entrepreneurship and spirituality: a comparative analysis of entrepreneurs’ motivation

This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]On: 12 August 2013, At: 05:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Small Business &EntrepreneurshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsbe20

Entrepreneurship and Spirituality:A Comparative Analysis ofEntrepreneurs’ MotivationSandra King Kauanui a , Kevin D. Thomas b , Arthur Rubens a &Cynthia L. Sherman ca Lutgert College of Business, Florida Gulf Coast Universityb College of Communication, University of Texas at Austinc School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, ClaremontGraduate UniversityPublished online: 19 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Sandra King Kauanui , Kevin D. Thomas , Arthur Rubens & CynthiaL. Sherman (2010) Entrepreneurship and Spirituality: A Comparative Analysis ofEntrepreneurs’ Motivation, Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23:4, 621-635, DOI:10.1080/08276331.2010.10593505

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2010.10593505

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsbe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08276331.2010.10593505

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2010.10593505

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 23, no. 4 (2010): pp. 621-635 621

Entrepreneurship and Spirituality: A Comparative Analysis of Entrepreneurs’ Motivation

Sandra King Kauanui, Lutgert College of Business, Florida Gulf Coast University

Kevin D. Thomas, College of Communication, University of Texas at Austin

Arthur Rubens, Lutgert College of Business, Florida Gulf Coast University

Cynthia L. Sherman, School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University

ABSTRACT. This article discusses a research study conducted to explore the relationship between entrepreneurs’ values, definitions of success, economic stability, demographic characteristics, and their joy at work through three stated hypotheses. For the study, we used a convenience sample of 280 entrepreneurs who responded to a 17-question survey. Utilizing the respondents’ definition of success, we found two different groups of entrepreneurs: one that was labeled ‘Cash is King’—defining success in relation to financial goals—and another that was labeled ‘Make me Whole’—defining success in relation to their own (Jungian) individuation process. The results of the study showed significant differences between the groups based on their values, behaviors and their experiences of joy at work. However, we found no significant differences between the groups relating to various demographic variables. In addition, there was no difference between the groups based on their economic stability, even though the ‘Cash is King’ group was more financially motivated than the ‘Make me Whole’ group. The study supports previous research in the field of “spirituality and work” and introduces a new model for the entrepreneurship field. The article concludes with implications for future studies to provide a better understanding of the behaviors and values of entrepreneurs based on their definition of success.

RéSUMé. L’article présent rapporte les résultats d’une étude menée afin d’examiner par l’entremise de trois hypothèses les liens existants entre les valeurs des entrepreneurs, leur définition de la réussite, leur stabilité économique, leurs caractéristiques démographiques, et leur joie au travail. Aux fins de cette étude, un sondage comprenant 17 questions fut mené après d’un échantillon de convenance de 280 entrepreneurs. En se basant sur la réponse des entrepreneurs quant à leur définition de la réussite, ceux-ci furent séparés en deux groupes : le premier nommé « l’argent est roi (Cash is King) » inclut les répondants définissant la réussite en terme d’objectifs financiers et le second nommé « être comblé (Make Me Whole) » inclut ceux qui la définissent relativement à leur processus d’individuation (Jung). Les résultats de l’étude indiquent qu’il y a des différences significatives entre les deux groupes quant à leurs valeurs, leurs comportements et leurs expériences de joie au travail. Par contre, il n’y a aucune différence significative en ce qui a trait à leurs caractéristiques démographiques. De plus, les résultats ne révèlent aucune différence significative quant à leur stabilité économique bien que le groupe pour qui l’argent est roi soit plus motivé par l’argent que le second groupe. L’étude appuie les recherches antérieures dans le domaine de « la spiritualité et du travail » et introduit un modèle pour le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat. L’article conclut avec des conséquences pour les études futures qui doivent amener une meilleure compréhension des comportements et des valeurs des entrepreneurs basés sur leur définition de la réussite.

Introduction

Although there is much literature on the mindset and motivational factors of the entrepreneur, traditional entrepreneurship literature has typically not explored how the integration of spirituality might drive the behaviors of entrepreneurs. Historically, much of the research to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3

622 KAUANUI, THOMAS, RUBENS, and SHERMAN

understand why individuals become entrepreneurs has centered on secular considerations, leaving many unanswered questions.

In a recent special topic forum in The Academy of Management Review, Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen (2009) suggest that for some entrepreneurs, wealth is not their primary motivation. They posit that there are many entrepreneurs who give up financially successful jobs to become entrepreneurs in order to make a difference or create change for the betterment of society. They further suggest that much of the existing research has narrowed in on wealth creation as the entrepreneur’s predominant motivation. In Success Built to Last, Porras, Emery, and Thompson (2007) were interested in whether there was a relationship between leaders, many of which were entrepreneurs, and their motivational factors by exploring their definition of success. Through their research, they found little relationship between wealth, fame, and power and the respondents’ definition of success, lending credence for rethinking the current definition of success. Their research indicated that financial prosperity and recognition were only byproducts of meaningful work; they were “outcomes of passionately working often on an entirely different objective that is often a personal cause or calling” (Porras, Emery, and Thompson, 2007: 20).

Over the last five years, several of the authors of this paper have conducted extensive research on workplace spirituality and its impact on entrepreneurs and their motivation. The authors believe that examining entrepreneurial motivation through the lens of workplace spirituality can provide another perspective to ascertain a deeper understanding of the factors that motivate entrepreneurs (Kauanui et al., 2008a; King-Kauanui, Thomas, and Waters, 2005).

Kauanui et al. (2008a) found through qualitative research that the entrepreneurs in their study could be differentiated into two distinct groups based on their definition of success. Within those two groups, which they labeled as Make me Whole and Cash is King, the researchers found that the entrepreneurs’ values and behaviors were different as it related to their business. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively validate those initial findings and to further investigate the differences between Make me Whole and Cash is King entrepreneurs, particularly in relationship to their spiritual behavior and level of joy in the business.

Our study is rooted in the scholarship of entrepreneurial studies and “spirituality and work.” However, theories and constructs from a cross-section of other academic fields are also incorporated. What follows is a summary of pertinent literature, followed by the research hypotheses that framed our study, the findings, a brief discussion of limitations, and recommendations for future research.

Workplace Spirituality

Our work life serves many functions. We work to get money to satisfy the physiological needs of food and shelter; however, work also serves other needs. Work gives us a way to identify with others and build community; it provides a means to feel connected to something greater than ourselves. Work may also serve as a way to provide meaning and purpose in our life, which is the basis of classic motivation and humanist psychological studies, including the seminal works of leading motivational theorists such as Maslow, McClelland, and Herzberg. Chalofsky and Krishna (2009: 189) cite Maslow (1971) when he said that “individuals who do not perceive the workplace as meaningful and purposeful will not work up to their professional capacity.” Although individuals use different methods to infuse meaning into their profession, integrating spirituality into their work is one way to make their occupation more meaningful. In this process, workers bring their own spiritual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SPIRITUALITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 623

traditions with them; increasingly, organizations have also started to encourage spiritual practices through self-reflection, providing the time, physical location, and training for a diverse set of practices, including prayer, meditation, and appreciative inquiry (Biberman and Tischler, 2008). These reflective practices help employees deepen their thinking and broaden their abilities to act more effectively (Biberman and Tischler, 2008).

Research seems to indicate that individuals share a common understanding of what it means to experience spirituality in the workplace. For example, Ashmos and Duchon (2000) conducted a study to explore how respondents defined workplace spirituality. They proposed a definition of workplace spirituality as the “recognition of an inner life that nourishes and is nourished by purpose and meaningful work that takes place in the context of community” (Ashmos and Duchon, 2000: 137). The results of their study suggest that spirituality at work is about incorporating an individual’s mind, body and spirit into the workplace environment. Comparable results were found by Mitroff and Denton (1999) in their investigation of spirituality and work. The majority of respondents described spirituality in the workplace as the “basic desire to find ultimate meaning and purpose in one’s life and to live an integrated life” (Mitroff and Denton, 1999: xv).

Initially, the research in “spirituality in work” began by developing a working definition of spirituality, specifically, whether it must embody a religious perspective. For some researchers, spirituality at work is associated with a relationship with the “Divine” or some other essence that facilitates a congruent work life, with or without the presence of religious tenets (Schmidt-Wilk, Heaton, and Steingard, 2000).

Some authors contrast religion and spirituality, while others see spirituality as the broader concept. Zinnbauer and Pargament (2005: 35) state, “spirituality is defined as a personal or group search for the sacred, [while] religiousness is defined as a personal or group search for the sacred that unfolds within a traditional sacred context.”

Several business researchers (Biberman and Tischler, 2008; Fry, 2003) have used the Dalai Lama’s distinction between spirituality and religion, “Religion I take to be concerned with faith in the claims of one faith tradition or another, an aspect of which is the acceptance of some form of heaven or nirvana. Connected with this are religious teachings or dogma, ritual prayer, and so on. Spirituality I take to be concerned with those qualities of the human spirit—such as love and compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony—which brings happiness to both self and others” (Dalai Lama, 1999). It is this final definition that frames our current exploration, which is grounded in the following spiritual themes and attributes as they relate to entrepreneurship: finding meaning and purpose in life, living an integrated life, experiencing an inner life, and being in community with others.

New Ideologies in Spirituality, Work, and Motivation

Researchers have conducted an increasingly significant amount of investigation in the realm of intrinsic work motivation to better understand the impact of spirituality and work (Ashmos and Duchon, 2000; Fry, 2003; Fry, 2005; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003; Mitroff and Denton, 1999; Mitroff, Denton, and Alpaslan, 2009). Much of the research involves identifying why, how, and in what way spirituality is integrated into the workplace. The vast majority of these works suggest that spiritual factors represent integral components of the work-life experience for a significant portion of the working population. Furthermore, many studies indicate numerous practical benefits to infusing spirituality into the workplace (Fry and Matherly, 2006; Fry and Cohen, 2009).

Underscoring the importance of workplace spirituality, the research findings of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


McGeachy (2001) suggest that spirituality at work is fueled by an individual’s search for personal fulfillment and builds high morale in the organization. Spirituality translates into fulfilling a purpose (a calling) and a connection with others through love and service that originates from deep within (Fry, 2005). It is part of a central core or essence where people have a profound sense of who they are, where they come from, and where they are going. Spirituality provides an enormous source of energy, passion, and direction that gives meaning to life and can provide an empowered feeling of success in their work and in their life.

Definition of Success

For many individuals, especially entrepreneurs because of their freedom to create their own work environment, we are finding that the definition of success is about gaining a sense of fulfillment in their work. A review of the workplace spirituality research demonstrates that for many leaders, success is measured in terms of their values, rather than in market share, revenue streams, and profit margins.

Ashar and Lane-Maher (2004) found that mid- and senior-level executives in federal government agencies did not define success in materialistic terms, such as money, positional power, and accumulating status symbols. Instead, these prominent individuals used connectedness, balance and wholeness to define and describe success. The integration of spirituality and work was found to be a commonality among the respondents, many stating that success required embracing spirituality. The researchers concluded that there were four components of success and spirituality: 1) sense of accomplishment, 2) balance of work and family, 3) contribution to society, and 4) contribution to employees. In relation to their personal definition of success, the respondents ranked sense of accomplishment highest, followed by balance of work and family, contribution to society and subordinates, respectively.

Porras, Emery and Thompson (2007) found similar responses when they studied successful leaders, many of whom were entrepreneurs. For these individuals, envisioning a “Success Built to Last” is synonymous with creating a life that matters. Kauanui et al. (2008a) also mirror this research in their interviews with entrepreneurs over the last five years, which suggest that understanding motivation requires a broader perspective of how success is measured. The inclusion of spiritual factors into entrepreneur scholarship enables an investigation into the full dimensionality of success, which includes elements that do not appear on accounting documents.

Workplace Values and Spiritual Behaviors

Moore (1992) distinguished that when work transforms into a vocation and calling, it provides an individual with greater meaning, purpose and identity (Thompson, 2001). Only when an individual’s unique talents and gifts are aligned with the needs of the world and one’s own values, can work emerge as a calling (Leider, 1997).

The potential consequence for living a life with an unrealized calling is a life lived with a depressed and undeveloped soul (Jung, 1933; King and Nicol, 1999). With so much at stake, the question arises: From where does this calling originate? Some have suggested that it is a product of the “Self”; that it is the expression of personal essence, the inner core, the “voice” within that must surface. In short, it is a deeper “Self” calling out for actualization and integration (Jung, 1933; Leider, 1997). Thus, it could be assumed that having and maintaining a connection to “Self” is a prerequisite for living an integrated life (Harding, 1965). Therefore, one of the key attributes of connecting to “Self” is reaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


full potential (King and Nicol, 1999) and listening to the voice within. Mitroff and Denton (1999: 212) found that “realizing full potential as a person” was one of the most frequently mentioned choices provided by the participants of their study. It is interesting to note that a decisive majority aspired to have more opportunity to express and develop the “Self” at work. When personal values harmonize with organizational values (Mitroff and Denton, 1999), mission, and vision (DeValk, 1996) a sense of wholeness can shine forth. From an alliance of culture, values, and people, a strong sense of community emerges, providing an opportunity for personal growth. Entrepreneurs clearly have the opportunity to create a work environment that allows them to listen to their inner voice and fully actualize their full potential.

Transforming spirituality in the workplace from theory to reality requires developing tangible practices. David Trott (2008) interviewed 36 managers and collected information from 130 adult working professional MBA students. The question asked in the interviews was: “If you had the opportunity to create a spiritually healthy organization, what would be the values you would emphasize most?” The study reported that: 1) As a person, treat me with respect, honesty, integrity, and openness; 2) As a co-worker, I desire a culture that allows me to express myself safely in areas of the heart or feelings, such as love, compassion, and concern for others; and 3) I desire flex-time, time for reflection, a place and space for prayer and renewal, work that fits me, and a means to strengthen my mind and body, and opportunities for growth. These practices provide the basis for defining spiritual behavior in the workplace, and can be applied to entrepreneurs as a measure to better understand how they create their environment.

Spirituality and Joy in Work

Psychologists have long suggested that finding happiness is much more than just the sum of enjoyable experiences. Csikszentmihalyi (2003) proposed that entrepreneurs, by virtue of creating their own organizations, have the ability to both determine and match personal challenges with their goals and individual skills set (the concept of flow), which results in greater potential to enjoy happiness.

Other researchers have suggested that after identifying individual purpose, entrepreneurs seek meaning in work with the end goal of finding happiness (Germer, Siegel, and Fulton, 2005). Finding and doing what they truly love offers entrepreneurs a path to a rich and valuable work experience. Quite often, it may not feel like work at all; rather, for some, work is described as enormous fun (Porras, Emery, and Thompson, 2007).

Unlike corporate employees, entrepreneurs often have the unique opportunity to use their skills and talents to contribute to society while avoiding the autocratic servitude found in large corporate bureaucracies. One of the keys to joy at work is the personal freedom to take actions and make decisions using one’s skills and talents to provide an environment for creativity (Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen, 2009). Entrepreneurs are better able to integrate their personal values into their work life (Kauanui et al., 2008a). For many entrepreneurs, joy and happiness come from productive, challenging, integrative, and creative activities, which can translate into the realization of being part of something bigger than themselves. Cardon et al. (2009: 511) quote two famous entrepreneurs from their websites; Anita Roddick of the Body Shop states, “to succeed you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality” and Michael Dell says, “passion should be the fire that drives your life’s work.”

In Success Built to Last, Porras, Emery, and Thompson (2007: 39) quote Frances Hesselbein, chairman and founder of Leader to Leader Institute, who states, “We are called

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


to do what we do, and when we respond to that invitation, it is never a job. When we are called to serve and we respond, it is joy and fulfillment.”

Extrinsic Motivation

But not all individuals create or desire a workplace that provides meaning and purpose in their lives. There are entrepreneurs who are quite happy to build a business that provides a revenue source in order to capture pleasures elsewhere (King-Kauanui, Thomas, and Waters, 2005). They look forward to work if they are succeeding financially. In addition, they may see personal growth as purely a financial measure, rather than a spiritual one. For them, work is merely the means from which money, power and prestige can be obtained. These individuals generally isolate their work life from their home life, and their search for happiness and self-worth are driven by family concerns, material possessions, and/or social successes (Kasser, 2002).

Kasser’s research (2002) found that a drive for materialism often increases personal unhappiness—even when materialist gains are achieved. Kauanui et al. (2008a) found similar results in their research in which entrepreneurs who defined success in monetary terms (Cash is King) did not seem to experience as much joy in their work, even when they were making more money than they needed to live comfortably. However, Make me Whole entrepreneurs seemed to experience joy even when they were struggling financially. In addition, there were other behavioral differences between the two groups in relation to joy at work and their spiritual behaviors.

Hypothesis Development

In recent research, Kauanui et al. (2008a; 2008b) proposed a model at the ICSB Conference in Canada utilizing the lens of “spirituality and work” to better understand entrepreneurs and their definition of success. The model possessed a differentiation between two groups of entrepreneurs (Make me Whole group and Cash is King group). The Make me Whole group believed that work was its own reward, where spirituality and business should be integrated, while the other group, Cash is King, viewed work as a means to an end—predominantly a means to obtain financial rewards. On one side of the spectrum, Make me Whole entrepreneurs were “extremely passionate about their work, believing that work impacts, inspires and changes the lives of those they work with, especially employees. […] They seek meaning and purpose in their own lives and report a high degree of joy” (Kauanui et al., 2008a: 174). They reported “utilizing personal reflection in their lives, looking forward to going to work and spoke of being able to utilize their full potential at work. They also talked about how the work they did was connected to what they believed was important in their lives.”

On the other end of the spectrum, the Cash is King entrepreneurs “expressed feelings of not enjoying their work but enduring it because the end justified the means. They did not see a strong integration between their work life and their personal life. Many made a conscious effort to keep the two separate. When expressing joy or looking forward to work, it came more as a result of being financially successful. There were few references to feeling successful as a result of helping others or making a difference in the lives of their stakeholders” (Kauanui et al., 2008a: 174). Significant differences between the two groups were not found with demographic factors such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

A key function of the present study is to verify the qualitative findings of Kauanui et al. (2008a; 2008b) in a quantitative manner. Since the initial model evolved as a result of exploratory research, it is essential to incorporate a verification process prior to expanding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


the conceptual framework. Verifying the initial model will provide the opportunity to productively build upon its framework by exploring other constructs that may be moderating or mediating the entrepreneurship/spirituality relationship. Utilizing the initial discovery, along with a review of the spirituality and work, our first two hypotheses for the paper are: Hypothesis One: There is a significant difference between the two groups of entrepreneurs (Cash is King and Make me Whole) and their spiritual values and behaviors as it relates to their work life.

Hypothesis Two: There is no significant difference between the two groups of entrepreneurs in relation to demographic factors, including age, hours worked, race/ethnicity, education, and years in business.

In addition, Kauanui et al. (2008a) found in their study that entrepreneurs’ definition of success was not necessarily related to how well the business was meeting or exceeding their financial needs. There was some evidence that the Make me Whole entrepreneurs who were struggling financially mentioned feeling a sense of sadness and pressure as it related to their financial security, while the Make me Whole entrepreneurs who were making a lot of money did not necessarily relate joy to their finances. Conversely, the Cash is King entrepreneurs mentioned money often in the interview as a primary issue, no matter what their financial situation. However, there was no evidence in the original study that one group was more financially stable than the other. Therefore, these findings lead to the following hypothesis:Hypothesis Three: There is no difference between the Cash is King entrepreneurs and the Make me Whole entrepreneurs in their perception of their economic stability.

Figure 1 shows the model that graphically presents our three hypotheses. Utilizing their definition of success, the entrepreneurs were put into two groups (Make me Whole and Cash is King) and then self-reported behaviors, values, and levels of joy were compared between groups.

Figure 1. Comparative Research Model of Entrepreneur’s Motivation

Make Me Whole (Spiritually-focused) Behaviors / Values Joy

Cash is King(Monetarily-focused) Behaviors / Values Joy

Definition of Success

Demographics /Economic StabilityH1 H2

H3

H3

H1: There is a significant difference between the two groups of entrepreneurs (Cash is King and Make me Whole) and their spiritual values and behaviors as it relates to their work life.

H2: There is no significant difference between the two groups of entrepreneurs in relation to demographic factors, including age, hours worked, race/ethnicity, education, and years in business.

H3: When comparing the two groups of entrepreneurs (Make Me Whole and Cash is King), there will be no significant demographic difference in the groups based on age, hours worked, race/ethnicity, education or years in business.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


Method

The study was conducted at a medium-size state-supported university in Southern California. The study sample consisted of a convenience sample of 280 entrepreneurs that were selected by the students as part of a class assignment in a series of undergraduate and graduate entrepreneurship classes over a two-year period. Students were assigned a project wherein they conducted an in-depth structured interview with an entrepreneur and asked the business owner to complete a survey that covered facets of their entrepreneurial experience. Students were free to conduct their field study with any individual that owned and operated a business, which provided for the opportunity to collect entrepreneurship information from individuals with a wide cross-section of demographic backgrounds.

To conduct the interview, the students were given a 17-question paper and pencil survey instrument, along with a structured interview guide. The structured interview guide and the 17-question survey instrument measured the entrepreneurs experience with start-up and succession, motivation and definition of success, work-life experience, spiritual values and beliefs, and general background and demographic data on their business and themselves. The survey instrument was created based upon a review of the literature on spiritual measurements and Kauanui et al.’s (2008a; King-Kauanui, Thomas, and Waters, 2005) qualitative research from the entrepreneurs’ definition of success. The hard copies of the paper and pencil survey forms were collected by the instructor and entered into SPSS software. None of the qualitative interviews were used for analysis in this project.

Survey Analysis

The principal areas of analysis and measurement for the study were based on the survey question in which the entrepreneurs ranked a list of definitions for success using a rank order scale of 1 through 7, with 1 as most important. The list was derived from the previous qualitative research of Kauanui et al. (2008a; and King-Kauanui, Thomas, and Waters, 2005) The definitions a) successfully completing a project; b) financial security; and c) making a lot of money were related with the Cash is King entrepreneurs, while Make me Whole entrepreneurs gravitated towards d) helping others (customers, employees or family); e) having a job that gives meaning and purpose to my life; and f) doing something I love to do. The last definition, which was mentioned in Kauanui et al.’s (2008a) previous research, “building a company I can pass on to my family” was in the list, but was not necessarily associated with either entrepreneurial group.

The survey also included two questions associated with economic stability. The first question was the entrepreneur’s assessment as to whether their business was meeting their needs, from 1 (“Below my current needs”) to 5 (“Above my current needs”). In addition, the entrepreneurs were asked to rate whether the business allowed them to grow financially.

Other than demographic questions, the balance of the survey questions (based on a seven-item scale) were used to measure values and behaviors commonly associated with those that integrate spirituality in their work (level of joy from work, integration of work and values, associated spiritual behaviors) for the entrepreneurs and towards their employees (see Table1).

Results

The study consisted of a convenience sample of 280 entrepreneurs. Of the 280 surveys collected, 205 were found to be usable. The surveys that were not used (75) lacked a proper rank order (such as ranking two items as number 1 or not providing a rank for all

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


items) for the entrepreneur’s definition of success. Table 2 summarizes the demographic and work profile data. Demographically, the entrepreneurs were from various professional backgrounds and racial/ethnic groups in southern California (36% White, 21% Hispanic and 19% Asian). The majority of the respondents were married (64%) and had at least some college education (89%). The entrepreneurs were fairly young, with 44% of the sample age 40 or younger.

The entrepreneur’s professional experience, hours worked, and family involvement as entrepreneurs varied. Somewhat less than half of the entrepreneurs had been in business for five years or less (43%). More than half of the entrepreneurs reported that they had a family member with an entrepreneurial background (56%). When reporting the level of risk associated with their business, most reported medium to high risk, and a majority of the entrepreneurs (76%) said that they used their own capital to start their ventures. In addition, most of the entrepreneurs in the sample reported that they work over 40 hours per week in their business (see Table 2).

In order to test for the reliability and validity of the seven-item scale that measured spirituality behaviors, several tests were done. The Cronbach alpha for the measures was above the acceptable level (0.83). In addition, a factor analysis was done using Principal Component Analysis to examine the underlying (or latent) relationship in the seven-item scale. Only one component was extracted from the seven-item scale in which there was an Eigen value of 3.634, with 51.91% of the variance explained by the one component that was extracted.

Respondents were asked to “rank order,” from one to seven (one being most important to seven being least important on the survey), seven items that defined success (successfully completing a project; financial security; making a lot of money; helping others; job with meaning; love what I do; building company for family). Of the seven items, it was found that two financial measures (financial security and making a lot of money) were significantly (negatively) correlated with spiritual measures (“job with meaning” and “love what I do”). Therefore, group affiliations were determined by adding each entrepreneur’s ranking for the four strongest descriptors of definition of success (two from each definitional group). Group affiliation was contingent upon the highest score between the two groups of success descriptors. Therefore, an entrepreneur that gave a high ranking to “having a job that gives meaning” and “doing something I love to do” and a low ranking to “financial security” and “making a lot of money” would be placed in the Make me Whole group, while those that gave a high rank to “financial security” and “making a lot of money” were grouped in the

Table 1. Spirituality Survey Items

Survey Item

1 Business allows personal growth

2 Experience joy in my work

3 Look forward to work most days

4 Reflection is a very important part of life

5 Make a difference in employee’s life

6 Work is connected with my life

7 Able to use my gifts/talents at work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


Table 2. Entrepreneurs’ Demographic and Work ProfilePercentage

Race

White 36%

Hispanic 21%

Asian 19%

Other 24%

Age

< 30 29%

31 to 40 15%

41 to 50 29%

51 to 60 23%

Greater than 60 4%

Marital StatusMarried 64%

Not Married 36%

Education

High School 12%

Some College 37%

College Graduate 31%

Graduate/Professional 19%

Capital for Venture

Your Own Assets 76%

Family Members 19%

Close Associates or Friends 7%

Investors / VCs 7%

Financial Institutions 12%

Entrepreneurial Family MemberYes 56%

No 44%

Business Level of Risk

Lowest Risk 4%

Low Risk 12%

Medium Risk 43%

High Risk 29%

Highest Risk 12%

Hours Worked

Less than 40 hours 27%

40 and 50 hours 17%

50 and 60 23%

60 and 70 hours 23%

70 and 80 hours 4%

80 and 90 hours 2%

> 90 hours 3%

Years in Business

0-5 years 44%6-10 years 19%11-15 years 10%16-20 years 10%21 and over 18%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


Cash is King group. Of the 205 respondents, 10 could not be differentiated so they were not put in either group. Therefore, they were not included in the following test.

To examine the differences between these two entrepreneurial groups, a mean comparison using a t-test for independence with the seven-item questionnaire was conducted (see Table 3). The means for the Make me Whole entrepreneurial group was significantly different (higher) in all of the items in the questionnaire except for “reflection is a very important part of life.”

Since a factor analysis was conducted previously to confirm that we were in fact measuring one construct, we conducted a t-test to compare the two groups using the construct’s mean, which also shows a significant difference between the two groups (See Table 4).

From the analysis in both t-tests, we found a significant difference when comparing the two groups of entrepreneurs (Make me Whole and Cash is King) based on their personal values and work-based spiritual behaviors for themselves and their employees. Particularly interesting was that Make me Whole entrepreneurs experience joy significantly more than Cash is King entrepreneurs. Our analysis supports Hypothesis One: “There is a significant difference between the two groups of entrepreneurs (Cash is King and Make me Whole) and their spiritual values and behaviors as it relates to their work life.”

Table 3. t-Test and Mean for Cash is King and Make me Whole Entrepreneurs

Cash is King Make Me Whole

Item Mean SD Mean SD Significance

Business allows personal growth 4.00 1.10 4.48 .85 .02*

Experience joy in my work 4.09 .96 4.60 .59 .00***

Look forward to work most days 3.85 1.00 4.47 .64 .00**

Reflection is VIP part of life 4.07 .89 4.37 .88 .55

Make a difference in Employee’s life 4.12 .84 4.48 .63 .03*

Work connection with my life 3.75 1.06 4.14 .94 .03*

Able to use my gifts/talents at work 4.21 .98 4.68 .66 .00***

* p < .05** p < .01*** p ≤ .001

Table 4. t-Test of Spiritual Values Component Analysis

Item N Mean SD Std. Error of Mean

Cash is King 67 4.01 .68 .08

Make Me Whole 126 4.46 .50 .44

* p = .008 (Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances) +p < .001 (2 tail t-Test for Equality of Means)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


The two groups were also tested for significant demographic differences in regard to the entrepreneur’s age, hours worked, education, risk level, race/ethnicity, and years in business. A t-test for independence of the two groups using the seven-item scale showed no significant difference when controlling for any of the demographics. Therefore, Hypothesis Two—“There is no significant difference between the two groups of entrepreneurs in relation to demographic factors, including age, hours worked, race/ethnicity, education, and years in business”—was supported, as there is no significant difference in the demographics between the two groups.

In order to determine whether economic stability related to an entrepreneur’s definition of success, we compared the means between the two groups and the two financial self-reported measures (“the business profitability meets their needs” and “my business allows me to grow financially”). We found no difference between the groups (See Table 5). These findings supported Hypothesis Three: “There is no difference between the Cash is King entrepreneurs and the Make me Whole entrepreneurs and their perception of their economic stability.”

Limitations and Future Research

It is interesting to note that although the two groups differed greatly on how they defined success, that divergence did not translate into one group possessing a more profitable business than the other. However, since we asked the entrepreneurs about their income in relationship to their needs, there is an argument that can be made that the Make me Whole entrepreneurs required less, which may have resulted in findings that are askew from their actual financial situation. This possibility should be considered when performing future studies, and additional measurements for financial or productivity measures should be used.

Additionally, no other demographic data differentiated the two groups of entrepreneurs. The one demographic that we did not include in all of the surveys was gender, as we found no statistical differences on the gender demographic in our initial studies. However, since there is data in the entrepreneurship literature that shows that gender may have an impact on an individual’s definition of success (Ashley-Cotleur, King, and Solomon, 2003), it would be important in the next study to test for this component.

Going forward with our research, it would be helpful to utilize more definitions of success that differentiate the two groups to assure reliability and validity. We did combine two responses for each group in the respondent’s rank order of success. However, we are aware that the two groups of entrepreneurs run along a continuum and that the utilization of a number of definitions, using a Likert scale, would provide a clearer understanding of the entrepreneurs and how their definition of success impacts their behaviors and values.

Table 5. Mean Comparison of Make Me Whole versus Cash is King Entrepreneurs on Financial Factors

Motivator

Item Make me Whole Cash is King Difference

Business allows financial growth 4.29 4.24 0.05

Business profitability meets needs 3.38 3.37 0.01

Total Average 3.83 3.80 0.02

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


Discussion and Conclusion

Through our literature review, we have found many researchers who have suggested that individuals find joy and passion in their work when they feel a spiritual connection to their occupation. Kasser (2002) found that working for money as one’s primary motivator, even when one is financially successful, does not create happiness. This proposition would seem to be even more applicable to entrepreneurs, who by nature are regarded as having a sense of passion for their work (Cardon et al., 2009), and that passion for their work can often stem from a strong sense of connection with what is meaningful and purposeful in their life, which has been associated with finding happiness.

In the Academy of Management Review, Cardon et al. (2009) suggest that entrepreneurial passion is an important factor in understanding entrepreneurs. They point out that one’s work, especially for entrepreneurs, can be deeply connected to one’s sense of self and one’s sense of meaning and purpose. In the article, Cardon et al. (2009: 516) discuss the research by Baum and Locke (2004) and Shane et al. (2003) who state that “entrepreneurial passion is love of work.” It is related to the entrepreneur’s love for the business based on their feeling that their work is important.

Overall our research supports the previous work on spirituality and work, as well as the most current work mentioned in the Special Topic Forum on “Dreaming, discovering, and creating: The visions and costs of entrepreneuring” in The Academy of Management Review (Ketchen, Rindova, and Barry, 2009). This project also validates the previous qualitative research by Kauanui et al. (2008b). Furthermore, our investigation expands the research and understanding of not only spirituality at work with entrepreneurs, but also begins to look deeper in their behaviors and values, which has been called for by other entrepreneurship researchers (Kruger, 2007).

Specifically, in this study, we were able to group entrepreneurs based on their definition of success—Cash is King (35%) or Make me Whole (65%)—in order to calculate differences between the two groups. Subsequently, this comparison provided quantitative support for Kauanui et al.’s (2008a) model in relation to definitions of success and the differences between the two groups based on their beliefs, values and behaviors concerning spirituality and work.

One of our most interesting findings from the study is that there seemed to be no difference between an entrepreneur’s motivation and his/her perceived economic stability. This is consistent with Kauanui et al.’s (2008a) research with entrepreneurs. The present study extends their findings by demonstrating no significant difference in the self-reported economic stability between groups. It is also interesting that the Make me Whole entrepreneurs in this study had a significantly higher mean in relation to the amount of joy experienced, even when controlling for level of economic stability.

While all the entrepreneurs within the study reported a greater than average score (assuming a five-point scale, with 2.5 being the average) for each of the seven measured items, when the entrepreneurs were segmented by their definition of success (Make me Whole and Cash is King), there was a substantial difference between the two groups. Make me Whole entrepreneurs ranked significantly higher than Cash is King entrepreneurs for all of the seven-item scale measurements. This finding suggests that entrepreneurs may generally possess a sense of contentment with their chosen profession; however, entrepreneurs that are spiritually oriented (as opposed to financially oriented) may benefit from a heightened sense of joy in their work/life. While much still remains unknown about the motivations and aspirations of entrepreneurs and their definition of success, this study provides key insights into the importance of spirituality, and paves a path for future learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


Contact

For further information on this article, contact:

Sandra King Kauanui, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Florida Gulf Coast University, Lutgert College of Business, 10501 FGCU Blvd, S., Fort Myers, FL 33965-6565Phone: 760 534-2123 email: [email protected]

ReferencesAshar, H., and M. Lane-Maher. 2004. “Success and Spirituality in the New Business Paradigm.” Journal of

Management Inquiry 13(3): 249-260.Ashley-Cotleur, C., S. King, and G. Solomon. 2003. “Parental and Gender Influence on Entrepreneurs Intentions,

Motivation, and Attitudes.” The Proceedings for the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Ashmos, D.P., and D. Duchon. 2000. “Spirituality at Work: A Conceptualization and Measure.” Journal of Management Inquiry 9(2): 134-145.

Biberman, J., and L. Tischler. 2008. “Introduction.” In J. Biberman and L. Tischler (eds.), Spirituality in Business: Theory Practice and Future Directions. Palgrave Macmillian: New York.

Cardon, M., J. Wincent, J. Singh, and M. Drnovsek. 2009. “The Nature and Experience of Entrepreneurial Passion.” The Academy of Management Review 34(3): 511-530.

Chalofsky, N., and V. Krishna. 2009. “Meaningfulness, Commitment, and Engagement: The Intersection of a Deeper Level of Intrinsic Motivation.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 11(2): 189-203.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2003. Good Business: Leadership, Flow and the Making of Meaning. Viking, by the Penguin Group: New York.

Dalai Lama XlV. 1999. Ethics for the New Millennium. Putnam: New York.DeValk, P. 1996. “The New Ideology.” Management 43: 114-115.Fry, L.W. 2003. “Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 14(6): 693-727.Fry, L.W. 2005. “Toward a Paradigm of Spiritual Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 16: 619-622.Fry, L.W., and M.P. Cohen. 2009. “Spiritual Leadership as a Paradigm for Organizational Transformation and

Recovery from Extended Work Hours Cultures.” Journal of Business Ethics 84: 265-278.Fry, L.W., and L.L. Matherly. 2006. “Spiritual Leadership and Organizational Performance: An Exploratory

Study.” 2006 Academy of Management Conference: Atlanta, Georgia. Germer, C.K., R.D. Siegel, and P.R. Fulton. 2005. Mindfulness and Psychotherapy. Guilford Press: New York.Giacalone, R.A., and C.J. Jurkiewicz. 2003. “Toward a Science of Workplace Spirituality.” In R.A. Giacalone,

and C.L. Jurkiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY.

Harding, M.E. 1965. The I and The Not I: A Study of the Development of Consciousness. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Jung, C.G. 1933. Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Harcourt, Brace and World: New York.Kasser, T. 2002. The High Price of Materialism. MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.Kauanui, S.K., K.D. Thomas, C.L. Sherman, G.R. Waters, and M. Gilea. 2008a. “Exploring Entrepreneurship

Through the Lens of Spirituality.” Journal of Management, Spirituality, and Religion 5(2): 160-189.Kauanui, S.K., K.D. Thomas, C.L. Sherman, G.R. Waters, and M. Gilea. 2008b. “Entrepreneurship and Spirituality:

An Exploration Using Grounded Theory.” Accepted for presentation and proceedings for ICSB (International Council for Small Business) Conference.

Ketchen, D., V. Rindova, and D. Barry. 2009. “Special Topic Forum on Dreaming, Discovering, and Creating: The Visions and Costs of Entrepreneuring.” The Academy of Management Review 34(3): 476-530

King, S., and D.M. Nicol. 1999. “Organizational Enhancement through Recognition of Individual Spirituality: Reflections of Jaques and Jung.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 12(3): 234-243.

King-Kauanui, S., K.D. Thomas, and G.R. Waters. 2005. “Entrepreneurship and Spirituality: Integration of Spirituality into the Workplace.” Journal of Management, Spirituality, and Religion 2(2): 255-274.

Krueger, N.F. 2007. “What Lies Beneath? The Experiential Essence of Entrepreneurial Thinking.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(1): 123-138.

Leider, R.J. 1997. The Power of Purpose: Creating Meaning in Your Life and Work. Berrett-Koehler Publisher: San Francisco, CA.

Maslow, A. 1971. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. Viking Press: New York.McGeachy, C. 2001. Spiritual Intelligence in the Workplace. Veritas: Dublin, Ireland.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3


Mitroff, I.I., and E.A. Denton. 1999. A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look at Spirituality, Religion, and Values in the Workplace. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Mitroff, I.I., E.A. Denton, and C.M. Alpaslan. 2009. “A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: Ten Years Later (Spirituality and Attachment Theory, an Interim Report).” Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion 6(1): 27-42.

Moore, T. 1992. Care of the Soul: A Guide for Cultivating Depth and Sacredness in Everyday Life. HarperCollins: New York.

Porras, J., S. Emery, and M. Thompson. 2007. Success Built to Last: Creating a Life that Matters. Plume: New York.

Rindova, V., D. Barry, and D. Ketchen, Jr. 2009. “Entrepreneuring as Emancipation.” The Academy of Management Review 34(3): 477-491.

Schmidt-Wilk, J., D.P. Heaton, and D. Steingard. 2000. “Higher Education for Higher Consciousness: Maharishi University of Management as a Model for Spirituality in Management Education.” Journal of Management Education 24(5): 580-612.

Thompson, W. 2001. “Spirituality at Work.” Executive Excellence 18(9): 10.Trott, D. 2008. “The Spirit of Life’s Work at Work, Presentation to the Management, Spirituality and Religion

Interest Group.” International Academy of Management Annual Meeting, August 8-13: Anaheim, CA.Zinnbauer, B.J., and K.I. Pargament. 2005. “Religiousness and Spirituality.” In R.F. Paloutzian, and C.L. Park

(eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Guilford Press: New York.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 05:

03 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

3

entrepreneurship and spirituality: a comparative analysis of entrepreneurs’ motivation

Documents