ArticlePDF Available


Entrepreneurship can provide personal fulfillment but is uniquely poised to also provoke emotional suffering. Scholarly attention on negative moods and emotions (affect) in entrepreneurship has gained momentum, yet reviews to date have focused on the consequences of affect while our understanding of its antecedents remains fragmented. This neglect is concerning as the conditions that trigger negative emotions are consequential to entrepreneurial cognition, behavior, and well-being. In the current article, we synthesize the findings of 52 empirical sources that contribute to our knowledge of the antecedents of negative affect during entrepreneurship activity. This results in a framework of entrepreneurs’ negative affective antecedents organized by (1) the temporary state of the self, (2) the entrepreneurial occupation, (3) interactions with others, and (4) venture circumstances. Overall, this systematic effort contextualizes affect in entrepreneurship and provides a roadmap for future research that is more closely representative of the diverse lived experiences of entrepreneurs.
When do negative emotions arise in entrepreneurship? A contextualized
review of negative affective antecedents
Accepted for publication in the Journal of Small Business Management
-- this is a preprint draft--
Please cite as:
Williamson, A. J., Drencheva, A., & Wolfe, M. T. (2022). When do negative emotions
arise in entrepreneurship? A contextualized review of negative affective antecedents.
Journal of Small Business Management.
When do negative emotions arise in entrepreneurship? A contextualized
review of negative affective antecedents
Entrepreneurship can provide personal fulfillment but is uniquely poised to also
provoke emotional suffering. Scholarly attention on negative moods and emotions
(affect) in entrepreneurship has gained momentum, yet reviews to date have focused
on the consequences of affect while our understanding of its antecedents remains
fragmented. This neglect is concerning as the conditions that trigger negative
emotions are consequential to entrepreneurial cognition, behavior, and well-being. In
the current article, we synthesize the findings of 52 empirical sources that contribute
to our knowledge of the antecedents of negative affect during entrepreneurship
activity. This results in a framework of entrepreneurs’ negative affective antecedents
organized by (1) the temporary state of the self, (2) the entrepreneurial occupation, (3)
interactions with others, and (4) venture circumstances. Overall, this systematic effort
contextualizes affect in entrepreneurship and provides a roadmap for future research
that is more closely representative of the diverse lived experiences of entrepreneurs.
Negative emotions and moods (affect)
are prevalent amongst entrepreneurs, which
begs the oft-overlooked question, why? What stimulus triggers entrepreneurs’ negative
affect? Entrepreneurs sometimes report more negative affect compared to other workers
(Jamal, 2007; Reid et al., 2018; for an exception, see Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011). The chronic
negative affect that entrepreneurs experience overtime is also evident from allostatic load
(the wear and tear on the body due to psychological distress) and physical health markers
(Cardon & Patel, 2015; Cocker et al., 2013; Patel et al., 2019), demonstrating the link
between negative affect and mental and physical well-being. Beyond well-being, negative
affect influences entrepreneurial outcomes. Some negative moods and emotions can, among
other things, stimulate ideas (Eller et al., 2020), enhance resilience (Crane & Searle, 2016),
The terms “affect”, “moods”, and “emotions” are used interchangeably as proxies for temporary feeling states.
Trait affect is excluded from the umbrella term “affect” in this review due to its dispositional nature.
and aid learning (Fang He et al., 2017). Conversely, negative affect can also produce
undesirable behaviors and interpersonal interactions (Delgado-García et al., 2015; Foo et al.,
2011) that hinder success. There is no doubt that negative affect is common for and important
to entrepreneurs. Yet, the current understanding of the impact of affect on entrepreneurial
outcomes (Cardon et al., 2012) is in stark contrast with the limited integrated understanding
of the circumstances when negative affect arises during entrepreneurship, as outlined by
Delgado-García et al. (2015).
Considerable research has generated valuable insights on emotional experiences
after engaging in the entrepreneurship process, that is after exiting (e.g., Shepherd, Wiklund,
& Haynie, 2009). Yet, we have limited understanding of entrepreneurs’ negative affect when
engaged in the entrepreneurship process from early start-up activities to scaling their
ventures, including when performing specific actions to mobilize resources (e.g., seeking
feedback, pitching to investors). Furthermore, insight on the drivers of negative affect during
entrepreneurship resides in many journals with different approaches to conceptualizing
entrepreneurship and affect. This approach offers a fragmented understanding of the
antecedents of negative affect in entrepreneurship, while the growing interest in the topic
(see Figure 2) creates opportunities for further fragmentation. Additionally, insights on when
different emotions arise in entrepreneurship are isolated to single studies with little cross-
reference. Yet, examining specific discrete emotions (such as grief: Mantere et al., 2013;
Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011; Shepherd et al., 2011) and understanding their action tendencies
is important because they shape different outcomes for entrepreneurs. For example, high-
activation negative emotions, such as anger, tend to propel energy expenditure and drive
individuals to solve problems and persevere, which can be beneficial for entrepreneurs
(Russell, 2003; Warr, Bindl, Parker, & Inceoglu, 2014). While, low-activation negative
emotions, like sadness, can have the opposite effect and trigger inaction or retreat from
entrepreneurial pursuits (Williamson et al., in-press). Finally, the antecedents of negative
affect can influence the nature of affective experiences with implications for entrepreneurs’
lives and our ability to accurately predict affect-driven entrepreneurial phenomena. Without
a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the factors that can lead to negative emotions
throughout the entrepreneurial process, it is impossible to determine the best methods for
coping with such emotions to maximize the potential benefits and minimize the potential
detriments during, as opposed to after, the entrepreneurship process.
In an attempt to address these key concerns, the purpose of this review is to
synthesize the empirical base on the antecedents of negative affect during engagement in
entrepreneurship activity. The identified fragmentation of the literature and the importance
of the antecedents of negative affect suggest that the time is right to synthesize what we
know and do not know on the topic to provide a platform for future fruitful dialogues on
affective research in entrepreneurship.
Following Low and MacMillan’s (1988) review approach across key areas for a
research program, this research makes four key contributions with the potential to guide
future research on entrepreneurs’ affect. First, the review offers a novel multidimensional
framework for understanding why negative affect arises during entrepreneurship activity
with a focus on specific affect-eliciting events, beyond failure. Although previous research
has emphasized that entrepreneurs can experience vastly different emotions as a
consequence of venture failure (Byrne & Shepherd, 2015), considerably less attention has
been given to the multitude of other events that can elicit negative emotions during the
entrepreneurship process. We offer an initial multidimensional perspective that addresses
calls to examine the antecedents of entrepreneurial affect (Breugst & Shepherd, 2017) and
can guide future research on non-failure events that elicit negative emotions. Second, we
address recent calls to further our understanding of affect in entrepreneurship (Delgado-
García et al., 2015; Shepherd, 2015) by mapping out the discrete negative emotions
entrepreneurs experience. A focus on discrete emotions in entrepreneurship offers a pathway
toward conceptual clarity and a foundation for future research, education, and interventions
on how emotions, events, cognitions, and behaviors interact with specific outcomes. Third,
we highlight the socially embedded nature of entrepreneurs’ affect, thus contributing to a
better understanding of how well-being outcomes vary between entrepreneurs (Stephan,
2018). At the micro-level, a lack of social support, interpersonal conflict, interactions with
personally significant and venture-relevant others trigger negative affect (Shepherd &
Cardon, 2009; Tetrick et al., 2000). At the macro-level, social judgments of different types
trigger negative affect amongst entrepreneurs, particularly those who may not fit the
entrepreneurial stereotype (Simmons et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2015). Fourth, this
heterogeneity has implications for how we contextualize affect in entrepreneurship research
and illustrates why and when some entrepreneurs may be prone to ill-being. Consequently,
this heterogeneity questions the generalizability of affective research between contexts that
differ substantially in the source of negative emotional stimuli (e.g., entrepreneurs in adverse
conditions and crises). Next, we detail our reviewing methodology and present its findings.
Thereafter, we discuss the review findings to provide an agenda for future research.
A systematic review of the evidence affords us inclusive insights into the topic
(Tranfield et al., 2003) beyond the confines of a single discipline or perspective. This is
because knowledge on the negative affective antecedents of entrepreneurship resides in
different disciplines that to date have rarely been integrated (e.g., from occupational
psychology focused on the drivers of stress among various occupational groups to
management interested in the entrepreneurial experience).
To ascertain the antecedents of negative affect in the entrepreneurship process, we
iteratively synthesized the findings of 52 empirical articles published and indexed between
December 2003 and December 31, 2019. We specifically chose to start our collection at this
point because it coincides with the year when the seminal article on “entrepreneurial grief”
by Shepherd (2003) was published, and provided the impetus for a subsequent surge in
scholarly interest specifically focusing on the negative emotional aspects of
entrepreneurship. With regards to ending our data range in 2019, upon the time of our data
collection, 2019 was the final complete year in which articles had been published and
therefore we chose to end our collection at that specific point. A wide net was cast across
disciplines by crafting an exhaustive list of 84 negative affective keywords which spanned
discrete negative emotions (e.g., helpless, disappointed, annoyed) and negative affective
dimensions (e.g., unpleasant emotion, negative mood). A large variety of terms related to
entrepreneurial behavior were also used in the search (e.g., entrepre*, self*employ,
business*owner, owner, venture*owner, venture*manager, emerging venture, new venture,
new business). With this list, our first step was to search the keywords, title, and abstract of
peer-reviewed journal articles using Business Source Premier, Web of Knowledge, and
ProQuest, following the best practice recommendations outlined by Short (2009).
Additionally, we manually reviewed the Journal of Business Venturing Insights, which is
not indexed in the above databases. Finally, we explored forward and backward citations
and included five additional articles.
The above process produced 1152 unique results. As a second step, we excluded non-
empirical articles and articles that did not clearly signal a contribution on the antecedents of
negative affect while engaged in entrepreneurship activities. Third, studies that met the
inclusion criteria were then screened for relevancy. Stable personality traits (e.g.,
extraversion, trait affectivity) were excluded in this step to allow for greater nuance in
capturing the specific events, circumstances, and interactions that elicit negative affect.
While stable personality traits can be highly influential to the entrepreneurial process (Baron,
2008), the focus of this review is on specific drivers of negative state affect (moods and
emotions) during entrepreneurship. In summary, we removed 603 articles that lacked
negative emotions, 97 that had non-empirical insights (e.g., conceptual and review articles),
260 where the sample did not engage in entrepreneurship activities, 79 where the negative
emotion was not the dependent variable, and 61 devoid of an emotion-provoking event.
Given that this review is concerned with identifying different drivers of negative affect, a
broad conceptualization of “entrepreneur” as an individual who starts, leads, and manages
an organization on their own account and risk was employed (Gorgievski & Stephan, 2016),
which includes self-employed individuals.
Overall, 52 articles from 41 journals were included in the final selection, signifying
88 findings on the relationship between events and entrepreneurial affect
. Articles were
published in a range of fields: 38% in entrepreneurship journals (e.g., Journal of Business
Venturing), 35% in (occupational) psychology journals (e.g., Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology), 24% in management journals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal), and a
small proportion in sector journals (e.g., International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
To conduct a comprehensive assessment, we were guided by Low and MacMillan’s
approach (1988). This approach centers on key areas vital to a research program: theoretical
perspectives, study context, methods, constructs, and levels of analysis. This approach has
also been employed in other reviews in entrepreneurship (Marvel et al., 2016). We started
the analysis with the 52 articles as the unit of analysis to summarize their different theoretical
perspectives, study contexts, and methods.
A single article may have explored multiple antecedents or more than one type of mood or emotion.
Next, we employed a more fine-grained unit of analysis. We focused on the
constructs employed within these studies and the specific relationships between events and
affect (see Tables 1 and 2), resulting in 88 event-affect pairs (around 1.7 per article). At this
stage, we engaged in iterative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify
relationships between events and affect, thus unearthing the specific antecedents of negative
affect. The first author started by reviewing the findings of each article and then generated
initial first-order codes for each event-affect pair (Braun & Clarke 2006) that captured
specific antecedents of negative affect during the entrepreneurship process. All first-order
codes within a category were compared to one another to ensure that they reflected the same
antecedents (Braun & Clarke 2006). At this stage, we identified many first-order codes
related to specific events, interactions, circumstances. For example, first-order codes
included “betrayal by associate/competitor”, “conflict with VCs”, and “customer
interactions”. Where possible, the first author differentiated antecedents based on the
discrete emotions they elicited (e.g., anger, disappointment, etc.).
During this process of first-order coding, the first and second authors had regular
debriefing meetings to discuss the analysis, the fit of each code within a category, and the
robustness of categorical boundaries. Once we were confident in the robustness of
categorical boundaries, the first and second authors started to search for, review, and define
second-order themes based on the relationships between first-order categories (Braun &
Clarke 2006). This was not a linear process because we continuously developed new and
made changes to existing themes to reflect instances that did not fit into our themes. At this
stage, we engaged in constant comparison again, this time at the level of themes to ensure
they were clearly differentiated, yet captured the nuanced meaning of the first-order
categories that represented the specific antecedents. For example, in the early stages of the
analysis “work-life conflict” and “close ties” were grouped under the same theme of
“Personal circumstances”. However, these were later split (Grodal et al., 2021) and added to
the themes of “entrepreneurial occupation” and “interactions with others” respectively
because they were more closely aligned with the other antecedents within these themes.
When we created or changed themes, the new set of themes was used to re-analyze all
antecedents. Ultimately, we identified four main themes that present negative affect
antecedents across levels of analysis as a multidimensional meta-framework: (1) the
temporary state of the self, (2) the entrepreneurial occupation, (3) interactions with others,
(4) and venture circumstances. These themes are summarized in Table 3 and yielded the
most novel insights.
[Table 1 and 2 About Here]
The 52 articles were the unit of analysis to uncover dominant theoretical
perspectives, study contexts, and methods. The 88 event-affect relationships in the included
articles were the focal unit of analysis to uncover the specific negative affect constructs and
antecedents of negative affect while engaged in entrepreneurship.
Theoretical Perspectives
While affect was at the core of each article reviewed, the articles employed a great
variety of theoretical perspectives. Fifteen articles did not explicitly draw on a theory. Four
articles employed Job Demands-Resources Theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), two
employed Attribution Theory (Wagner & Gooding, 1997), and two Conservation of
Resources Theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989). The remaining articles respectively used different
theories with no duplication, ranging from Conflict Process Theory (Pondy 1967) to Self-
discrepancy Theory (Higgins, 1987).
Study Context
Sample sizes reported in the 52 reviewed studies ranged widely. Three studies used
samples of over 1000 entrepreneurs (n = 2436, 2063, 1107), whereas the rest of the studies
ranged from 1 to 418 participants, with a mean of 141 entrepreneurs (SD = 118.49). Forty-
three studies reported participants’ sex alongside sample sizes (summed participants with
sex reported = 9344). Of these, 67.36% of the participants were men (n = 6294). Five studies
exclusively included entrepreneurs who were women (4) or homosexual (1). Forty-seven
studies reported the location of participants, which included Europe (n = 20), North America
(n = 12), Asia (5), Oceania (5), Africa (4), and South America (1). Sample sizes were larger
in studies with participants from Europe and North America. A total of 86% of all
entrepreneurs were from Europe or North America (50% and 36% respectively), 8% from
Asia, 4% Oceania, and 1% from South America and Africa each.
The majority of studies did not report the industries entrepreneurs worked in. Four
reported an even split between a range of industries, and ten studies contained samples of
entrepreneurs predominantly from the medical (2), agricultural (3), and the service sectors
(5). Three experimental studies were made up of students.
Methods and Analyses
Thirty-three articles (63%) employed quantitative approaches, seventeen (33%) used
qualitative methods, and two employed mixed methods. Negative affect was measured from
self-reported measures or coding of self-disclosures in all studies (e.g., news media: Smith
& McElwee, 2011). Independent variables were generally measured from the same source
(83%), with a few exceptions, such as in experimental studies and when key events were
used as the explanatory variable. Forty-one percent of the studies with a quantitative design
used multi-wave data collection methods. Most quantitative analyses were performed with
structural equation models (65%), linear regressions (15%) or multivariate regression
models, with the remaining 12% reporting analyses from t-tests, correlations analyses, and
cross-tabulation. Data were collected via written (28) and oral surveys (4), interviews (15),
experiments (3), a focus group, and archival data.
Negative Affect Constructs
Now we shift the focal unit of analysis from the 52 articles, to the 88 event-affect
relationships identified in these articles. There was a significant emphasis in the literature
on non-specific affective groupings, broadly defined as depressive feelings, emotional
exhaustion, negative affect, and emotional stress (56% of the 88 event-affect relationships,
as illustrated in Table 2). This trend was intensified in entrepreneurship journals. At the same
time, few empirical articles examined the drivers of discrete emotions, such as anger,
frustration, fear, discouragement, shame, regret, guilt, and sadness. This is particularly
important because research has indicated that emotions which elicit different levels of
activation, either low (i.e., sadness, depressed affect) or high (i.e., fear, anger), can have
substantially different influences on cognitive processes and decision making (Coker, 2020;
Sohn et al., 2015). Thus, entrepreneurship scholars are yet to capitalize on the lens of discrete
emotions to gain a better understanding of affect. Yet, discrete emotions have received
attention in conceptual articles (i.e., grief; Shepherd, Wiklund et al., 2009) in
entrepreneurship journals and play a significant role in the prediction of entrepreneurial
outcomes (i.e., fear: Cacciotti et al., 2016).
[Table 3 About Here]
Antecedents of Negative Affect in Entrepreneurship Across Levels of Analysis
In this section, we outline the stimulus of negative affect in entrepreneurship, which
includes both non-specific affective groupings and discrete emotions as dependent variables.
This is organized in relation to our four emergent categories of antecedents across levels of
analysis: (1) the temporary state of the self; (2) the entrepreneurial occupation; (3)
interactions with others; and (4) venture circumstances.
The State of the Self as an Antecedent of Negative Affect
Entrepreneur’s own transient cognitions, choices, and behaviors can trigger negative
affective experiences. We refer to these antecedents of negative affect as state-self-driven
antecedents. The reviewed articles highlighted that entrepreneurs are susceptible to negative
affect due to life aspects, such as diet, exercise, poor health (Schonfeld & Mazzola, 2015),
and other experiences that deplete energy. For example, a two-week experience sampling
study demonstrated that poorer than usual sleep is associated with subsequent high-
activation negative daily moods (anxious, tense) amongst entrepreneurs (Williamson et al.,
2019). Similar findings were reflected with cognitive processes. For example, entrepreneurs
who felt they were “running on automatic without much awareness” of what they were doing
(low mindfulness) had higher emotional exhaustion in a sub-sample of 107 entrepreneurs
(Roche et al., 2014), while founders who reported ruminating about work (i.e., thinking
about work after waking up in the morning) at time one had greater emotional exhaustion at
time two (Soenen et al., 2019). Similarly, entrepreneurs who did little in response to negative
events (e.g., such as trying to think about the situation differently or taking medication)
tended to experience greater negative affect (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011). These studies all
conform to the idea that when physical and mental resources are depleted and efforts are not
made to replenish these resources, entrepreneurs are likely to experience greater subsequent
negative affect (Fredrickson, 2001; Hobfoll, 1989; Meijman & Mulder, 1998).
The same line of reasoning may indicate that positive cognition begets subsequent
positive affective experiences. Yet, reviewed studies showed that transient positive
appraisals of negative or ambiguous events can, in fact, be associated with downstream
negative affect (c.f., Baron et al., 2012). For example, qualitative research drawing on
entrepreneurial disgrace in the media (Smith & McElwee, 2011) concluded that pride and
hubris in response to crisis events was a key factor in driving negative affective experiences,
such as shame. Similarly, in quantitative research, Dawson (2017) found that favorable
financial expectations tended to lead to greater disappointment amongst entrepreneurs.
On another line of inquiry related to the state of the self, the reviewed articles
demonstrated that when entrepreneurs felt ill-equipped for the cognitive and emotional
demands of entrepreneurship, they experienced more negative affect. For example,
entrepreneurs who did not currently feel well suited to their entrepreneurial job were more
likely to feel emotionally exhausted (de Mol et al., 2018). This finding is consistent with
other work which has related the typical profile of an entrepreneur (risk-tolerance, intuition,
etc.) with positive affective experiences (Murnieks et al., 2019). This may help explain a
link between entrepreneurial training and anticipated negative affect. Quasi-experimental
research by Zampetakis et al. (2015) showed that as individuals become more well-versed
in all of the potential challenges that they could face when pursuing entrepreneurial
endeavors, they tend to experience higher levels of anticipatory negative affect as a result of
these expectations. Conversely, for those who do not complete entrepreneurship education
programs, “ignorance is bliss” as they are unlikely to experience anticipatory grief because
they are unaware of the entrepreneurial challenges that they might face.
The Entrepreneurial Occupation as an Antecedent of Negative Affect
The second category of antecedents of negative affect in the reviewed articles related
to the entrepreneurial occupation with its job design and work-life conflict. This category of
antecedents was examined in approximately one-quarter of the studies.
Job design. There is no shortage of evidence to illustrate that the entrepreneurial
occupation is highly demanding (Benz & Frey, 2008; Hundley, 2001; van Gelderen, 2016)
and “characterized by stress, a multiplicity of obstacles and demands, and uncertainty
regarding outcomes” (Schindehutte et al., 2006, p. 354). Fifteen percent of all articles
reviewed focused on the typical occupational demands faced by entrepreneurs, with mostly
independent sole-entrepreneur samples. Demands of the role, such as role conflict, role
overload, and role ambiguity, were associated with feelings of depression and emotional
exhaustion (Kallioniemi et al., 2016; Shepherd et al., 2010; Wincent & Örtqvist, 2009;
Wincent et al., 2008). Findings regarding work demands and feelings of depression, stress,
emotional exhaustion, and anxiety were consistent over a range of geographical locations.
For example, with a sample of 289 entrepreneurs from mainland China, Wei, Cang, and
Hisrich (2015) found that high workload led to greater levels of emotional exhaustion (i.e.,
frustration) and emotional callousness. Not only were broad role demands identified as
antecedents of negative moods and emotions amongst entrepreneurs, but so were specific
entrepreneurial tasks, such as registering for taxes (Jones et al., 2017).
A striking antecedent of negative affective experience amongst entrepreneurs in
relation to their occupation was loneliness (Morris et al., 2010). Entrepreneurs tend to work
by themselves, or in a small group, and, as a result, they are often isolated from others.
Consequently, entrepreneurs who work alone were reported to experience emotional stress
due to their isolation (Millsteed et al., 2017). Additionally, loneliness was shown to trigger
a range of negative affect amongst business owners. For example, how connected
entrepreneurs felt in their role (occupational loneliness) was associated with feelings of
emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion (e.g., tired, trapped, helpless) (Fernet et al.,
2016). Similarly, Pollack, Vanepps, and Hayes (2012) reported that, in accordance with
Social Support Theory, a lack of daily contact with a network intensified the negative
relationship between financial stress and negative affect (depressed affect, hopelessness).
Work-life conflict. Some of the demands and tensions experienced in
entrepreneurship can spill over and negatively impact upon the personal lives of
entrepreneurs, thus triggering negative affect. The reviewed articles highlighted that work-
life balance concerns had a direct impact on negative affect, such as emotional exhaustion
(McDowell et al., 2019), emotional stress and disappointment due to a lack of time for leisure
(Carree & Verheul, 2012). However, not all entrepreneurs experienced the same level of
work-life conflict. Of those who did experience work-life conflict not all developed the same
level of negative affect as a result. Work-to-family conflict was predominantly experienced
by women entrepreneurs, particularly those with children who experienced guilt because of
family support requirements (McLellan & Uys, 2009).
Interactions with Others as Antecedents of Negative Affect
The reviewed articles illustrated that interactions with personally significant and
venture-relevant others can trigger negative affect amongst entrepreneurs. This includes
close social ties, team members, institutional agents and intermediaries.
Close ties. Close social ties are important for entrepreneurs and their ventures
(Arregle et al., 2015; de Jong & Marsili, 2015) because they provide resources and help
entrepreneurs to cope with stressors (Nelson, 1989). Yet, business owners tend to have less
social support than employees or business managers (Tetrick et al., 2000), which is
associated with levels of depression, anxiety, and anger (Ariza-Montes et al., 2017).
Moreover, individuals are more likely to enter self-employment if they are married (Özcan,
2011), which suggests that the expectation of spousal support is an important factor for
entrepreneurial behavior. In light of this, the reviewed articles revealed that low levels of
social support relate to negative affect (Chadwick & Raver, 2019; Kollmann et al., 2017),
such as emotional stress and depressive feelings or more extreme stress appraisals (among
women, not men) that lead to increased anxiety and depression (Chadwick & Raver, 2019).
Additionally, close ties could directly impact upon the negative affective experience of
entrepreneurs by being over-controlling (Dutt et al., 2016) and through emotion contagion
(Werbel & Danes, 2010). Werbel and Danes (2010) found evidence of emotion contagion
between spouses’ emotional stress, even when controlling for the potential confound of
work-family conflict. Moreover, trusted friends (and business partners) are capable of
betraying trust and thus could provoke a range of negative emotions, such as anxiety and
frustration (Schonfeld & Mazzola, 2015). As entrepreneurs are prone to over-trust others
(Goel & Karri, 2006), it is surprising that the affective implications of betrayal were not
explored more.
Entrepreneurial team members. Conflict between team members was a well-
recognized source of negative affect in the reviewed studies. Research demonstrated that
negative affect was triggered by interpersonal friction (Breugst & Shepherd, 2017; Lechat
& Torrès, 2017), idea conflict (Breugst & Shepherd, 2017), and equity distribution choices
(Breugst et al., 2015). The perceived loss or absence of a business partner was also associated
with fear in experimental research (Kollmann et al., 2017). Additionally, entrepreneurs who
had the direct responsibility of managing employees had stronger feelings of emotional
stress (Godin et al., 2017). This finding is in line with research by Hessels, Rietveld, and van
der Zwan (2017) which revealed higher levels of work-related stress (e.g., propensity to
become physically ill) among entrepreneurs with employees in a nationally representative
survey. Research also indicated that entrepreneurs with employees have higher levels of
emotional exhaustion (Wei et al., 2015), compared to other entrepreneurs. Although general
“problems in the last month with employees” were related to depressive feelings (Fernet et
al., 2016), multiple specific reasons in relation to employees were also identified in the
empirical base. Qualitative research showed that depressive feelings could arise from
conflict with or between employees and from having to fire employees (Fernet et al., 2016).
Mixed-methods research indicated that problems in the lives of employees (e.g., serious
illness) could trigger feelings of emotional stress amongst entrepreneurs (Lechat & Torrès,
Conflict with external entrepreneurial actors. Entrepreneurs have been named “the
vagaries of the marketplace” (Buttner, 1992, p. 224) due to their “boundary-spanning
activities, which involve interactions with a variety of [] stakeholders such as []
customers, suppliers, regulators, lawyers, and investors” (Cardon & Patel, 2015, p. 5).
Interactions with diverse stakeholders could result in conflicts over strategic issues that
increase the tensions that entrepreneurs experience (Zietsma & Winn, 2008) and stimulate
negative affect. Interestingly, interactions and conflicts with different actors (e.g., customers,
investors) could trigger diverse discrete negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, fear,
shame, and disappointment, potentially due to power differentials and expectations.
The reviewed studies showed that conflict with customers was a driver of negative
affect. Entrepreneurs saw conflicts with customers as a key source of negative affect (Lechat
& Torrès, 2016) and attributed feelings of anger, anxiety, and frustration to unreasonable
customer expectations (Schonfeld & Mazzola, 2015). Moreover, due to technological
changes, interactions with customers are increasingly taking place online. As a result,
customers are becoming more expressive (Patterson et al., 2009) in communicating their
discontent with services and products online. In this context, the evidence showed that
negative online reviews triggered feelings of anger, and to a much lesser extent guilt and
embarrassment (Bradley et al., 2016; Weber et al., 2017).
The reviewed evidence also indicated that interactions with regulatory actors could
trigger negative affect amongst entrepreneurs (Goss & Sadler-Smith, 2018). Qualitative
research with Russian entrepreneurs showed that when entrepreneurs interacted with state
officials to progress their work (i.e., acquire authorizations), they experienced strong
feelings of fear, frustration, and shame (Doern & Goss, 2014).
Conflict is well recognized as a regular part of interactions between entrepreneurs
and investors (Collewaert & Sapienza, 2016; Drover et al., 2014) because of asymmetry in
beliefs about readiness for investment (Douglas & Shepherd, 2002) and in power. While
important progress has been made in understanding how feelings of trust emerge between
entrepreneurs and investors (Maxwell & Lévesque, 2014; Zahra et al., 2006), little is known
about the impact of investor-entrepreneur interactions on entrepreneurs affective
experiences. Only one qualitative study highlighted that an entrepreneur’s perception of
fairness, unethical behavior, and conflict triggered anger and frustration (Collewaert &
Fassin, 2013). Yet, there is evidence to suggest that entrepreneurs experience disappointment
when reflecting on the value added by venture capitalists (Vaidyanathan et al., 2019).
Negative judgments and marginalization. Finally, the reviewed articles showed that
the negative judgments of others, including close personal ties (e.g., family, friends, etc.),
and marginalization triggered strong negative affect amongst entrepreneurs. For example,
findings reported in research by Griffin‐EL and Olabisi (2018) indicated that black African
immigrant entrepreneurs felt marginalized by the South African community.
Marginalization triggered negative affective reactions amongst immigrant entrepreneurs,
such as feelings of frustration. As the authors eloquently explained, this feeling increased
over time: “As immigrant entrepreneurs’ interactions with the host country increase [...]
normalized social stigmas, biases, and ignorance fueled [...] negative exchange between
groups” and evoked feelings of frustration and sadness (i.e., feeling demeaned; Griffin‐EL
& Olabisi, 2018, p. 473). Similarly, research in a conflict zone in Pakistan indicated that
women who ran businesses (often because male family members were killed during the
conflict) feared retaliation for breaking social and religious norms related to a woman’s
public conduct (Muhammad et al., 2017). These women were threatened by customers who
noticed they were breaking norms, yet continued the enterprise as a means to support their
families. As a result, they lived in fear, as one owner explained, “I feel fear that this customer
might be a terrorist and he will kill me” (Muhammad et al., 2017, p. 10). Similarly,
entrepreneurs in Tanzania feared the stigma of challenging gender norms when utilizing
microcredit opportunities (Sigalla & Carney, 2012).
Negative emotions were reported also by entrepreneurs from other stigmatized
communities. For example, homosexual business owners who experienced emotional stress
due to hiding their sexual orientation (Kidney & Manning, 2012) or minority owners who
were fearful of subsequent xenophobic attacks (Tengeh, 2016). At the other end of the
spectrum, individuals who allowed fear of social judgment to limit their entrepreneurial
choices may regret it. Research on life regrets highlighted that entrepreneurs express regret
for missing entrepreneurial opportunities because of previous fear of ridicule (as well as not
starting a business sooner, their choice of cofounders, and failure) (Markman et al., 2005).
Thus, marginalization and fear of social rejection was different from loneliness as a trigger
of negative affect because it was not an outcome of occupational choice and role demands,
but of the social context created by others that influenced the entrepreneurial experience.
Venture Circumstances as an Antecedent of Negative Affect
Venture circumstances represent the final category of antecedents of negative affect
that emerged from the review. Entrepreneurship is a goal-driven endeavor strongly related
to entrepreneurs’ identities (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011) and negative feedback on the status
or the potential of the venture was related to negative affective experiences in 21 studies.
While venture circumstances included different venture-related aspects as antecedents of
negative affect, such as market feedback, venture performance, and exiting, they all served
as negative feedback that elicited negative emotions.
Market feedback. The reviewed studies indicated that negative emotions and moods
arose in relation to perceptions of demand and competition in the market. Specifically, eight
studies indicated that such market-related information was associated with feelings of
emotional exhaustion, depression, and fear in experimental research (Kollmann et al., 2017)
and in surveys (Oren, 2012; Wei et al., 2015). The reviewed articles demonstrated that
market changes, such as economic recessions and market reforms, produced similar negative
affective experiences, such as feelings of depression, presumably from increased
competition and the difficulty of doing business (Cohidon et al., 2009; Obschonka &
Silbereisen, 2015; Wallis & Dollard, 2008; Yu, 2008). Findings by Kollmann et al (2017)
illustrated that market feedback could sometimes trigger negative emotions based on
expectations of what was to come (anticipatory emotions, such as fear), as opposed to what
was (e.g., firm failure and associated sadness).
Poor financial performance. Related to market feedback, poor financial performance
also triggered negative affect amongst entrepreneurs. In qualitative research, Lechat and
Torrès (2017) identified 30 negative events common to entrepreneurs managing small
businesses. The most intense negative experiences were provoked by markers of poor
financial performance, such as bankruptcy, problems of treasury, drop in commercial
activity, and poor annual results. To date, scholars have established a link between financial
strain or poor performance and both high-activation negative affect, such as fear and
emotional stress (Kollmann et al., 2017; Lechat & Torrès, 2017), and low-activation negative
affect, such as feelings of depression and emotional exhaustion (Fernet et al., 2016;
Gorgievski et al., 2010; Soenen et al., 2019). For example, Pollack et al. (2012) demonstrated
that entrepreneurs under economic stress were more likely to report feeling discouraged,
helpless, and inadequate.
Exiting. The process of ending an entrepreneurial project is highly consequential for
entrepreneurs’ emotions and moods due to social, financial, and identity implications. Not
surprisingly, therefore, the reviewed findings releaved that a loss of belief in the business
idea was associated with feelings of fear and negative affect (Li, 2011; Murnieks et al.,
2019), while the process of voluntary exit was associated with feelings of grief (Byrnes &
Taylor, 2015). Yet, negative feelings during the process of exiting were not shared by all
entrepreneurs equally. While serial entrepreneurs found the psychological disengagement
from their venture emotionally challenging and shared experiences of sadness and loss (until
the time they started searching for new opportunities), portfolio entrepreneurs did not
experience similiar negative emotions around their exit from a venture (Rouse, 2016). This
highlights that the decoupling of identity is associated with negative emotional experiences,
not necessarily entrepreneurial exit per se. This is not surprising because entrepreneurs can
experience multiple forms of exit routes with different drivers behind these decisions
(Wennberg, Wiklund, DeTienne, & Cardon, 2010). This indicates that the ease at which an
entrepreneur can decouple from the venture or entrepreneurial project is likely to influence
their level of emotional discomfort and discrete emotions experienced. Indeed, qualitative
research showed that the slow speed of an entrepreneurial project’s failure could intensify
negative affective experiences (Shepherd et al., 2014). In sum, the reviewed findings
indicated that the entrepreneur’s identity and the speed of exit influenced the extent of
emotional discomfort when decoupling from an entrepreneurial idea.
Discussion and Agenda for Future Research
Following Low and MacMillan’s (1988) review approach across key areas of a
research program, this systematic review of the evidence makes four key contributions to
theory and proposes fruitful avenues for future research on affect in entrepreneurship. In the
sections that follow, we discuss these contributions and present an agenda for further
research on (1) negative affective antecedents, (2) nuanced perspectives on negative affect,
(3) the socially-embedded pathways to negative affect, and (4) contextualized
entrepreneurial affect. We highlight areas of convergence across different literatures as well
as areas that have received little academic attention so far. The links between the findings of
the review and future research directions are visually outlined in Figure 1.
[Figure 1 and 2 About Here]
Antecedents of Negative Affect in Entrepreneurship
We offer a novel multidimensional framework for understanding why negative affect
arises during entrepreneurial activity with a focus on specific events related to the self, the
entrepreneurial occupation, interactions with others, and venture circumstances (see Table
3). While current research examines why affect matters for entrepreneurial behavior (Uy &
Foo, 2010), our focus on how diverse emotions and moods arise can enable a better
understanding of the links between events, emotions, cognitions, and behaviors with
consequences for entrepreneurs, employees, and ventures. Essentially, our focus moves
upstream and builds upon the established notion that emotions are an important component
in the entrepreneurial process, to provide an initial investigation into the antecedents of
negative emotions beyond just venture failure. Our synthesis of what is currently known
challenges the taken-for-granted assumption that the venture’s performance is the main
source of joy and sorrow for entrepreneurs. Indeed, venture-related characteristics are one
of the many antecedents of negative affect when engaged in entrepreneurship. However,
aspects related to the self, personally significant and venture relevant others, others’
perceptions toward the entrepreneur and toward the communities to which specific
entrepreneurs belong, and the entrepreneurial occupation itself can also elicit negative affect.
The review highlights how affective antecedents vary across situations and for different
types of entrepreneurs, with potentially differing outcomes. For example, the review
demonstrates that anger arises from different events (e.g., physical health events, work-life
conflict, income uncertainty, the behavior of VCs, and customer interactions). Yet, the same
event may elicit different affective responses, such the anger, anxiety, disappointment,
frustration, and guilt that emerge from work-life conflict. Building on our framework of
negative affective antecedents and the aspects neglected in research, fruitful avenues for
future research can capture the lived experiences and human nature of diverse entrepreneurs.
How does negative affect vary among heterogeneous entrepreneurs? One of the
significant findings to emerge from this review is the potential for differences in affective
experiences between entrepreneurs. Some entrepreneurs, such as women and minority
groups, face more negative affective outcomes than others and at different times not merely
because of dispositional differences but due to social factors and the perceptions of others.
For example, the women entrepreneurs in Tanzania (Sigalla & Carney, 2012) or in a conflict
zone (Muhammad et al., 2017) who fear the repercussions for challenging gender norms, or
black African immigrant entrepreneurs who feel marginalized (Griffin‐EL & Olabisi; 2018)
when engaging in entrepreneurial behavior, as discussed earlier (see Negative judgments and
marginalization). In turn, certain groups can experience greater intensity of negative
affective reactions. According to Role Congruity Theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), prejudice
may arise when individual attributes (i.e., gender, age, race) are incongruent with the
characteristics observers ascribe to a stereotypical image of a successful “entrepreneur” (i.e.,
the assumption that an entrepreneur is a man: Laguía et al., 2019). Therefore individuals
from social groups that do not conform with a certain normative “entrepreneur” stereotype
may be marginalized (i.e., women technology entrepreneurs; Marlow & McAdam, 2012).
Members of these marginalized social groups are likely to face difficult social experiences
in their entrepreneurial journey (Eagly & Karau, 2002), potentially leading to a greater
number and intensity of negative affective experiences.
Yet, strikingly absent from the literature are considerations in how negative affective
experiences may differ between entrepreneurs. This is surprising because not only are
entrepreneurs a heterogeneous group, their ventures can be at different stages of
development or they could be pursuing diverse financial and social goals (Davidsson, 2016).
Some entrepreneurs need to have more frequent interactions with external actors who can
influence entrepreneurs’ affective experiences, such as entrepreneurs who need to engage
with state officials to progress their work and experience a range of negative emotions as a
result (Doern & Goss, 2014; see Conflict with external entrepreneurial actors). The
heterogeneity amongst entrepreneurs and their ventures could add to the variance that
individuals experience throughout the entrepreneurial process. Thus, it is likely that
entrepreneurs differ in terms of the affect-eliciting events that they are exposed to (i.e.,
gaining funding) and in their resources for coping with negative affective triggers (Shepherd,
Covin, et al., 2009). For example, novice and experienced entrepreneurs differ in their
responses to stressors. While stressors impact upon sleep for both sets of entrepreneurs, only
novice entrepreneurs experience work-home interference following stressors (Kollmann et
al., 2019). Similarly, entrepreneurs have different personal histories, which influence how
they experience and respond to situations in entrepreneurship (e.g., previous arduous
working conditions can foster greater commitment to a new venture: Laffineur, Dubard
Barbosa, Fayolle, & Montmartin, 2020)
. Likewise, men and women evaluate
entrepreneurial stressors differently, such that women pursuing financial goals experience
greater stress than men (Chadwick & Raver, 2019). Thus, research would benefit from
examining not only the difference in the experience of mood and emotion between
entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial samples (as has been the focus in more than 30
excluded articles
), but to explore the factors that may explain why entrepreneurs differ in
how and when they experience negative affect.
How does an entrepreneur’s transient state impact their subsequent negative
affective experiences? Only 11% of the reviewed articles examined self-driven affective
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight.
Articles that did not provide insight on the stimulus of negative affective were excluded.
experiences (e.g., Williamson et al., 2019), thus neglecting the human nature of
entrepreneurs as individuals who experience episodes of ill health, sleep deprivation,
optimism, and depression. Research exploring episodic individual-level drivers of negative
affect would make a meaningful contribution to the literature by further developing our
understanding of the ever-changing nature of entrepreneurial emotions, and how such
shifting emotional states can have a varying influence on key outcomes within the
entrepreneurial process. It will also more accurately represent the lived experiences of
entrepreneurs, moving beyond the heroic portrayal of entrepreneurs (Torrès & Thurik,
2019). The wider literature offers clues for developing our understanding in this area. For
example, through the lens of entrepreneurial impulsivity (Wiklund et al., 2018), short-lived
mental-illness incidences (Thurik et al., 2016), chronic disease (Vessal et al., 2021), and
poor self-care (Goldsby et al., 2005), we can better understand episodes of self-driven
discrete negative emotions in entrepreneurship, such as shame and regret. Leveraging these
similar episodic perspectives can help to guide future research into how transient shifts in
entrepreneurs’ emotional states can influence a variety of important outcomes.
How do entrepreneurial tasks and tensions in goal pursuit elicit negative affect?
While job design and role demands as overarching constructs emerged as antecedents of
negative affect (e.g., Kallioniemi et al., 2016; Shepherd et al., 2010), surprisingly few studies
empirically examined the negative affective implications of undertaking specific
entrepreneurial tasks and milestones. For example, we know that affect is an important tool
in entrepreneurs’ negotiation behavior (Artinger et al., 2015), and that entrepreneurs often
have to give away power (autonomy) to others as a short-term sacrifice (van Gelderen,
2016). Yet, we do not know how emotions are influenced by negotiation behavior nor by the
outcomes of negotiations. Moreover, we have little insight into how seemingly positive
events, like hiring new employees, can produce positive and negative emotions in tandem
(c.f., Wiklund, Davidsson, & Delmar, 2003). Future research is needed to further examine
the link between entrepreneurial distinct activities (e.g., negotiations, pitching events,
pivoting and idea refinement, expansion decisions) and negative affective experiences.
Additionally, particularly interesting research may come from considering the interplay of
individual attributes and task-driven negative emotions. For example, an entrepreneur’s
skills may be mismatched to specific entrepreneurial tasks, at different points in the
entrepreneurial process (e.g., Kickul et al, 2009; Olson, 1985), thus influencing negative
The nature of entrepreneurs’ work encompasses multiple tensions. Yet, beyond
work-life conflict (e.g., McLellan & Uys, 2009), little insight was provided from the
reviewed articles on how work-related tensions trigger negative affect. A prime example of
such work-related tensions is the pursuit of financial and social goals in social
entrepreneurship (Shepherd, 2015). However, the literature so far has focused on how poor
financial performance elicits negative affect, without considering social or environmental
performance or conflict between areas of performance (e.g., Drencheva & Au, in-press).
Such potential tensions between multiple goals are experienced by commercial
entrepreneurs as well because they evaluate their success not only based on firm performance
but also on workplace relationships, personal fulfillment, community impact, and personal
financial rewards (Wach et al., 2016). Additionally, entrepreneurs face ethical dilemmas in
their everyday experiences in product design and human resource management that can also
result in tensions between multiple goals and different ways of evaluating performance
(Hannafey, 2003). Thus, future research can be impactful in investigating whether, when,
and how underperformance in different domains (e.g., social vs. financial) can potentially
trigger different negative affect (e.g., disappointment, shame, fear). Furthermore, future
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
research can also examine how failure along certain dimensions (i.e., social outcomes) could
temper the positive consequences of success from alternative perspectives (i.e., financial
A Nuanced View of Negative Affect: Discrete Emotions and Temporarily Variable
We offer a map of the diverse discrete negative emotions that arise during
entrepreneurship activity (See Table 3). In doing so, we respond to calls to improve our
understanding of negative affect in the context of venture creation (Delgado-García et al.,
2015; Shepherd, 2015) and more accurately reflect the emotional experiences of
entrepreneurs. The extant research often explores “positive” or “negative” valence (Foo et
al., 2015) with broad groupings, such as “emotional stress”. Yet, the evidence shows that
moods and emotions of the same valence do not drive entrepreneurial behavior in the same
way (Williamson et al., 2019). Specifically, research has indicated that emotions that elicit
low and high activation influence cognitive processes, decision making, and behavior in
divergent ways (Coker, 2020; Sohn et al., 2015). High-activation emotions tend to prompt
cognitive resource and energy expenditure, whereas low-activation emotions are associated
with inaction (Warr et al., 2014) and disengagement (even exiting a venture; c.f., Hessels et
al., 2018). This is why we map out the examined literature into high-activation discrete
emotions (i.e., anger, anxiety, fear, and frustration) and low-activation discrete emotions
(i.e., disappointment, grief, regret, sadness, and shame) alongside their known antecedents.
This mapping of examined discrete negative emotions also highlights which discrete
negative emotions have been neglected so far - regret, disappointment, resentment, envy,
disgust, and contempt. Our focus on discrete emotions and differentiation between low- and
high-activation affect offers a pathway toward conceptual clarity and a foundation for future
research on how, when, and why negative affect matters for entrepreneurs (as individuals)
and their ventures. Such a focus on discrete emotions and differentiating between low- and
high-activation affect has already proved fruitful in research on creativity (e.g., Baas et al.,
2008; Baas et al., 2011). Thus, future research requires greater nuance, including:
Which discrete emotions arise from entrepreneurially relevant events? The
reviewed articles favored affective groupings, such as “negative affect” (e.g., Breugst &
Shepherd, 2017), as opposed to discrete emotions. While these studies have been greatly
valuable, a paucity of insight has been generated on discrete emotions, with the exceptions
of grief (i.e., loss resulting from failure) and fear (i.e., nervousness of potential failure).
The use of affective groupings limits our ability to accurately predict entrepreneurial
decisions and behaviors with emotion as an independent variable. This endeavor is aided
by specificity (Foo et al., 2015; Lebel, 2017) because not all negative emotions have equal
consequences for cognition and behavior (Angie et al., 2011). For example, the link
between experienced emotion and (un)ethical entrepreneurial behavior is likely to be
nuanced, depending on what discrete negative emotion is experienced. Individuals are
likely to behave unethically when feeling angry (Kligyte et al., 2013) or anxious (Kouchaki
& Desai, 2015), but to behave ethically when feeling fearful (Kligyte et al., 2013) or
guilty (Motro et al., 2018). This is relevant because minor everyday-life business deviance,
that is the little actions individuals take to maximize profit, such as a “request for cash
payment to avoid paying taxes” in the informal sector, can add up and produce differential
effects at large (Ji et al., 2019, p. 1179). Scholars could thus address pending questions
about unethical behavior (e.g., Baron et al., 2015) and beyond by considering the temporal
influence of discrete emotions. To develop a thorough understanding of the interplay
between affect and the entrepreneurial process, future research needs a nuanced
perspective that explores how discrete emotions arise from specific events and the impact
of such discrete emotions. Exploring the experience of discrete emotions, such as regret,
disappointment, resentment, and envy, which are currently neglected in entrepreneurship
research, would therefore make a valuable contribution to the literature.
What anticipatory affect do entrepreneurs experience and when? According to
emotion-as-feedback theory (Baumeister et al., 2007), behavior is largely driven by
anticipatory affect, which occurs from the expectation of certain outcomes. For example,
failure research has demonstrated that entrepreneurs experience anticipatory grief leading up
to the failure event (Shepherd, Wiklund, & Haynie, 2009). Similarly, entrepreneurs may
experience other anticipatory negative emotions such as shame, regret, or anger at different
moments in time and under different circumstances (i.e., anticipatory guilt from financial
debt with close ties). Anticipatory negative affect may also occur together with positive
affect (relief). The entrepreneurial environment is an interesting context for exploring
anticipatory affect, due to its high uncertainty. Yet, with a few exceptions (e.g., Hatak &
Snellman, 2017), anticipatory affect is largely missing from empirical studies in the
entrepreneurship literature.
Future research is required to investigate discrete anticipatory moods and emotions,
their antecedents, and outcomes. Such research can be valuable in addressing seemingly less
rational entrepreneurial behavior. For example, future research could examine anticipatory
emotions from perceived discrimination in business loan processes to provide nuanced
insights on disparities between entrepreneurial participation and funding rates. Research on
racial minority groups suggests that African Americans and Hispanic Americans are
significantly more reluctant to apply for financial capital than White Americans (Neville et
al., 2018). Yet, a large-scale econometric study in the USA indicates that there is no evidence
of ethnic discrimination in credit markets and suggests that misconceptions of discrimination
are to blame for funding uptake (Fraser, 2009). This highlights an intriguing situation
whereby perceptions of the judgments of others influence entrepreneurs’ anticipated
emotions and thereby behavior. Future research may explore how and with what effect
anticipated emotions (e.g., shame) arise, and how the perception of discrimination and bias
influence these anticipatory emotions.
What innovative methods can be used to accurately measure entrepreneurs’ moods
and emotions? Due to exogenous factors and the rapidly changing nature of affect whereby
emotions and moods are outcomes of specific events (i.e., dependent variable) and almost
immediately can influence cognition and behavior (i.e., becoming an independent variable),
new research methods are required to further examine these topics. The reviewed articles
highlight general differences between self-report and physiological measures of
entrepreneurs’ affect (Patel et al., 2019; Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011). This indicates that
entrepreneurs are not particularly good at reporting their negative affect. These findings can
be explained by a lack of emotional awareness (Dasborough et al., 2008), contextual factors
(i.e., desensitization to negative affect, engagement in deep or surface acting, cognitive
dissonance reduction), a hesitancy to share negative affect due to issues related to reputation,
social perceptions, and legitimacy. Indeed, all these potential explanations deserve to be
tested as they can offer novel insights into how emotions and moods are experienced and
expressed. These explanations also highlight the need for new methods, beyond self-reports.
Some ideas for doing this have started to emerge in the literature, including physiological
measurement (Hubbard et al., 2002), artificial intelligence (Williamson, Battisti, & Pollack,
2022), and affective computing (Harley, 2016). For example, Williamson et al., (in press)
measured disappointment from entrepreneurs’ social media posts with machine learning.
Socially Embedded Affect in Entrepreneurship
We demonstrate that the socially embedded context of entrepreneurs underpins many
affective experiences, in line with an interactive and socially embedded perspective of
entrepreneurship (Shepherd, 2015). Indeed, antecedents related to others are most commonly
examined in the reviewed evidence (see Table 1). This includes close ties and teams directly
engaged with entrepreneurs (e.g., Breugst & Shepherd, 2017; Chadwick & Raver, 2019;
Kollmann et al., 2017) as well as social judgments and prejudices that influence interactions
between entrepreneurs and customers or intermediaries (e.g., Griffin‐EL & Olabisi, 2018;
Muhammad et al., 2017). The multiple pathways by which social interactions impact the
negative emotions and moods of entrepreneurs can be both direct and indirect. For example,
others can trigger negative emotions directly through conflict and by issuing judgment, or
indirectly as a social resource that buffers against negative emotions. Entrepreneurship
scholars can make valuable contributions to the literature by exploring this theme further,
along five main aspects:
How do entrepreneurs make sense of events eliciting negative affect? Events eliciting
negative affect can represent jolts to routines and expectations (Meyer, 1982) and trigger
sensemaking (Weick, 1995) as a socially-embedded process of answering the questions
“what’s going on here?” and “what do I do next?” (Weick et al., 2005, p.412). It creates
meaning through cycles of interpreting cues that highlight discrepancies and acting on the
interpretation of these cues to check one’s new understanding of the situation (Maitlis &
Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1988; 1995). Despite the overall understanding of sensemaking
processes in management (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014), we lack an understanding of how
specifically entrepreneurs interpret and act on events eliciting negative emotions. Yet,
examining specific sensemaking patterns can be valuable in understanding how different
entrepreneurs cope with and recover from such events and with what outcomes for
themselves as individuals and their ventures. For example, emerging research shows that
different patterns of sensemaking shape how entrepreneurs seek feedback (Drencheva et al.,
2021) or re-enter entrepreneurship after failure (Williams et al., 2020). Future research can
also investigate how sensemaking through narratives enables entrepreneurs to deal with
events eliciting negative affect. Such research can capture not only how narratives serve as
enablers for recovery, resilience and growth (e.g., Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012; Maitlis, 2009)
but also as ways to challenge and transform discourses that shape the entrepreneur
occupation in ways that exclude certain individuals who do not fit the stereotype of who is
an entrepreneur.
How do close social ties drive negative affect in entrepreneurship? While others-
driven antecedents of negative affect were most commonly examined in the reviewed
evidence, this was usually done through the lens of relational conflict (e.g., Breugst &
Shepherd, 2017) or social resources attenuating negative affect (e.g., Ariza-Montes et al.,
2017). However, multi-directional and interactive perspectives can provide richer insights
into the interpersonal exchanges that give rise to negative emotions and moods in
entrepreneurship. For instance, spousal control of finances is associated with lower well-
being amongst entrepreneurs (Dutt et al., 2016) which highlights the potential for social ties
to intrude on the entrepreneurial experience through role conflict, instead of relational
conflict, and thus drive a complex mix of negative emotions and moods. Furthermore,
feelings of malicious envy directed towards other entrepreneurs can shift toward benign envy
when these other entrepreneurs share their own failings (Brooks et al., 2019). This indicates
that entrepreneurs are social agents who experience and trigger emotional responses in
others, and highlights the need for additional research related to these topics.
Future research on multi-directional interpersonal interactions is uniquely positioned
to provide insight into discrete emotions, such as resentment and disappointment, whereby
others’ affect and behavior toward entrepreneurs can influence entrepreneurs’ affect and
behavior. The benefits of a multi-directional interpersonal perspective on negative discrete
emotions can be seen in relation to trust. The importance of trust (Howorth & Moro, 2006)
and its implications for the firm has received considerable interest (Maxwell & Lévesque,
2014; Zahra et al., 2006), yet the emotional consequences of trust violations, betrayals, and
over-trusting (Goel & Karri, 2006) are yet to be explored in entrepreneurship. Trust
violations and betrayals can trigger negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety and frustration
(see Appendix A), thus influencing how entrepreneurs engage with others and potentially
inhibiting help-seeking behaviors beneficial for the venture (e.g., Gaumer & Shaffer, 2018).
How does modern “connectedness” to stakeholders influence negative affective
experiences? As a result of modern advances in communication technologies, there are
numerous opportunities to examine how interactions unfold and interactively relate to
negative affective experiences for entrepreneurs. A valuable contribution could thus be
gained by examining the link between online connectedness and the negative affective
experiences of entrepreneurs. For example, two of the reviewed articles demonstrate that
customers’ negative online opinions can trigger negative affective experiences in the venture
team (Bradley et al., 2016; Weber et al., 2017). This theme could be extended to examine
how negative affect differs according to the medium, the content of communication, or the
source (i.e., relational signals: De Clercq & Rangarajan, 2008). Medium of communication
can differ in terms of publicness and potential for multi-way dialogue: from a public review
on Trip Advisor to a public dialogue on Twitter, or a two-way private communication via
WhatsApp, all with potentially different stakeholders: customers, peers, suppliers. Thus,
future research can also examine how negative affect arises from digital communication with
diverse groups (e.g., customers, peers, investors, intermediaries) because our review shows
how different negative affect (e.g., shame, anger, fear) arises from interactions with different
actors. This line of research can be further extended to examine how digital communication
can potentially enhance work-life conflict due to its constant connectedness and spill-over
across work and personal domains. At the same time, future research should also explore the
potential of digital communication to buffer against or minimize negative affect for
entrepreneurs who feel isolated or marginalized by providing a sense of community.
When do social judgments impact upon entrepreneurs’ emotional experiences?
Research that further unpacks the connection between social judgments and negative
emotional experience in entrepreneurship could be highly valuable to the field. The reviewed
articles demonstrate, unsurprisingly, that feeling marginalized relates to negative affective
experiences(e.g., Griffin‐EL & Olabisi, 2018; Muhammad et al., 2017). This interesting
topic is, however, in its infancy and requires further attention, particularly concerning two
key themes. First, what implications do types of social judgments have on different
entrepreneurs’ affective experiences? For example, how are social judgments affectively
experienced by entrepreneurs in relation to mental or physical disabilities, “sexism,
heterosexism, racism, anti-immigrant biases, ageism, and classism” (Fiske, 2012, p. 32) and
their intersections (Dy et al., 2017), and how do these experiences differ across social units
(differences in the groups doing the judging). For example, entrepreneurs who are
homosexual receive harsher judgment than others (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2015). This line of
research also relates to the previous point on digital communication and how social
judgments expressed on social media are affectively experienced by entrepreneurs. Second,
how do social judgments at the level of the venture influence entrepreneurs’ affective
experiences? For example, some new venture ideas may be viewed with low esteem in
society, such as ventures serving stigmatized markets (i.e., pornographic industry) and
undertaking “dirty work” (i.e., rubbish collection), yet the affective experiences of the
entrepreneurs behind such ventures in relation to stigma and social judgment are unexplored.
What drives prosocial negative affect? Knowledge on the antecedents of prosocial
affect is limited (Wiklund et al., 2018) and examination of how prosocial emotions beyond
empathy, such as guilt and pity, are aroused is required. Future research on how these
emotions are triggered and transformed into action (or not) is poised to make a valuable
contribution. For example, it is established that negative emotional displays can be used to
entice action in stakeholders (Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019) and employees (Brundin et al.,
2008) and that entrepreneurs’ negative emotions can drive action to address societal
problems (e.g., sustainable entrepreneurial intentions; Eller et al., 2020). Yet, we know very
little about how the emotional displays of others influence the negative prosocial emotions
of entrepreneurs. This line of work would be valuable for research on prosocial organizing
where prosocial affect is a driver for engaging and remaining in entrepreneurship (Branzei
et al., 2018), but also for the broader entrepreneurship domain as entrepreneurs may be
exposed to the suffering of employees or other prominent stakeholders. There is, of course,
the potential for interaction between negative emotions and prosocial and other-oriented
motivations that would benefit from further scholarly inquiry (Bolino & Grant, 2016).
Contextualizing Entrepreneurial Affect
Overall, by highlighting the challenging events that entrepreneurs encounter which
drive negative affective experiences in context, we hope to draw attention to settings where
entrepreneurs may most benefit from scholarly insights. By context, we mean the
informational (e.g., market feedback), physical (e.g., conflict zone) or social attributes (e.g.,
gender norms) of entrepreneurs’ situations (Johns, 2001), which can vary across levels of
analysis from the family to formal and informal institutions (Welter, 2011). As we show in
this review, context across levels of analysis elicits different affective experiences for
entrepreneurs, thus a contextual lens of entrepreneurs’ affect can contribute to theoretical
novelty that is reflective of the experiences of diverse entrepreneurs (Welter et al., 2017).
However, the lack of attention to context can also limit our understanding of the
heterogeneous experiences of entrepreneurs and the outcomes of affect. Context can restrict
affective variation amongst entrepreneurs (e.g., central tendency, floor and ceiling effects,
extreme base rates) or within entrepreneurs (e.g., stability over time when variability is
hoped for) (Johns, 2001). For example, in the challenging contexts identified in this review
(e.g., women in a conflict zone threatened for breaking local norms), the experience of
negative affect (e.g., fear for their lives) is likely to differ in severity to what is generally
captured in studies of affect-driven cognition and behavior in everyday entrepreneurial life
in other contexts (Watson, 2000). Coincidently, what may be considered extreme in one
context may be an average level of negative affect for individuals entrenched in particularly
difficult circumstances. In chronically challenging situations the “normal” level of negative
affect may be high, yet self-reported measures of affective intensity may not necessarily
capture this extremity (because it is subjective and based on the relative individual
experience). Additionally, context can limit our understanding of how the duration,
frequency, co-occurrence (e.g., grief and shame in tandem), and sequential nature of
entrepreneurs’ negative emotional experiences influence entrepreneurial outcomes, such as
subsequent creativity or mental health. For example, regarding the sequence of affect,
negative affect followed by positive affect positively impacts creativity and work
engagement (Bledow et al., 2011, 2013), while the frequent experience of negative affect
can undermine well-being (Wiklund et al., 2019).
The features of affective experiences are likely to differ between a sample of
entrepreneurs common in journals published in the Global North and a sample of
entrepreneurs from intensely challenging settings, such as in the Pakistan warzone
previously mentioned. On account of these differences, it follows that affect-driven
outcomes may differ between contexts as well limiting the generalizability of findings to
under-researched contexts and our ability to assist entrepreneurs in emotionally extreme
situations. Yet, entrepreneurs with chronic and intense negative affective experiences may
not be adequately represented in analyses of affect-driven entrepreneurship research, despite
the potential of such negative affective experiences to produce new and contrary findings to
what has been identified thus far. We hope this review stimulates much-needed research on
negative emotions in crisis contexts. To help guide future research in this important
direction, we provide an overview of the event pathways that may enhance negative affect
in crisis, using the lens of the Covid-19 pandemic (Appendix B).
This review brings our attention to contextual diversity that should underpin theory-
building efforts in entrepreneurial affect with appropriate methodological approaches.
Instead of letting affective heterogeneity stifle academic efforts, however, scholars could use
these differences to contextualize the entrepreneurial experience and to explore how
entrepreneurs thrive and remain resilient in the most challenging situations, whereby our
review can serve as a roadmap. This includes more diverse samples of entrepreneurs beyond
Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic countries (WEIRD) (with some
exceptions, e.g., Foo et al., 2009) who face considerable challenges when doing business
(Eifert et al., 2008; Hallward-Driemeier & Pritchett, 2015). Research with these samples
should acknowledge that even in WEIRD contexts, some entrepreneurs may experience
chronic and intense negative affect due to marginalization and violence based on their
identity (e.g., sexuality, ethnicity, refugee status) and economic and social inequalities linked
to a historical background of migration, war, slavery, and exploitation of different social
groups. Context-specific affect-driven research holds great promise for moving the field
forward and for conducting research with impact.
While entrepreneurship “presents unique obstacles and challenges” (Reid et al.,
2018), insights on the drivers of entrepreneurs’ negative affect are fragmented. In this
systematic review of 52 empirical articles, we synthesized these insights into a
multidimensional framework of the antecedents of entrepreneurs’ negative affect. This
contributes an enhanced knowledge of the antecedents of affect, the diverse discrete negative
emotions that entrepreneurs experience, and the socially-embedded and contextual nature of
affect in entrepreneurship. Building on this framework, we offer a roadmap for future
research and methodological approaches on discrete emotions that vary across entrepreneurs
in a connected world where social judgments and conflict reach far and wide.
* Indicates a source included in the review.
Allan, J., & Lawless, N. (2005). Learning through online collaboration by SME staff: A
scoping investigation into likely team-role stressors. Education and Training, 47(89),
Angie, A. D., Connelly, S., Waples, E. P., & Kligyte, V. (2011). The influence of discrete
emotions on judgement and decision-making: A meta-analytic review. Cognition &
Emotion, 25(8), 13931422.
*Ariza-Montes, A., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Rodríguez-Félix, L., & Albort-Morant, G.
(2017). Can an internal locus of control and social support reduce work-related levels
of stress and strain. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(9), 903-
Arregle, J., Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Webb, J. W., Miller, T., & Tsui, A. S. (2015).
Family Ties in Entrepreneurs’ Social Networks and New Venture Growth.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 313344.
Artinger, S., Vulkan, N., & Shem-Tov, Y. (2015). Entrepreneurs’ negotiation behavior.
Small Business Economics, 44(4), 737757.
Bacq, S., Geoghegan, W., Josefy, M., Stevenson, R., & Williams, T. A. (2020). The
COVID-19 Virtual Idea Blitz: Marshaling social entrepreneurship to rapidly respond
to urgent grand challenges. Business Horizons, 63(6), 705723.
Barberá-Tomás, D., Castello, I., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Zietsma, C. (2019). Energizing
through visuals: how social entrepreneurs use emotion-symbolic work for social
change. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), amj.2017.1488.
Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of
Management Review, 33(2), 328340.
Baron, R. A., Hmieleski, K. M., & Henry, R. A. (2012). Entrepreneurs’ dispositional
positive affect: The potential benefits and potential costs of being “up.” Journal of
Business Venturing, 27(3), 310324.
Baron, R. A., Zhao, H., & Miao, Q. (2015). Personal motives, moral disengagement, and
unethical decisions by entrepreneurs: cognitive mechanisms on the “slippery slope.”
Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 107118.
Baas, M., C. K. De Dreu., &B. A. Nijstad (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-
creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological
bulletin, 134(6), 779806.
Baas, M., C. K. De Dreu., & B. A. Nijstad (2011). When prevention promotes creativity:
the role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100(5), 794809.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demandsresources theory: Taking stock and
looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273285.
Bartik, A., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E., Luca, M., & Stanton, C. (2020). How Are
Small Businesses Adjusting to COVID-19? Early Evidence from a Survey. In NBER
Working Paper (No. 26989).
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., Zhang, L., Nathan DeWall, C., Liqing
Zhang, DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: feedback,
anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 11(2), 167203.
Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. (2008). The value of doing what you like: Evidence from the self-
employed in 23 countries. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68(34),
Bhattacharjee, A., & Jahanshah, A. (2020). The COVID 19 Crisis Brings Spring Season
for Translucent Activity. Does It Result Exogenous Uncertainty for the Entrepreneurs
and Bound-Less Commodity Pricing! SSRN Electronic Journal, January.
Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 432450.
Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Khnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 12461257.
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the
dark side, too: a review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior,
and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599670.
*Bradley, G. L., Sparks, B. A., & Weber, K. (2016). Perceived prevalence and personal
impact of negative online reviews. Journal of Service Management, 27(4), 507-533.
Branzei, O., Parker, S. C., Moroz, P. W., & Gamble, E. (2018). Going pro-social:
Extending the individual-venture nexus to the collective level. Journal of Business
Venturing, 33(5), 551565.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(1),77101.
*Breugst, N., Patzelt, H., & Rathgeber, P. (2015). How should we divide the pie? Equity
distribution and its impact on entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing,
30(1), 66-94.
*Breugst, N., & Shepherd, D. A. (2017). If you fight with me, I’ll get mad! A social model
of entrepreneurial affect. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 41(3), 379-418.
Brooks, A. W., Huang, K., Abi-Esber, N., Buell, R. W., Huang, L., & Hall, B. (2019).
Mitigating malicious envy: Why successful individuals should reveal their failures.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(4), 667687.
Brundin, E., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2008). Managers’ emotional displays and
employees’ willingness to act entrepreneurially. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(2),
Buttner, E. H. (1992). Entrepreneurial stress: is it hazardous to your health? Journal of
Managerial Issues, 4(2), 223240.
Byrne, O., & Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Different strokes for different folks: Entrepreneurial
narratives of emotion, cognition, and making sense of business failure.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 375-405.
*Byrnes, R. T., & Taylor, S. N. (2015). Voluntary transition of the CEO: owner CEOs’
sense of self before, during and after transition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(OCT), 1-
Cacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Giazitzoglu, A. (2016). A
reconceptualization of fear of failure in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 31(3), 302325.
Cardon, M. S., Foo, M.-D., Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2012). Exploring the heart:
Entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(1), 1
Cardon, M. S., & Patel, P. C. (2015). Is stress worth it? Stress-related health and wealth
trade-offs for entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology, 64(2), 379420.
*Carree, M. A., & Verheul, I. (2012). What makes entrepreneurs happy? Determinants of
satisfaction among founders. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2), 371-387.
Cesaroni, F. M., Pediconi, M. G., & Sentuti, A. (2018). It’s Always a Women’s Problem!
Micro-Entrepreneurs, Work-Family Balance and Economic Crisis. Administrative
Sciences, 8(4), 74.
*Chadwick, I. C., & Raver, J. L. (2019). Not for the faint of heart? A gendered perspective
on psychological distress in entrepreneurship. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 24(6), 662-674.
Chittenden, F., Kauser, S., & Poutziouris, P. (2005). PAYE-NIC Compliance Costs.
International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 23(6), 635656.
Cocker, F., Martin, A., Scott, J., Venn, A., & Sanderson, K. (2013). Psychological distress,
related work attendance, and productivity loss in small-to-medium enterprise
owner/managers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
10(10), 50625082.
Coker, B. (2020). Arousal enhances herding tendencies when decision making. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 19(3), 229-239.
*Cohidon, C., Diène, E., Carton, M., Fatras, J.-Y., Goldberg, M., & Imbernon, E. (2009).
Mental health of workers in Toulouse 2 years after the industrial AZF disaster: first
results of a longitudinal follow-up of 3,000 people. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 44(9), 784-791.
*Collewaert, V., & Fassin, Y. (2013). Conflicts between entrepreneurs and investors: The
impact of perceived unethical behavior. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 635-649.
Collewaert, V., & Sapienza, H. J. (2016). How does angel investor-entrepreneur conflict
affect venture innovation? It depends. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3),
Crane, M. F., & Searle, B. J. (2016). Building resilience through exposure to stressors: The
effects of challenges versus hindrances. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
21(4), 468479.
Dasborough, M. T., Sinclair, M., Russell-Bennett, R., & Tombs, A. (2008). Measuring
emotion: Methodological issues and alternatives. In N. M. Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations (pp. 197208). Edward Elgar
Davidsson, P. (2016). A “business researcher” view on opportunities for psychology in
entrepreneurship research. Applied Psychology, 65(3), 628636.
Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture
Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311332.
*Dawson, C. (2017). Financial optimism and entrepreneurial satisfaction. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2), 171-194.
De Clercq, D., & Rangarajan, D. (2008). The role of perceived relational support in
entrepreneurcustomer dyads. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 659683.
de Jong, J. P. J., & Marsili, O. (2015). Founding a business inspired by close
entrepreneurial ties: does it matter for survival? Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 39(5), 10051025.
*de Mol, E., Ho, V. T., & Pollack, J. M. (2018). Predicting entrepreneurial burnout in a
moderated mediated model of job fit. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(3),
Delgado-García, J. B., De Quevedo Puente, E., & Blanco Mazagatos, V. (2015). How
affect relates to entrepreneurship: A systematic review of the literature and research
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 191211.
*Doern, R., & Goss, D. (2014). The role of negative emotions in the social processes of
entrepreneurship: power rituals and shame-related appeasement behaviors.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 38(4), 863-890.
Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Exploring investor readiness: Assessments by
entrepreneurs and investors in Australia. Venture Capital, 4(3), 219236.
Drencheva, A., & Au, W. C. (in-press). Bringing the Family Logic in: From Duality to
Plurality in Social Enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-17.
Drencheva, A., Stephan, U., Patterson, M. G., & Topakas, A. (2021). Navigating
interpersonal feedback seeking in social venturing: The roles of psychological
distance and sensemaking. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(4), 106123.
Drover, W., Wood, M. S., & Payne, G. T. (2014). The effects of perceived control on
venture capitalist investment decisions: a configurational perspective.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(4), 833861.
*Dutt, A., Grabe, S., & Castro, M. (2016). Exploring links between women’s business
ownership and empowerment among maasai women in tanzania. Analyses of Social
Issues and Public Policy, 16(1), 363-386.
Dy, A. M., Marlow, S., & Martin, L. (2017). A Web of opportunity or the same old story?
Women digital entrepreneurs and intersectionality theory. Human Relations, 70(3),
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573598.
Eifert, B., Gelb, A., & Ramachandran, V. (2008). The cost of doing business in Africa:
Evidence from enterprise survey data. World Development, 36(9), 15311546.
Eller, F. J., Gielnik, M. M., Wimmer, H., Thölke, C., Holzapfel, S., Tegtmeier, S., &
Halberstadt, J. (2020). Identifying business opportunities for sustainable development:
Longitudinal and experimental evidence contributing to the field of sustainable
entrepreneurship. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 13871403.
Fang He, V., Sirén, C., Singh, S., Solomon, G., & von Krogh, G. (2017). Keep calm and
carry on: emotion regulation in entrepreneurs’ learning from failure.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 42(4), 605630.
Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: the role
of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5),
*Fernet, C., Torrès, O., Austin, S., & St-Pierre, J. (2016). The psychological costs of
owning and managing an SME: Linking job stressors, occupational loneliness,
entrepreneurial orientation, and burnout. Burnout Research, 3(2), 45-53.
Fiske, S. T. (2012). Managing ambivalent prejudices. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 3348.
Foo, M.-D., Maw-Der, F., Foo, M.-D., & Maw-Der, F. (2011). Emotions and
entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35(2),
Foo, M.-D., Uy, M. A., & Baron, R. A. (2009). How do feelings influence effort? An
empirical study of entrepreneurs’ affect and venture effort. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(4), 10861094.
Foo, M.-D., Uy, M. A., & Murnieks, C. Y. (2015). Beyond affective valence: Untangling
valence and activation influences on opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 39(2), 407431.
Fraser, S. (2009). Is there ethnic discrimination in the UK market for small business credit?
International Small Business Journal, 27(5), 583607.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218
Galappaththi, I. M., Galappaththi, E. K., & Kodithuwakku, S. S. (2017). Can start-up
motives influence social-ecological resilience in community-based entrepreneurship
setting? Case of coastal shrimp farmers in Sri Lanka. Marine Policy, 86(May), 156
Gaumer, C. J., & Shaffer, K. J. (2018). Family business succession: impact on supplier
relations and customer management. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 26(6), 14.
Gauthier, J. F., & Morelix, A. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Startup
Ecosystems: Global Startup Survey. Startup Genome.
*Godin, I., Desmarez, P., & Mahieu, C. (2017). Company size, work-home interference,
and well-being of self-employed entrepreneurs. Archives of Public Health, 75(1), 69.
Goel, S., & Karri, R. (2006). Entrepreneurs, effectual logic, and over-trust.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), 477493.
Goldsby, M. G., Kuratko, D. F., & Bishop, J. W. (2005). Entrepreneurship and Fitness: An
Examination of Rigorous Exercise and Goal Attainment among Small Business
Owners. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(1), 7892.
*Gorgievski, M. J., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., van der Veen, H. B., Giesen, C. W.
M., Gorgievski, Marjan, J., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., van der Veen, H. B.,
Giesen, C. W. M., & Gorgievski, M. J. (2010). Financial problems and psychological
distress: Investigating reciprocal effects among business owners. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 513-530.
Gorgievski, M. J., & Stephan, U. (2016). Advancing the psychology of entrepreneurship: a
review of the psychological literature and an introduction. Applied Psychology, 65(3),
Goss, D., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2018). Opportunity creation: Entrepreneurial agency,
interaction, and affect. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 219236.
Grant, S., & Ferris, K. (2012). Identifying sources of occupational stress in entrepreneurs
for measurement. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 4(4), 351.
*Griffin‐EL, E. W., & Olabisi, J. (2018). Breaking boundaries: exploring the process of
intersective market activity of immigrant entrepreneurship in the context of high
economic inequality. The Journal of Management Studies, 55(3), 457-485.
Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021). Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis:
The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building. Academy of Management
Review, 46(3), 591612.
Hallward-Driemeier, M., & Pritchett, L. (2015). How business is done in the developing
world: Deals versus rules. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 121140.
Hannafey, F. T. (2003). Entrepreneurship and ethics: A literature review. Journal of
Business Ethics, 46(2), 99110.
Harley, J. M. (2016). Measuring emotions: A survey of cutting-edge methodologies used
in computer-based learning environment research. In S. Tettegah & M. Gartmeier
(Eds.). Emotions, Technology, Design, and Learning (pp. 89-114). London, UK:
Academic Press, Elsevier.
Hatak, I., & Snellman, K. (2017). The influence of anticipated regret on business start-up
behaviour. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,
35(3), 349360.
Hessels, J., Rietveld, C. A., Thurik, A. R., & Van der Zwan, P. (2018). Depression and
Entrepreneurial Exit. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(3): 323339.
Hessels, J., Rietveld, C. A., & van der Zwan, P. (2017). Self-employment and work-related
stress: The mediating role of job control and job demand. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32(2): 178196.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94(3), 319340.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513524.
Howorth, C., & Moro, A. (2006). Trust within entrepreneur bank relationships: insights
from Italy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), 495517.
Hubbard, J. A., Smithmyer, C. M., Ramsden, S. R., Parker, E. H., Flanagan, K. D.,
Dearing, K. F., Relyea, N., & Simons, R. F. (2002). Observational, physiological, and
self–report measures of children’s anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive
aggression. Child Development, 73(4), 11011118.
Hundley, G. (2001). Why and when are the self-employed more satisfied with their work?
Industrial Relations, 40(2), 293316.
Inoue, H., & Todo, Y. (2020). The propagation of the economic impact through supply
chains: The case of a mega-city lockdown against the spread of COVID-19. SSRN
Electronic Journal, 111.
Jamal, M. (2007). Short Communication: Burnout and self-employment: a cross-cultural
empirical study. Stress Health, 23(4), 249256.
Ji, J., Dimitratos, P., Huang, Q., & Su, T. (2019). Everyday-life business deviance among
chinese sme owners. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(4), 11791194.
Johns, G. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 3142.
*Jones, P., Jones, A., Williams-Burnett, N., & Ratten, V. (2017). Let’s get physical:
Stories of entrepreneurial activity from sports coaches/instructors. The International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 18(4), 219-230.
Kaji, S., Chalhoub, E., & Menard, M. (2020). COVID-19 Edition: What is venture
sentiment today? First Republic Bank
*Kallioniemi, M. K., Simola, A., Kaseva, J., & Kymäläinen, H.-R. (2016). Stress and
burnout among finnish dairy farmers. Journal of Agromedicine, 21(3), 259-268.
Kickul, J, Gundry, L. K., Barbosa, S. D., & Whitcanack, L. (2009). Intuition Versus
Analysis? Testing Differential Models of Cognitive Style on Entrepreneurial Self-
Efficacy and the New Venture Creation Process. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 33(2), 439-453.
*Kidney, E., & Manning, J. (2012). The Lavender Traveller. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 13(2), 135-142.
Kirtley, J., & O’Mahony, S. (in-press). What is a pivot? Explaining when and how
entrepreneurial firms decide to make strategic change and pivot. Strategic
Management Journal, smj.3131.
Kligyte, V., Connelly, S., Thiel, C., & Devenport, L. (2013). The influence of anger, fear,
and emotion regulation on ethical decision making. Human Performance, 26(4), 297
*Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., & Kensbock, J. M. (2017). Fear of failure as a mediator of
the relationship between obstacles and nascent entrepreneurial activityAn
experimental approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(3), 280-301.
Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., & Kensbock, J. M. (2019). I can’t get no sleep—The
differential impact of entrepreneurial stressors on work-home interference and
insomnia among experienced versus novice entrepreneurs. Journal of Business
Venturing, 34(4), 692708.
Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Morales Reyes, C. A., Prochotta, A.,
Steinbrink, K. M., & Berger, E. S. C. (2020). Startups in times of crisis A rapid
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13,
Kouchaki, M., & Desai, S. D. (2015). Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How
anxiety makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100(2), 360375.
Laffineur, C., Dubard Barbosa, S., Fayolle, A., & Montmartin, B. 2020. The unshackled
entrepreneur: Occupational determinants of entrepreneurial effort. Journal of Business
Venturing, 35(5).
Laguía, A., García-Ael, C., Wach, D., & Moriano, J. A. (2019). “Think entrepreneur -
think male”: a task and relationship scale to measure gender stereotypes in
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3),
Lawrence, T. B., & Maitlis, S. (2012). Care and possibility: Enacting an ethic of care
through narrative practice. Academy of Management Review 37(4), 641-663.
Lebel, R. D. (2017). Moving beyond fight and flight: a contingent model of how the
emotional regulation of anger and fear sparks proactivity. Academy of Management
Review, 42(2), 190206.
*Lechat, T., & Torrès, O. (2016). Exploring negative affect in entrepreneurial activity:
Effects on emotional stress and contribution to burnout. Emotions and Organizational
Governance, 69-99.
Lechat, T., & Torrès, O. (2017). Stressors and satisfactors in entrepreneurial activity: an
event-based, mixed methods study predicting small business owners’ health.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 32(4), 537.
*Li, Y. (2011). Emotions and new venture judgment in China. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 28(2), 277-298.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future
challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161.
Maitlis, S. (2009). Who am I now? Sensemaking and identity in posttraumatic growth. In
L.M. Roberts & J.E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring Positive Identities and Oganizations,
Psychology Press (pp. 71-100). Psychological Press.
Maitlis, S., Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and
moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57125.
Mantere, S., Aula, P., Schildt, H., & Vaara, E. (2013). Narrative attributions of
entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 459473.
*Markman, G. D., Baron, R. A., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Are perseverance and self-
efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(1), 1-19.
Marlow, S., & McAdam, M. (2012). Analyzing the influence of gender upon high-
technology venturing within the context of business incubation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 36(4), 655676.
Marvel, M. R., Davis, J. L., & Sproul, C. R. (2016). Human capital and entrepreneurship
research: A critical review and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 40(3), 599-626.
Maxwell, A. L., & Lévesque, M. (2014). Trustworthiness: A critical ingredient for
entrepreneurs seeking investors. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1057
*McDowell, W. C., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., Aaron, J. R., Edmondson, D. R., &
Ward, C. B. (2019). The price of success: balancing the effects of entrepreneurial
commitment, work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion on job satisfaction.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1179-1192.
*McLellan, K.-L., & Uys, K. (2009). Balancing dual roles in self-employed women: An
exploratory study. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), 21-30.
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D.
Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), A Handbook of Work and Organizational
Psychology: Work Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 534). Psychology press.
Meyer, A.D. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly,
27, 515537.
*Millsteed, J., Redmond, J., & Walker, E. (2017). Learning management by self-employed
occupational therapists in private practice. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,
64(2), 113-120.
*Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Brannon, D. (2010). Experiencing family
business creation: Differences between founders, nonfamily managers, and founders
of nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1057-1084.
Motro, D., Ordóñez, L. D., Pittarello, A., & Welsh, D. T. (2018). Investigating the effects
of anger and guilt on unethical behavior: a dual-process approach. Journal of Business
Ethics, 152(1), 133148.
*Muhammad, N., Warren, L., & Binte-Saleem, S. (2017). Anything can happen, anytime:
The impact of conflict on women’s entrepreneurship in Pakistan. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 22(04), 1750025.
*Murnieks, C. Y., McMullen, J. S., & Cardon, M. S. (2019). Does congruence with an
entrepreneur social identity encourage positive emotion under environmental
dynamism? Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 872-890.
Nelson, G. W. (1989). Factors of friendship: Relevance of significant others to female
business owners. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(4), 718.
Neville, F., Forrester, J. K., O’Toole, J., & Riding, A. (2018). ‘Why even bother trying?’
examining discouragement among racial‐minority entrepreneurs. Journal of
Management Studies, 55(3), 424456.
*Obschonka, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2015). The effects of work-related demands
associated with social and economic change on psychological well-being: a study of
employed and self-employed individuals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(1), 8-
Okruszek, Ł., Aniszewska-Stańczuk, A., Piejka, A., Wiśniewska, M., & Żurek, K. (2020).
Safe but Lonely? Loneliness, Anxiety, and Depression Symptoms and COVID-19.
Frontiers in Psychology, 11(April).
Olson, P. D. (1985). Entrepreneurship: Process and Abilities. American Journal of Small
Business, 10(1), 25-31.
*Oren, L. (2012). Job stress and coping: Self-employed versus organizationally employed
professionals. Stress and Health, 28(2), 163-170.
Özcan, B. (2011). Only the lonely? The influence of the spouse on the transition to self-
employment. Small Business Economics, 37(4), 465492.
Patel, P. C., Wolfe, M. T., & Williams, T. A. (2019). Self-employment and allostatic load.
Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 731751.
Patterson, P. G., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Smith, A. K., Lu, Z., Patterson, P. G., McColl-
Kennedy, J. R., Smith, A. K., & Lu, Z. (2009). Customer rage: triggers, tipping
points, and take-outs. California Management Review, 52(1), 628.
*Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Negative emotions of an entrepreneurial career:
Self-employment and regulatory coping behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing,
26(2), 226-238.
Poggesi, S., Mari, M., & De Vita, L. (2019). Women entrepreneurs and work-family
conflict: an analysis of the antecedents. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 15(2), 431454.
*Pollack, J. M., Vanepps, E. M., & Hayes, A. F. (2012). The moderating role of social ties
on entrepreneurs’ depressed affect and withdrawal intentions in response to economic
stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(6), 789-810.
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 12(2), 296.
Reid, S. W., Patel, P. C., & Wolfe, M. T. (2018). The struggle is real: self-employment and
short-term psychological distress. Journal of Business Venturing Insights,
9(February), 128136.
*Roche, M., Haar, J. M., & Luthans, F. (2014). The role of mindfulness and psychological
capital on the well-being of leaders. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
19(4), 476-489.
*Rouse, E. D. (2016). Beginning’s end: how founders psychologically disengage from
their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1605-1629.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.
Psychological Review 110(1): 145172.
Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. H., & Allen, J. (2006). Beyond achievement:
Entrepreneurship as extreme experience. Small Business Economics, 27(45), 349
*Schonfeld, I. S., & Mazzola, J. J. (2015). A qualitative study of stress in individuals self-
employed in solo businesses. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 501-
*Shepherd, C. D., Miles, M. P., Marchisio, G., Morrish, S. C., & Deacon, J. H. (2010).
Entrepreneurial burnout: exploring antecedents, dimensions and outcomes. Journal of
Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 71-79.
Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recovery for
the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 318-328.
Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more
interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of
Business Venturing, 30(4), 489507.
Shepherd, D. A., & Cardon, M. S. (2009). Negative emotional reactions to project failure
and the self-compassion to learn from the experience. Journal of Management
Studies, 46(6), 923949.
Shepherd, D. A., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Project failure from corporate
entrepreneurship: Managing the grief process. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(6),
Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Harsh evaluations of entrepreneurs who fail: the
role of sexual orientation, use of environmentally friendly technologies, and
observers’ perspective taking. Journal of Management Studies, 52(2), 253–284.
*Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., Williams, T. A., & Warnecke, D. (2014). How does project
termination impact project team members? Rapid termination, “creeping death”, and
learning from failure. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 513-546.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Wolfe, M. T. (2011). Moving forward from project failure:
Negative Emotions, affective commitment, and learning from the experience. The
Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 12291259.
Shepherd, D. A., Wiklund, J., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Moving forward: Balancing the
financial and emotional costs of business failure. Journal of Business Venturing,
24(2), 134148.
Short, J. C. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35(6),
*Sigalla, R. J., & Carney, S. (2012). Poverty reduction through entrepreneurship:
Microcredit, learning and ambivalence amongst women in urban Tanzania.
International Journal of Educational Development, 32(4), 546-554.
Simmons, S. A., Wiklund, J., & Levie, J. (2014). Stigma and business failure: implications
for entrepreneurs’ career choices. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 485–505.
Singh, S., Corner, P. D., & Pavlovich, K. (2015). Failed, not finished: A narrative approach
to understanding venture failure stigmatization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1),
*Smith, R., & McElwee, G. (2011). After the fall: Developing a conceptual script-based
model of shame in narratives of entrepreneurs in crisis! International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, 31(1/2), 91-109.
*Soenen, G., Eib, C., & Torrès, O. (2019). The cost of injustice: overall justice, emotional
exhaustion, and performance among entrepreneurs: do founders fare better? Small
Business Economics, 53(2), 355-368.
Sohn, J. H., Kim, H. E., Sohn, S., Seok, J. W., Choi, D., & Watanuki, S. (2015). Effect of
emotional arousal on inter-temporal decision-making: an fMRI study. Journal of
Physiological Anthropology, 34(1), 1-8.
Stephan, U. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: a review and research
agenda. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(February), amp.2017.0001.
Tabri, N., Hollingshead, S., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2020, March 31). Framing COVID-19 as an
Existential Threat Predicts Anxious Arousal and Prejudice towards Chinese People.
Taylor, M. R., Agho, K. E., Stevens, G. J., & Raphael, B. (2008). Factors influencing
psychological distress during a disease epidemic: Data from Australia’s first outbreak
of equine influenza. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 347.
*Tengeh, R. K. (2016). Entrepreneurial resilience: the case of Somali grocery shop owners
in a South African township. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 14(4), 203-
Tetrick, L. E., Slack, K. J., Da Silva, N., & Sinclair, R. R. (2000). A comparison of the
stressstrain process for business owners and nonowners: Differences in job demands,
emotional exhaustion, satisfaction, and social support. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5(4), 464476.
Thurik, A. R., Khedhaouria, A., Torrès, O., & Verheul, I. (2016). ADHD symptoms and
entrepreneurial orientation of small firm owner. Appl Psychol, 65(3), 568586.
Torrès, O., & Thurik, R. 2019. Small business owners and health. Small Business
Economics, 53(2): 311321. 10.1007/s11187-018-0064-y
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management, 14(3), 207222.
Tschirhart, N., Straiton, M., Ottersen, T., & Winkler, A. S. (2019). “Living like I am in
Thailand”: stress and coping strategies among Thai migrant masseuses in Oslo,
Norway. BMC Women’s Health, 19(1), 139.
Ucbasaran, D., Shepherd, D. A., Lockett, A., John Lyon, S., Lyon, S. J., & John Lyon, S.
(2013). Life After Business Failure: The Process and Consequences of Business
Failure for Entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 39(1), 163202.
Uy, M. A., & Foo, M.-D. (2010). Feeling, thinking, doing: Affective influences on goal
progress and entrepreneurial efforts. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 30(5),
Vaidyanathan, R., Vaidyanathan, V., & Wadhwa, V. (2019). Exploring entrepreneurs’
perceptions of venture capitalists’ added value. Journal of Macromarketing, 39(4),
van Gelderen, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial autonomy and its dynamics. Applied
Psychology, 65(3), 541567.
Vessal, S. R., Partouche-Sebban, J., Scuotto, V., & Maalaoui, A. (2021). Overcoming
stressful life events at do-it-yourself (DIY) laboratories. A new trailblazing career for
disadvantaged entrepreneurs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164,
Wach, D., Stephan, U., & Gorgievski, M. (2016). More than money: Developing an
integrative multi-factorial measure of entrepreneurial success. International Small
Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(8), 10981121.
Wagner, J. A., & Gooding, R. Z. (1997). Equivocal information and attribution: An
investigation of patterns of managerial sensemaking. Strategic Management Journal,
18(4), 275286.<275::AID-
*Wallis, A., & Dollard, M. F. (2008). Local and global factors in work stressthe
Australian dairy farming examplar. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and
Health, Supplement, 6, 66-74.
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. Guilford Press.
Warr, P., Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., & Inceoglu, I. 2014. Four-quadrant investigation of
job-related affects and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 23(3): 342363.
*Weber, K., Bradley, G. L., & Sparks, B. (2017). Stressor effects of negative online
reviews on anger and burnout in the restaurant industry. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(11), 2847-2866.
*Wei, X., Cang, S., & Hisrich, R. D. (2015). Entrepreneurial stressors as predictors of
entrepreneurial burnout. Psychological Reports, 116(1), 74-88.
Weick, K.E.(1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management
Studies, 25, 305317.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409421.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship-conceptual challenges and ways
forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165184.
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday
entrepreneurshipA call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial
diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311321.
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Reconceptualizing
entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business
Venturing, 25(4), 361-375.
*Werbel, J. D., & Danes, S. M. (2010). Work family conflict in new business ventures:
The moderating effects of spousal commitment to the new business venture. Journal
of Small Business Management, 48(3), 421-440.
Wiklund, J., Baker, T., & Shepherd, D. (2010). The age-effect of financial indicators as
buffers against the liability of newness. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4), 423
Wiklund, J, Davidsson, P., & Delmar, F. (2003). What Do They Think and Feel About
Growth? An Expectancy‐Value Approach to Small Business Managers’ Attitudes
Toward Growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 247-270.
Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B. N., Shir, N., Foo, M.-D., & Bradley, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship
and well-being: Past, present, and future. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(4), 579
Wiklund, J., Yu, W., & Patzelt, H. (2018). Impulsivity and entrepreneurial action.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(3), 379403.
Williams, T. A., Thorgren, S., & Lindh, I. (2020). Rising from failure, staying down, or
more of the same? an inductive study of entrepreneurial reentry. Academy of
Management Discoveries, 6(4), 631-662.
*Williamson, A. J., Battisti, M., Leatherbee, M., & Gish, J. J. (2019). Rest, zest, and my
innovative best: Sleep and mood as drivers of entrepreneurs’ innovative behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 582-610.
Williamson, A. J., Battisti, M., & Pollack, J. M. (2022). Capturing passion expressed in
text with artificial intelligence (AI): Affective passion waned, and identity centrality
was sustained in social ventures. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 17(July
2021), e00295.
Williamson, A. J., Drencheva, A., & Battisti, M. (in-press). Entrepreneurial
Disappointment: Let down and breaking down, a machine-learning study.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 104225872096444.
*Wincent, J., & Örtqvist, D. (2009). A comprehensive model of entrepreneur role stress
antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 225-243.
*Wincent, J., Örtqvist, D., & Drnovsek, M. (2008). The entrepreneur’s role stressors and
proclivity for a venture withdrawal. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(3),
*Yu, W. (2008). The psychological cost of market transition: mental health disparities in
reform-era. Social Problems, 55(3), 347-369.
Zahra, S. A., Yavuz, R. I., & Ucbasaran, D. (2006). How much do you trust me? The dark
side of relational trust in new business creation in established companies.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), 541559.
*Zampetakis, L. A., Lerakis, M., Kafetsios, K., & Moustakis, V. (2015). Investigating the
emotional impact of entrepreneurship programs. Journal of Business Venturing
Insights, 4, 38-41.
Zietsma, C., & Winn, M. I. (2008). Building chains and directing flows: Strategies and
tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Business & Society, 47(1), 68
Table and Figures
Table 1: Negative entrepreneurial affect per topic and methods employed
Topic theme
High activation
Low activation
Negative affect broadly
Total % by topics &
Table 2: Negative entrepreneurial affect constructs
Depressive Feelings
Emotional Exhaustion
Negative Affect
Emotional stress
Tension and anxiety
Table 3: Discrete negative emotions and their affective antecedents in entrepreneurship
Betrayal by
Conflict with VCs
Customer interactions
Negative customer
Physical health event
Uncertain income
Unethical behavior of
venture capitalists
Betrayal by
Customer interactions
Physical health event
Uncertain income
A lack or loss of
social support
Financial strains
and performance
Interactions with
state official
Perceived demand
Perceptions of
Potential loss of
business partner
Betrayal by
Conflict with VCs
Interactions with
state official
Perceptions of
Physical health
Uncertain income
Unethical behavior
of venture
Sadness and
Shame and guilt
Lack of time for
change (i.e.,
Optimistic outlook to
Exit transition
Perceptions of
Exit transition
Family support
Interactions with state
Optimistic outlook to
Figure 1: Visual framework synthesizing the review
Figure 2: Quantity of articles by year
Note: Visual representation of the articles by year of publication included in this review of
the antecedents of negative affect in entrepreneurship.
Overview of literature by topic and subthemes
Affective antecedent
Emotional outcome
Affective activation
State of self-driven antecedent
Poor sleep quality
Tension and anxiety
Coping approach employed
Negative affect
Low mindfulness behavior
Emotional exhaustion
Optimistic outlook to event
Disappointment, shame
Physical health event
Anger, anxiety, frustration
Emotional exhaustion
Perceived poor current fit to job
Emotional exhaustion
Occupation-driven antecedent
Job design
Depressive feelings, emotional stress
Uncertainty and ambiguity
Emotional exhaustion, negative affect
Job demands
Depressive feelings, emotional
exhaustion, negative affect
Work-life conflict
Family support requirements
Lack of time for leisure
Disappointment, negative affect
Personal/family income
Emotional stress
Uncertain income
Anger, anxiety, frustration, negative
Other-driven antecedent
Close ties
Affective experiences of close others
Emotional stress
High partner control
Depressive feelings
A lack or loss of social support
Depressive feelings, fear
Conflict with business partners
Emotional stress
Conflict with employees
Depressive feelings, emotional stress
Affective antecedent
Emotional outcome
Affective activation
Employee management responsibility
Emotional exhaustion, emotional
Potential loss of business partner
Institutional agents and intermediaries
Conflict with VCs
Anger, frustration
Behavior by VCs
Anger, frustration
Customer interactions
Anger, anxiety, frustration
Interactions with state officials
Fear, frustration, shame
Negative customer feedback
Depressive feelings, negative affect
Betrayal by associate/competitor
Anger, anxiety, frustration, negative
Judgement and marginalization
Perceptions of discrimination
Fear, frustration, sadness
Sexual orientation judgements
Emotional stress
Cultural and religious conflict
Fear of ridicule
Venture circumstances-driven
Market dynamics
Emotional exhaustion, negative affect
Market/environmental change (i.e.,
Depressive feelings, disappointment,
negative affect
Perceived demand
Fear, negative affect
Performance markers
Opportunity belief
Slow failure
Negative affect
Financial strains and performance
Depressive feelings, emotional
exhaustion, fear, emotional stress,
negative affect
Exit transition
Grief, sadness, negative affect
Grand Total
Pathways for entrepreneurs enhanced negative emotions in times of crisis
Relevant chronic affect-eliciting events
Crisis-related affect-eliciting event aggravation
(The COVID-19 pandemic is provided as the example)
Venture circumstances-
driven antecedent
Issues accessing equipment, tools or supplies (Kollmann,
Stöckmann, & Kensbock, 2019).
Enhanced issues accessing equipment, tools, and supplies (e.g., access to facemasks,
equipment for remote work, and supply of raw materials).
Difficulty attaining funding and financial resources.
Enhanced difficulty in attaining financial resources through normal channels, due to changes
in the available funding sources (Gauthier & Morelix, 2020), and pool of resources (Kaji,
Chalhoub, & Menard, 2020).
Ineligibility for government support (Kuckertz et al., 2020).
Market demand uncertainty.
Loss of contact with customers, closure of physical stores, a decrease of sales, and spoiling of
stock (e.g., a restaurant in a tourist location).
Recruitment issues.
Enhanced recruitment issues due to migration barriers (e.g., licensed medical staff, seasonal
migrant workers for agricultural work), or lack of cash flow (e.g., hiring freeze).
Uncertain nature of the external environment, such as
potential technological, regulatory, demographic, socio-
cultural, macroeconomic, political, and natural-
environmental changes that can impact entrepreneurial
activity (Davidsson, Recker, & von Briel, 2020).
Enhanced uncertainty and turbulence in external enablement. This is particularly heightened
during a crisis because of economic downturn, plus socio-cultural (consumer needs, the
supply of goods and services, the supply of capital; Inoue & Todo, 2020), and dynamic
regulatory shifts (business compliance requirements, safety protocols, governmental support,
and complexities of navigating new support initiatives).
Strategic pivots (e.g., revising activities, resources, and
attention to align with changing business environment;
Kirtley & O’Mahony, in-press).
Crises may precipitate the rapid restructuring of business models (Bacq, Geoghegan, Josefy,
Stevenson, & Williams, 2020).
Failure (e.g., discontinued ownership due to bankruptcy,
insolvency, or undesirable performance; Ucbasaran et al.,
Young ventures teeter precariously between viability and failure (Wiklund, Baker, &
Shepherd, 2010). Crises can tip the scales unfavorably for these ventures.
Relevant chronic affect-eliciting events
Crisis-related affect-eliciting event aggravation
(The COVID-19 pandemic is provided as the example)
Climatic impacts (e.g., diminishing resources to farm;
Galappaththi, Galappaththi, & Kodithuwakku, 2017).
Challenges related to reallocating resources and changing the business model, like the value
proposition (e.g., breweries moving into hand sanitizer), and business channels (e.g.,
establishing an online marketplace).
Compliance demands (e.g., tax) and policy changes
(Kallioniemi, Simola, Kaseva, & Kymäläinen, 2016).
Challenges complying with rapidly changing policy requirements (Chittenden, Kauser, &
Poutziouris, 2005).
Other-driven antecedent
Direct interactions with stakeholders (e.g., employees,
customers, suppliers; Lechat & Torrès, 2017)
Treatment from others (Kallioniemi et al., 2016).
Further strained interactions with stakeholders (e.g., slow delivery of goods, late payments to
suppliers) diminishing trust with stakeholders, impairing key business relationships (Taylor,
Agho, Stevens, & Raphael, 2008).
Prejudice is received by some groups of entrepreneurs who are viewed to be associated with
the contagion (e.g., Chinese individuals at the beginning of the pandemic; Tabri, Hollings, &
Wohl, 2020).
Responsibility for others (Wei, Cang, & Hisrich, 2015).
Increased strain concerning the responsibility for others. This may be particularly pronounced
in relation to staff (e.g., the need to furlough or fire employees; Bartik et al., 2020).
Tensions experienced between team and stakeholders (e.g.,
suppliers, intermediaries, community, beneficiaries).
Interruption of normal activities, such as ongoing negotiations with stakeholders and growth
plans (Kuckertz et al., 2020).
Team conflict issues.
Challenges associated with collaborating (Allan & Lawless, 2005) and operating in different
ways (e.g., performance issues associated with bereavement or childcare duties of team
The gap between the perceived demands of entrepreneurial
activity (e.g., workload, work pace, ambiguity, uncertainty,
and hassles) and an entrepreneur’s current knowledge, skills,
and abilities for responding to them.
This may be particularly salient when adapting to novel
experiences in entrepreneurship (e.g., giving a pitch, or
adjusting to a different culture; Tschirhart, Straiton,
Ottersen, & Winkler, 2019).
Shifts in the environment generate new demands requiring different knowledge, skills, and
abilities (e.g., leading team members from a distance, applying for emergency government
assistance, following new protocols, and acquiring new equipment for different ways of
Some demands may be intensified (e.g., ambiguity, information overload), particularly
because of normlessness (few guidelines on how to transition to a new way of life) and non-
volitional (events that are not wanted, but happen) nature of crises.
Relevant chronic affect-eliciting events
Crisis-related affect-eliciting event aggravation
(The COVID-19 pandemic is provided as the example)
Inter-role conflict (both within-domain conflicts and cross-
domain conflicts; Poggesi, Mari, & De Vita, 2019)
Intensified work-family conflict (Cesaroni, Pediconi, & Sentuti, 2018), e.g., when working
from home with young children.
Social-tie-related concern and anxiety, e.g., loss of income, safety.
Chronic loneliness (Fernet, Torrès, Austin, & St-Pierre,
Isolation from others during the crisis, issues accessing an established network, and the
erosion of social bonds during home confinement (Okruszek, Aniszewska-Stańczuk, Piejka,
Wiśniewska, & Żurek, 2020).
State of self-driven
Physical over-exertion.
Discomforts from changes in the physical workspace. For example, crowding, noise, and
Threats to the individual’s identity and future (e.g., fear of
failure, identity threat, “selling-oneself”; Grant & Ferris,
Enhanced fear and anxiety over the immediate future (e.g., infection safety concerns for self
and customers) financial strain, and an uncertain future, which is further intensified by
exogenous entrepreneurial uncertainty (Bhattacharjee & Jahanshah, 2020).
Illness-related events.
Crisis-related illness.
... The mixed results from prior studies, in part, may be due to unobserved factors relating to work-stress relationships (Lee et al., 2020). Indeed, while it is recognized that self-employment can generate significant negative emotions (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011;Williamson et al., 2022), not all negative emotions translate into burnout. The inability to understand the relationship between self-employment and stress outcomes compromises effective actions to enhance the resilience of the self-employed (Audretsch & Belitski, 2017 that face emotional strains. ...
... We set boundary conditions relating to the assumed implicit direct impact of emotional demands relating to the entrepreneurial context. Setting boundary conditions through moderator effects is required to clarify the mixed results in previous studies (Baron et al., 2013;Jamal, 1997Jamal, , 2007Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011;Tetrick et al., 2000;Williamson et al., 2022). ...
... In doing so, our study considered emotional demands outcomes into the perspective by shedding light on the coping resources that are available to entrepreneurs. Our findings align with some of those highlighted in previous studies that have focused on the determinants of negative emotions relating to the entrepreneurial context (Lechat & Torrès, 2017;Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011;Williamson et al., 2022). We took a step further and shifted our attention from antecedents to outcomes, hence emphasizing the long-term effects of entrepreneurial emotions on mental health. ...
Full-text available
Plain English Summary Leveraging Autonomy as a Stress-Coping Resource for Entrepreneurial Well-Being. External environmental disruptive events have promoted an urgent need for a better understanding of the factors associated with entrepreneurial burnout. We explored whether entrepreneur autonomy is a liability or a coping strategy. Insights from the conservation of resources and psychology theories were used to explore burnout reported by entrepreneurs in France. Entrepreneur emotional demands (i.e., strains) increased the risk of burnout. This risk was reduced when entrepreneurs had autonomy and job satisfaction resources. While the autonomy resource enabled the buffering of emotional strains that increase burnout, this was not the case with regard to the job satisfaction resource. Entrepreneurs need to obtain and maintain autonomy over time, which enables them to recuperate from emotional strains. Practitioners can play a role in encouraging entrepreneurs to be aware of the need to accumulate autonomy and job satisfaction resources, and the need to invest in coping strategies to reduce the risk of burnout.
... Third, our study applies JDR theory to the entrepreneurship domain (Hartmann et al., 2022;Lee et al., 2020) as a new theoretical lens to explain why resourceful behaviors can help entrepreneurs face high entrepreneurial demands. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of differences in personal resources, specifically entrepreneurial experience in entrepreneur well-being, thereby contributing to scarce research on the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs' coping responses and well-being (Lauto et al., 2020;Williamson et al., 2022). ...
... Prior research in entrepreneurship suggests that entrepreneurs differ regarding their resource use for coping with demands and their responses to stressors (Williamson et al., 2022). Our study extends this literature by providing important implications for the effectiveness of resourceful behavior among experienced versus novice entrepreneurs (Furlotti et al., 2019;Schjoedt, 2020). ...
... Neck et al. (2013) suggest that these entrepreneurial resources may lead to more focused engagement in tasks that enable entrepreneurial venture creation and growth. In turn, feeling well-equipped for the entrepreneurial role can buffer the negative effects of the enormous entrepreneurial demands (Williamson et al., 2022). Thus, it can mitigate an entrepreneur's exhaustion (de Mol et al., 2018) and ultimately lead to a feeling of satisfaction with being an entrepreneur (McDowell et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
When creating and scaling an entrepreneurial venture, founders often face high entrepreneurial demands, straining their well-being. Drawing on job demands-resources theory, we propose that entrepreneurs can apply bricolage as a promising resourceful behavior to face such demands to achieve work–life balance and, in turn, increase their job satisfaction. Moreover, we introduce entrepreneurial experience as a moderator influencing these relationships. Data from 675 founders of German entrepreneurial ventures indicate that bricolage positively impacts job satisfaction for both experienced and novice entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the mediating effect of work–life balance between bricolage and job satisfaction was only significant for experienced entrepreneurs, who can deploy this mechanism to further increase their job satisfaction. We confirmed the robustness of our results with additional data from 283 self-employed individuals from the U.S. This paper contributes to our understanding of the consequences and effectiveness of bricolage on entrepreneur well-being.
... Emotions are recognized as playing a significant role in the entrepreneurial process (Cardon et al., 2012;de Cock et al., 2020;Jennings et al., 2015;Williamson et al., 2022). Most entrepreneurship research in this area has focused, for example, on the relationship between psychological entities (such as joy, passion, compassion, empathy, grief, and envy) and cognitive processes and actions in the entrepreneurial context (Bacq & Alt, 2018;Cardon et al., 2005Cardon et al., , 2009Goss et al., 2011;Miller et al., 2012). ...
Full-text available
While resourcing their ventures, entrepreneurs and stakeholders face and deal with unexpected situations, permeating the entrepreneurship process. Drawing on an entrepreneurship as practice approach, we explore how an entrepreneurial resourcing practice is collectively enacted, reconfigured, and repaired after a sudden practice collapse. Through a longitudinal case study of a social venture–public collaboration process, we reveal the collective repair work of a collapsing entrepreneurial resourcing practice and the role of emotions as a hidden element in the resourcing practice and the repair work enacted.
Purpose High-tech start-up creation is associated with complex challenges originating from quick transformations in technologies and markets. To raise start-up survival and success chances, founders need to ensure a rapid conversion of a venture idea into a working business. This paper aims to explore how identity-related characteristics of founders influence the speed of the start-up creation process. Design/methodology/approach For this study, a longitudinal multiple-case-study design was selected to identify a vivid flow of decisions and actions taken by high-tech start-ups for analysis in depth. Over 20 months, a series of interviews were organized with founders of six start-ups located in the same business incubator in Russia. Also, a set of additional data sources was engaged, including publicly available data and internal documents provided by businesses. Findings The findings reveal contrasting dynamics of start-up creation processes among founders with differing role identities. Identity fit and identity misfit are suggested to be serious pull and push factors in the process of organizational becoming through the impact they have on the situational regulatory focus of founders. Originality/value The current research contributes to the entrepreneurship stream of research by extending the knowledge of how cognition affects the process of new venture creation.
Full-text available
Entrepreneurial passion can influence individual well-being and improve firm-level outcomes, yet little is known about how to rapidly detect a change in passion from entrepreneurs' communication. We draw on advancements in both the passion literature and artificial intelligence (AI) methods, to capture entrepreneurial passion expressed for founding a venture at different points in time. Specifically, we developed an AI algorithm to recognize identity-based passion (identity centrality) from training data, comprised of eight hours of transcribed interviews with entrepreneurs (achieving 84% accuracy), and detect affective passion (intense positive feelings) with sentiment analysis. Application of these two novel measurement approaches, to longitudinal interview text with early-stage entrepreneurs (N=11, two time periods) in a six-month social venture accelerator, indicate that intense positive feelings decline while identity centrality varies. We conclude by outlining opportunities for future research.
Full-text available
Social enterprises combine activities, processes, structures, and meanings associated with multiple institutional logics that may pose conflicting goals, norms, values, and practices. This in-depth multi-source case study of an ecological social enterprise in Malaysia reveals how the enactment of the family logic interacts with the market and ecological logics not only in conflicting but also in synergetic ways. By drawing attention to the institutional logic of the family in social entrepreneurship, this study highlights the heterogeneity of social enterprises. The findings have implications for research with social enterprises and family-owned firms in relation to the ethical obligations of these organizations and the interactions of multiple logics.
Full-text available
This study advances understanding of interpersonal feedback seeking as a relational micro-foundational process whereby social entrepreneurs proactively involve others in venturing and engage in sensemaking when this fails. Our inductive analysis of 82 interviews with 36 social entrepreneurs reveals the agency in and the plurality and precariousness of feedback seeking by identifying three distinct feedback-seeking trajectories. Feedback seeking is an identity-driven process whereby how and why social entrepreneurs seek feedback depends on their psychological closeness to the targeted social issue. Our study elucidates the relationship between identity and feedback processes and uncovers psychological distance from the social issue as a new construct in social venturing.
Full-text available
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led governments worldwide to implement unprecedented response strategies. While crucial to limiting the spread of the virus, “social distancing” may lead to severe psychological consequences, especially in lonely individuals. Methods We used cross-sectional ( n = 380) and longitudinal ( n = 74) designs to investigate the links between loneliness, anxiety, and depression symptoms (ADS) and COVID-19 risk perception and affective response in young adults who implemented social distancing during the first 2 weeks of the state of epidemic threat in Poland. Results Loneliness was correlated with ADS and with affective response to COVID-19’s threat to health. However, increased worry about the social isolation and heightened risk perception for financial problems was observed in lonelier individuals. The cross-lagged influence of the initial affective response to COVID-19 on subsequent levels of loneliness was also found. Conclusion The reciprocal connections between loneliness and COVID-19 response may be of crucial importance for ADS during the COVID-19 crisis.
Full-text available
Despite its importance, our understanding of what entrepreneurial disappointment is, its attributions, and how it relates to depression is limited. Drawing on a corpus of 27,906 semi- anonymous online posts, we identified entrepreneurial disappointment, inductively uncovered its attributions and examined how depression differs between attributions. We found that posts with internal, stable, and global disappointment attributions (e.g., not fitting entrepreneurial norms) are, on average, higher in depression symptoms than posts with external, unstable, and specific disappointment attributions (e.g., firm performance). Our findings offer novel theoretical and methodological avenues for future research on entrepreneurs’ affective experiences and mental health.
Full-text available
In response to societal grand challenges, professors have unique opportunities to be changemakers, repurposing their expertise to deploy relevant, timely, practical, and research-backed knowledge for the betterment of communities. Drawing on scholarship on post-crisis organizing, entrepreneurial hustle and social entrepreneurship, we provide a first-hand, real-time case description of a three-day Virtual Idea Blitz organized in response to the COVID-19 crisis. The event was organized and executed in less than a week and ultimately involved 200 individuals including entrepreneurs, coders, medical doctors, venture capitalists, industry professionals, students and professors from around the world. By the end of the weekend, 21 ideas with corresponding pitches were developed in five thematic areas (health needs, education, small businesses, community, and purchasing). We describe how the community was rapidly rallied, and discuss the key learning outcomes of this spontaneous entrepreneurial endeavor. We provide evidence from participants and mentors that showcase the value of the time-compressed Virtual Idea Blitz in accelerating social entrepreneurial action. We offer practical guidance to academic, community and professional institutions who would like to replicate and/or build upon our approach to stimulate the formation of community and coordinating efforts to thwart the ongoing threat of COVID-19, as well as other societal challenges that might emerge in the future.
Full-text available
Research summary: The discovery of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the spread of COVID-19 have led many governments to take drastic measures. The lockdown of large parts of society and economic life has come as an exogenous shock to many economic actors, not least innovative startups. This rapid response research combines a qualitative research design informed by entrepreneurial ecosystem actors with an analysis of policy measures called for, announced, and reportedly implemented in the international press. Interviews from an entrepreneurial ecosystem offer a first-hand account of the adversity startups face during a crisis and how by utilizing bricolage responses they cope, and the analysis of policy measures can serve as an inspiration to design support initiatives to protect startups from the consequences of the current lockdown and to alleviate the effects of future crises. Managerial summary: The lockdown measures as a response to the spread of the new corona-virus threaten the existence of many innovative startups. Our rapid response research first illustrates the challenges entrepreneurs face as a consequence of the crisis. Second, we illustrate how entrepreneurs are dealing with the effects of the crisis and what they are doing to protect their ventures. Finally, we present measures that could be utilized by policymakers to assist entrepreneurs facing challenges. The research conducted suggests that while startups are suc-cessfully leveraging their available resources as a first response to the crisis, their growth and innovation potential are at risk. Therefore, policy measures should not only provide first aid to startups by alleviating the pressure caused by constrained cashflow, but also involve long-term measures embedded in and supported by the wider entrepreneurial ecosystem to ensure rapid recovery and growth.
Full-text available
Scholars have long debated how rigor can be achieved in qualitative analysis. To answer this question, we need to better understand how theory is generated from data. Qualitative analysis is, at its core, a categorization process. Nevertheless, despite a surge of interest in categorization within the social sciences, insights from categorization theory have not yet been applied to our understanding of qualitative analysis. Drawing from categorization theory, we argue that the movement from data to theory is an active process in which researchers choose between multiple moves that help them to make sense of their data. In addition, we develop a framework of the main moves that people use when they categorize data and demonstrate that evidence of these moves can also be found in past qualitative scholarship. Our framework emphasizes that if we are not sufficiently reflexive and explicit about the active analytical processes that generate theoretical insights, we cannot be transparent and, thus, rigorous about how we analyze data. We discuss the implications of our framework for increasing rigor in qualitative analysis, for actively constructing categories from data, and for spurring more methodological plurality within qualitative theory building.
Do it yourself (DIY) laboratories are the new experimental open source spaces where nascent entrepreneurs (or DIYers) get together to develop entrepreneurial ideas. Although these labs were originally established by scientists and biologists, they now include civil society, creating a mix and match between experts and non-experts. This group also includes another category of nascent entrepreneurs known as disadvantaged DIYers (DDIYers) who are making the most of these spaces. DDIYers encompass a different range of people such as immigrants, women, and the disabled. The latter calls for a new wave of research focused on DDIYers who are affected by chronic disease; these people motivated the present study that examined a sample of 27 DDIYers who created their own business after being diagnosed with cancer. The following will investigate their motivations. It will be seen that DDIYers are driven by external motivations oriented towards the desire to fulfill unmet needs; existential motivations oriented towards finding meaning in and control over one's life; as well as the aim of having an ideal profession and sharing a common project. With this in mind, policymakers and research institutions are encouraged to facilitate the establishment of DIY labs and the sharing of resources and knowledge.