Title: Self, agency, and the social psychology of entrepreneurship
1Self, agency, and the social psychology of
entrepreneurship
- Kari Mikko Vesala
- University of Helsinki
2Background
- Social psychology of entrepreneurship A
research team at the Department of Social Studies
(University of Helsinki) - Aim of the team to analyse entrepreneurship as a
psychological, social and cultural phenomenon
from an agency and self perspective - Existing outlines of social psychology of
entrepreneurship are not satisfactory for our
purposes
3Introduction
- Main points of the lecture
- -previously proposed cognitive approach can be
complemented with a social construction approach - -self-related beliefs can be viewed as part of
social construction of entrepreneurship - -both qualitative and quantitative methods can
be utilised in such approach
4Self, agency, and the social psychology of
entrepreneurship
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Outlines of the social psychology of
entrepreneurship - 3. Social construction approach in the
entrepreneurship research contributions and
challenges to social psychology of
entrepreneurship? - 4. The construction of personal control in the
rhetoric of farmers involved in business
diversification - 5. Personal control beliefs among rural small
business owners and farmers - 6. Conclusions
51. Outlines of the social psychology of
entrepreneurship
- Shaver 2003 The Social Psychology of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour - Differentiates s.p. from personality approaches
(which assume traits as permanent
cross-situational dispositions) - Intrapersonal processes that guide the
entrepreneurs venture-organizing activities
(business start-up and persistence in it)
social cognition, attitudes, self (e.g.
attributions of success, overconfidence,
self-efficacy) - Variable approach explains overt behaviour by
(internal) cognitive factors rejects qualitative
methods
61. Outlines of the social psychology of
entrepreneurship
- Carsrud Johnson (1989) Entrepreneurship A
social psychological perspective. - Entrepreneurship as a role pursuit of business
opportunities that takes place in a context of
social networks and transaction relations. - -gt emphasis on the means and processes of social
influence viewed as interpersonal behaviour and
communication (contact creation, impression
management etc.) - No explicit stand on the methods
71. Outlines of the social psychology of
entrepreneurship Conclusion
- Shaver focuses on intrapsychic (cognitive)
factors that presumably contribute to business
start-up behavior and persistence in it. Such
cognitions are approached as separate antecedent
entities that affect business behavior - C J elaborate on the description of
entrepreneurial behaviour it is viewed as a
role/a set of behaviours (a process of pursuing
business opportunities in a social context).
Thus, it involves, for example, influencing other
actors or gaining resources, as well as taking a
role of an entrepreneur ( adapting
entrepreneurial self-definition or identity).
- -gt In both outlines, there are conceptual
associations with the self (self-efficacy and
self-evaluation in Shaver, role in C J). (e.g.
Baumeister Self concept involves reflective,
relational and agentic aspects). -
82. Social construction approach in the
entrepreneurship research contributions and
challenges to social psychology of
entrepreneurship?
- During the latest decade, several researchers
have utilised social constructionist approach in
the study of entrepreneurship - They draw not only on sociologist such as Berger
and Luckman, or Giddens, but on social
psychologist like Harre, Gergen, or Potter
Wetherell, narratologists like Bruner or
Polkinghorne, not to mention dramaturgical
approach of Goffman. - Topics construction of business opportunities
(Chiasson Saunders Jack Anderson Fletcher)
entrepreneurial personality (Chell) entrepreneur
identity (Watson, Down Warren, Downing )
entrepreneurial learning (incl.self-beliefs) (Rae
Carswell) - One background for the research on the
construction of entrepreneurial self Debate on
the creation of enterprising self as a target of
public policies (enterprise culture programs)
92. Social construction approach in the
entrepreneurship research contributions and
challenges to social psychology of
entrepreneurship?
- Individual seen as intentional creature who takes
action, learns, and makes sense, and thus creates
and exploits business opportunites and construct
him/herself as an entrepeneur while engaged in
social interaction that is embedded in social
contexts and situations - In doing this, individual uses socially shared
tools for thought and communication (language
etc.), which include criteria for
entrepreneurship (entrepreneurship discourses,
representations of E etc.), and participates in
controversies and negotiations in transaction
relations.
102. Social construction approach in the
entrepreneurship research contributions and
challenges to social psychology of
entrepreneurship?
- Such a construction is obviously complicated and
multifaceted. Situational and contextual variety
is expected in the nature of the process and
contents of the construct. Therefore, thick
qualitative analysis are favoured. - Methodological focus on the analysis of
communication and use of language narratives,
discourses, metaphors, rhetoric,
self-presentations (case-studies)
112. Social construction approach Conclusion
- Entrepreneurship is understood as a social
construction - -of business opportunity (recognition and
realisation) - -of entrepreneurial self.
- Thus, the self is again at the focus (now esp.
identity, agency), but the interest is now in the
construction of self - At the core of the multi-disciplinary study on
entrepreneurship there is an idea of special
agency Entrepreneur is an actor who makes it
happen - For social psychology, this suggests that
concepts associated with the agentic aspect of
the self, such as self-efficacy, are of special
relevance - Such concepts can be approached also from a
social construction perspective -
-
124. The construction of personal control in the
rhetoric of farmers involved in business
diversification
- Control constructs (Skinner 1995) locus of
control, self-efficacy, perceived behavioural
control -gt personal control - P.C. as a criterion and a resource for the
construction of entrepreneurial self (identity,
agency) - Vesala Peura 2005 how farm business owners
present themselves in terms of personal control
in the market arena?
134. The construction of personal control in the
rhetoric of farmers involved in business
diversification
- 40 interviews with farmers engaged in diversified
business activities - 10 statements concerning customer and marketing
related means for enhancing the business (e.g.
Salesmanship is crucial for success in
business, It is difficult to work things out
with my clients by talking) - Free comments were requested further accounts
and justifications were encouraged - Stands and justifications were analysed in
detail the overall rhetoric was interpreted from
the perspective of self-presention regarding
personal control in the market arena - The connection between self-presentations and the
customer structure of each case was checked and
the cases were compared to each other
14Case1 Paavo (machine contracting)
- Paavo owns a crop farm, but earns over a half of
his living by working under contract for a large
Europe-wide forest industry group. Paavos
machinery is capable of doing all the different
procedures from thinning to felling of timber. He
owns his firm with his wife and they have one
employee. The limited company was started 10
years ago, but Paavo has been engaged in forest
industry even longer. - The interview was conducted with Paavo.
15Case 2 Mika (tourism)
- Mika and his wife have been in the rural tourism
business for 10 years. They have a small farm (7
hectares) on which they practice berry and apple
production and processing. The income from
agriculture has not been sufficient and the
tourism business has become more and more
important for them. They have four cottages to
rent, and additional two apartments under
construction. The customers come mostly from
Southern Finland but also from Central Europe.
Many of them come on regular basis. The interview
was conducted with Mika.
16Case1 Paavo (machine contracting)
- Statement 1 It is worthwhile to invest in
advertising. As an immediate response to this
statement, Paavo agrees on a general level.
However, thereafter he denies clearly the
usefulness of advertising in his own business. He
justifies his stand by saying that his firm has
got one key customer, and that the private forest
owners do business with this key customer (the
Company). He gets his contracts through the
Company, and therefore in his case
advertising is totally useless.
17Case 2 Mika (tourism)
- Statement 1 It is worthwhile to invest in
advertising. Mika starts to comment the statement
with a reservation that it is possible to invest
in advertising any amount of money, and thats
the purpose of advertising agencies. After that,
he takes a tentative stand for the statement,
referring particularly to his own business
industry In the tourism industry you have to be
visible, to some extent, every once in a while.
In his argumentation Mika specifies different
forms of advertising and deliberates the pros and
cons of them. He mentions a short ad in a
nationwide newspaper, contact information in
nationwide tourist guides, and the firms own
website as such forms of advertising that he has
found worthwhile and profitable in his own
business. He justifies his comments plausibly
with his own experience. He also stresses the
importance of timing and the fact that
advertising must be done in several languages.
All in all, in spite of the reservations, he
agrees that advertising is, to a certain extent,
profitable for him.
18Case1 Paavo (machine contracting)
- Statement 6 It is difficult to work things out
with my clients by talking. For Paavo, it is easy
to agree with this statement. His immediate
response goes as follows - 1 Paavo This is exactly how it is.
- 2 Interviewer So this fits.
- 3 Paavo It is right then (well), it is
exactly, you couldnt say it any better. - 4 Interviewer ((laughs))
- 5 Paavo They are in the dominating market
position and, well they have 6 control over
how much money you get from these ( ). When you
cant - 7 really influence those just like those
rates, you cant influence them in - 8 any way, you just have to listen.
- ---
- 12 Paavo There is no, there is really no, yes
these gentlemen well, they call it negotiation
but it is, - 13 I think it is entirely a matter of
dictation.
19Case1 Paavo (machine contracting)
- Excerpt shows that Paavo takes a clear stand for
the statement. He justifies his view also quite
credibly. His client is in the dominating market
position the representatives of the Company name
the prices, and there is no way Paavo can affect
the tariffs. According to Paavo, in the
negotiations with the client the role of the
contractors is to listen, and accept the
decisions made. In the end the interviewer asked
if there are any issues open to debate with this
client. Paavo mentions some examples, but
stresses that they are only minor issues in his
business.
20Case 2 Mika (tourism)
- Statement 6 It is difficult to work things out
with my clients by talking. Mika absolutely
disagrees with the sixth statement. He justifies
his stand by giving examples of managing negative
feedback, which he in his own words rarely
receives. He claims that it is a fundamental
thing to work things out by talking, and
emphasises the need to be flexible enough in
order to prevent small problems becoming bigger
ones. - In his further commenting he gives two examples
of unsatisfied customers, who have tried to get
some of their money back afterwards. Both
incidents happened when the marketing company,
The Agency, was the intermediate reseller for
him, and both unsatisfied customers directed
their feedback and claims to the intermediate,
not directly to our interviewee. Mika continues,
that there have been no such difficulties after
he has done the business directly with the end
users, without the intermediate organization. In
other words, Mika views it quite beneficial that
he has been able to establish a direct channel to
sell his services to the end users.
21Case1 Paavo (machine contracting)
- Taken together, Paavo presents himself in his
argumentation as an actor who does not have much
personal control over his success, at least in
terms of marketing and customer related means. He
has no use for advertising and no need for
salesmanship, he has not been able to
differentiate his service, and renewing the
business is difficult due to financial issues. A
close customer relationship could be beneficial,
but he does not mention of having any. He is not
able to negotiate with his client and for him it
is not possible to be selective with his
customers or contracts. He is actually able to
mention only one thing, with which to affect the
customer. That is the quality and
cost-effectiveness of his production work.
22Case 2 Mika (tourism)
- In all, Mika has lots of rhetorical resources to
make a presentation of an entrepreneur who has
personal control in the market arena. He argues
for the usefulness of the various means of
control that are mentioned in the statements, and
he is able to justify his comments by referring
to his own experiences and practices, and giving
illustrative examples, too. He also considers the
limitations of the different means and tells how
he has learned to use them in the course of time.
- Mika refers to vertical relations in his
argumentation. Even though disconnected from the
marketing agency, he mentions it in many
occasions and emphasises that he keeps avoiding
the situation in which he would be dependent on
the marketing agency or on too few customers.
234. The construction of personal control in the
rhetoric of farmers involved in business
diversification conclusion
- Clear differences in self-presentations (The
other 38 cases fell somewhere in between these
two extreme cases extra variety in rhetoric ) - Self-presentations were actively constructed by
the interviewees - Construction was constrained/enabled by the
availability of rhetorical resources provided by
the perceptions and experiences of own activities
and position in relation with customers - Personal control in the market arena appears as a
socially constructed belief, which is embedded in
the immediate social transaction context
245. Personal control beliefs among rural small
business owners and farmers
- Follow-up of Vesala Peura 2003
- A postal questionnaire survey 2006
- Total sample 1093 (response rate 30)
Conventional farmers (n 235), farmers with
business diversification (n663), non-farm rural
small business owners (n195) - General purpose to compare the level of
entrepreneurship in these groups on several
dimensions - Aim of this presentation to show quantitative
differences in personal control belief between
these groups and point out the special relevance
of personal control in the study of
entrepreneurial self and agency
255. Personal control beliefs among rural small
business owners and farmers
- The items used in the measurement of personal
control - To a great extent I can personally control the
success of my firm, - My personal chances to influence the
successfulness of my business are practically
rather low (inverted), - I am able to affect the success of my firm
through decisions concerning products and through
production, - I am able to affect the success of my firm
through marketing and customer connections. - (Cronbach alfa for the sum variable .77)
26Figure 1. Experience of personal control among
the sample groups in year 2006. The proportion
of respondents who partly or strongly agree with
the statements
27Table 1. Correlations (Spearman) between personal
control and some other variables
Variable Correlation
age -.03
sex -.04
education .07
revenue year 2006 .16
non-family employees .26
competitiveness .39
profitability .19
customer activeness .39
28Table 2. Best predictors of personal control
experience. Linear regression analysis
Dependent variable Predictors Beta-value std. Beta t-value
Personal control
Customer activeness .32 .30 8.71
Competitiveness .36 .26 7.26
Profitability .09 .09 2.73
Model R Square.25 adjusted R Square.24
29Figure 2. Competitiveness and profitability among
three sample groups. Proportionate distributions.
30Figure 3. Customer relationships and non-family
employees among three sample groups.
Proportionate distributions.
315. Personal control beliefs among rural small
business owners and farmers conclusion
- Results from 2006 conform to results from 2001
- Personal control in business significant (.001)
differences between the three groups - Differences in personal control beliefs were
connected to differences in business (esp.
competitiveness customer activeness) - These results are understandable in the light of
the qualitative analysis of the construction of
personal control belief in the self-presentations
of diversified farmers - These results are statistical generalizations
based on the responses by farmers and small
business owners. They do not falsify the
interpretation of personal control beliefs as
social constructions. However, they do not
uncover the active role of the individual in the
construction process, nor do they uncover the
variety and richness of details at the level of
individual cases
325. Personal control beliefs among rural small
business owners and farmers afterword
- Entrepreneurial self and agency should be
understood as a multi-dimensional construct - e.g. the differences between the three group vary
on different dimensions
33(No Transcript)
34Entrepreneur identity
F28.3, plt.001 Pairwise comparison Conventional
farmers weaker than other groups, no significant
difference between the other two groups.
35Correlations between entrepreneur identity,
personal control, self-efficacy, innovativeness,
risk-taking, growth orientation and conservatism.
Entr. Identity Risk Inno Growth Conserv. Self-efficacy
Risk .197
Inno .262 .460
Growth .260 .273 .425
Conserv. -.351 -.557 -.408 -.429
Self-efficacy .428 .326 .331 .388 -.374
Personal control .400 .139 .442 .276 -.358 .556
All correlations plt.001
366. Final conclusions I
- It seems possible and worthwhile to complement
the previously proposed cognitive approach in the
social psychology of entrepreneurship with a
social construction approach that analyses the
formation of entrepreneurial self in different
contexts - -the typical research questions differ (e.g.
what intrapsychic factor contributes to business
start-up behavior, how do business owners
construct their identity). - -therefore, the choice of approach must depend,
of course, on the particular contexts under
study, and the particular research interests -
376. Final conclusions II
- Self and agency related concepts (such as the
control constructs) can be utilised also in the
social construction approach, not only in the
cognitive approach - -theoretical (ontological) assumptions connected
to these concepts must be discussed, however.
(Cognitive) constructivism is a relevant issue
here. -
386. Final conclusions III
- Both qualitative and quantitative methods can be
utilised in social construction approach - -although qualitative methods suit particularly
for uncovering the active role of the individual
as well the variation and detailed nature of the
construction processes, while quantitative suits
for searching generalizations on the base of
already constructed variables
39(No Transcript)
40Introduction
- Research on entrepreneurship is
multidisciplinary economics, management studies,
psychology, sociology - Distinction between small business ownership and
entrepreneurship (Carland et al 1983) - - dynamic process start-up, growth, major
change of the venture - - generic orientation or mode of action
innovation, risk-taking, pro-activeness, pursuit
of opportunities (not only within small
business!) -
412. Social construction approach Conclusion
- Social construction of entrepreneurial self?
(comp. Baumeister) - -Reflection Individual reflects upon her action
and agency, on her relations with others, (e.g.
identity, self-efficacy) - -Relation individual must relate to others and
to the fact that others perceive and define her
(e.g. self-presentation, transaction) - -Agency Individual regulates and governs
herself, attempts to influence and control her
situation and environment (e.g. utilising
contacts and networks, managing impressions)
42Case2 Paavo (machine contracting)
- Paavo does not make a self-presentation of an
entrepreneur with personal control. Our
interpretation is that there would not be much
rhetorical resources available for him to do so.
Additional grounds for this interpretation can be
found in Paavos commenting during the third
statement - 25 Paavo It is a little like, difficult
because this is goddamn difficult to - 26 interview, this forest machinery business
well, these questions dont kind - 27 of dont apply. Its fucking difficult to
answer them. - Â
- Paavo grows inpatient with the statements and
expresses his feelings by cursing. This kind of
meta-level comment gives additional support to
our interpretation, that for Paavo the rhetorical
resources based in his own practical experience
are lacking. Even though Paavo is able to view
the usefulness of the different means on a
general level (statements 1, 2, and 5), he is
unable to do that is his own case and unable to
draw examples from his own business activity.
Anyhow, it became evident from his comments that
he wished he had more personal control.
43Case21 Paavo (machine contracting)
- All in all, based on his argumentation on the
market-related personal control, Paavo fails to
construct himself an entrepreneurial identity.
And as a matter of a fact, right after the
tape-recorded interview, Paavo doubted explicitly
whether he should be regarded as an entrepreneur
at all because in his business he is lacking the
space to pursue and control his success. Mika, on
the contrary, gave the impression that he
considers himself to be an entrepreneur (see
excerpt 3) - The difficulty in constructing entrepreneurial
identity in the case of Paavo seems to be related
to the vertical position, in which there is only
one buyer, and the relation between the farmer
and the buyer is asymmetrical and hierarchical,
the latter being a large company and the former
running a small business.