)
Naffziger, Hornsby, and
Kuratko (1994)
Patzelt and Shepherd (2011)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
Conceptual paper
Conceptual paper
221 founders
53 investors
204 founders
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
Extrinsic
X
X
X
Intrinsic
EI interact
a
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
X
X
X
Intensity
Duration
(Continues)
Motivations to address
threats to the natural/
communal environments,
and motivations to help
others drive recognition of
opportunities for
sustainable development.
Entrepreneurial motivation is
a function of an
entrepreneur's personal
characteristics, personal
environment, personal
goals, the business
environment, the idea, and
intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards.
Identity centrality drives
entrepreneurs' passion,
which relates to self‐
efficacy and
entrepreneurial
behavior.
Angel investors rate ventures
more favorably to the
extent the founder is
passionate about the
venture. This relationship
is moderated by investor
entrepreneurial
experience.
Passion for developing
ventures positively relates
to grit, which positively
relates to venture
performance. Locomotion
and assessment
orientation mediate the
relationship between
passion and grit.
Study findings
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
11
Phase
Growth
Initiation
Initiation, Growth
Growth
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
Powell and Baker (2014)
Renko (2013)
Spivack, McKelvie, and
Haynie (2014)
Stenholm and Renko (2016)
Stewart and Roth (2007)
Townsend and Hart (2008)
Van Gelderen, Kautonen, and
Fink (2015)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
161 individuals
Conceptual paper
Meta‐analysis
2,489 founders
2 founders
193 nascent founders
13 firms
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intrinsic
X
EI interacta
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
Extrinsic
Intensity
X
Duration
MURNIEKS
(Continues)
Self‐control and doubt
negatively moderate the
relationship between
entrepreneurial intention/
motivation and action.
The combined economic and
social goals of founders
motivate selection of
organizational formation
as a for‐profit or non‐
profit firm.
Entrepreneurs exhibit
significantly higher
achievement motivation
than managers.
Passion for inventing and
passion for developing
increase bricolage, which
increases entrepreneurial
survival.
Behavioral addiction can
motivate entrepreneurial
addiction among habitual
entrepreneurs, which can
manifest into other
compulsive behaviors and
psychological/
physiological problems.
Social motivation leads to
lower progress toward firm
emergence.
Entrepreneurs enact
different definitions of
adversity through distinct
identities, which motivate
unique ways in which they
use their firms to defend
who they are or to become
who they want to be.
Study findings
12
ET AL.
Phase
Growth
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
Vik and McElwee (2011)
Webb, Bruton, Tihanyi, and
Ireland (2013)
Weber, Heinze, and
DeSoucey (2008)
Westhead, Ucbasaran,
Wright, and Binks (2005)
Williams and Shepherd
(2016)
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
12 founders (6 firms)
354 founders
24 founders
Conceptual paper
943 individuals
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
Extrinsic
X
X
Intrinsic
EI interact
a
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
Intensity
X
Duration
(Continues)
In the aftermath of the Haiti
earthquake (2010), two
types of ventures
emerged, motivated by
desires to either sustain
basic needs or facilitate
transition toward
autonomy and self‐
reliance.
Motivations can change over
time, especially for PE or
SE. Compared with
novices, PEs reported
personal wealth and
intrinsic motives like being
challenged more often,
whereas SEs cited intrinsic
motives like controlling
their own time more
often.
Entrepreneurs choose and
persist with ventures
because they obtain
energy from connecting
their work to a sense of
self and moral
values.
Motivation to engage in
informal entrepreneurship
activities (illegal but
not antisocial) can result
in both productive
and destructive
outcomes.
Both social and economic
motivations drive
diversification of activities
from original business.
Study findings
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
13
Initiation
Initiation
Initiation
Growth
Initiation
Witt (2007)
Woo, Cooper, and
Dunkelberg (1991)
Wood, McKelvie, and Haynie
(2014)
Yamakawa, Peng, and Deeds
(2015)
York, O'Neil, and Sarasvathy
(2016)
25 founders
203 founders
35 founders
510 founders
Conceptual paper
Sample
X
X
X
X
X
a
Indicates Extrinsic × Intrinsic motivation interaction was considered in this paper
X
X
X
X
Intrinsic
EI interacta
X
X
X
X
X
Direction
Motivation type and characteristics studied
Extrinsic
Abbreviations: EI, extrinsic‐intrinsic interaction; PE, portfolio entrepreneur; SE, serial entrepreneur.
Phase
(Continued)
Study
TABLE 1
Intensity
Duration
Commercial and ecological
logics motivate
environmental
entrepreneurs in different
manners. Inclusive,
exclusive, and co‐created
approaches relate to the
entrepreneurial
motivation.
Internal attribution of blame
after venture failure and
intrinsic motivation to start
again drive growth in
subsequent business.
Task motivation moderates
the relationships between
industry conditions and
knowledge relatedness,
and founder willingness to
pursue an opportunity.
Cluster analyses reveal that
different entrepreneurs
are motivated by different
intrinsic and extrinsic
goals. Different methods
of classification can
increase or decrease the
separation of these
clusters.
Intrinsic motivation relates to
initiative, creativity,
problem‐solving, and
improved task
performance among new
venture employees.
Study findings
14
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
MURNIEKS
15
ET AL.
and then exiting from them (e.g., Fisher, Kotha, & Lahiri, 2016). Across
depict a much richer nomological network surrounding entrepreneurial
these phases, entrepreneurs experience different types and levels of
motivation in the initiation (Figure 2) and growth (Figure 3) phases
motivation depending on whether they need to engage in initiation,
compared with the exit phase (Figure 4).
growth, or exit activities. As our review indicates, however, extant
Next, following the roadmap provided by Figure 1, we review
research is unbalanced in its treatment of motivation during these
research on entrepreneurial motivation during new venture initiation,
entrepreneurship phases. Scholars have dedicated considerably more
growth, and exit. Within each section, we discuss the different theo-
effort to studying the motives behind venture initiation compared
ries and types of motivation as well as the antecedents, consequences,
with those that drive growth or exit. This imbalance is not necessarily
and moderators of entrepreneurial motives. Each section culminates
surprising as researchers acknowledge that a defining characteristic of
with a discussion of future research opportunities.
entrepreneurship as a field is the phenomenon of new venture initiation and understanding how and why entrepreneurs are driven to give
them life (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Shane & Venkataraman,
2000). As shown in Table 1, 68% (48 articles) of the entrepreneurial
3 | ENTREPRENEURIAL MOTIVATION
DURING VENTURE INITIATION
motivation literature focuses on the venture initiation phase, whereas
27% (19) focuses on the growth phase, and only 5% (4) focuses on the
Figure 2 provides an overview of research on the motives and out-
exit phase. Most of this research stream is empirical; indeed, 77% (55)
comes related to the initiation phase of entrepreneurship. The most
of the papers develop and test hypotheses. Of the 14 conceptual arti-
prevalent type of motivation studied is extrinsic, particularly, eco-
cles, 93% (13) concentrate on venture initiation. To better understand
nomic and financial incentives (e.g., Benzing et al., 2009). Other extrin-
the network of concepts that scholars have examined in the literature,
sic entrepreneurial motives include social equity (Renko, 2013),
we model the different constructs and relationships represented, and
ecological preservation (York et al., 2016), and work–family balance
organize them by entrepreneurial phase. The unevenness of scholarly
(Adkins et al., 2013); however, these motives have received far less
activity across the three phases is apparent in Figures 2–4, which
scholarly attention than economic drivers of entrepreneurship. Studies
FIGURE 1 Overview of entrepreneurial
motivation across three phases of new
venture process
16
MURNIEKS
FIGURE 2
Entrepreneurial motivation during venture initiation
FIGURE 3
Entrepreneurial motivation during venture growth
have also examined intrinsic motives related to identity (Farmer, Yao,
ET AL.
beyond simply starting a new business. Indeed, studies have investi-
& Kung‐Mcintyre, 2011), moral values (Weber et al., 2008), and emo-
gated the types of new ventures started (e.g., for‐profit vs. non‐profit;
tions (e.g., passion or fear of failure; Cardon et al., 2013; Morgan &
Townsend & Hart, 2008), the types of entrepreneurial activities under-
Sisak, 2016) as forms of entrepreneurial motivation. Researchers have
taken (e.g., legal vs. informal; Webb et al., 2013), and entrepreneurs'
explored how entrepreneurial motives shape founder behaviors
behaviors during initiation (Dunkelberg et al., 2013).
FIGURE 4
Entrepreneurial motivation during venture exit
MURNIEKS
3.1
|
17
ET AL.
Economic motivations for venture initiation
typically considered antisocial (e.g., employing undocumented workers
or street vending). The extent to which formal economies oppress
At the most general level, the motivation to start a business drives
individuals' abilities to earn profits can motivate entrepreneurs to
subsequent entrepreneurial activity (e.g., Herron & Sapienza, 1992;
engage in informal venturing (Webb et al., 2013). Although economic
McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Van Gelderen et al., 2015); that said,
motives may drive entrepreneurs to organize for‐profit firms, social
more specific motivations underlie this general motivation. Early writ-
motivation can encourage nonprofit structures (Townsend & Hart,
ings from economists theorize that the primary motive for entrepre-
2008). Various combinations of economic and intrinsic motives,
neurship is the prospect of financial gain (Cantillon, 1931; Casson,
including desires to mitigate risk exposure, can prompt entrepreneurs
1982; Hebert & Link, 1988; Knight, 1921; Schumpeter, 1934).
to pursue portfolio entrepreneurship (owning multiple businesses at
Although many conceptual papers embrace the importance of this
one time) or serial entrepreneurship (starting a new venture after clos-
type of motivation (e.g., Naffziger et al., 1994), empirical data does
ing or exiting a previous one; Cruz & Justo, 2017; Westhead & Wright,
not support economic motivation as the primary driver of entrepre-
1998). Collectively, this research lends credence to the notion that
neurship (Block et al., 2015; Woo et al., 1991; Yitshaki & Kropp,
entrepreneurial motivation drives decisions to initiate ventures and
2016). To this point, a study by Amit et al. (2000) indicates that of
shapes the type of ventures that emerge.
11 different entrepreneurial motives, the desire to attain wealth ranks
last in importance, behind noneconomic desires, such as achieving
independence, making a contribution, and being innovative. Even if
they are not the primary reason entrepreneurs start businesses, eco-
3.2 | Noneconomic and intrinsic motivations behind
venture initiation
nomic motives still play an important role. Indeed, when entrepreneurs
look to enter new markets and start businesses, they understand the
As mentioned earlier, entrepreneurs often rank noneconomic and
importance of earning enough money to make a living (Weber et al.,
intrinsic entrepreneurial motives, such as achieving independence,
2008; Westhead & Wright, 1998). As such, economic motives may
overcoming challenges, and being innovative, higher than economic
represent a necessary but insufficient condition to start a venture
ones (Amit et al., 2000). Indeed, the forces that motivate venture
(Weber et al., 2008).
initiation include a diverse range of personal desires, such as self‐
Although profits may not be the primary driver of venture initia-
realization, independence, innovation, recognition, and family tradition
tion, there are factors that increase the salience of economic motives
(Edelman, Brush, Manolova, & Greene, 2010; Westhead & Wright,
among entrepreneurs. For example, changes in the economic climate
1998). In particular, family desires can motivate founders to establish
can elevate the motivation to engage in entrepreneurial activity.
ventures with positive work–family cultures (Adkins et al., 2013).
Research conducted in emerging markets shows that shocks to house-
Other important noneconomic and intrinsic motives include identity
hold social structures (e.g., from calamities like the death of the head
and ancestry, patriotism, and prosocial concerns (Williams & Shepherd,
of the family) drive frantic searches for new sources of income, includ-
2016). Indeed, prosocial motives are an emerging area of interest
ing entrepreneurship (George et al., 2016). Relatedly, negative
across entrepreneurial motivation research (e.g., Miller et al., 2012;
personal circumstances that adversely impact individuals' income or
Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011; Renko, 2013). Scholars theorize that
career advancement may also motivate compensation through
prosocial motives activate entrepreneurs' cognitive and affective
entrepreneurship (Miller & Le Breton‐Miller, 2017). For instance,
processes related to integrative thinking, prosocial judgments, and
immigrants who lack linguistic skills or education or individuals
commitment to alleviating others' suffering, which in turn drive
who face obstacles to traditional employment may be particularly
subsequent social venturing (Miller et al., 2012). Researchers have also
motivated to undertake entrepreneurial activity (Haynie & Shepherd,
analyzed how different prosocial motivations trigger actions to allevi-
2011; Miller & Le Breton‐Miller, 2017). The possibility of raising one's
ate the suffering of others, which drives the formation of different
earning potential can also increase individuals' motivations to initiate
venture types (Williams & Shepherd, 2016). Although prosocial moti-
ventures and to allocate more time toward start‐up activities,
vation plays a role in firm emergence, it may also slow the speed of
especially if they are promotion (versus prevention) focused
the initiation process, especially for products that are new to market
(Burmeister‐Lamp et al., 2012). Taken together, these studies highlight
(Renko, 2013). Intrinsic motives also drive the formation of franchises
how economic motives to engage in entrepreneurship should be
(Grunhagen & Mittelstaedt, 2005) and other new ventures (Almandoz,
viewed from a contingency perspective that accommodates salient
2012; Block et al., 2015).
contextual and personal factors.
Identity‐related motives can drive entrepreneurial action during
Economic motives not only drive the decision to start a business
the initiation phase. For instance, entrepreneurial identity aspirations
but can also shape the form of entrepreneurship undertaken. For
motivate opportunity discovery and exploitation behaviors (Farmer
example, some entrepreneurs operate outside the formal economy
et al., 2012). Moreover, entrepreneurs' motivation to enter and persist
(i.e., informal or illegitimate entrepreneurship) because they seek to
in difficult industries often stems from a deep emotional connection to
satisfy subsistence needs, accumulate wealth, or avoid excessive taxes
their actions, such as congruence between the venture's mission and
(Webb et al., 2013). Informal entrepreneurship includes activities that
the entrepreneur's identity and values (Weber et al., 2008). Related
occur beyond traditional institutional boundaries but that are not
theoretical efforts also shed light on the impact of individuals' desires
18
MURNIEKS
to achieve congruence between ideal or ought identities on their
entrepreneurial behavior, and how this tension impacts opportunity
ET AL.
3.5 | Integrating intrinsic and extrinsic
entrepreneurial motives
recognition and venture formation (Brockner et al., 2004). Just as contextual variables might increase the salience of economic motives,
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations drive venture formation, and both
these same factors may stoke prosocial and intrinsic motives (Patzelt
should be considered conjointly to determine their effects on venture
& Shepherd, 2011).
initiation and performance (Kuhn & Galloway, 2015). Among environmental entrepreneurs, it is common for both commercial (economic)
and ecological logics to drive venture formation (York et al., 2016).
This trend is mirrored among commercial, serial, and portfolio entre-
3.3
|
Entrepreneurial passion and venture initiation
preneurs, with similar dualities between extrinsic and intrinsic motives
spurring venture initiation (Almandoz, 2012, 2014; Carter & Ram,
Entrepreneurial passion refers to consciously accessible and intense
2003; Weber et al., 2008; Westhead et al., 2005). That said, scholars
positive feelings experienced by engaging in activities associated
note that motivation profiles among different types of entrepreneurs
with entrepreneurial roles (Cardon et al., 2009). In other words, pas-
may vary. For example, portfolio entrepreneurs may be more
sion is an intense identity‐related emotion that can have powerful
motivated by extrinsic factors related to wealth and financial consider-
motivating effects. In general, entrepreneurial passion motivates
ations than serial or first‐time entrepreneurs (Westhead & Wright,
higher intentions to start a new business (Cardon et al., 2009, 2013;
1998). Kuhn and Galloway (2015) find that a combination of intrinsic
Huyghe et al., 2016) and can stimulate the inventive use of available
and extrinsic motives lead to higher business performance than
resources (i.e., bricolage), which leads to greater persistence during
intrinsic motives alone. Similarly, in a study of the influence of financial
venture creation (Stenholm & Renko, 2016). Passion also motivates
(i.e., extrinsic) and community (i.e., a blend of intrinsic and extrinsic)
both creativity and persistence at entrepreneurial endeavors (Baron,
logics in driving entrepreneurial behaviors, financial logics led to lower
2008; Cardon et al., 2013) and serves as a mechanism linking
entrepreneurial persistence than community logics (Almandoz, 2012).
self‐efficacy and persistence (Cardon & Kirk, 2015). Importantly, an
Thus, questions still exist about the relative contributions of and
entrepreneur's passion for venture initiation can manifest itself as a
interactions between motivations (intrinsic and extrinsic) and venture
positive signal to investors about his or her motivation (Davis,
initiation. Moreover, these findings raise questions about the relative
Hmieleski, Webb, & Coombs, 2017; Hsu, Haynie, Simmons, &
level of endurance driven by different types of motivation, especially
McKelvie, 2014; Li et al., 2017; Warnick, Murnieks, McMullen, &
because endurance is an important but relatively neglected dimension
Brooks, 2018). Investors are particularly attracted to entrepreneurs
of entrepreneurial motivation. In one exception, Khan et al. (2014)
who demonstrate passion by preparing logical, coherent presentations
find that goal commitment helps entrepreneurs maintain their
rather than effusive ones (Chen et al., 2009). These findings indicate
motivation during the start‐up process. As described above, both
how entrepreneurial motivation may inspire action from other key
intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can drive entrepreneurs to start
stakeholders to the venture. Moving up one level of analysis, concep-
ventures (e.g., Carsrud & Brannback, 2011), and many studies have
tual research proposes that entrepreneurial passion influences new
assessed both motives simultaneously (e.g., Amit et al., 2000; Block
venture team member exit and entry, team processes, and team
et al., 2015; Dunkelberg et al., 2013; Weber et al., 2008). However,
performance (Cardon et al., 2017) as well.
the relative contribution of intrinsic and extrinsic motives to venture
initiation remains unclear because scholars have rarely explored interactions between them.
3.4
|
Fear of failure and venture initiation
3.6
|
Venture initiation dependent variables
Fear of failure also associates with entrepreneurial motivation, but
unlike passion, its effects are typically negative (e.g., Arenius &
Beyond venture launch, scholars have explored other effects of entre-
Minniti, 2005; Langowitz & Minniti, 2007; Li, 2011; Minniti &
preneurial motivation during venture initiation. For example, individ-
Nardone, 2007). For example, fear of failure may hamper opportu-
uals' receptiveness to different types of risk is an important
nity evaluation and exploitation motives by lowering perceptions of
precursor to firm formation (Janney & Dess, 2006), and research
the desirability and feasibility of entrepreneurial opportunities
shows that extrinsic desires to earn high incomes increase entrepre-
(Kollmann et al., 2017). That said, there is a bright side to fear of
neurs' willingness to take risks, especially in opportunity‐driven (rela-
failure when it comes to entrepreneurial motivation. Although fear
tive to necessity‐driven) entrepreneurs (Block et al., 2015). Similarly,
of failure arouses feelings of threat, which can dampen entrepre-
economic motivations lead to riskier strategic behaviors during new
neurial action, under some circumstances, it can motivate increased
venture founding, whereas noneconomic motivations lead to more
entrepreneurial behavior and persistence (Cacciotti et al., 2016),
conservative strategic behaviors (Almandoz, 2014). Also, entrepre-
especially in nascent entrepreneurs with high aspirations of career
neurs whose primary motivations are nonfinancial (versus financial)
success (Morgan & Sisak, 2016).
work longer and use higher levels of family labor vis‐à‐vis employee
MURNIEKS
19
ET AL.
labor to initiate their ventures (Dunkelberg et al., 2013). Regarding the
heterogenous motives among team members may obstruct team‐level
effect of entrepreneurial motivation on opportunity evaluation, it
motivation and contribute to team dysfunction and diminished ven-
appears that higher task motivation aimed at assessing opportunities
ture performance. Similarly, future research can explore the effect of
attenuates the impact of certain negative industry indicators on
team‐level motivation on both individual‐level outcomes (e.g., motives,
opportunity viability (Wood et al., 2014). Also, explorations of the link
aspirations, and effort) and venture‐level outcomes (e.g., venture
between motivation and opportunity beliefs indicate how the motiva-
emergence and strategy). Indeed, future studies can complement pre-
tion to start a business strengthens the relationship between
vious research on differences in individuals' motivation (i.e., between‐
opportunity‐evaluation cognitions and the formation of opportunity
person differences in motivation) with a temporal perspective on how
beliefs (Gregoire & Shepherd, 2012). Finally, limited research into the
individuals' motives change over time with the emergence of the ven-
dark side of entrepreneurial motivation shows how motivation can
ture, the emergence of the team, and the accumulation of experience
transform into addiction (Spivack et al., 2014). Researchers investigat-
(i.e., within‐person change in motivation).
ing the obsessive form of passion in entrepreneurship also explore
Finally, entrepreneurial motivation research is largely unidirectional
addiction although generally, these studies do not assess the dysfunc-
in terms of examining the effect of motives on entrepreneurial behav-
tional aspects of this type of motivation (Huyghe et al., 2016;
iors. Yet, there are opportunities to explore the reciprocal mechanism:
Murnieks et al., 2016).
how behavior influences motivation (e.g. Gielnik, Spitzmuller, Schmitt,
Klemann, & Frese, 2015). For example, learning from trial and error
(i.e., action‐generating feedback) can enhance motivation under some
conditions (and demotivate under different conditions), thereby
3.7
Entrepreneurial motivation and venture
initiation: Directions for future research
|
forming a spiral of motivation and trial‐and‐error learning. The
research questions then become what starts, perpetuates, and stops
Although economic motivation has been the most heavily studied
these motivation‐behavior spirals? No doubt there are other mutually
driver of venture initiation activity, intrinsic motives, prosocial
reciprocal, or feedback relationships, that involve various motives, and
motives, and entrepreneurial passion also stimulate behavior during
their exploration could enrich our understanding of entrepreneurial
this phase (e.g., Amit et al., 2000; Cardon et al., 2009; Williams &
motivation.
Shepherd, 2016). Collectively, this research has produced deep
insights into the actions emanating from different types of motivation;
however, scholars rarely analyze interactions between intrinsic and
extrinsic
entrepreneurial
motives
(e.g.,
George,
2007).
This
4 | ENTREPRENEURIAL MOTIVATION
D U R I N G V E N T U R E G RO W T H
understudied topic represents an opportunity to understand when
and why these two types of motives act in a complementary versus
The scholarly attention given to the role of entrepreneurial motivation
an oppositional manner. For example, the desire for financial gain
in the growth phase of new ventures pales in comparison with the
might work in concert with passion for social venturing. It would be
stream of research focusing on entrepreneurs' motivation to start a
insightful to know how entrepreneurial start‐up behavior is affected
when intrinsic and extrinsic motives are congruent with identity values
versus when they are incongruent. Another area of fruitful inquiry is
the interaction between intrinsic motivation and other types of externally focused motives such as prosocial ones. Our review highlights
the growing emphasis on prosocial motivation as a driver of venture
initiation behaviors (e.g., Miller et al., 2012; Williams & Shepherd,
new venture. As depicted in Figure 3, economic, intrinsic, identity congruence, social, and entrepreneurial passion motives are prominent
drivers of venture growth in addition to playing a similar role in venture initiation. Although scholars tend to emphasize economic motives
for venture initiation, studies exploring the growth phase tend to
focus on intrinsic motives and entrepreneurial passion. Next, we take
a finer‐grained look at this research.
2016). However, emerging research in OB indicates prosocial and
intrinsic
motives
may
interact
with
powerful
consequences,
4.1
|
Entrepreneurial passion and venture growth
including behaviors relevant to venture initiation such as creativity,
persistence, and productivity (Bolino & Grant, 2016; Grant, 2008;
Similar to research on entrepreneurial motivation during venture
Grant & Berry, 2011).
initiation, scholars have sought to understand how entrepreneurial
The venture initiation literature largely focuses on the motivation
passion relates to behavior and venture performance during the
of the focal entrepreneur. This approach overlooks the perspective
growth phase. The findings reveal that when founders' identities as
that teams launch most ventures (Klotz, Hmieleski, Bradley, &
entrepreneurs are central to their sense of self, they feel more pas-
Busenitz, 2014). Therefore, it is important that we gain a deeper
sionate, leading to increased self‐efficacy and to changes in behavior.
understanding of new venture team motivation. For example, how
More specifically, entrepreneurial passion positively relates to the time
do individual motives become team motives and to what effect? Per-
founders invest in their ventures during the growth phase (Murnieks
haps a venture team possessing heterogeneous motives develops a
et al., 2014). Subsequent research extends these findings and shows
collective entrepreneurial motivation to enthusiastically undertake
that passion corresponds to higher perseverance (i.e., grit) and that
the many different tasks necessary for venture initiation. However,
entrepreneurial grit relates to firm growth (Mueller et al., 2017).
20
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
Entrepreneurial passion also drives entrepreneurs to set challenging
McElwee (2011) examine the effect of entrepreneurial motivation on
goals and remain committed to them, which contributes to firm
a specific facet of venture growth—diversification of business activi-
growth (Drnovsek et al., 2016). Further, entrepreneurs can establish
ties—and find that different motives for growth drive different types
organizational climates suffused with innovation, proactivity, and risk
of diversification. For example, entrepreneurs who are motivated to
taking such that their employees develop passion that drives increased
be creative are more likely to grow by branching out into tourism
levels of innovative behavior (Kang et al., 2016). In sum, passion moti-
and other miscellaneous activities, whereas those who hold social
vates entrepreneurs to roll up their sleeves and work extraordinarily
yearnings are more likely to expand with initiatives that build a sense
hard to grow their ventures.
of community (e.g., farming for health). This study shows how consid-
In line with work highlighting the link between entrepreneurial pas-
ering different forms of firm growth can elucidate how entrepreneurial
sion and investor decisions, limited research indicates that passion is
motives contribute during this phase (Vik & McElwee, 2011). Second,
also useful for securing funding to fuel future growth. Mitteness
Powell and Baker (2014) develop a grounded theory of how identity‐
et al. (2012) find that the relationship between angel investors' per-
based motives affect entrepreneurs' responses to adversity. In explor-
ceptions of entrepreneurial passion and their funding decisions is
ing 13 firms facing business adversity, the authors discern patterns of
more positive when angels are motivated to mentor entrepreneurs,
identity configurations reflecting differences in the way entrepreneurs
indicating that entrepreneurs' passion may make investing particularly
view the same adversity and thus their motivations to transform, sus-
attractive to outsiders who are motivated to help. Entrepreneurial
tain, or shrink their ventures.
experience also influences the relationship between entrepreneurial
Finally, entrepreneurs' growth motivation—their desire to expand
passion and the likelihood of investment; passion is a more potent
their firms—should relate to firm growth (Delmar & Wiklund, 2008;
predictor of angel investment when combined with entrepreneurial
Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003), subject to some boundary conditions.
experience (Murnieks et al., 2016).
Research on growth motivation in a global business setting provides
evidence that the strength of the relationship between growth motiva-
4.2 | Entrepreneurs' intrinsic motives and venture
growth
In addition to entrepreneurial passion, researchers have paid substantial attention to the effect of intrinsic motives on venture growth.
Recent conceptual work advances the idea that one path via which
family businesses grow over time is the transmission of intrinsic motivation from parents to their children stemming from working in the
tion and actual growth depends on the degree to which the firm's orientation matches the business environment (Moen et al., 2016). That
is, even if an entrepreneur has a strong growth motivation, if his or
her firm does not possess an international orientation, the firm will
struggle to grow, suggesting that high levels of growth may only arise
when growth motivation matches the firm's orientation (Moen et al.,
2016). As such, it is important to consider the fit between different
types of motivation and the context of the organization's environment.
venture (McMullen & Warnick, 2015). Specifically, as children satisfy
their basic psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence by working with their parents, their entrepreneurial motivation
is stoked, and they become more likely to pursue a career within the
family business (McMullen & Warnick, 2015). Empirical work further
supports the notion that to the extent that entrepreneurs experience
intrinsic motivation during the growth phase, their ventures benefit.
Indeed, one study finds that female entrepreneurs' motivation to challenge themselves leads to a growth orientation that positively impacts
venture growth, providing evidence that extrinsic desires contribute to
entrepreneurs' growth orientations beyond the effect of intrinsic
factors (Morris et al., 2006). Intrinsic motivation also influences the
growth of ventures launched after a prior failure. Specifically, intrinsic
motivation acts as a persistence mechanism that, along with the learning associated with accepting blame for the prior failure, leads to
higher growth in subsequent ventures (Yamakawa et al., 2015).
4.4
|
Socioemotional wealth and venture growth
A sizable body of family business literature focuses on the effects of
socioemotional wealth (SEW) on venture growth and performance.
Because recent and comprehensive reviews of the SEW literature
exist (e.g., Berrone, Cruz, & Gomez‐Mejia, 2012; Jiang, Kellermanns,
Munyon, & Morris, 2018), we did not include SEW articles in our
formal review; here, we briefly discuss this body of work and its connection to entrepreneurial motivation. SEW refers to nonfinancial
aspects of owning a venture that satisfy a family's social and affective
needs such as independence or power, or the perpetuation of a family
legacy or dynasty (Berrone et al., 2012; Gomez‐Mejia, Haynes,
Nunez‐Nickel, Jacobson, & Moyano‐Fuentes, 2007). As such, SEW is
motivational because it is tied to family business owners' identities
(Berrone, Cruz, Gomez‐Mejia, & Larraza‐Kintana, 2010; Jiang et al.,
2018), and family business entrepreneurs often manage their firms
4.3 | Additional research on entrepreneurial
motivation and venture growth
not to maximize financial outcomes, but to preserve or increase
SEW (Gomez‐Mejia, Cruz, Berrone, & DeCastro, 2011; Kets de Vries,
1993; Miller & Le Breton‐Miller, 2014). Moreover, the motivation to
Several additional studies not only contribute to our understanding of
protect SEW can drive both increasingly conservative or risky
the role that entrepreneurial motivation plays in venture growth but
decision‐making, depending on how entrepreneurs feel SEW might
also highlight distinct ways to study this relationship. First, Vik and
be threatened (Gomez‐Mejia et al., 2007; Miller & Le Breton‐Miller,
MURNIEKS
21
ET AL.
2014). Given that SEW combines intrinsic and extrinsic motives to
entrepreneur's and the venture's motives. For example, how do
explain family firms' growth and performance (Cennamo, Berrone,
changes in organizational size affect intraindividual and intraventure
Cruz, & Gomez‐Mejia, 2012), it can contribute to our understanding
motivations over time? It is important to develop and test dynamic
of motivation in entrepreneurial and traditional firms.
models of motivation throughout the venture growth phase at the
individual, team, and venture levels as well as across levels of analysis.
Specifically, future research can make important contributions to the
4.5
Entrepreneurial motivation and venture
growth: Directions for future research
|
entrepreneurship and OB literatures by understanding the various
causes of these changes and their different effects.
The growth stage of the entrepreneurial process has arguably more in
common with management in traditional settings than venture initiation or exit. Hence, to expand our understanding of the dynamics of
5 | ENTREPRENEURIAL MOTIVATION AND
VENTURE EXIT
entrepreneurial motivations during this phase, scholars should consider capturing the antecedents and effects of the additional forms
A paucity of research examines the role of motivation in the exit phase
and foci of entrepreneurial motives during the growth phase. In addi-
of the entrepreneurial process. On the one hand, the relative dearth of
tion to exploring intrinsic, extrinsic, and growth motivation, there are
studies focused on founder motivation during this final phase of the
opportunities to contribute to the literature by examining entrepre-
entrepreneurial journey is not surprising given that exit has received
neurs' motivation to help others (i.e., prosocial motivation) or make
far less attention across the entrepreneurship literature than the
themselves look good (i.e., impression management motives). Such
nascent and early stages (e.g., DeTienne, 2010; DeTienne & Cardon,
research on prosocial motivation and/or impression management can
2012). On the other hand, given the volumes of organizational research
shed light on why some founders focus their energy on helping others
focused on the role of motivation in employee exits (i.e., voluntary and
during the growth phase whereas others choose to focus on the
involuntary turnover), it is somewhat unexpected that few authors have
external reputation of their firms. For example, in the aftermath of a
shined a spotlight on the motivational forces surrounding entrepre-
disaster, entrepreneurs may be highly motivated to grow their ven-
neurial exit. Moreover, because exits sometimes culminate in a financial
tures to alleviate the suffering of those outside their ventures. Future
windfall that allows entrepreneurs to realize the fruition of economic
research can explore the complementary (or competing) motivations
motives to enter entrepreneurship, it is surprising that more studies
(e.g., extrinsic and prosocial; intrinsic and prosocial) to grow a venture.
have not analyzed this phase. As Figure 4 shows, researchers have stud-
What is the nature of the relationships between extrinsic, intrinsic,
ied extrinsic, intrinsic, and identity‐congruence motives in this phase.
and prosocial motivations in growing a venture to increase sales,
Extrinsic drivers related to economic and utility maximization are
increase the number of employees, take on more challenging markets,
among the most common motivations attributed to entrepreneurial
and alleviate more suffering? Given the prevalence of entrepreneurial
exit. Scholars contend that entrepreneurs often choose to exit because
teams, it is also important to explain heterogeneity in the strength of
they seek to liquidate their investment in the current firm or view
different types of motivation among team members and the way indi-
alternative employment as more attractive (Bates, 2005; Douglas &
vidual motives come together to drive venture performance.
Shepherd, 2000; Wennberg, Wiklund, DeTienne, & Cardon, 2010).
Second, in growing a venture, team members interact with each
Some of the deepest insights on motivation during venture exit come
other and with outside stakeholders. For example, an entrepreneurial
from entrepreneurs who resist exit despite underperformance, which
team may interact with a community of inquiry to co‐construct an
highlights the potential richness of examining motives toward delaying
opportunity (Shepherd, 2015). This interaction and progress in co‐
the end of a given entrepreneurship episode (DeTienne et al., 2008;
construction may lead to changes in the motives of the new venture
Gimeno, Folta, Cooper, & Woo, 1997). Indeed, when entrepreneurs
team (and the community of inquiry). For instance, interactions with
ponder the decision of whether to continue or exit an underperforming
members of the community of inquiry regarding a technology may
firm, their personal investment in the venture, previous organizational
reveal suffering that the technology (with refinement) may be able to
success, and the munificence of the operating environment positively
alleviate, and such a realization may generate prosocial motivation.
relate to entrepreneurs' motivation to persist rather than exit. Impor-
Alternatively, working with the community of inquiry to solve a com-
tantly, extrinsic motivation can influence the relationships between
plex problem may make the team realize the benefits of satisfying their
these antecedents and the exit‐versus‐persist decision; when entrepre-
intrinsic motives to solve complex problems. Future research can
neurs are extrinsically motivated, they may be less likely to consider the
explore how changes to the venture and the individuals within the
importance of personal investment, collective efficacy, and environmental
growth phase may lead to changes in the intensity, form, and interac-
munificence in their “stay or go” decisions (DeTienne et al., 2008). As such,
tion of entrepreneurial motivation.
intrinsic and extrinsic motives sometimes play countervailing roles in
Finally, although much of the entrepreneurial motivation research
focuses on motivation at one point in time and implicitly assumes that
the exit process, which highlights how constructs such as SEW can
contribute to our understanding of motivation during this phase.
motivation has a rather static form and intensity, the growth phase
Not all founder exits are alike. Indeed, scholars have classified
brings about many changes, which likely lead to alterations in the
founder exits as financial harvest strategies (e.g., initial public offering
22
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
or sale), stewardship strategies (e.g., transfer or sale to family or
assess these motivations precisely. Because of the relatively wide‐
employees), and voluntary cessation strategies (e.g., liquidation or
open nature of the question of what happens to motivation and pas-
retirement; Chevalier, Fouquereau, Gillet, & Bosselut, 2018; DeTienne
sion during the exit process, qualitative studies using grounded theory
et al., 2015; Wennberg et al., 2010). Reports such as the one published
approaches (Murphy, Klotz, & Kreiner, 2017) may be particularly use-
annually by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor highlight how across
ful for understanding the different ways entrepreneurs experience this
the world, founders cite a wide spectrum of reasons for exit. These
process. Also, although the decision to exit one's venture is distinct
include financial difficulties, other promising opportunities, bureau-
from that of the decision to quit one's job, insights from studies on
cracy, and retirement (e.g., see Table 4, GERA, 2018). Indeed, scholars
the factors that lead to employee turnover (and burnout) may prove
have theorized that myriad factors could influence exit motivations
useful in building and testing theory related to the role of entrepre-
including age, education, entrepreneurial experience, industry experi-
neurial motivation in the venture exit process. One of the most pow-
ence, human capital, firm performance, switching costs, and opportu-
erful theories for explaining why employees voluntarily leave
nity costs to name a few (e.g., Bates, 2005; Gimeno et al., 1997;
organizations is the unfolding model of turnover (Lee & Mitchell,
Wennberg & DeTienne, 2014). Looking specifically at the influence
1994), which posits that the decision to quit often begins with some
of equity investors on exit, Collewaert (2012) finds that entrepreneurs'
shock concerning an employees' job. This theory goes on to suggest
motivation to exit increases as they perceive more task and goal con-
that following shocks, individuals take one of several different psycho-
flict with their angel investors. Also, the serial entrepreneurship litera-
logical paths as they consider whether to stay or go. In this way, it may
ture indicates that some entrepreneurs voluntarily exit firms with the
be useful to consider the different types of shocks that may cause
intention of pursuing a new opportunity or starting a firm in a new
entrepreneurs to consider exiting and then examine how motivation
industry (Eggers & Song, 2015; Wright, Robbie, & Ennew, 1997). Per-
changes as entrepreneurs grapple with the decision of whether and
haps most interesting is the finding that the importance of extrinsic
how to exit.
motivators like monetary gains may decrease after the first exit among
Of particular interest is when exit involves venture termination.
serial entrepreneurs (Wright et al., 1997). That said, this decrease in
Perhaps venture termination represents a critical event during which
extrinsic motivation is counterbalanced by a parallel desire to minimize
the extrinsic motivation to minimize losses overrides the intrinsic
risk exposure in subsequent ventures. As these streams of literature
and prosocial motivations to continue with the venture. Although
indicate, motivation plays a key role in driving entrepreneurs toward
the venture may fail to exist, the individual (ex‐entrepreneur) goes
different types of exit strategies. Therefore, to better understand the
on. How do the entrepreneur's motivations influence the decision to
relationship between entrepreneurial motivation and founder exit, it
terminate the venture, and do these different motivations influence
is important to consider different types of motivation and recognize
the entrepreneur's reaction to the termination (e.g., the level of grief
that venture exit is a multidimensional decision.
over business failure; Shepherd, 2003)? Further, what effect does
Building on this multidimensional approach to studying venture
the entrepreneur's reaction have on termination outcomes, such as
exits, scholars have investigated the motivational forces involved in
learning from the failure, recovering from the negative emotional,
family business decisions of whether to exit via selling versus shutting
social, and financial outcomes, and moving on to something new
down (Akhter et al., 2016). Interestingly, the primary motivation to sell,
(perhaps including a new entrepreneurial endeavor)? Moreover, exit
as opposed to shut down, is the identity fit between the family and
does not always involve termination; it can include sale or
the venture—the greater the alignment between the identity of the
merger, for both poorly performing and well‐performing ventures
family and the venture, the more likely operations will be shut
(e.g., Wennberg et al., 2010). It is important to understand the
down instead of sold to an outsider (see also Moen et al., 2016). Moti-
different motivations for the different modes of exit and the forma-
vations to retire represent one specific avenue of exiting a venture
tion of new motivations that are presumably different from those
(GERA, 2018), and several different intrinsic motives drive founders'
before exit.
intentions to retire from their organizations (Chevalier et al., 2018;
Chevalier, Fouquereau, Gillet, & Demulier, 2013).
Across the literature, we also note the unevenness of the study of
motivation as it relates to important external stakeholders such as
venture investors. Researchers have paid substantial attention to the
motivations of venture capitalists and angels in terms of what drives
5.1 | Entrepreneurial motivation and exit: Directions
for future research
them to support and mentor entrepreneurs and to invest in their firms
(e.g., Drover et al., 2017; Mitteness et al., 2012). However, investors
not only play an important role in venture growth, but they can also
There needs to be more research on the relationship between motiva-
influence the timing and path to exit (e.g., Collewaert, 2012; Drover
tion and entrepreneurial exit. We note that although a growing
et al., 2017). Despite the potential importance of investor motivation
number of studies examine the act of exit (e.g., Bates, 2005;
during the exit phase, few studies have explored how the motivation
Gimeno et al., 1997; Ucbasaran, Lockett, Wright, & Westhead,
of investors during the exit phase influences entrepreneurial motiva-
2003), or the specific path of exit, such as acquisition versus liquida-
tion and thus the exit path taken. As such, more granular examination
tion, (e.g., Wennberg et al., 2010) the motivations behind these actions
is needed to understand how investor motives impact the mechanisms
are often inferred rather than measured directly. More can be done to
driving entrepreneurial exit motivations, intentions, and behaviors.
MURNIEKS
23
ET AL.
Although we typically laud entrepreneurial motivation because it
targeting certain aspects of motivation has created hotspots and blind
fuels persistence to overcome obstacles, the other edge of the sword
spots―scholars have focused considerable attention on some areas
also cuts; if failure occurs, persistence is likely to increase the eco-
and minimal attention on others. In systematically organizing this
nomic costs of failure (Shepherd, Wiklund, & Haynie, 2009; e.g., the
landscape, we uncover these blind spots, especially as we
greater the motivation, the increased likelihood of escalating commit-
consider how multiple complex motives operate simultaneously
ment to a losing course of action; Staw, 1981). More can be done to
(Gagne & Deci, 2005) and drive entrepreneurial action. By developing
understand the dark side of strong entrepreneurial motivation and
a comprehensive framework of entrepreneurial motives, we incorpo-
the ways these negative consequences can be minimized or avoided
rate fresh theoretical developments, such as prosocial motivation
altogether, such as by studying the self‐regulatory mechanisms that
and entrepreneurial passion, into the broader discussion of entrepre-
entrepreneurs may develop to benefit from strong motivation without
neurial motivation.
suffering its negative consequences.
Second, we explicitly connect three large yet currently discon-
Finally, although there have been calls for entrepreneurs to devise
nected bodies of work in the study of entrepreneurial motivation. As
exit strategies at the time of founding (Wasserman, 2003), a deeper
mentioned earlier, extant literature has evolved predominantly in silos
understanding of how motivations change and how these changes
based on venture phases aligned with starting, growing, and exiting
impact exit strategies is needed. In particular, the findings from the
organizations. These streams have advanced our understanding of
serial entrepreneurship literature demonstrate path dependencies
why some individuals jump into (or out of) new ventures and what
between exits and subsequent foundings (Carter & Ram, 2003; Hsu,
sustains them when they do. However, individuals' motives for initiat-
Shinnar, Powell, & Coffey, 2017; Westhead & Wright, 1998; Wright
ing a new organization likely affect their motivation to sustain it, which
et al., 1997). The change in levels of extrinsic and intrinsic motives
may, in turn, influence their motivation to exit the venture and launch
indicate a serial entrepreneur's level of motivation may depend on
another one (e.g., Wennberg & DeTienne, 2014; Westhead et al.,
the success or failure of previous venture exits, which attests to the
2005). To date, scholars have largely ignored such path dependencies.
importance of considering past history when evaluating present moti-
Moreover, as their ventures progress through the entrepreneurial
vation. Also, as some exit modes become more likely (and others less
process, entrepreneurs' motives may change as well. Research has
likely), do motivations change to reflect the new reality? Future
been quick to acknowledge the impact of differences between individ-
research needs to explore how entrepreneurs' motives impact the for-
uals in their motives (i.e., inter‐individual) but has been slower to con-
mulation, assessment, and exploitation of exit strategies as well as
sider how entrepreneurial motives and actions might change over time
how entrepreneurs' exit strategies influence their subsequent entre-
(i.e., intra‐individual). Moreover, whereas scholars have made method-
preneurial motivations. An obvious point of distinction is between vol-
ological progress by considering the passage of time (e.g., lagged
untary and involuntary exit, each of which has different implications
regressions), theoretical aspects of temporal change in motivation
for entrepreneurial motivation.
have been largely absent. This lack of attention is noteworthy because
calls in the OB literature urge scholars to move beyond static examinations of motivation (Steel & Konig, 2006) to better understand what
6
|
DISCUSSION
individual and contextual forces might cause motives to wax and wane
over time (Grant & Shin, 2012). In our review, we offer opportunities
In this review, we map the landscape of research on motivation within
to extend the study of individual differences into temporal domains
and across each of the three phases of the entrepreneurial process—
for both inter‐individual and intra‐individual entrepreneurial motives
initiation, growth, and exit. In doing so, we outline the nomological net-
and actions.
work of motivation constructs as well as highlight the prevalence of
research in certain categories (e.g., economic and venture initiation
motivations) and the relative dearth of coverage in others (e.g., interactions between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and motives underly-
6.1 | Future directions for entrepreneurial
motivation research
ing new venture exit). We also assess aspects of entrepreneurial
motivation research that could be useful in a better understanding of
Motivation involves the study of drivers that produce direction, inten-
employee, leader, and team motivation. More broadly, the conclusions
sity, and duration of behavior (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003; Pinder, 1998).
drawn from our review provide insights to advance the study of moti-
As this review shows, the direction of entrepreneurial motivation has
vation in the entrepreneurial and OB literatures.
received significant scholarly attention. For example, motivation for
First, organizing the entrepreneurial motivation literature provides
sustaining natural environments directs behaviors toward sustainable
a bridge between the advances in our understanding of this phenom-
development opportunities (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011), motivation
enon made by past research and the ways future research can extend
for improving work–family balance directs behaviors toward more
our knowledge of what drives entrepreneurs as they start, grow, and
family‐friendly cultures at work (Adkins et al., 2013), and motivation
exit their organizations. As our review shows, researchers have
for business growth directs behaviors toward growing ventures
produced valuable insights into why individuals take specific entrepre-
(Delmar & Wiklund, 2008). Decidedly less research examines how
neurial actions at specific points in time. However, repeatedly
motives affect the intensity and duration of founder behavior during
24
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
the new venture process. Further, although the intensity of behaviors
research increases our understanding of the role of the individual in
underpinned by motives has been captured to some degree by Likert
driving entrepreneurial action, there are opportunities to study entre-
scales measuring the frequency or presence of the assessed behavior,
preneurial differences beyond demographic variables and personality
there is an opportunity to more explicitly understand the conditions
constructs. Specifically, research on the biological or physiological fac-
under which entrepreneurial motivation leads to low, appropriate, or
tors that augment or dampen entrepreneurial motivation is largely
“too much” (Pierce & Aguinis, 2011) intensity for a given entrepre-
absent. This is a noteworthy oversight as sleep (Murnieks et al.,
neurial action. Regarding duration, although some research focuses
in press; Barnes, 2012; Barnes, Miller, & Bostock, 2017; Gunia,
on the persistence of start‐up efforts (e.g., Cardon et al., 2009), other
2018), testosterone (Nicolaou, Patel, & Wolfe, 2018), and cortisol
outcomes related to the duration of entrepreneurial behavior are rela-
levels (Liu‐Qin, Bauer, Johnson, Groer, & Salomon, 2014; Sherman,
tively neglected. This dearth of research may be partly due to the dif-
Lemer, Josephs, Renshon, & Gross, 2016) represent factors that may
ficulty inherent in gathering episodic and longitudinal field data from a
explain meaningful variance in entrepreneurial motivation and draw
sample of entrepreneurs. From an analytical perspective, scholars are
increasing interest in the OB literature but are understudied in entre-
making progress by employing lagged designs in which they tempo-
preneurship. More theory and measurement of these individual vari-
rally separate motivation assessments from entrepreneurial behaviors
ables could expand our understanding of the role of physiology in
(e.g., Baron et al., 2016; Delmar & Wiklund, 2008; Renko, 2013).
entrepreneurial motivation and also contribute to the OB literature.
Nonetheless, there are greater opportunities to use experiential
Research in the OB literature argues that motivation at the team
sampling designs or other longitudinal methods to determine the
level has important consequences for team members and team out-
duration‐based
comes (Park, Spitzmuller, & DeShon, 2013). As such, the study of
boundaries
of
entrepreneurial
motives
(Short,
Ketchen, Combs, & Ireland, 2010).
new venture team motivation represents an opportunity to extend
We also encourage scholars to design and conduct rigorous inves-
our knowledge of motivation's role in the entrepreneurial process.
tigations of the antecedents and effects of entrepreneurial motivation.
Investigating the nature, causes, and consequences of team motiva-
Most empirical studies reviewed in this paper use survey question-
tion in extreme entrepreneurial environments may provide OB
naires or secondary data collections wherein motives were inferred
researchers with new insights into group processes. In other words,
rather than assessed directly. These methods can be subject to
the entrepreneurial context represents a fascinating arena to explore
response biases and retrospective concerns (Chandler & Lyon, 2001).
how individual‐level motivations combine and interact in teams as
We suggest researchers use a wider array of study designs, including
well as how collective motivations may arise at the team level to
experiments and qualitative approaches, to more accurately gauge
drive behaviors.
causal mechanisms and to distinguish shorter‐term cognitive, behav-
Finally, researchers have rarely used meta‐analytic approaches to
ioral, and affective outcomes from motivations. In addition, feedback
assess the strength of relationships between the antecedents, media-
mechanisms may exist between entrepreneurs' motives and their
tors, moderators, and outcomes of entrepreneurial motivation (see
behavior. That is, entrepreneurs' motivation shapes their subsequent
Figures 1–4; for an exception see meta‐analyses on the role of
actions, the results of which may then alter their motives. Experimen-
achievement motivation in the entrepreneurial process [e.g., Collins,
tal manipulations could help tease apart these spirals and loops to
Hanges, & Locke, 2004, Stewart & Roth, 2007]). Throughout this
inform our theorizing about the iterative nature of these relationships.
review, we note the many different motives cataloged as stimulants
As ventures grow, they adapt to stakeholders encountered along
for entrepreneurial behavior (e.g., economic, prosocial, intrinsic, pas-
the way (e.g., investors, employees, and customers); therefore, there
sion, and fear‐of‐failure). Given that some of these operate simulta-
is an opportunity to clarify how relevant others' motives affect
neously, meta‐analytic approaches could determine how much
entrepreneurs' motivation over time. Importantly, the motives of
variation is attributable to each of these different sources. Studies of
stakeholders who support a venture's inception are not necessarily
entrepreneurship motivation typically focus on individual motives
the same as those who support its growth or exit (e.g., Fassin &
without controlling for other types of motivation. Timely meta‐
Drover, 2017). Just as entrepreneurial motives are not static, neither
analyses in this area will help entrepreneurship researchers put their
are those of the stakeholders surrounding the venture. As such, more
findings in context, thereby facilitating the advancement of this line
dynamic theorizing should consider entrepreneurial and stakeholder
of research as a coherent whole.
motives. As indicated by studies investigating the moderators of the
relationships in different venture phases (e.g., Akhter et al., 2016;
George et al., 2016; Gregoire & Shepherd, 2012; Khan et al., 2014),
7
|
CO NC LUSIO N
the effects of motivation differ depending on context. This perspective can be applied in future research to clarify how path dependen-
In this review, we summarize and integrate the wide body of research
cies or key stakeholder concerns might impact motives both as
surrounding entrepreneurial motivation. In doing so, we develop a
antecedents as well as moderators.
roadmap that both outlines the extant literature and highlights
Entrepreneurship researchers have examined how individual char-
opportunities for future research. Motivation is a cornerstone of the
acteristics affect entrepreneurial motivation (e.g., Baron et al., 2016;
entrepreneurial process. Our review reinforces the conclusion that
Brockner et al., 2004; Miller & Le Breton‐Miller, 2017). Although this
entrepreneurial motivation drives essential behaviors related to
MURNIEKS
25
ET AL.
venture initiation, growth, and exit. Although the forceful nature of
motivation is unquestionable, the understanding of its pathways of
operation still requires further elaboration by scholars. In particular,
our review displays the drastically uneven coverage given to different
aspects of motivation throughout the entrepreneurial process and the
relative lack of integration of different types of motives that jointly
propel behavior. We hope this review makes the somewhat
fragmented research on entrepreneurial motivation more accessible
and facilitates future contributions to our understanding of what
drives the entrepreneurial process.
ORCID
Anthony C. Klotz
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7365-9744
RE FE R ENC E S
Adkins, C. L., Samaras, S. A., Gilfillan, S. W., & McWee, W. E. (2013). The
relationship between owner characteristics, company size, and the
work–family culture and policies of women‐owned businesses. Journal
of Small Business Management, 51, 196–214.
Akhter, N., Sieger, P., & Chirico, F. (2016). If we can't have it, then no one
should: Shutting down versus selling in family business portfolios. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10, 371–394.
Benzing, C., Chu, H. M., & Kara, O. (2009). Entrepreneurs in Turkey: A factor analysis of motivations, success factors, and problems. Journal of
Small Business Management, 47, 58–91.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez‐Mejia, L. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth
in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and
agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25, 258–279.
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez‐Mejia, L. R., & Larraza‐Kintana, M. (2010).
Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family‐controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science
Quarterly, 55, 82–113.
Block, J., Sandner, P., & Spiegel, F. (2015). How do risk attitudes differ
within the group of entrepreneurs? The role of motivation and procedural utility. Journal of Small Business Management, 53, 183–206.
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at
work, and the dark side too: A review and agenda for research on
other‐oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations.
Academy of Management Annals, 10, 599–670.
Breugst, N., Domurath, A., Patzelt, H., & Klaukien, A. (2012). Perceptions of
entrepreneurial passion and employees' commitment to entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36, 171–192.
Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory
and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 19,
203–220.
Almandoz, J. (2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community
and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 1381–1406.
Burmeister‐Lamp, K., Levesque, M., & Schade, C. (2012). Are entrepreneurs
influenced by risk attitude, regulatory focus or both? An experiment on
entrepreneurs' time allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 27,
456–476.
Almandoz, J. (2014). Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When
institutional forces predict banks' risk exposure. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 59, 442–473.
Cacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Giazitzoglu, A. (2016). A reconceptualization of fear of failure in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 31, 302–325.
Amit, R., MacCrimmon, K. R., Zietsma, C., & Oesch, J. M. (2000). Does
money matter? Wealth attainment as the motive for initiating
growth‐oriented technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing,
18, 119–143.
Cantillon, R. 1931). In H. Higgs (Ed.), trans(1755), Essai Sur la Nature du
Commerce en General. London: Macmillan.
Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24, 233–247.
Barnes, C. M. (2012). Working in our sleep: Sleep and self‐regulation in
organizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 2, 234–257.
Barnes, C. M., Miller, J. A., & Bostock, S. (2017). Helping employees sleep
well: Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia on work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 104–113.
Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and
when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of
Business Venturing, 13, 275–294.
Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2013).
Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual foundations and scale
validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 373–396.
Cardon, M. S., & Kirk, C. P. (2015). Entrepreneurial passion as mediator of
the self‐efficacy to persistence relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, 39, 1027–1050.
Cardon, M. S., Post, C., & Forster, W. R. (2017). Team entrepreneurial passion: Its emergence and influence in new venture teams. Academy of
Management Review, 42, 283–305.
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and
experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review,
34, 511–532.
Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33, 328–340.
Carsrud, A. L., & Brannback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: What
do we still need to know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49,
9–26.
Baron, R. A., Mueller, B. A., & Wolfe, M. T. (2016). Self‐efficacy and entrepreneurs' adoption of unattainable goals: The restraining effects of
self‐control. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 55–71.
Carter, S., & Ram, M. (2003). Reassessing portfolio entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics, 21, 371–380.
Bates, T. (2005). Analysis of young, small firms that have closed: Delineating successful from unsuccessful closures. Journal of Business Venturing,
20, 343–358.
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits,
skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 587–598.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model
of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 292–303.
Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Totowa, NJ:
Barnes & Noble Books.
Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez‐Mejia, L. R. (2012).
Socioemotional wealth and proactive stakeholder engagement: Why
family‐controlled firms care more about their stakeholders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 1153–1173.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40‐year meta‐
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 980–1008.
26
Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Issue of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 25, 101–113.
Chen, X. P., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of
venture capitalists' funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal,
52, 199–214.
Chevalier, S., Fouquereau, E., Gillet, N., & Bosselut, G. (2018). Unraveling
the perceived reasons underlying entrepreneurs' retirement decisions:
A person‐centered perspective. Journal of Small Business Management,
56, 513–528.
Chevalier, S., Fouquereau, E., Gillet, N., & Demulier, V. (2013). Development of the reasons for entrepreneurs' retirement decision inventory
(RERDI) and preliminary evidence of its psychometric properties in a
French sample. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 572–586.
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. Journal of Management, 43, 1820–1853.
Dunkelberg, W., Moore, C., Scott, J., & Stull, W. (2013). Do entrepreneurial
goals matter? Resource allocation in new owner‐managed firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 225–240.
Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., Manolova, T. S., & Greene, P. G. (2010). Start‐
up motivations and growth intentions of minority nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 48, 174–196.
Eggers, J. P., & Song, L. (2015). Dealing with failure: Serial entrepreneurs
and the costs of changing industries between ventures. Academy of
Management Journal, 58, 1785–1803.
Farmer, S. M., Yao, X., & Kung‐Mcintyre, K. (2011). The behavioral impact
of entrepreneur identity aspiration and prior entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35, 245–273.
Chouinard, Y. (2005). Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant
Businessman. New York: The Penguin Press.
Fassin, Y., & Drover, W. (2017). Ethics in entrepreneurial finance: Exploring
problems in venture partner entry and exit. Journal of Business Ethics,
140, 649–672.
Collewaert, V. (2012). Angel investors' and entrepreneurs' intentions to
exit their ventures: A conflict perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, 36, 753–779.
Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy
of Management Journal, 54, 935–957.
Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of
achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta‐analysis.
Human Performance, 17, 95–117.
Fisher, G., Kotha, S., & Lahiri, A. (2016). Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy and new venture life cycles.
Academy of Management Review, 41, 383–409.
Cruz, C., & Justo, R. (2017). Portfolio entrepreneurship as a mixed gamble:
A winning bet for family entrepreneurs in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 55, 571–593.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Davis, B. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Webb, J. W., & Coombs, J. E. (2017).
Funders' positive affective reactions to entrepreneurs' crowdfunding
pitches: The influence of perceived product creativity and entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing, 32, 90–106.
George, G., Kotha, R., Parikh, P., Alnuaimi, T., & Bahaj, A. S. (2016). Social
structure, reasonable gain, and entrepreneurship in Africa. Strategic
Management Journal, 37, 1118–1131.
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439–477.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta‐analytic review of
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
GERA (Global Entrepreneurship Research Association) (2018). Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor Global Report for 2017‐18
Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2008). The effect of small business managers'
growth motivation on firm growth: A longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 32, 437–457.
Gielnik, M. M., Spitzmuller, M., Schmitt, A., Klemann, D. K., & Frese, M.
(2015). “I put in effort, therefore I am passionate”: Investigating the
path from effort to passion in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1012–1031.
DeMartino, R., & Barbato, R. (2003). Differences between women and men
MBA entrepreneurs: Exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as
career motivators. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 815–832.
DeTienne, D. R. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of the
entrepreneurial process: Theoretical development. Journal of Business
Venturing, 25, 203–215.
DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Impact of founder experience on
exit intentions. Small Business Economics, 38, 351–374.
DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Chandler, G. N. (2015). Making sense of
entrepreneurial exit strategies: A typology and test. Journal of Business
Venturing, 30, 255–272.
DeTienne, D. R., Shepherd, D. A., & De Castro, J. O. (2008). The fallacy of
“only the strong survive”: The effects of extrinsic motivation on the
persistence decisions for under‐performing firms. Journal of Business
Venturing, 23, 528–546.
Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing response. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 231–251.
Drnovsek, M., Cardon, M. S., & Patel, P. C. (2016). Direct and indirect
effects of passion on growing technology ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10, 194–213.
Drover, W., Busenitz, L., Matusik, S., Townsend, D., Anglin, A., &
Dushnitsky, G. (2017). A review and road map of entrepreneurial
equity financing research: Venture capital, corporate venture capital,
Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the
fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of
underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 750–783.
Gomez‐Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & DeCastro, J. (2011). The bind
that ties. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653–707.
Gomez‐Mejia, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Nunez‐Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., &
Moyano‐Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks
in family‐controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106–137.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48–58.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of
invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73–96.
Grant, A. M., & Shin, J. (2012). Work motivation: Directing, energizing,
and maintaining effort (and research). In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford
Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 505–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gregoire, D. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2012). Technology‐market combinations and the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities: An
investigation of the opportunity‐individual nexus. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 753–785.
MURNIEKS
ET AL.
27
Grunhagen, M., & Mittelstaedt, R. A. (2005). Entrepreneurs or investors:
Do multi‐unit franchisees have different philosophical orientations?
Journal of Small Business Management, 45, 207–225.
Kuhn, K. M., & Galloway, T. L. (2015). With a little help from my competitors: Peer networking among artisan entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 39, 571–600.
Gunia, B. C. (2018). The sleep trap: Do sleep problems prompt entrepreneurial motives but undermine entrepreneurial means? Academy of
Management Perspectives, 32, 228–242.
Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of
women. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31, 341–364.
Hallen, B. L., & Pahnke, E. C. (2016). When do entrepreneurs accurately
evaluate venture capital firms' track records? A bounded rationality
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1535–1560.
Haynie, J. M., & Shepherd, D. (2011). Toward a theory of discontinuous
career transition: Investigating career transitions necessitated by traumatic life events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 501–524.
Hebert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (1988). The Entrepreneur: Mainstream Views and
Radical Critiques (2nd ed.). New York: Praeger.
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding
model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management
Review, 19, 51–89.
Li, Y. (2011). Emotions and new venture judgment in China. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 28, 277–298.
Li, J., Chen, X. P., Kotha, S., & Fisher, G. (2017). Catching fire and spreading
it: A glimpse into displayed entrepreneurial passion in crowdfunding
campaigns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1075–1090.
Herron, L., & Sapienza, H. J. (1992). The entrepreneur and the initiation of
new venture launch activities. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17,
49–55.
Liu‐Qin, Y., Bauer, J., Johnson, R. E., Groer, M. W., & Salomon, K. (2014).
Physiological mechanisms that underlie the effects of interactional
unfairness on deviant behavior: The role of cortisol activity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 310–321.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (2014). Narrative, meta‐analytic, and systematic reviews: What are the differences and why do they matter.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S1–S5.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the
role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31, 132–152.
Hsu, D. K., Haynie, J. M., Simmons, S. A., & McKelvie, A. (2014). What matters, matters differently: A conjoint analysis of the decision policies of
angel and venture capital investors. Venture Capital, 16, 1–25.
McMullen, J. S., & Warnick, B. J. (2015). To nurture or groom? The parent‐
founder succession dilemma. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 39,
1379–1412.
Hsu, D. K., Shinnar, R. S., Powell, B. C., & Coffey, B. S. (2017). Intentions to
reenter venture creation: The effect of entrepreneurial experience and
organizational climate. International Small Business Journal: Researching
Entrepreneurship, 35, 928–948.
Miller, D., & Le Breton‐Miller, I. (2014). Deconstructing socioemotional
wealth. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 38, 713–720.
Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., & Obschonka, M. (2016). Unraveling the “passion orchestra” in academia. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 344–364.
Miller, D., & Le Breton‐Miller, I. (2017). Underdog entrepreneurs: A model
of challenge‐based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 41, 7–17.
Janney, J. J., & Dess, G. G. (2006). The risk concept for entrepreneurs
reconsidered: New challenges to the conventional wisdom. Journal of
Business Venturing, 21, 385–400.
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages
social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37,
616–640.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy:
Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 29–49.
Minniti, M., & Nardone, C. (2007). Being in someone else's shoes: The role
of gender in nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 2(3),
223–238.
Jiang, D. S., Kellermanns, F. W., Munyon, T. P., & Morris, M. L. (2018). More
than meets the eye: A review and future directions for the social psychology of socioemotional wealth. Family Business Review, 31,
125–157.
Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R.
Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, volume twelve:
Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 225–254). New York: John
Wiley.
Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work:
A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 338–355.
Mitteness, C., Sudek, R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Angel investor characteristics that determine whether perceived passion leads to higher
evaluations of funding potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27,
592–606.
Kang, J. H., Matusik, J. G., Kim, T. Y., & Phillips, J. M. (2016). Interactive
effects of multiple organizational climates on employee innovative
behavior in entrepreneurial firms: A cross‐level investigation. Journal
of Business Venturing, 31, 628–642.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993). The dynamics of family controlled firms: The
good and the bad news. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 59–71.
Khan, S. A., Tang, J., & Joshi, K. (2014). Disengagement of nascent entrepreneurs from the start‐up process. Journal of Small Business
Management, 52, 39–58.
Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New
venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future
research. Journal of Management, 40, 226–255.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Washington, DC: Beard
Books.
Kollmann, T., Stockmann, C., & Kensbock, J. M. (2017). Fear of failure as a
mediator of the relationship between obstacles and nascent entrepreneurial activity—An experimental approach. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32, 280–301.
Moen, O., Heggeseth, A. G., & Lome, O. (2016). The positive effect of motivation and international orientation on SME growth. Journal of Small
Business Management, 54, 659–678.
Morgan, J., & Sisak, D. (2016). Aspiring to succeed: A model of entrepreneurship and fear of failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 1–21.
Morris, M. H., Miyasaki, N. N., Watters, C. E., & Coombes, S. M. (2006).
The dilemma of growth: Understanding venture size choices of
women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 44,
221–244.
Mowrer, O. H. (1952). Motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 3,
419–438.
Mueller, B. A., Wolfe, M. T., & Syed, I. (2017). Passion and grit: An exploration of the pathways leading to venture success. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32, 260–279.
Murnieks, C. Y., Arthurs, J. D., Cardon, M. S., Farah, N., Stornelli, J., &
Haynie, J. M. (in press) Close your eyes or open your mind: Effects of
28
MURNIEKS
sleep and mindfulness exercises on entrepreneurs' exhaustion. Journal
of Business Venturing.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.12.004
Murnieks, C. Y., Cardon, M. S., Sudek, R., White, T. D., & Brooks, W. T.
(2016). Drawn to the fire: The role of passion, tenacity, and inspirational leadership in angel investing. Journal of Business Venturing, 31,
468–484.
Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E. M., & Cardon, M. S. (2014). Pathways of
passion: Identity centrality, passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 40, 1583–1606.
Murphy, C., Klotz, A. C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2017). Blue skies and black
boxes: The promise (and practice) of grounded theory in human
resource management research. Human Resource Management Review,
27, 291–305.
Naffziger, D. W., Hornsby, J. S., & Kuratko, D. F. (1994). A proposed
research model of entrepreneurial motivation. Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice, 18, 29–42.
Nicolaou, N., Patel, P. C., & Wolfe, M. T. (2018). Testosterone and tendency to engage in self‐employment. Management Science, 64,
1825–1841.
Park, G., Spitzmuller, M., & DeShon, R. P. (2013). Advancing our understanding of team motivation: Integrating conceptual approaches and
content areas. Journal of Management, 39, 1339–1379.
Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognizing opportunities for sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35,
631–652.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2011). The too‐much‐of‐a‐good‐thing effect in
management. Journal of Management, 39, 313–338.
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ployhart, R. E. (2008). Work motivation methods, measures, and assessment strategies. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Work
Motivation: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 17–61). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. (2014). It's what you make of it: Founder identity
and enacting strategic responses to adversity. Academy of Management
Journal, 57, 1406–1433.
Renko, M. (2013). Early challenges of nascent social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37, 1045–1069.
Rich, L. (2003). The Accidental Zillionaire: Demystifying Paul Allen. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation.
Human Resource Management Review, 13, 257–279.
ET AL.
Sherman, G. D., Lemer, J. S., Josephs, R. A., Renshon, J., & Gross, J. J.
(2016). The interaction of testosterone and cortisol is associated with
attained status in male executives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 921–929.
Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual‐level organizational
studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn't it exploited more
often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 2, 237–260.
Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Ireland, R. D. (2010). Research
methods in entrepreneurship: Opportunities and challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 6–15.
Spivack, A. J., McKelvie, A., & Haynie, J. M. (2014). Habitual entrepreneurs:
Possible cases of entrepreneurial addiction? Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 651–667.
Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action.
Academy of Management Review, 6, 577–587.
Steel, P., & Konig, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy
of Management Review, 31, 889–913.
Stenholm, P., & Renko, M. (2016). Passionate bricoleurs and new venture
survival. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 595–611.
Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2007). A meta‐analysis of achievement motivation differences between entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of
Small Business Management, 45, 401–421.
Townsend, D. M., & Hart, T. A. (2008). Perceived institutional ambiguity
and the choice of organizational form in social entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 32, 685–700.
Ucbasaran, D., Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. (2003). Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors associated with member entry and
exit. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28, 107–127.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Flores, M. (2010). The nature of
entrepreneurial experience, business failure, and comparative optimism. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 541–555.
Van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T., & Fink, M. (2015). From entrepreneurial
intentions to actions: Self‐control and action‐related doubt, fear and
aversion. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 655–673.
Vik, J., & McElwee, G. (2011). Diversification and the entrepreneurial motivations of farmers in Norway. Journal of Small Business Management,
49, 390–410.
Warnick, B. J., Murnieks, C. Y., McMullen, J. S., & Brooks, W. T. (2018).
Passion for entrepreneurship or passion for the product: A conjoint
analysis of angel and VC decision‐making. Journal of Business Venturing,
33, 315–332.
Wasserman, N. (2003). Founder‐CEO succession and the paradox of entrepreneurial success. Organization Science, 14, 149–172.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship
as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
Webb, J. W., Bruton, G. D., Tihanyi, L., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Research on
entrepreneurship in the informal economy: Framing a research agenda.
Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 598–614.
Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions of
grief recovery for the self‐employed. Academy of Management Review,
28, 318–328.
Weber, K., Heinze, K. L., & DeSoucey, M. (2008). Forage for thought:
Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass‐fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 529–567.
Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Party on! A call for entrepreneurship research that
is more interactive, activity‐based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and
prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 489–507.
Wennberg, K., & DeTienne, D. R. (2014). What do we really mean when we
talk about ‘exit’? A critical review of research on entrepreneurial exit.
International Small Business Journal, 32, 4–16.
Shepherd, D. A., Wiklund, J., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Moving forward:
Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure. Journal
of Business Venturing, 24, 134–148.
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2010).
Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their
drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 361–375.
Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 41, 11–46.
Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Binks, M. (2005). Novice, serial,
and portfolio entrepreneur behavior and contributions. Small Business
Economics, 25, 109–132.
MURNIEKS
29
ET AL.
Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (1998). Novice, portfolio, and serial founders:
Are they different? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 173–204.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The
moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management
Studies, 40, 1919–1941.
Williams, T. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2016). Building resilience or providing
sustenance: Different paths of emergent ventures in the aftermath
of the Haiti earthquake. Academy of Management Journal, 59,
2069–2102.
Witt, U. (2007). Firms as realizations of entrepreneurial visions. Journal of
Management Studies, 44, 1125–1140.
Woo, C. Y., Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1991). The development
and interpretation of entrepreneurial typologies. Journal of Business
Venturing, 6, 93–114.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Charles Y. Murnieks is an Assistant Professor in the College of
Business at Oregon State University. He received his PhD from
the University of Colorado, Boulder. His research interests include
entrepreneurial passion, motivation, and venture investor decision‐making.
Anthony C. Klotz is an Associate Professor in the College of Business at Oregon State University. He received his PhD from the
University of Oklahoma's Price College of Business. His research
interests include organizational citizenship behavior, moral licensing, team conflict, and employee resignation.
Wood, M. S., McKelvie, A., & Haynie, J. M. (2014). Making it personal:
Opportunity individuation and the shaping of opportunity beliefs. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 252–272.
Dean Shepherd is the Ray and Milann Siegfried Professor of
Wright, M., Robbie, K., & Ennew, C. (1997). Serial entrepreneurs. British
Journal of Management, 8, 251–268.
Dame University. He investigates decision‐making involved in
Yamakawa, Y., Peng, M. W., & Deeds, D. L. (2015). Rising from the ashes:
Cognitive determinants of venture growth after entrepreneurial failure.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 39, 209–236.
Yitshaki, R., & Kropp, F. (2016). Entrepreneurial passions and identities
in different contexts: A comparison between high‐tech and social
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28,
206–233.
York, J. G., O'Neil, I., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2016). Exploring environmental
entrepreneurship: Identity coupling, venture goals, and stakeholder
incentives. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 695–737.
Entrepreneurship at the Mendoza College of Business, Notre
leveraging cognitive and other resources to act on opportunities
and the processes of learning from experimentation in ways that
lead to high levels of performance.
How to cite this article: Murnieks CY, Klotz AC, Shepherd
DA. Entrepreneurial motivation: A review of the literature
and an agenda for future research. J Organ Behav. 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2374