Entrepreneurship nd Spirituality n Exploration Using Grounded ...
Text-only Preview
Entrepreneurship and Spirituality An Exploration Using
Grounded Theory
Dr. Sandra King Kauanui
Florida Gulf Coast University
Lutgert College of Business
10501 FGCU Blvd, S.,
Fort Myers, FL 339656565
Tel: 760 534 2123
email: [email protected], [email protected]
Mr. Kevin D. Thomas, Doctoral Student
University of Texas at Austin
Department of Advertising
1 University Station A1200,
Austin, TX 78712, USA
Tel: 213 5509983
email: [email protected]
Ms. Cynthia L. Sherman, Doctoral Student
Claremont Graduate University
School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences
150 E. 10th Street
Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: 626 7861920
email: [email protected]
Dr. Gail Ross Waters, Professor
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Management and Human Resources
College of Business Administration
3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768, USA
Tel: 909 3564026
email: [email protected]
Ms. Mihaela Gilea, MBA
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
College of Business Administration
3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768, USA
Tel: 626 298 5517
email: [email protected]
Keywords: behaviors, entrepreneur/entrepreneurship, meaning, purpose,
spiritual/spirituality, ‘work as calling’
Entrepreneurship and Spirituality: An Exploration Using Grounded Theory
Most spirituality and work literature refers only to larger firms.
Entrepreneurship literature has been based on behavior, intentions, and
contextual variables and ignores or subordinates spiritual concepts. A
grounded theory research project was conducted to explore the relationship
between spirituality and entrepreneurship. The inclusion of spiritual concepts
enabled deeper values of business owners to surface and new models to
emerge. Initially, three distinct modalities of entrepreneurs were identified,
which were expanded into five: ‘Make me Whole,’ ‘Soul Seekers,’ ‘Conflicting
Goals,’ ‘Mostly Business,’ and ‘Strictly Business.’ Respondent comments that
represent each modality are presented and indicate various levels of
dependency or independency on spirituallyoriented attributes.
Introduction
The study of spirituality as it relates to entrepreneurs and their work
organizations has, in large part, been unsuccessful in providing a cohesive
explanation of the impact spiritual elements have on an entrepreneur’s
decision to initiate and maintain a business venture. A significant portion of
scholarly work conducted with spirituality and work only pertains to large
corporate entities (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Burack, 1999; Mitroff &
Denton, 1999; WagnerMarsh & Conley, 1999). The preponderance of
entrepreneurial research typically ignores spirituality altogether or simply
utilizes it as a subordinate factor (Brockhaus, 1980; Cromie & Hayes, 1991;
Gartner, et al., 1992; Liles, 1974; Krueger, 2000; McClelland, 1965).
Previous analysis has demonstrated numerous factors that prompt one to
pursue an entrepreneurial career. Various entrepreneurship researchers
have attempted to cluster these factors into meaningful subgroups: pull and
push factors, intrinsic and extrinsic factors, as well as various motivation
theories (Blanchflower & Oswald, 1998; Bradley and Roberts, 2004;
Brockhaus, 1980; Cromie & Hayes, 1991; Dehler & Welsh, 1994; Kolvereid,
1996; McClelland, 1965; Schjoedt & Shaver, 2007). However, the underlying
significance of spirituality has remained elusive. The authors’ intent is to
fully integrate spiritual themes into the research process as a means of
discovering new approaches to the exploration of entrepreneurship, and at
the same time provide a deeper and more congruent understanding of what
occurs when individuals blend mind, body, and soul with work.
A multiphase exploratory study using grounded research was conducted to
lift the shroud of ambiguity surrounding spirituality and entrepreneurship.
The inclusion of spiritual concepts enabled a collection of deeper values and
intentionalities possessed by business owners to surface. The resulting
emergent data from a three year intensive research process indicates that
spirituality should be an integral part of understanding the entrepreneur. The
authors have constructed a model suggesting that individuals seek and live
an entrepreneurial lifestyle because of motivational cues that serve the ‘self’
(internal/spiritual) and/or the ego (external).
The researchers began by interviewing an initial sample of 35 entrepreneurs
utilizing a loosely structured set of questions to explore perceptions and
cognitions of spirituality and work. A model emerged as researchers
discovered that many respondents shared like attributes creating three
distinct clusters. As a result, three modalities of entrepreneurs that started
and stayed in business emerged and were given the following designations:
‘Make me Whole,’ who were internally focused or spirituallyoriented; ‘Cash
is King’ who were externally focused; and ‘Hybrids’ who were conflicted, or
possessed characteristics of the other two modalities. However, due to the
small size and structure of the initial sample, additional work with a larger
more diverse sample was necessary before the model could be
substantiated.
A second larger exploratory study with expanded methodology to better
define the initial model, enabled a new more comprehensive version to
materialize. Whereas, the initial model identified three distinct modalities of
entrepreneurs, the expanded project revealed five modalities on a parallel
continuum, designated as follows: (1) ‘Make me Whole,’ (2) ‘Soul Seekers,’
(3) ‘Conflicting Goals,’ (4) ‘Mostly Business,’ and (5) ‘Strictly Business.’
Each cluster being composed of entrepreneurs that shares a similar level of
dependency or independency on spirituallyoriented attributes.
Research of this kind can significantly enrich and advance entrepreneurship
literature. It provides new and robust models for the study and
measurement of spirituality at work pertaining to entrepreneurs and their
venture activities. This in turn enhances the level of comprehension and
understanding of complex perspectives that entrepreneurs bring to their
businesses. Models and theories contribute significantly to the knowledge
and awareness of consultants and educators in the field, who are sustaining
and developing the entrepreneurs of today and tomorrow. In short, a deeper
and truer sense of the entrepreneurial phenomenon can be realized and put
into practice (Krueger, 2000, 2007).
In keeping with the tradition of grounded theory, wherein the literature
review originates from various themes ascertained during study
development, the next part of this paper includes a brief summary of the
research on spirituality at work as well as entrepreneurship. An overview of
grounded theory and its application during the formation of the authors’
model will follow. Next, an overview of the methodology will be followed by a
discussion of results. The final section will describe implications of the
results, as well as suggestions for future research.
Spirituality and Work Literature
In recent years workplace spirituality has received increased attention in the
organizational sciences (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Mitroff & Denton,
1999). The workplace has been found to play a significant role in fulfilling an
individual’s need for wholeness and integration. It has been suggested that
individuals are utilizing work as a means of finding a purpose for their lives
(DeValk, 1996). Many are seeking work that provides a calling and an
environment that is friendly and open to the expression of personal values
(Cash & Gray, 2000). They want to be part of a workplace of individuals who
can fully employ their best capabilities; a collective community seeking to
contribute by doing ‘good work’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).
Spirituality at Work Definition
Some researchers believe that differing perspectives held on defining
spirituality in the workplace has resulted in ambiguous and inconsistent
findings in research literature (Butts, 1999; Cavanaugh, 1999; Konz & Ryan,
1999; Milliman, et al., 1999). One key differentiator among scholars
surrounds the question of whether spirituality must embody religious
perspectives. For some researchers, spirituality at work is associated with a
relationship with the ‘Divine’ or some other essence that facilitates a
congruent work life, with or without the presence of religious tenets
(SchmidtWilk, et al., 2000). Many are highly motivated by the spiritual
need to experience a sense of transcendence and community in whatever
they do (Neal, 2000).
Opposing views see religion with a sectarian orientation, restricted to
exclusive rituals and doctrine, adding more division than unity. It is the
cherished individual focus of spirituality that facilitates tolerance and
heterogeneity. For those individuals, spirituality is a process of focusing
within, in order to gain an awareness of ‘self,’ producing both an inner
connection with ‘self’ and a connection with others (Covey, 1989; Mitroff, et
al., 1994; Morris, 1997; Neal, et al.,1999; Peck, 1993; Roof, 1992; Stein &
Hollwitz, 1992). As such, an individual’s spirituality emerges from a deep
connection to their deeper values (Gibbons, 2000; Milliman, et al. 2003).
Laabs (1995) says that spirituality in work is more than just empowering
people, it is allowing everyone within an organization to live out their
personal values.
Because of these differing perspectives, the researchers were interested in
further exploring how previous research has defined workplace spirituality.
Using a factor analysis of 696 respondents, Ashmos and Dunchon (2000)
defined workplace spirituality as the “recognition of an inner life that
nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the
context of community.” They suggest that individuals are spiritual beings,
needing to be fed spiritually at work. Concluding that spirituality at work is
about bringing together an individual’s mind, body and spirit into the
workplace environment in which individuals experience more than their
required tasks.
These findings are consistent with Mitroff & Denton (1999) in which
respondents described spirituality and work as the “basic desire to find
ultimate meaning and purpose in one’s life and to live an integrated life.”
These definitions provide a broader definition for spirituality and work. From
these fundamental definitions, the following spiritual themes and attributes
emerged for further exploration: finding meaning and purpose in life, living
an integrated life, and being in community with others, especially in an
entrepreneurial context and setting.
Finding Ultimate Meaning and Purpose in Life
Moore (1992) considers that when work becomes a vocation and calling, it
provides an individual with greater meaning and identity. When individuals
find meaning and purpose through their life’s work, it becomes a calling
(Thompson, 2001). Work as a calling requires the alignment of unique
talents and gifts with the needs of the world. Only then does work become a
vocation, rather than a job (Leider, 1997).
Leider quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes in his book, The Power of Purpose,
“most of us go to our graves with our music still inside us” (Leider, 1997,
p.118). Leider goes on to suggest that crisis is often necessary to realize
one’s calling to fulfill a deep purpose (Leider, 1997). Those who become
aware of their calling but do not follow it are likely to remain depressed with
an undeveloped soul (King & Nicols, 1999; Jung, 1933; Mitroff & Denton,
1999). From where does this calling originate? Some have suggested that it
comes from within the ‘self.’ It is the expression of personal essence, the
inner core, the ‘voice’ within that must surface; a deeper ‘self,’ calling out for
actualization and integration (Jung, 1933; Leider, 1997).
Living an Integrated Life
To live an integrated life requires a connection to ‘self’ (Eddinger, 1972;
Harding, 1965). One of the attributes of connection to ‘self’ is reaching full
potential (King & Nicols, 1999). Mitroff & Denton (1999) found that the
“ability to fully utilize full potential” was the first choice by the participants in
their study when explaining the source of meaning and purpose in life. These
participants were employees of a large organization. It is interesting to note
that a decisive majority wished to have more opportunity to completely
express and develop the ‘self’ at work.
Alignment of personal values with organizational values (Mitroff & Denton,
1999) as well as with organizational mission and vision (DeValk, 1996) are
also necessary to feel a sense of wholeness. From this alignment of culture,
values and people, an enormous sense of community and opportunity for
personal contribution materialize.
Community and Contribution
Milliman, et al. (2003) suggests that finding one’s purpose at work produces
an alignment of personal inner being with the organization’s vision and
mission. It creates a deep connection to coworkers and an understanding
that an individual’s inner life must be nourished and lived out at work.
People who experience work as a ‘calling’ seem to enjoy a personal sense of
wholeness, and are energized by a spiritual connection with others (Depree,
1989; Marcic, 1997; Morris, 1997; Stein & Hollowitz, 1992). This connection
with others provides a sense of fellowship (Vail, 1998) and creates a
community within the workplace (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). Through
fellowship at work, individuals find a channel to actualize calling by bringing
“spirit and livelihood back together again” (Fox, 1995).
Creating or contributing to community does not necessarily mean changing
the world; rather it can be about working at some meaningful contribution to
the community. Contributions produce a unifying purpose that, like a
magnetic field attracts and magnifies energy, providing a goal upon which all
lesser goals depend. Without such a purpose, even the best ordered
consciousness lacks meaning (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). From where does
this energy originate is it driven from external or internal factors?
Internal or External
McGeachy (2001) suggests that spirituality at work is fueled by personal
fulfillment and builds high morale in the organization. Fulfilling purpose
originates from deep within the individual. It is part of a central core or
essence where people have a profound sense of who they are, where they
come from, and where they are going. It provides an enormous source of
energy and direction that gives meaning to life. The work and task
performance is internalized as a form of intrinsic motivation (Dehler &
Welsh, 1994). Csikszentmihalyi (1990) refers to this experience as being in
‘flow.’
According to SelfDetermination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000),
humans have a fundamental need to feel autonomous to choose their
actions. When the autonomous need is satisfied, selfdetermined motivation
toward an activity is enhanced (Sheldon, et al., 2001). Selfdetermined
motivation results from performance of a behavior or action out of personal
choice, satisfaction, or pleasure.
On the other hand, nonselfdetermined motivation implies engaging in an
activity or behavior for controlled reasons. Nonself determined motivation
can be observed when one performs a behavior in order to attain a positive
end state (e.g., obtaining a reward) or to avoid a negative end state (e.g.,
avoiding a punishment).
In Success Built to Last, Porras, Emery and Thompson (2007) refer to
factors that motivate entrepreneurs. Wealth, fame, and power were not the
goals or accomplishments respondent entrepreneurs felt were important.
Money and recognition were only byproducts of work; they are “outcomes of
passionately working often on an entirely different objective that is often a
personal cause or calling” (p. 20).
Entrepreneurial Literature
Social and behavioral psychologists were the first to explore what it means
to be an entrepreneur. As psychologists, the research they conducted
focused heavily on psychological factors to explain entrepreneurship, most
predominately traits and behaviors. From these researchers emerged a
number of trait and behavioral based theories (Hornaday & Aboud, 1971;
Hisrich & O’Brien, 1981; McClelland, 1961). The hallmark of these
approaches being that an understanding of the entrepreneurship
phenomenon could be realized by determining the personality traits and
external contexts of entrepreneurs’ ideas and ventures. Gartner, (1985)
proposed four dimensions: individual, organization, environment and
venture process.
Intentionality
Trait and behavior models improved the understanding of how one becomes
an entrepreneur, but do not go far enough to explain why entrepreneurship
would be chosen over organizational employment. Entrepreneurship clearly
represents planned, intentional behavior and thus seems amenable to
research using formal models of intentions (Bird, 1988; Katz & Gartner,
1988; Krueger, 1993). Intentions are the best predictor of behavior, and
they are both shaped and influenced by personal and situational variables
(Krueger, et al., 2000). So, by focusing on intentions, scholars began to take
a wider, more holistic view of entrepreneurs. Instead of simply looking at
characteristics and behaviors, other variables such as personal history, value
systems, attitudes, and perceptions were examined.
Foundations of intentions research in entrepreneurship stem from two
models: Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) and Shapero’s
model of the entrepreneurial event. Ajzen (1991), focused on intentions
to link attitudes with behavior. Originating from Bandura’s (1986) self
efficacy from social learning theory, TPB posits three antecedents to
intention or planned behavior (1) “attitude toward the behavior,” (2)
“subjective norm,” and (3) “perceived behavior control” (p. 188). Three
antecedents affect intention which affects actual behavior. Both internal
state of the person (internal locus) and external or contextual variables
(external locus) influence intentions and ultimately actions (Bird, 1988). Self
efficacy is critical to self perception and personal success (Boyd & Vozikis,
1994). Gartner, (1985) went beyond the individual to combine environment,
process and resulting organization. TPB does appear applicable to
entrepreneurship (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993).
Shapero in an effort to improve on traditional definitions of entrepreneurship
prefers to focus on the ‘entrepreneurial event’ rather than the person.
Individuals are persuaded toward “life path changes” such as entrepreneurial
actions by factors such as “job, family situation, inertia, and daily pushes
and pulls.” External factors include “negative displacements” such as refugee
movements or job related changes (being fired, demoted, or transferred).
“Internal displacements” include attitude shifts such as age milestones or
mid life crises. While negative forces are more powerful, Shapero also
discusses “positive pulls,” such as “perceptions of desirability:” financial
reward, personal values, family, peers, work experience along with
“perceptions of feasibility” such as financial or other support and evidence of
success. (Shapero & Sokol, 1982, 7884).
Robinson et al. (1991) argue that there is no direct link between
demographic variables and entrepreneurial behavior. As they point out, “the
concepts are dependent on the existence of more fundamental
characteristics that influence the entrepreneur” (Robinson, et al., 1991, p.
17). Scherer, et al. (1989), Krueger (1993), and Krueger & Carsrud (1993)
argue that role models affect entrepreneurial intentions, but only if they
affect attitudes.
Push/Pull Theory. Push/pull approaches, laid out effectively in Vesper
(1990) hold that negative and positive factors attract individuals to
entrepreneurship. Push factors are negative situational issues, such as
economic necessity, conflicts with employer or employment, joblessness
(Olofsson, 1986), career setbacks (Gilad, 1986), and limited alternative
opportunities (Greenberger, 1988) that ‘push’ the individual toward
entrepreneurship. Conversely, pull factors are characterized as affirmative
events that ‘pull’ one to entrepreneurship. Need for achievement
(McClelland, 1961), internal locus of control, belief in selfdetermination
(Rotter, 1966; Brockhaus, 1982), higher propensity for risktaking (Slevin,
1992), identification of a market opportunity, and strong sense of personal
ability to perform (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994) are all examples of pull factors of
entrepreneurship. Researchers have found both push and pull factors to be
extremely influential. Shapero’s work (1982) demonstrated that individuals
are much more apt to form a company based on negative information rather
than positive. Amit (1994) found that pull entrepreneurs were more
successful than push entrepreneurs in both personal income and sales per
employee. He postulated that this was due to the fact that pull
entrepreneurs are lured by the attractiveness of a personal business idea.
More recently, Schjoedt and Shaver (2007) could not confirm ‘pull’ factors
and found evidence against the ‘push’ factors. The spirit, soul or even a
search for meaning and purpose, while certainly challenging to measure,
have never been considered in any of these studies.
Internal/External. Somewhat parallel to ‘push/pull,’ this concept examines
motivation attributes that originate from within the individual (internal) or
from the environment (external). Internal attributes are commonly linked to
pull factors and consist of variables such as personal ability, skill set,
feelings, experiences, and knowledge. External factors are generally in
keeping with push factors and include attributes like the economy,
consumers, investors, product demand, and competition (Shaver, et al.,
2001; Hunger, et al., 2002). Internally motivated individuals tend to
proactively seek entrepreneurship while the externally motivated react to
surrounding circumstances in entrepreneurial decisions and actions (Hunger,
et al., 2002).
These theories have contributed significantly to research by providing a
foundation for understanding personal characteristics and situational factors
that motivate entrepreneurship. Push/pull models revealed that
entrepreneurship can result from both positive and negative factors, while
the internal/external theory illustrated that the drive for entrepreneurship
can come from within one’s self or from extraneous circumstances. The
collective of push/pull and internal/external theories provide structure and
categorization to the many factors that can prompt entrepreneurship, yet
shed very little light on why one would choose to follow such a path in the
face of alternative career opportunities.
Entrepreneurship research remains silent on factors related to spirituality.
Extensive discussions in the early part of this paper reveal numerous studies
and narratives expressing the importance and vitality of spirituality at work
and the search for meaning and purpose as part of work life. This work both
demonstrates efforts to define spirituality and effects of transforming a mere
occupation into a vocation with meaning and purpose. While the body of
entrepreneurship literature supplied some of the key motivation factors for
pursuing an entrepreneurial lifestyle, little exists to tie spirituality to
entrepreneurship. Building on this need provides the basis of this study.
Research Design
According to Glaser & Strauss (1967), the most important part of theory
building should begin as close as possible to: NO theory under consideration
and NO hypothesis to test. Developing grounded research requires the
researchers to become intimately connected with the data if they hope to
develop a “testable, relevant, and valid theory.” However, others argue that
it is necessary, and somewhat unavoidable, to combine observations from
previous literature and the researchers’ prior experience in this process
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Building theory requires researchers to begin with a
basic description that provides a basis for organizing data into specific
categories “according to their properties and dimensions and then using
description, to elucidate those categories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 21).
Thus, theory building is a process of abstracting, reducing and relating.
Methodological Development
Initial Exploration
Years of business exposure along with active research experience in
entrepreneurship and ‘spirituality and work’ have provided the researchers
with a strong foundation. This grounded research from the beginning has
sought to explore the spiritual dimensions of entrepreneurs and their
businesses. The authors present a detailed description of two phases: first,
an initial phase with smaller sample followed by a larger undertaking with
expanded sample, analysis and resultant model.
The first convenience or ‘snowball’ sample consisted of 35 entrepreneurs.
The initial interview guide utilized open ended questions so that the
interview inquiry process could evolve without constricting the rich flow of
data. Particular attention was given to the following four key areas of
investigation: startup/secession motivation; work/life experience; personal
values and spiritual beliefs; and demography.
Since these themes and related questions were broad, the researchers
collected a vast and rich set of narrative data. The interviews lasted at least
an hour, with some extending for several hours. Rather than being confined
to a question and answer period each interview was conducted in a
conversational manner so that important topics, not specifically addressed in
the interview guide could materialize for exploration. The interviews were
transcribed and imported into Atlas.ti, a software program used to aid in the
qualitative analysis of large bodies of text.
An open coding schema for organizing data was developed and
implemented. The researchers carefully read each transcribed interview
narrative and highlighted sections that pertained to the broad thematic
categories. Spontaneous responses (those outside the realm of the chosen
thematic categories) were also coded in order to provide a new and/or
deeper level of insight into the entrepreneurial experience. Researcher
Grounded Theory
Dr. Sandra King Kauanui
Florida Gulf Coast University
Lutgert College of Business
10501 FGCU Blvd, S.,
Fort Myers, FL 339656565
Tel: 760 534 2123
email: [email protected], [email protected]
Mr. Kevin D. Thomas, Doctoral Student
University of Texas at Austin
Department of Advertising
1 University Station A1200,
Austin, TX 78712, USA
Tel: 213 5509983
email: [email protected]
Ms. Cynthia L. Sherman, Doctoral Student
Claremont Graduate University
School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences
150 E. 10th Street
Claremont, CA 91711
Tel: 626 7861920
email: [email protected]
Dr. Gail Ross Waters, Professor
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Management and Human Resources
College of Business Administration
3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768, USA
Tel: 909 3564026
email: [email protected]
Ms. Mihaela Gilea, MBA
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
College of Business Administration
3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768, USA
Tel: 626 298 5517
email: [email protected]
Keywords: behaviors, entrepreneur/entrepreneurship, meaning, purpose,
spiritual/spirituality, ‘work as calling’
Entrepreneurship and Spirituality: An Exploration Using Grounded Theory
Most spirituality and work literature refers only to larger firms.
Entrepreneurship literature has been based on behavior, intentions, and
contextual variables and ignores or subordinates spiritual concepts. A
grounded theory research project was conducted to explore the relationship
between spirituality and entrepreneurship. The inclusion of spiritual concepts
enabled deeper values of business owners to surface and new models to
emerge. Initially, three distinct modalities of entrepreneurs were identified,
which were expanded into five: ‘Make me Whole,’ ‘Soul Seekers,’ ‘Conflicting
Goals,’ ‘Mostly Business,’ and ‘Strictly Business.’ Respondent comments that
represent each modality are presented and indicate various levels of
dependency or independency on spirituallyoriented attributes.
Introduction
The study of spirituality as it relates to entrepreneurs and their work
organizations has, in large part, been unsuccessful in providing a cohesive
explanation of the impact spiritual elements have on an entrepreneur’s
decision to initiate and maintain a business venture. A significant portion of
scholarly work conducted with spirituality and work only pertains to large
corporate entities (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Burack, 1999; Mitroff &
Denton, 1999; WagnerMarsh & Conley, 1999). The preponderance of
entrepreneurial research typically ignores spirituality altogether or simply
utilizes it as a subordinate factor (Brockhaus, 1980; Cromie & Hayes, 1991;
Gartner, et al., 1992; Liles, 1974; Krueger, 2000; McClelland, 1965).
Previous analysis has demonstrated numerous factors that prompt one to
pursue an entrepreneurial career. Various entrepreneurship researchers
have attempted to cluster these factors into meaningful subgroups: pull and
push factors, intrinsic and extrinsic factors, as well as various motivation
theories (Blanchflower & Oswald, 1998; Bradley and Roberts, 2004;
Brockhaus, 1980; Cromie & Hayes, 1991; Dehler & Welsh, 1994; Kolvereid,
1996; McClelland, 1965; Schjoedt & Shaver, 2007). However, the underlying
significance of spirituality has remained elusive. The authors’ intent is to
fully integrate spiritual themes into the research process as a means of
discovering new approaches to the exploration of entrepreneurship, and at
the same time provide a deeper and more congruent understanding of what
occurs when individuals blend mind, body, and soul with work.
A multiphase exploratory study using grounded research was conducted to
lift the shroud of ambiguity surrounding spirituality and entrepreneurship.
The inclusion of spiritual concepts enabled a collection of deeper values and
intentionalities possessed by business owners to surface. The resulting
emergent data from a three year intensive research process indicates that
spirituality should be an integral part of understanding the entrepreneur. The
authors have constructed a model suggesting that individuals seek and live
an entrepreneurial lifestyle because of motivational cues that serve the ‘self’
(internal/spiritual) and/or the ego (external).
The researchers began by interviewing an initial sample of 35 entrepreneurs
utilizing a loosely structured set of questions to explore perceptions and
cognitions of spirituality and work. A model emerged as researchers
discovered that many respondents shared like attributes creating three
distinct clusters. As a result, three modalities of entrepreneurs that started
and stayed in business emerged and were given the following designations:
‘Make me Whole,’ who were internally focused or spirituallyoriented; ‘Cash
is King’ who were externally focused; and ‘Hybrids’ who were conflicted, or
possessed characteristics of the other two modalities. However, due to the
small size and structure of the initial sample, additional work with a larger
more diverse sample was necessary before the model could be
substantiated.
A second larger exploratory study with expanded methodology to better
define the initial model, enabled a new more comprehensive version to
materialize. Whereas, the initial model identified three distinct modalities of
entrepreneurs, the expanded project revealed five modalities on a parallel
continuum, designated as follows: (1) ‘Make me Whole,’ (2) ‘Soul Seekers,’
(3) ‘Conflicting Goals,’ (4) ‘Mostly Business,’ and (5) ‘Strictly Business.’
Each cluster being composed of entrepreneurs that shares a similar level of
dependency or independency on spirituallyoriented attributes.
Research of this kind can significantly enrich and advance entrepreneurship
literature. It provides new and robust models for the study and
measurement of spirituality at work pertaining to entrepreneurs and their
venture activities. This in turn enhances the level of comprehension and
understanding of complex perspectives that entrepreneurs bring to their
businesses. Models and theories contribute significantly to the knowledge
and awareness of consultants and educators in the field, who are sustaining
and developing the entrepreneurs of today and tomorrow. In short, a deeper
and truer sense of the entrepreneurial phenomenon can be realized and put
into practice (Krueger, 2000, 2007).
In keeping with the tradition of grounded theory, wherein the literature
review originates from various themes ascertained during study
development, the next part of this paper includes a brief summary of the
research on spirituality at work as well as entrepreneurship. An overview of
grounded theory and its application during the formation of the authors’
model will follow. Next, an overview of the methodology will be followed by a
discussion of results. The final section will describe implications of the
results, as well as suggestions for future research.
Spirituality and Work Literature
In recent years workplace spirituality has received increased attention in the
organizational sciences (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2003; Mitroff & Denton,
1999). The workplace has been found to play a significant role in fulfilling an
individual’s need for wholeness and integration. It has been suggested that
individuals are utilizing work as a means of finding a purpose for their lives
(DeValk, 1996). Many are seeking work that provides a calling and an
environment that is friendly and open to the expression of personal values
(Cash & Gray, 2000). They want to be part of a workplace of individuals who
can fully employ their best capabilities; a collective community seeking to
contribute by doing ‘good work’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).
Spirituality at Work Definition
Some researchers believe that differing perspectives held on defining
spirituality in the workplace has resulted in ambiguous and inconsistent
findings in research literature (Butts, 1999; Cavanaugh, 1999; Konz & Ryan,
1999; Milliman, et al., 1999). One key differentiator among scholars
surrounds the question of whether spirituality must embody religious
perspectives. For some researchers, spirituality at work is associated with a
relationship with the ‘Divine’ or some other essence that facilitates a
congruent work life, with or without the presence of religious tenets
(SchmidtWilk, et al., 2000). Many are highly motivated by the spiritual
need to experience a sense of transcendence and community in whatever
they do (Neal, 2000).
Opposing views see religion with a sectarian orientation, restricted to
exclusive rituals and doctrine, adding more division than unity. It is the
cherished individual focus of spirituality that facilitates tolerance and
heterogeneity. For those individuals, spirituality is a process of focusing
within, in order to gain an awareness of ‘self,’ producing both an inner
connection with ‘self’ and a connection with others (Covey, 1989; Mitroff, et
al., 1994; Morris, 1997; Neal, et al.,1999; Peck, 1993; Roof, 1992; Stein &
Hollwitz, 1992). As such, an individual’s spirituality emerges from a deep
connection to their deeper values (Gibbons, 2000; Milliman, et al. 2003).
Laabs (1995) says that spirituality in work is more than just empowering
people, it is allowing everyone within an organization to live out their
personal values.
Because of these differing perspectives, the researchers were interested in
further exploring how previous research has defined workplace spirituality.
Using a factor analysis of 696 respondents, Ashmos and Dunchon (2000)
defined workplace spirituality as the “recognition of an inner life that
nourishes and is nourished by meaningful work that takes place in the
context of community.” They suggest that individuals are spiritual beings,
needing to be fed spiritually at work. Concluding that spirituality at work is
about bringing together an individual’s mind, body and spirit into the
workplace environment in which individuals experience more than their
required tasks.
These findings are consistent with Mitroff & Denton (1999) in which
respondents described spirituality and work as the “basic desire to find
ultimate meaning and purpose in one’s life and to live an integrated life.”
These definitions provide a broader definition for spirituality and work. From
these fundamental definitions, the following spiritual themes and attributes
emerged for further exploration: finding meaning and purpose in life, living
an integrated life, and being in community with others, especially in an
entrepreneurial context and setting.
Finding Ultimate Meaning and Purpose in Life
Moore (1992) considers that when work becomes a vocation and calling, it
provides an individual with greater meaning and identity. When individuals
find meaning and purpose through their life’s work, it becomes a calling
(Thompson, 2001). Work as a calling requires the alignment of unique
talents and gifts with the needs of the world. Only then does work become a
vocation, rather than a job (Leider, 1997).
Leider quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes in his book, The Power of Purpose,
“most of us go to our graves with our music still inside us” (Leider, 1997,
p.118). Leider goes on to suggest that crisis is often necessary to realize
one’s calling to fulfill a deep purpose (Leider, 1997). Those who become
aware of their calling but do not follow it are likely to remain depressed with
an undeveloped soul (King & Nicols, 1999; Jung, 1933; Mitroff & Denton,
1999). From where does this calling originate? Some have suggested that it
comes from within the ‘self.’ It is the expression of personal essence, the
inner core, the ‘voice’ within that must surface; a deeper ‘self,’ calling out for
actualization and integration (Jung, 1933; Leider, 1997).
Living an Integrated Life
To live an integrated life requires a connection to ‘self’ (Eddinger, 1972;
Harding, 1965). One of the attributes of connection to ‘self’ is reaching full
potential (King & Nicols, 1999). Mitroff & Denton (1999) found that the
“ability to fully utilize full potential” was the first choice by the participants in
their study when explaining the source of meaning and purpose in life. These
participants were employees of a large organization. It is interesting to note
that a decisive majority wished to have more opportunity to completely
express and develop the ‘self’ at work.
Alignment of personal values with organizational values (Mitroff & Denton,
1999) as well as with organizational mission and vision (DeValk, 1996) are
also necessary to feel a sense of wholeness. From this alignment of culture,
values and people, an enormous sense of community and opportunity for
personal contribution materialize.
Community and Contribution
Milliman, et al. (2003) suggests that finding one’s purpose at work produces
an alignment of personal inner being with the organization’s vision and
mission. It creates a deep connection to coworkers and an understanding
that an individual’s inner life must be nourished and lived out at work.
People who experience work as a ‘calling’ seem to enjoy a personal sense of
wholeness, and are energized by a spiritual connection with others (Depree,
1989; Marcic, 1997; Morris, 1997; Stein & Hollowitz, 1992). This connection
with others provides a sense of fellowship (Vail, 1998) and creates a
community within the workplace (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000). Through
fellowship at work, individuals find a channel to actualize calling by bringing
“spirit and livelihood back together again” (Fox, 1995).
Creating or contributing to community does not necessarily mean changing
the world; rather it can be about working at some meaningful contribution to
the community. Contributions produce a unifying purpose that, like a
magnetic field attracts and magnifies energy, providing a goal upon which all
lesser goals depend. Without such a purpose, even the best ordered
consciousness lacks meaning (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). From where does
this energy originate is it driven from external or internal factors?
Internal or External
McGeachy (2001) suggests that spirituality at work is fueled by personal
fulfillment and builds high morale in the organization. Fulfilling purpose
originates from deep within the individual. It is part of a central core or
essence where people have a profound sense of who they are, where they
come from, and where they are going. It provides an enormous source of
energy and direction that gives meaning to life. The work and task
performance is internalized as a form of intrinsic motivation (Dehler &
Welsh, 1994). Csikszentmihalyi (1990) refers to this experience as being in
‘flow.’
According to SelfDetermination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000),
humans have a fundamental need to feel autonomous to choose their
actions. When the autonomous need is satisfied, selfdetermined motivation
toward an activity is enhanced (Sheldon, et al., 2001). Selfdetermined
motivation results from performance of a behavior or action out of personal
choice, satisfaction, or pleasure.
On the other hand, nonselfdetermined motivation implies engaging in an
activity or behavior for controlled reasons. Nonself determined motivation
can be observed when one performs a behavior in order to attain a positive
end state (e.g., obtaining a reward) or to avoid a negative end state (e.g.,
avoiding a punishment).
In Success Built to Last, Porras, Emery and Thompson (2007) refer to
factors that motivate entrepreneurs. Wealth, fame, and power were not the
goals or accomplishments respondent entrepreneurs felt were important.
Money and recognition were only byproducts of work; they are “outcomes of
passionately working often on an entirely different objective that is often a
personal cause or calling” (p. 20).
Entrepreneurial Literature
Social and behavioral psychologists were the first to explore what it means
to be an entrepreneur. As psychologists, the research they conducted
focused heavily on psychological factors to explain entrepreneurship, most
predominately traits and behaviors. From these researchers emerged a
number of trait and behavioral based theories (Hornaday & Aboud, 1971;
Hisrich & O’Brien, 1981; McClelland, 1961). The hallmark of these
approaches being that an understanding of the entrepreneurship
phenomenon could be realized by determining the personality traits and
external contexts of entrepreneurs’ ideas and ventures. Gartner, (1985)
proposed four dimensions: individual, organization, environment and
venture process.
Intentionality
Trait and behavior models improved the understanding of how one becomes
an entrepreneur, but do not go far enough to explain why entrepreneurship
would be chosen over organizational employment. Entrepreneurship clearly
represents planned, intentional behavior and thus seems amenable to
research using formal models of intentions (Bird, 1988; Katz & Gartner,
1988; Krueger, 1993). Intentions are the best predictor of behavior, and
they are both shaped and influenced by personal and situational variables
(Krueger, et al., 2000). So, by focusing on intentions, scholars began to take
a wider, more holistic view of entrepreneurs. Instead of simply looking at
characteristics and behaviors, other variables such as personal history, value
systems, attitudes, and perceptions were examined.
Foundations of intentions research in entrepreneurship stem from two
models: Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) and Shapero’s
model of the entrepreneurial event. Ajzen (1991), focused on intentions
to link attitudes with behavior. Originating from Bandura’s (1986) self
efficacy from social learning theory, TPB posits three antecedents to
intention or planned behavior (1) “attitude toward the behavior,” (2)
“subjective norm,” and (3) “perceived behavior control” (p. 188). Three
antecedents affect intention which affects actual behavior. Both internal
state of the person (internal locus) and external or contextual variables
(external locus) influence intentions and ultimately actions (Bird, 1988). Self
efficacy is critical to self perception and personal success (Boyd & Vozikis,
1994). Gartner, (1985) went beyond the individual to combine environment,
process and resulting organization. TPB does appear applicable to
entrepreneurship (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993).
Shapero in an effort to improve on traditional definitions of entrepreneurship
prefers to focus on the ‘entrepreneurial event’ rather than the person.
Individuals are persuaded toward “life path changes” such as entrepreneurial
actions by factors such as “job, family situation, inertia, and daily pushes
and pulls.” External factors include “negative displacements” such as refugee
movements or job related changes (being fired, demoted, or transferred).
“Internal displacements” include attitude shifts such as age milestones or
mid life crises. While negative forces are more powerful, Shapero also
discusses “positive pulls,” such as “perceptions of desirability:” financial
reward, personal values, family, peers, work experience along with
“perceptions of feasibility” such as financial or other support and evidence of
success. (Shapero & Sokol, 1982, 7884).
Robinson et al. (1991) argue that there is no direct link between
demographic variables and entrepreneurial behavior. As they point out, “the
concepts are dependent on the existence of more fundamental
characteristics that influence the entrepreneur” (Robinson, et al., 1991, p.
17). Scherer, et al. (1989), Krueger (1993), and Krueger & Carsrud (1993)
argue that role models affect entrepreneurial intentions, but only if they
affect attitudes.
Push/Pull Theory. Push/pull approaches, laid out effectively in Vesper
(1990) hold that negative and positive factors attract individuals to
entrepreneurship. Push factors are negative situational issues, such as
economic necessity, conflicts with employer or employment, joblessness
(Olofsson, 1986), career setbacks (Gilad, 1986), and limited alternative
opportunities (Greenberger, 1988) that ‘push’ the individual toward
entrepreneurship. Conversely, pull factors are characterized as affirmative
events that ‘pull’ one to entrepreneurship. Need for achievement
(McClelland, 1961), internal locus of control, belief in selfdetermination
(Rotter, 1966; Brockhaus, 1982), higher propensity for risktaking (Slevin,
1992), identification of a market opportunity, and strong sense of personal
ability to perform (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994) are all examples of pull factors of
entrepreneurship. Researchers have found both push and pull factors to be
extremely influential. Shapero’s work (1982) demonstrated that individuals
are much more apt to form a company based on negative information rather
than positive. Amit (1994) found that pull entrepreneurs were more
successful than push entrepreneurs in both personal income and sales per
employee. He postulated that this was due to the fact that pull
entrepreneurs are lured by the attractiveness of a personal business idea.
More recently, Schjoedt and Shaver (2007) could not confirm ‘pull’ factors
and found evidence against the ‘push’ factors. The spirit, soul or even a
search for meaning and purpose, while certainly challenging to measure,
have never been considered in any of these studies.
Internal/External. Somewhat parallel to ‘push/pull,’ this concept examines
motivation attributes that originate from within the individual (internal) or
from the environment (external). Internal attributes are commonly linked to
pull factors and consist of variables such as personal ability, skill set,
feelings, experiences, and knowledge. External factors are generally in
keeping with push factors and include attributes like the economy,
consumers, investors, product demand, and competition (Shaver, et al.,
2001; Hunger, et al., 2002). Internally motivated individuals tend to
proactively seek entrepreneurship while the externally motivated react to
surrounding circumstances in entrepreneurial decisions and actions (Hunger,
et al., 2002).
These theories have contributed significantly to research by providing a
foundation for understanding personal characteristics and situational factors
that motivate entrepreneurship. Push/pull models revealed that
entrepreneurship can result from both positive and negative factors, while
the internal/external theory illustrated that the drive for entrepreneurship
can come from within one’s self or from extraneous circumstances. The
collective of push/pull and internal/external theories provide structure and
categorization to the many factors that can prompt entrepreneurship, yet
shed very little light on why one would choose to follow such a path in the
face of alternative career opportunities.
Entrepreneurship research remains silent on factors related to spirituality.
Extensive discussions in the early part of this paper reveal numerous studies
and narratives expressing the importance and vitality of spirituality at work
and the search for meaning and purpose as part of work life. This work both
demonstrates efforts to define spirituality and effects of transforming a mere
occupation into a vocation with meaning and purpose. While the body of
entrepreneurship literature supplied some of the key motivation factors for
pursuing an entrepreneurial lifestyle, little exists to tie spirituality to
entrepreneurship. Building on this need provides the basis of this study.
Research Design
According to Glaser & Strauss (1967), the most important part of theory
building should begin as close as possible to: NO theory under consideration
and NO hypothesis to test. Developing grounded research requires the
researchers to become intimately connected with the data if they hope to
develop a “testable, relevant, and valid theory.” However, others argue that
it is necessary, and somewhat unavoidable, to combine observations from
previous literature and the researchers’ prior experience in this process
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Building theory requires researchers to begin with a
basic description that provides a basis for organizing data into specific
categories “according to their properties and dimensions and then using
description, to elucidate those categories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 21).
Thus, theory building is a process of abstracting, reducing and relating.
Methodological Development
Initial Exploration
Years of business exposure along with active research experience in
entrepreneurship and ‘spirituality and work’ have provided the researchers
with a strong foundation. This grounded research from the beginning has
sought to explore the spiritual dimensions of entrepreneurs and their
businesses. The authors present a detailed description of two phases: first,
an initial phase with smaller sample followed by a larger undertaking with
expanded sample, analysis and resultant model.
The first convenience or ‘snowball’ sample consisted of 35 entrepreneurs.
The initial interview guide utilized open ended questions so that the
interview inquiry process could evolve without constricting the rich flow of
data. Particular attention was given to the following four key areas of
investigation: startup/secession motivation; work/life experience; personal
values and spiritual beliefs; and demography.
Since these themes and related questions were broad, the researchers
collected a vast and rich set of narrative data. The interviews lasted at least
an hour, with some extending for several hours. Rather than being confined
to a question and answer period each interview was conducted in a
conversational manner so that important topics, not specifically addressed in
the interview guide could materialize for exploration. The interviews were
transcribed and imported into Atlas.ti, a software program used to aid in the
qualitative analysis of large bodies of text.
An open coding schema for organizing data was developed and
implemented. The researchers carefully read each transcribed interview
narrative and highlighted sections that pertained to the broad thematic
categories. Spontaneous responses (those outside the realm of the chosen
thematic categories) were also coded in order to provide a new and/or
deeper level of insight into the entrepreneurial experience. Researcher
