Content uploaded by Andreana Drencheva
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andreana Drencheva on Dec 29, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Social entrepreneurship: Blending prosocial motivation and self-interests in business
Andreana Drencheva
a.drencheva@sheffield.ac.uk
University of Sheffield
United Kingdom
Social entrepreneurs intend to, start, lead, and manage new organizations that catalyze social
change through market mechanisms. While such economic activity can be considered an
epitome manifestation of prosocial motivation in business, prosocial motivations and self-
interest are not mutually exclusive in social entrepreneurship. This conceptual book chapter
explicates the self-interests of social entrepreneurs. It proposes that both prosocial motivation
and self-interest fuel social entrepreneurship and examines how they interact and change over
time to create synergies or conflicts that influence the wellbeing of both social entrepreneurs
and social ventures. It proposes that conflicts between prosocial motivations and self-interests
can hinder the wellbeing of social entrepreneurs and their ventures, while meaningful
synergies can enhance the wellbeing of social entrepreneurs and social ventures. Thus, this
chapter portrays social entrepreneurs as multidimensional human beings and highlights the
importance of social entrepreneurs’ wellbeing.
Keywords: social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneur, prosocial motivation, conflicting
motivations, wellbeing
This is an author accepted version of the book chapter.
Citation:
Drencheva, A. (2019). Social entrepreneurship: Blending prosocial motivation and self-
interests in business. In D. Ochnik (Ed.), Selflessness in Business. Wilmington, DE: Vernon
Press.
2
In a world of grand societal challenges (George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, & Tihanyi,
2016), the media, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers are increasingly turning to
social ventures as catalysts for social change. Social ventures are organizations that use
market-based activities to pursue a social objective regardless of their legal form (Mair,
Battilana, & Cardenas, 2012). This means that social ventures can be legally registered as
charities, limited liability companies, or any social enterprise specific form, yet at their core
is improving the physical, psychological, social, and financial wellbeing of diverse
individuals, communities, and environments. Commercial entrepreneurship contributes to
social objectives, such as job creation and productivity growth (Van Praag & Versloot, 2007),
as a byproduct (Venkataraman, 1997). However, such social objectives are a primary or
equally important goal as commercial goals in social entrepreneurship, instead of a byproduct
(Mair & Martí, 2006). Economic, civic engagement, law and rights, environmental,
education, health, food, housing, technology, culture, and family issues are common social
issues that social ventures aim to address (Mair et al., 2012). Social entrepreneurship
activities vary in scale and scope as they can address specific local community issues, build
and institutionalize alternative national structures to address social issues, and build lasting
structures to challenge the status quo globally (Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman,
2009). For example, social ventures have addressed social issues, such as drug addiction
recovery (Perrini, Vurro, & Costanzo, 2010), homelessness (Tracey & Jarvis, 2007), poverty
(Mair & Schoen, 2007), and high barriers to labor markets (Kai Hockerts, 2015) in different
institutional settings. Common beneficiaries of the work of social ventures are civic
engagement organizations, the public, children, farmers, women, youth, families, teachers,
disabled individuals, people living in poverty or who are homeless, students, governments,
and businesses (Mair et al., 2012).
3
Grameen Bank is an established and prominent example of social entrepreneurship
that demonstrates the phenomenon. It was founded in Bangladesh to provide microcredits,
which are small, unsecured loans for starting or expanding a business, to the poorest rural
individuals, predominantly women, who did not qualify for loans from traditional banks due
to lack of collateral. The underpinning logic of Grameen Bank was that affordable loans
could reduce extreme poverty while also improving health and education attainment levels. A
recent meta-analysis provides strong evidence that microcredits reduce poverty and increase
nutrition, education, and female empowerment (Chliova, Brinckmann, & Rosenbusch, 2015),
while Grameen Bank ensured its financial sustainability by developing a system to support
borrowers in repaying loans (Yunus, 1998). Financially sustainable from the early stages, as
of 2006, Grameen Bank had supported 6.6 million borrowers with an unprecedented
repayment rate above 95% (Giridharadas & Bradsher, 2006).
Social ventures emerge from the work of social entrepreneurs – the individuals who
intend to, start, lead, and manage organizations that pursue a social objective through market
mechanisms and do so on their own account and risk (Stephan & Drencheva, 2017).
Individuals are driven to engage in such actions to express their motivations – the broad and
specific values, motives, and interests that express what individuals find important and thus
energizing their behavior. While it is often assumed that social entrepreneurs are driven by
prosocial motivations, that is desire to benefit others and expand effort out of concern for
others (Grant, 2008), in this chapter I argue for a more nuanced understanding of their
motivations and the consequences of these motivations. Indeed, the evidence challenges the
taken-for-granted assumption that social entrepreneurs are energized only by prosocial
motivations. Social entrepreneurs are also motivated by self-interest as desire to benefit and
protect oneself and expanding efforts to do so, as I explain and demonstrate in the rest of the
chapter. Thus, in this chapter I present a nuanced perspective on the prosocial motivations
4
and self-interests that energize social entrepreneurs during their entrepreneurship journeys
and how these motivations interact in conflicting or synergetic ways to influence the
wellbeing of social entrepreneurs and social ventures. Indeed, social entrepreneurs’ wellbeing
is an important factor to consider in relation to the impact, effectiveness, and sustainability of
social ventures, yet the autobiographies of celebrated social entrepreneurs present multiple
issues related to personal health and burnout (Dempsey & Sanders, 2010).
Social Entrepreneurs’ Motivations
Social entrepreneurs are driven to start, lead, and manage social ventures by diverse
prosocial motivations and self-interests.
Social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations
Theoretical and empirical research supports the intuitive assumption that social
entrepreneurs are driven by prosocial motivations in relation to their values, motives,
interests, and emotions. Indeed, motivations broadly related to helping others are vividly
described with qualitative accounts of the experiences of social entrepreneurs and tested with
quantitative methodologies. I summarize the evidence on social entrepreneurs’ prosocial
motivations in this section.
Social entrepreneurs are characterized by prosocial values as abstract and enduring
life goals. Social entrepreneurs express high self-transcendence values, this is universalism
and benevolence. They also attribute less importance to self-enhancement values, this is
achievement and power (Bargsted, Picon, Salazar, & Rojas, 2013; Diaz & Rodriguez, 2003;
Egri & Herman, 2000; Sastre-Castillo, Peris-Ortiz, & Danvila-Del Valle, 2015).
Social entrepreneurs are characterized by specific prosocial motivations and interests.
Their motivations are based on altruism as a broad prosocial motivation and vocational
5
interests in service, helping and nurturing others, and providing care (Almeida, Ahmetoglu, &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Bargsted et al., 2013; Braga, Proença, & Ferreira, 2014; Chen,
2014). However, social entrepreneurs also express specific prosocial motivations relevant to
their communities and are motivated by addressing unmet community needs (Ross, Mitchell,
& May, 2012; Yitshaki & Kropp, 2016). For example, they are motivated by preserving the
heritage of their communities, community improvement, national development, promoting
sustainable lifestyles, and protecting nature (Allen & Malin, 2008; Bargsted et al., 2013; Koe,
Omar, & Majid, 2014; Yitshaki & Kropp, 2016). Social entrepreneurs are also characterized
by sense of responsibility (De Hoogh et al., 2005), moral obligation to support marginalized
groups (Hockerts, 2017), and anticipation of the effects of one's actions on future generations
(Allen & Malin, 2008).
Social entrepreneurs are characterized by relational prosocial motivations. They
express affiliation motives as the need to relate to others in positive ways (De Hoogh et al.,
2005) and start social ventures to strengthen local ties with the community (Allen & Malin,
2008). This affiliation motive can be expressed in relation to different communities based on
the identities of social entrepreneurs. For example, social entrepreneurs with a communitarian
social identity aim to support their local community and belong to this community, while
social entrepreneurs with a missionary social identity view society at large as their reference
group (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). Social entrepreneurs are also theorized to have salient role
and personal identities associated with social welfare and belonging to communities that
value social justice, equality, and care for the environment (Wry & York, 2015).
Finally, social entrepreneurs are motivated by prosocial emotions as short-lived
intense affective experiences. Prosocial emotions include compassion, empathy, and
sympathy as other-oriented emotions that link an individual with a suffering individual or
community. First, social entrepreneurs’ prosocial emotions, such as empathy and sympathy,
6
are related to prosocial motivations, such as altruism, obligation, and social justice (Ruskin,
Seymour, & Webster, 2016). Second, prosocial motivations can direct individuals’ attention
toward concern for others and their suffering, thus increasing the desirability of and
commitment to engaging in social entrepreneurship (Hockerts, 2017; Miller, Grimes,
McMullen, & Vogus, 2012). Prosocial emotions are also theorized to enhance the cognitive
processes that enable social entrepreneurs to engage in the complex and challenging tasks
associated with social entrepreneurship (Miller et al., 2012).
Thus, social entrepreneurs are driven by long- and short-term prosocial motivations,
such as prosocial values, motives, interests, and emotions. These prosocial motivations are
drivers for social entrepreneurs not only to start the social entrepreneurship journey, but also
to continue what is a very challenging process characterized by multiple challenges related to
operational status, legitimacy, and internal tensions (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache &
Santos, 2013; Renko, 2013). However, prosocial motivations are not the only driver for social
entrepreneurs. Indeed, social entrepreneurs are also motivated by multiple self-interests in
their social entrepreneurship journeys. I turn to these self-interests next.
Social entrepreneurs’ self-interests
While prosocial motivations are prominent in driving social entrepreneurs, individuals
intend to, start, lead, and manage social ventures to benefit and protect themselves as well.
Indeed, prosocial motivations are combined with diverse self-interests that play a significant
role in individuals’ decisions to start, lead, and manage social ventures. These self-interests
present a continuum from addressing social issues that affect the individual as a member of a
community to active pursuit of primarily financial gain. I summarize the evidence on social
entrepreneurs’ self-interests in this section.
7
Social entrepreneurs are motivated by personal experiences of pain and trauma. Social
entrepreneurs can develop offerings that address significant social issues in institutional voids
and deprived areas not only to benefit others, but also to benefit themselves as members of
such communities. For example, in the United Kingdom, social ventures are more likely to be
located in the most deprived areas of the country compared to commercial SMEs
(Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport & Department for Business, Energy,
Industrial Strategy, 2017; Social Enterprise UK, 2017). However, social entrepreneurs may
also recognize social issues and develop new offerings because of their personal experiences
of pain and trauma as service users or relatives of service users. For example, they might
experience traumatic events, face specific medical challenges, or have no access to
professional care for own elderly parents (Wong & Tang, 2006; Yitshaki & Kropp, 2016).
Such experiences of personal need help individuals to recognize social issues and understand
what effective solutions are, while also pushing individuals to pursue social entrepreneurship
to support themselves and their wellbeing.
Social entrepreneurs are motivated by authenticity. Social entrepreneurship is a
pathway for individuals to express their values and identities related to social justice,
equality, environmentalism, or their professions in authentic ways. Social entrepreneurs
engage in social entrepreneurship to pursue personal passion (Braga et al., 2014; Tigu,
Iorgulescu, Ravar, & Lile, 2015). This can include passion for the social issue, such as
protecting the environment (Allen & Malin, 2008), as well as passion for the profession
(Campin, Barraket, & Luke, 2013) or for their craft (Allen & Malin, 2008). Given social
entrepreneurs’ passion for their professions and craft, it is not a surprise that they are also
motivated to engage in social entrepreneurship by the opportunity to enhance quality of
services and offerings (Chen, 2014). However, authenticity also includes expression of other
values and motivations beyond passion. For example, social entrepreneurs are characterized
8
by stimulation and self-direction values and need for achievement, power, autonomy, drive
and determination motivations (Bargsted et al., 2013; Campin et al., 2013; De Hoogh et al.,
2005; Egri & Herman, 2000; Seiz & Schwab, 1992; Smith, Bell, & Watts, 2014). They also
exhibit high levels of creativity and risk taking (Smith et al., 2014) and report that enjoyment
is an important motivating factor (Ross et al., 2012). This is particularly relevant given their
desire for less bureaucratic red tape compared to working in public services (Chen, 2014).
Thus, social entrepreneurship presents a good fit for individuals to express their values,
motivations, and identities with its focus on social goals, the opportunity to set personal goals
and be accountable to oneself as an entrepreneur, and the multiple challenges that social
ventures face that call for creativity, risk taking, and drive. As individuals create
organizations that are authentic expressions of their values and identities (Fauchart & Gruber,
2011), social entrepreneurship enables individuals to be authentic and remain true to oneself.
While authenticity is beneficial for individuals in itself, it is also related to individuals’
wellbeing (Goldman & Kernis, 2002).
Social entrepreneurs are motivated by professional development and dissatisfaction
with prior work. Individuals engaged in social entrepreneurship activities report that they are
motivated by the opportunities to learn (Ross et al., 2012) as well as increased responsibility
and reputation (Chen, 2012, 2014; Greco et al., 2014). For many individuals, social
entrepreneurship presents an opportunity for both professional and career development
(Chen, 2014; Tigu et al., 2015). However, experiences with prior work may also motivate
individuals to engage in social entrepreneurship. For example, individuals’ job dissatisfaction
and lack of meaning in previous jobs are important motivating factors for engaging in social
entrepreneurship (Yitshaki & Kropp, 2016). Thus, social entrepreneurship benefits individual
social entrepreneurs by providing them with an opportunity to learn and develop their careers.
These career self-interests are also connected to the financial self-interests discussed next.
9
Social entrepreneurs are motivated by financial self-interests. While the financial self-
interests of social entrepreneurs are often overlooked in social entrepreneurship research, they
are an important motivating factor for individuals to start, lead, and manage social ventures.
Financial self-interests are important for both organizational and individual reasons. Social
ventures need to be financially sustainable to pursue their social objectives (Wilson & Post,
2013), while social entrepreneurs have family and personal responsibilities that require
personal income. This is particularly relevant from a social inclusion perspective whereby
social entrepreneurs from the most deprived communities start new organizations to support
themselves and their communities. Indeed, the financial self-interests of social entrepreneurs
range from meeting basic financial needs to significant financial gain. For example, some
individuals are motivated to start social ventures because of layoffs or limited opportunities
for employment, including due to discrimination in the labor market (Chen, 2014; Wong &
Tang, 2006). Other individuals engage in social entrepreneurship due an approach financial
motivation hoping for financial independence, a better salary than in the public sector, and
financial gain more generally (Chen, 2014; Ross et al., 2012; Seiz & Schwab, 1992; Tigu et
al., 2015). Some individuals have enlightened social interests which allow them to pursue
their self-interests through social entrepreneurship. They recognize that there are financial
benefits from social entrepreneurship, such as maintaining good relationships with the
community (Campin et al., 2013), fiscal advantages, and access to subsidies and donations
(Greco et al., 2014). Thus, individuals may recognize and pursue social entrepreneurship
opportunities (Braga et al., 2014) that allow them to obtain high income (Koe et al., 2014)
due to growth potential in the market (Wong & Tang, 2006). While prosocial motivations and
financial self-interests are intertwined for many social entrepreneurs, several in-depth
qualitative studies demonstrate that for some social entrepreneurs financial gain is the
10
primary motivation for their activities (Ross et al., 2012; Tigu et al., 2015; Wong & Tang,
2006).
In summary, social entrepreneurs are motivated by multiple self-interests, including
addressing social issues that affect their individual wellbeing, authenticity, professional
development and dissatisfaction with prior work, and financial factors.
Interactions Between Prosocial Motivations and Self-interests: Implications for Social
Entrepreneurs’ and Social Ventures’ Wellbeing
Social entrepreneurs are motivated not only by helping others but also by helping
oneself. They are neither selfless nor selfish because their prosocial motivations and self-
interests are not always mutually exclusive. Indeed, social entrepreneurs demonstrate that
prosocial motivations and self-interests can be blended in business because they can pursue
both.
Social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests are not stable. Both
prosocial motivations and self-interests can change over time and become more or less
prominent as the needs of the social venture and of the social entrepreneur change. For
example, as the number of employees and services users grows, thus making the social issue
more salient for the social entrepreneur, the social entrepreneur’s prosocial motivation may
also become more salient. However, social entrepreneurs’ personal lives also change which
may enhance their self-interests. For example, when social entrepreneurs start working on the
social venture full time or their family responsibilities grow (e.g. having children or elderly
parents who require care), their financial self-interests may become more prominent.
Social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests coexist and interact to
influence social entrepreneurs’ and social ventures’ wellbeing. While in some cases only
prosocial motivations or self-interests might be salient, in the cases when both prosocial
11
motivations and self-interests are salient, they can interact in two main ways: conflict and
synergy. The ways prosocial motivations and self-interests interact can influence social
entrepreneurs’ and social ventures’ wellbeing. At the individual level, wellbeing refers to a
state “in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal
stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her
or his community” (WHO, 2014). At the organizational level, wellbeing refers to social
ventures’ optimal performance to achieve their social mission in financially and
organizationally sustainable ways. As wellbeing at both the individual and organizational
levels of analysis exists on a continuum, I argue that conflicting and synergetic interactions
between social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests can enhance or hinder
wellbeing across this continuum.
Conflicting motivations and wellbeing
Social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests can interact in
conflicting ways. A conflict exists when pursuit of salient prosocial motivations has a
negative impact on the achievement of salient self-interests, or vice versa. For example,
preserving the heritage of communities or protecting nature may be in conflict with
professional and financial self-interests in the early stages of the venture development process
when the social venture does not have a reputation or employees, does not offer formal
learning opportunities, and is still identifying revenue streams. In such cases, the social
entrepreneur is unlikely to consider their self-interests met even when their prosocial goals
are achieved.
Conflicts between prosocial motivations and self-interests hinder social entrepreneurs’
and social ventures’ wellbeing. Conflicting prosocial motivations and self-interests create
tensions, contradictions, uncertainty, and dissonance (Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016).
12
Such experiences are not just unpleasant, but stressful and overwhelming (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984), thus negatively influencing the wellbeing of social entrepreneurs as
individuals. Motivational conflicts deplete the attention and personal resources of social
entrepreneurs (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007), thus damaging strategic decision making and
negatively influencing the wellbeing of the social venture.
As such experiences are stressful, social entrepreneurs may attempt to resolve the
conflict by considering prosocial motivations and self-interests as trade-offs and prioritize
one over the other. However, such prioritization of prosocial motivations or self-interests can
also have a negative influence on social entrepreneurs’ wellbeing. When they prioritize their
prosocial motivations, social entrepreneurs may face personal financial challenges and
interpersonal conflict with family members, thus experiencing even more stressors hindering
their individual wellbeing. When they prioritize self-interests, they may experience lack of
authenticity, again hindering their wellbeing (Goldman & Kernis, 2002). Prioritization of
prosocial motivations or self-interests can also have a negative influence on the social
venture’s wellbeing. When prosocial motivations are prioritized, the focus on financial
sustainability might be deprioritized, thus putting the venture’s survival in jeopardy (Renko,
2013). When social entrepreneurs’ self-interests are prioritized, the operations of their social
ventures may be characterized by conflict with co-founders, employees, and volunteers,
potential mission drift, and lack of legitimacy (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Battilana & Lee,
2014; Ometto, Gegenhuber, Winter, & Greenwood, 2018).
While conflicts between social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests
can hinder their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of their social venture, prosocial
motivations and self-interests can also interact in synergetic ways.
Synergetic motivations and wellbeing
13
Social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests can interact in
synergetic ways. A synergy exists when salient prosocial motivations can be pursued
alongside self-interests with the same activities, thus prosocial motivations and self-interests
can be achieved simultaneously. For example, developing innovative solutions to preserve
the heritage of a community or to protect nature can also lead to developing the reputation of
the social venture and providing learning opportunities and financial gains for the social
entrepreneur. In such cases, the social entrepreneur can pursue both their prosocial
motivations and self-interests.
Synergies between prosocial motivations and self-interests can enhance social
entrepreneurs’ wellbeing. Instead of considering prosocial motivations and self-interests as
trade-offs, social entrepreneurs can develop synergies between them through creative
integration that makes the conflict between motivations productive. Developing synergies
between conflicting motivations requires cognitive and behavioral complexity (Denison,
Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Miron-Spektor, Gino, & Argote, 2011) and can lead to novel and
creative solutions. Such synergies allow social entrepreneurs to remain authentic in pursuing
their prosocial motivations, while increasing the likelihood of financially security. Novel and
creative solutions also create opportunities for learning due to their novelty and complexity
and can establish a reputation for the venture as innovative and cutting-edge in its
approaches. Thus, synergies between prosocial motivations and self-interests enhance the
wellbeing of social entrepreneurs by enabling them to pursue multiple salient prosocial and
self-interest motivations.
Synergies between social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests can
also enhance the wellbeing of the social venture by enabling long-term organizational
sustainability (Smith, Lewis, & Tushman, 2012) across their social and financial objectives.
By pursing their prosocial motivations, social entrepreneurs can enhance the social outcomes
14
their ventures catalyze to benefit others. By pursuing their self-interests, they promote
efficiency, innovation, growth, and reputation building. Thus, synergies allow social ventures
to remain both socially focused and operational instead of facing mission drift, internal
conflicts, and closure. Social entrepreneurship empirical and theoretical research supports this
argument. Social entrepreneurs with innovative or successful social ventures combine
identities, values, and behaviors common for not-for-profit and commercial leaders, thus
representing both prosocial motivations and self-interests (Katre & Salipante, 2012; Wry &
York, 2015). Sustainable social ventures also place equal importance to social and financial
goals and pursue both with diverse actions that create synergies (Battilana & Dorado, 2010;
Battilana, Sengul, Pache, & Model, 2015).
Thus, synergies between social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests
can enhance their own wellbeing as individuals as well as the wellbeing of their ventures.
Discussion
This chapter offers a nuanced overview of the prosocial motivations and self-interests
that social entrepreneurs pursue when starting, leading, and managing social ventures. It
challenges the taken-for-granted assumption that social entrepreneurs are fueled only by
prosocial motivations. Building on this nuanced view of social entrepreneurs’ diverse
motivation, the chapter examines how prosocial motivations and self-interests interact in
conflicting and synergetic ways to influence the wellbeing of social entrepreneurs and of their
ventures. In doing so, this chapter has two main implications for social entrepreneurship
research and offers suggestions for future research.
Implications
15
First, this chapter highlights the overlooked self-interests of social entrepreneurs in
starting, leading, and managing social ventures, thus portraying them as multidimensional
human beings. Dominant portrayals of social entrepreneurs (e.g. Bornstein, 2004) depict
them as moral and heroic figures who accomplish the impossible in pursuit of their prosocial
motivations. However, social entrepreneurs are multidimensional human beings with lives
and responsibilities outside of their ventures and as such they have multiple self-interests.
Their self-interests include not only diverse financial self-interests, but also professional
development, dissatisfaction with prior work, authenticity, and addressing social issues that
directly affect them and their loved ones. Indeed, by overlooking these self-interests, research
overlooks a key antecedent of social entrepreneurship activity that can explain why
individuals start and persist in an activity that is challenging and complex with high personal
risks (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Renko, 2013). Focusing only on the prosocial motivations of
social entrepreneurs not only overlooks key motivational factors, but it also contributes to a
discourse that individuals can struggle to live up to. At the same time, self-interests to start,
lead, and manage a new social venture are not inherently wrong or harmful. Social
entrepreneurs demonstrate that benefitting oneself can take various forms (e.g. authenticity,
financial gain, learning and professional development) and does not need to occur at the cost
of hurting others.
Second, this chapter explores the wellbeing of social entrepreneurs, another area
overlooked in social entrepreneurship research. While research examines how social
entrepreneurship contributes to the wellbeing of individuals, communities, and environments
and the challenges social ventures face in this process, the wellbeing of social entrepreneurs
as the individuals engaged in this complex, uncertain, and demanding process is missing from
current research. This omission of the wellbeing of social entrepreneurs suggests that either
their wellbeing is taken for granted or alternatively considered inconsequential for social
16
entrepreneurship. However, both of these assumptions are simplistic. The autobiographies of
celebrated social entrepreneurs present multiple issues related to work/life imbalance, self-
sacrifice, and prioritizing the social venture at the expense of personal health and burnout
(Dempsey & Sanders, 2010). At the same time, entrepreneurs’ wellbeing is important for the
entrepreneurship process, contributing to diverse organizational outcomes (Stephan, 2018).
Thus, understanding what contributes to and hinders social entrepreneurs’ wellbeing is an
important task that can contribute to the performance of social ventures in achieving their
social objectives and addressing grand societal challenges (George et al., 2016) with different
scope and scale.
Directions for future research
The conceptual arguments presented in this chapter offer at least two main avenues
for future research.
First, future research can explore the outcomes of the interactions between social
entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests across levels of analysis. As an initial
step, future empirical research can test the proposed relationships between the synergies and
conflicts between social entrepreneurs’ prosocial motivations and self-interests and individual
and organizational wellbeing. This stream of research can be extended to examine how
synergies and conflicts between social entrepreneurs’ diverse motivations can influence other
individual, team, and organizational outcomes. For example, such outcomes can include
entrepreneurial performance and learning at the individual level; trust and performance at the
team level, and innovation and collaboration at the organizational level. Recognizing that
social ventures include not only social entrepreneurs, but also employees and volunteers, also
calls for attention on: 1) how social entrepreneurs’ conflicting and synergetic motivations
17
influence the wellbeing of employees and volunteers; and 2) the effects of employees’ and
volunteers’ conflicting and synergetic motivations for their own wellbeing and performance.
Second, future research can expand our understanding of social entrepreneurs’
wellbeing. Given the limited attention so far on social entrepreneurs’ wellbeing, yet its
importance for social ventures (Stephan, 2018), it is essential to develop nuanced
understanding of what contributes to or hinders social entrepreneurs’ wellbeing. Considering
that social entrepreneurs are multidimensional human beings, future research can examine
both work-specific (e.g., job satisfaction) and general wellbeing (e.g., life satisfaction) and
how personal and work characteristics are associated with both across domains. Longitudinal
studies are particularly pertinent to capture how the changing personal lives of social
entrepreneurs influence their work-related wellbeing by creating new work-related stressors
(e.g., financial pressures) as well as how social entrepreneurs’ wellbeing varies across the
different lifecycle stages of their ventures (e.g., from new to established organizations).
Conclusion
This chapter offers a nuanced overview of social entrepreneurs’ diverse prosocial
motivations and self-interests. It proposes that prosocial motivations and self-interests
interact in conflicting and synergetic ways that hinder or enhance the wellbeing of social
entrepreneurs and of their social ventures. In doing so, this chapter calls for more attention on
social entrepreneurs as multidimensional human beings instead of heroic figures.
18
References
Allen, J. C., & Malin, S. (2008). Green entrepreneurship: A method for managing natural
resources? Society & Natural Resources, 21(9), 828–844.
Almeida, P. I. L., Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). Who wants to be an
entrepreneur? The relationship between vocational interests and individual differences in
entrepreneurship. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(1), 102–112.
Bargsted, M., Picon, M., Salazar, A., & Rojas, Y. (2013). Psychosocial characterization of
social entrepreneurs: A comparative study. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(3),
331–346.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of
commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–
1440.
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the
study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Model, J. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in
hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of
Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128.
Bornstein, D. (2004). How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New
Ideas. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Braga, J. C., Proença, T., & Ferreira, M. R. (2014). Motivations for social entrepreneurship –
Evidences from Portugal. Tékhne, 12(2014), 11–21.
Campin, S., Barraket, J., & Luke, B. (2013). micro-Business Community Responsibility in
Australia: Approaches, Motivations and Barriers. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3),
489–513.
Chen, C.-A. (2012). Explaining the difference of work attitudes between public and nonprofit
managers: The views of rule constraints and motivation styles. The American Review of
Public Administration, 42(4), 437–460.
Chen, C.-A. (2014). Nonprofit managers’ motivational styles: A view beyond the intrinsic-
extrinsic dichotomy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(4), 737–758.
Chliova, M., Brinckmann, J., & Rosenbusch, N. (2015). Is microcredit a blessing for the
poor? A meta-analysis examining development outcomes and contextual considerations.
Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3), 467–487.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., Van Den Berg, P. T.,
Van Der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Leader motives, charismatic
leadership, and subordinates’ work attitude in the profit and voluntary sector. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 17–38.
Dempsey, S. E., & Sanders, M. L. (2010). Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketization and
work/ life imbalance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship.
Organization, 17(4), 437–459.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: toward a
theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5),
524–540.
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport & Department for Business, Energy,
Industrial Strategy. (2017). Social Enterprise: Market Trends 2017. Retrieved on July
20, 2018 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-enterprise-market-
trends-2017.
Diaz, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2003). Locus of control, nAch and values of community
entrepreneurs. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(8), 739–
19
747.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector:
Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 571–604.
Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role
of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935–
957.
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and
tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of
Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895.
Giridharadas, A., & Bradsher, K. (2006). Microloan pioneer and his bank win Nobel Peace
Prize. New York Times, October, 13.
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological
functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy
Assossiation, 5(6), 18–20.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy
in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(1), 48–58.
Greco, A., Morales Alonso, G., Vargas Perez, A. M., Pablo Lerchundi, I., & Petruzzelli, A.
M. (2014). Social companies as an innovative and sustainable way of solving social
problems. A case study from Spain. In G. Carlucci, D, & Spender, JC and Schiuma
(Ed.), IFKAD 2014: 9TH International forum on knowledge asset dynamics: knowledge
and management models for sustainable growth (pp. 2516–2539). Matera, Italy: IKAM-
INST KNOWLEDGE ASSET MANAGEMENT.
Hockerts, K. (2015). How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into
complementarities. California Management Review, 57(3), 83–106.
Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105–130.
Katre, A., & Salipante, P. (2012). Start-up social ventures: Blending fine-grained behaviors
from two institutions for entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 36(5), 967–994.
Koe, W.-L., Omar, R., & Majid, I. A. (2014). Factors Associated with Propensity for
Sustainable Entrepreneurship. In W. Chui, CTB, & Rashid (Ed.), 4th International
Conference on Marketing and Retailing (INCOMAR 2013) (Vol. 130, pp. 65–74).
Amsterdam, NL: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York, NY:
Springer.
Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social
entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 353–373.
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation,
prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
Mair, J., & Schoen, O. (2007). Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the
context of developing economies: An explorative study. International Journal of
Emerging Markets, 2, 54–68.
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(4), 616–640.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks:
Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.
20
Ometto, M. P., Gegenhuber, T., Winter, J., & Greenwood, R. (2018). From balancing
missions to mission drift: The role of the institutional context, spaces, and
compartmentalization in the scaling of social enterprises. Business and Society, Online
First.
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organzation: Selective coupling as a
repsonse to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4),
972–1001.
Perrini, F., Vurro, C., & Costanzo, L. A. (2010). A process-based view of social
entrepreneurship: From opportunity identification to scaling-up social change in the case
of San Patrignano. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(6), 515–534.
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and
paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals,
10(1), 65–171.
Renko, M. (2013). Early challenges of nascent social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1045–1069.
Ross, T., Mitchell, V. A., & May, A. J. (2012). Bottom-up grassroots innovation in transport:
motivations, barriers and enablers. Transportation Planning and Technology, 35(4),
469–489.
Ruskin, J., Seymour, R. G., & Webster, C. M. (2016). Why create value for others? An
exploration of social entrepreneurial motives. Journal of Small Business Management,
54, 1015-1037
Sastre-Castillo, M. A., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Danvila-Del Valle, I. (2015). What is different
about the profile of the social entrepreneur? Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
25(4), 349–369.
Seiz, R. C., & Schwab, A. J. (1992). Value orientations of clinical social work practitioners.
Clinical Social Work Journal, 20(3), 323–335.
Smith, R., Bell, R., & Watts, H. (2014). Personality trait differences between traditional and
social entrepreneurs. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(3), 200–221.
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2012). Organizational Sustainability:
Organization Design and Senior Leadership to Enable Strategic Paradox. In K. Cameron,
& G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship
(pp. 798-810). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Social Enterprise UK. (2017). The Future of Business - State of Social Enterprise Survey
2017. Retrieved on July 20, 2018 from https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/the-future-
of-business-state-of-social-enterprise-survey-2017.
Stephan, U. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: A review and research
agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, Online First.
Stephan, U., & Drencheva, A. (2017). The person in social entrepreneurship: A systematic
review of research om the social entrepreneurial personality. In G.Ahmetoglu, T.
Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger, & T. Karcisky (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of
Entrepreneurship (pp. 205-229). Chichester: John Wiley.
Tigu, G., Iorgulescu, M.-C., Ravar, A. S., & Lile, R. (2015). A pilot profile of the social
entrepreneur in the constantly changing Romanian economy. Amfiteatru Economic,
17(38), 25–43.
Tracey, P., & Jarvis, O. (2007). Toward a theory of social venture franchising.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(5), 667–685.
Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review
of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s
perspective. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm
21
Emergence, and Growth, Vol 3 (pp. 119–138).
Wilson, F., & Post, J. E. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring
the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation.
Small Business Economics, 40(3), 715–737.
Wong, L., & Tang, J. (2006). Dilemmas confronting social entrepreneurs: Care homes for
elderly people in Chinese cities. Pacific Affairs, 79(4), 623-630.
World Health Organization. (2014). Mental health: A state of well-being. Retrieved on July
20, 2018 from http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en/.
Wry, T., & York, J. (2017). An identity based approach to social enterprise. Academy of
Management Review, 42, 437-460.
Yitshaki, R., & Kropp, F. (2016). Motivations and opportunity recognition of social
entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2), 546–565.
Yunus, M. (1998). Banker to the Poor: The Autobiography of Muhammad Yunus, Founder of
the Grameen Bank. London: Aurum.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social
entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.
