Understanding how and when personal values foster entrepreneurial behavior: a humane perspective

1 Understanding How and When Personal Values Foster Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Humane Perspective Abstract This study aims to examine the role of entrepreneurial intentions and motivations in the interplay between personal values, that are strongly aligned with humane entrepreneurship, and self-employment career options. Our analysis of a sample of individuals throughout two different points in time uncovers how and when humaneoriented personal values (i.e., conservation and self-transcendence) lead to selfemployment. Results suggest that entrepreneurial intentions function as a mechanism that triggers self-employment decisions for individuals with humane oriented personal values and that this effect is stronger when they engage in opportunity-based entrepreneurship. We discuss the implications of these results on the humane entrepreneurship literature and the intention-action link. Keywords: personal values; humane entrepreneurship; self-employment; entrepreneurial intentions; entrepreneurial motivations Introduction Humane entrepreneurship is a fairly recent direction in entrepreneurship research (Kim, ElTarabishy & Bae, 2018; Parente, ElTarabishy, Vesci & Botti, 2018). Resulting from a need to bring the responsible management principles to entrepreneurship (Tsui, 2020), humane entrepreneurship has been defined at the firm level as a “virtuous and sustainable integration of entrepreneurship, leadership and HRM [human resources management], in which successful implementation leads to a beneficial increase in wealth and quality job creation, perpetuated in a continuous cycle” (Kim, ElTarabishy & Bae, 2018, p. 12). Accordingly, humane entrepreneurship aims to understand how new ventures can “manage effectively across three different domains: care for profit, care for people, and care for the planet” (Parente, ElTarabishy, Botti, Vesci & Feola, 2020, p. 3). Humane entrepreneurship intertwines the principles of the triple bottom line and corporate social 2 responsibility literatures (Parente et al., 2018) with high impact practices and strategic human resources (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Kramar, 2014; see Kim et al., 2018 and Parente et al., 2020 for a conceptual definition of humane entrepreneurship). While humane entrepreneurship acknowledges social entrepreneurship, it does not overlay with it. Specifically, social entrepreneurship predominantly addresses social value (e.g., Nicholls, 2010; Bacq & Janssen, 2011), whereas humane entrepreneurship focuses specifically on how new ventures create commercial value while operating in line with an entrepreneurial orientation, sustainable orientation, and a humane resource orientation (Parente et al., 2020). The few prior studies in humane entrepreneurship have addressed questions at the venture level (i.e., the strategic posture of businesses, Parente et al., 2018, 2020; and their leadership and human resources priorities, Kim et al., 2018). In this study, we posit that, beyond considering the venture level, it is important to understand the values and principles of humane-oriented founders, as they are one of the determinants for entrepreneurial ventures adopting a humane-strategic posture and values. Specifically, we uncover what can motivate individuals to engage in humane-oriented entrepreneurial activities, taking an individual perspective to the humane entrepreneurship framework. Yet, previous work at the individual level has shown that the accentuation of collectivistic personal values (which are conceptually aligned with the humane principles) is associated with lower entrepreneurial intentions (Hueso, Jaén, & Liñán, 2020), and consequently is likely to lead to reduced levels of entrepreneurial behavior. Thus, the question emerges how and when individuals with humane-oriented personal values will engage in entrepreneurial activities. We address this question by discussing the role of basic personal values (Schwartz, 1992) on shaping individual career choices, specifically, being an entrepreneur. Values are “trans-situational goals, varying in importance, which serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or group” (Schwartz, 2017, p.52). The theory of human values defined by Schwartz (1992) defines values as fairly stable over time as they establish the comparative importance of one another forming an “ordered system of priorities” as they guide actions 3 and attitudes (Schwartz, 2010, p. 223). The role of values in entrepreneurship has been the source of considerable interest in the context of cross-country differences and cultural values (e.g., Morales et al., 2019). In what concerns individual values, prior work has been mostly in the scope of social entrepreneurship (Hemingway, 2005; Miller et al., 2012; Stephan & Drencheva, 2017 for a systematic review; Kruse et al., 2019), leaving significant holes in our understanding of how individual values influence commercially oriented entrepreneurial activities, as these are the focus of humane entrepreneurship. The relatively scarce work on individual values and entrepreneurship (Fayolle, Liñán, & Moriano 2014) has two main shortcomings. First, prior work is predominantly focused on entrepreneurial intentions (Jaén et al., 2013; Lechner et al., 2018; Hueso, Jaén & Liñán, 2020 for a systematic literature review) and social entrepreneurial intentions (Stephan & Drencheva, 2017; Kruse et al., 2019), leaving the relationship with actual entrepreneurial behavior unexplored. Second, research on personal values has argued that self-centered individuals are more attracted to engage in startup activities (Hayton et al., 2002), as they can fulfill their sense of accomplishment and self-realization. Yet, collectivistic personal values, like conservation and self-transcendence, are also important guiding principles and motivational goals for individuals and their prosocial behaviors (Schwartz, 2010); however, their association with entrepreneurial behavior is less explored (Hueso et al., 2020). An emphasis on collectivistic values may lead entrepreneurs to adopt ethical behaviors and moral norms early on (Anderson & Smith, 2007; Brenkert, 2009; Harris, Sapienza, & Bowie, 2009), ultimately leading to more sustainability and solidarityoriented ventures (Barnett & Karson, 1987; Hemingway, 2005; Shepherd, Kuskova, & Patzelt, 2009); cornerstones of a humane entrepreneurship posture. This study addresses these gaps by building on the personal values theory (Schwartz, 1992) to investigate how and when humane-oriented values can lead to selfemployment[1]. In doing so, we make two contributions to the literature. First, we discuss humane entrepreneurship at the individual level, and answer the call on how “individuallevel differences in values, beliefs, and orientations may impact strategic choices” in venture development and creation aligned with humane entrepreneurship (Parente et al., 4 2018, p. 40). While Parente and colleagues (2018) defined a set of propositions positing an alignment between the humane orientation of the values and beliefs of the founders and their firms' strategic positions, empirical evidence of such relationships is still lacking. We contribute to filling this void by analyzing how and when humane-oriented personal values may lead to entrepreneurial behavior. Second, we add to prior work on values and entrepreneurship (Fayolle, Liñán, & Moriano 2014) and the intentionsbehavior link literature (Fayolle, & Liñán, 2014). Specifically, we add the behavioral evidence to Hueso and colleagues’ (2020) work by demonstrating that entrepreneurial intentions mediate the relationship between conservation and self-transcendene values and self-employment career decisions. Using a sample of individuals in two different points in time (with a nine-year gap between them), our results suggest that entrepreneurial intentions help trigger self-employment decisions for individuals with humane oriented personal values and that this effect is stronger when individuals are motivated by opportunity-based entrepreneurship. Theory Development and Hypotheses Personal Values and Humane Entrepreneurship Humane entrepreneurship and responsible management (Hibbert & Cunliffe, 2015) are grounded in analogous pillars of sustainability, responsibility, and ethics (c.f. Kim et al., 2018). Both assume the relevance of considering business activities beyond the financial performance of the organization (Pirson, 2020; Parente et al., 2018) and are motivated by the United Nations sustainable economic model principles. In the scope of entrepreneurship, a more humane orientated perspective shifts the traditional focus from profit margins to “employees, people, environment, and society” (Parente et al., 2018, p., 31). However, starting, growing and managing ventures that align more closely with humane orientation is dependent upon the founder’s beliefs, decisions, and behaviors. In fact, it is well established that entrpreneurial actions express an individual’s identity or self-concept (Cardon, Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009; Shepherd & Haynie, 2009). Fauchart and Gruber (2011) demonstrated that “founders behave and act in ways that are 5 consistent with their identities and thereby imprint their self-concepts on key dimensions of their emerging firms” (p. 936). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) explains this congruence between an individual’s identity and the characteristics of the businesses they create as individual’s beliefs, emotions, values, and actions are manifested in different social contexts, including entrepreneurship (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Thus, individuals with beliefs, values and feelings congruent with the foundations of humane entrepreneurship are more likely to start, manage, and grow such businesses. In our study, we focus on values, a core part of personal identity (Hitlin, 2003; Berzonsky, Cieciuch, Duriez, & Soenens, 2011; Bardi, Jaspal, Polek, & Schwartz, 2014), as they guide decision making and promote behaviors congruent with values (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009; Schwartz, 2010, 2012). Schwartz’s theory of personal values (1994) identifies ten different basic values based on a circular structure: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition and security[2]. These basic values are further grouped into four dimensions: selfenhancement ( power, achievement), openness to change (including stimulation, selfdirection), self-transcendence (including universalism, benevolence), and conservation (including conformity, tradition and security). Openness to change and self-enhancement are value-dimensions oriented to the individual self-attention, prestige and self-centered motivations, and thus are considered individualistic oriented values (Oishi et al., 1998; Konsky, et al., 2000; Pinillos, & Reyes, 2011). Conservation and self-transcendence are value dimensions oriented towards others, rather than oneself. These values prioritize a social focus, cooperation and group-oriented motivations and are considered collectivistic oriented values (Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, & Suh, 1998; Konsky, et al., 2000; Pinillos & Reyes, 2011). Collectivistic values, including conservation and self-transcendence, are congruent with the three pillars of the humane entrepreneurship framework: care for the people (firm members), the planet, and society at large. Next, we present three arguments to support this claim. First, conservation values include a sense of societal security, restrain of acions to harm others, respect of others’ ideas, and self-transcendence values are oriented to 6 preserve and increase the welfare of others (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Individuals that display such values and motivations are likely to be also oriented towards the well-being, respect and fairness of their firm members and employees, which is one of the pillars of the humane entrepreneurship framework. Servant leadership theory (Graham, 1991; Lanctot & Irving, 2010) is one such individual-level framework used in the conceptualization of humane entrepreneurship (Parente et al., 2018), as servant leaders adopt a posture of service to their employees, highlighting collaboration, empathy and trust. Servant leadership, and its humane orientation (Winston, & Ryan, 2008), is associated with collectivism-oriented values (Russell, 2001), like conservation and selftranscendence. Second, conservation values include an inclination towards harmony and stability of society, compliance with social norms, avoidance to violate expectations and harm to the environment. Furthermore, self-transcendence values emphasize protection and appreciation for nature and the equilibrium of the environment, as well as the preservation of welfare (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). As such, we argue that individuals with conservation and self-transcendence values are likely to care about the environment and the planet, and therefore are more likely to integrate sustainability practices in their businesses and entrepreneurial ventures – the second pillar of humane entrepreneurship. Third, individuals with strong conservation values tend to intertwine their own personal interests with those of society and care for preserving history. Furthermore, the personal value of universalism (which is part of self-transcendence) emphasizes the importance of tolerance, social justice and equality (Schwartz, 1992). Thus, individuals leaning towards conservation and self-transcendence values are likely to care about the society at large, the third pillar of humane entrepreneurship. All in one, these arguments support that conservation and self-transcendence are personal values dimensions that might be associated with humane entrepreneurship. Therefore, in line with previous work showing that attributes of individuals’ identity are reflected on their entrepreneurial behaviors (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Gruber & MacMillan, 2017), people displaying conservation and self-transcendence values are more likely to 7 demonstrate decisions and behaviors congruent with those values in new venture creation, that is, to create, manage and grow humane oriented businesses. Humane Oriented Personal Values, Entrepreneurial Intentions and Self-Employment While scholarly work on the role of personal values in entrepreneurship has been steadily growing (Hueso, Jaén, & Liñán, 2020), most empirical studies have focused on personal values (e.g., self-transcendence) as antecedents of generic and specific entrepreneurial intentions (e.g., social entrepreneurship intentions, Kruse et al., 2019; internationalization intentions, Bolzani & Foo, 2018). More specifically, humane (i.e., collectivistic) oriented values, like conservation and self-transcendence, have been found to negatively impact entrepreneurial intentions, ultimately leading to a less favorable evaluation and lower perceived ability and control of the new venture creation process (Hueso et al., 2020; Gorgievski et al., 2018). For example, Hirschi and Fischer (2013) found that conservation values are negatively related to entrepreneurial intentions of students in Germany because they conflict with self-enhancement values, more typically associated with entrepreneurial activities. This was further supported by a longitudinal study on finish young adults, uncovering that security and social/interpersonal work values, which are related to both conservation and self-transcendence, were associated with lower levels of entrepreneurial aspirations (Lechner et al., 2018). Although we are encouraged by the increased interest in empirical examinations of the value-intention link, several gaps persist. Firstly, using students as the main sampling source leads to some generalizability issues. Despite the rapid proliferation of entrepreneurship courses and programs and their increased focus on experiential learning, the actual number of ventures founded is small and therefore provides only limited research insights. Secondly, the link between personal (collectivistic) values, entrepreneurial intentions, and entrepreneurial behaviors is still largely unexplored, but central to our theoretical arguments. Several studies have pointed out the strong interconnection between entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors (Fayolle & Liñán, 2014). A longitudinal research study conducted on adults in Austria and Finland found 8 that intentions and perceived behavioral control account for about 30% of the variation in entrepreneurial behavior (Kautonen et al., 2015). Similarly, implementation intentions are also associated with behaviors (Orbell et al., 1997), evidencing how intentions lead to subsequent congruent actions. Thus, although existing studies suggest that individuals with humane oriented values are less likely to pursue self-employment because their higher order goals do not necessarily align with the typical self-centered intrinsic benefits of entrepreneurship (i.e., pride, achievement, power, and recognition by others, Shaver et al., 2001; Carter et al., 2003), these issues need to be examined in the context of collectivistic values and their effect on the intention-behavior link. Here, we propose that for individuals with humane-oriented values, the development of entrepreneurial intentions act as a carrier mechanism to engage in self-employment behaviors. As such: Hypothesis 1a. Entrepreneurial intentions mediate the relationship between conservation values and self-employment career choices. Hypothesis 1b. Entrepreneurial intentions mediate the relationship between selftranscendence values and self-employment career choices. One of the main factors that strengthen the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors is the individual’s motivation (e.g., Murnieks, Klotz, & Shepherd, 2020). While we have advocated that individuals with humane oriented values are likely to engage in entrepreneurial behavior through the empowering role of their entrepreneurial intentions, we now focus on when this relationship is boosted or dampened. Individual’s entrepreneurial motivation can push or pull individuals towards the implementation stage (e.g., Carsrud, & Brännback, 2011). In the next section, we address how startup motivations affect the relationship between intentions and selfemployment behavior, and indirectly, how those increase the likelihood of individuals gravitating towards humane oriented values to become self-employed. 9 The Moderating Role of the Motivations for Starting a Business Motivation is the targeted allocation of energy to maximize the satisfaction of needs (Pritchard & Ashwood, 2007) in a particular socio-economic context. In the entrepreneurial context, motivations are one of the most researched factors associated with an individual’s startup journey, from initiation to growth, and exit (Murnieks, Klotz, & Shepherd, 2020 for a systematic literature review on entrepreneurial motivation). Entrepreneurial motivation is a focused and directed effort on startup activities (Jayawarna, Rouse, & Kitching, 2011) that can be driven by extrinsic and intrinsic motives (e.g., Carsrud & Brännback, 2011). While there is a complex pattern of motivations relevant to venture initiation (Murnieks, Klotz, & Shepherd, 2020), a significant stream of research has followed a fundamental conceptualization of motivation considering necessity-driven or opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. Necessity-driven entrepreneurship is characteristic of individuals who are pushed into entrepreneurship because of no other option for work (push entrepreneurship – extrinsic motivation). Opportunity driven entrepreneurship is characteristic of individuals who are pulled ito entrepreneurship because they want to exploit a business opportunity (pull entrepreneurship – intrinsic motivation) (Devins, 2009; Hechavarria, & Reynolds, 2009; Shane, 2009; Williams & Williams, 2014). In humane entrepreneurship, motivation is primarily intrinsic for three main reasons. First, the founder is driven by the desire to positively impact their employees by empowering and engaging them to participate in the business actively (Bae et al., 2018). Second, the founder is compelled by the desire to move the organization to act towards socially responsible behaviors and sustainability (Parente et al., 2018). Third, the founder is determined to impact society at large by contributing to improve the quality of life in the local community (Parente et al., 2020). Humane oriented values, such as conservation and self-transcendence, also serve to drive behavior (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003), but while these are normative, distant and high-level constructs framing an individual’s conduct, entrepreneurial motivations are specifically targeted towards action and thus psychologically closer to the behavior 16 entrepreneurship (High 1 SD above the mean; b=0.18, 95% CI [0.08 ; 0.32]), when compared to necessity-based entrepreneurship (Low 1 SD below the mean; b=0.08, 95% CI [0.01 ; 0.18]. Bootstrap analyses also sow that the significance of these conditional indirect effects for opportunity-driven motivations (Table 4). These results support hypothesis 2a. When considering self-transcendence values as a predictor variable, the index of moderated mediation is positive (Index=0.02) but non-significant, as the confidence interval includes zero (95% CI [-0.01; 0.05]). Thus, the indirect effect of selftranscendence values on self-employment career choices through entrepreneurial intentions is not moderated by the motivation to start a business. Therefore, these results do not support hypothesis 2b. --------------------------- Insert Table 4 about here --------------------------- Discussion This study aims to expand our understanding of the interplay between humane (collectivistic) oriented values, entrepreneurial intentions and motivations, and selfemployment. In doing so, we add an individual-level perspective to the humane entrepreneurship framework, answering recent calls (Parente et al., 2018), providing a more in-depth analysis of personal values and motivations, namely self-transcendence and conservation, inluence startup behavior. Our empirical results suggest that entrepreneurial intentions mediate the relationship between humane oriented values (conservation and self-transcendence values) and the decision to become self-employed. These findings contribute to prior work on the intention-action link (Fayolle & Liñán, 2014; Kautonen et al., 2014) in two ways. First, while it was already established that self-centered values are positively related to selfemployment choices (Gorgievski et al., 2018), we also found that individuals with humane (collectivistic) values are also likely to become self-employed. Second, prior 17 work found that collectivistic values are negatively related to entrepreneurial intentions (Hueso et al., 2020), but we uncovered that, when assessing entrepreneurial behaviors with a nine-year time tag, entrepreneurial intentions are a carrier mechanism leading to self-employment decisions for individuals with such collectivistic values. Thus, while humane oriented values per se, may hamper entrepreneurial activity initially, developing one’s entrepreneurial intentions bridge that gap and help move towards the implementation stage. Entrepreneurial intentions can be instrumental for those who prioritize this humane posture and thus, are more likely to start and manage businesses congruent with their self-concept and identity (e.g., Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). This finding expands current humane entrepreneurship frameworks (Kim et al., 2018, Parente et al., 2018) by offering a theory-based and empirically supported conclusion about the relationship between personal values, entrepreneurial intention and behavior. This interaction effect is strengthened by an individual’s socio-economic context, motivating said individual to pursue an entrepreneurial opportunity. While humane oriented values may set some constraints to the individual’s actions, entrepreneurial motivation leads to specific startup behavior. Yet, this effect is only found for conservation values and not for self-transcendence values. We found two reasons for this phenomenon. First, individuals prioritizing self-transcendence values emphasize a concern for the welfare of others, and thus are more concerned with the risk and failure of their business and the potential cascade effects that it may have on their workers, firm members and other key partners. Thus, risk perception and fear of failure may hamper entrepreneurial motivation as a driver towards action. Second, this effect may also be explained by cultural values and attitudes typically found in Spain (Morales, et al., 2019) and we hope that future work can study these topics in more detail. Limitations and Future Research As with all studies, there are limitations to our work. First, our data is restricted to a sample of individuals from Spain. As such, we should be careful about generalizations with respect to individuals from other cultural settings. Research has shown that our 18 personal value variables of interest are strongly related to cultural values (Krueger, Liñán & Nabi, 2013; Liñán, Moriano & Jaén, 2016) and can therefore differ across countries (Hueso et al., 2020; Kruse et al., 2019). Thus, future research should explore how humane oriented values predict self-employment using cross-country comparisons. Second, we conceptualized entrepreneurial motivation as defined by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, namely through the distinction between necessity and opportunity-based entrepreneurship. Future work should integrate a more complex and diverse pallet of motives of entrepreneurs, going beyond these two basic characteristics (Williams & Williams, 2014). In addition, the role of different motivation types varies by venture initiation, growth and exit (Murnieks, Klotz, & Shepherd, 2020), future empirical explorations should also consider such diversity and try to capture a more accurate and complete representation of the role of entrepreneurial motivation. Third and foremost, our study did not include an analysis of how individual humane oriented values change venture-level attributes. While we argue that the businesses created by individuals with a humane orientation are likely to have a congruent strategic posture due to identity processes (Gruber, & MacMillan, 2017), our data is not able to provide a firm-level categorization of humane entrepreneurial orientation types according to the continuum defined by Kim et al. (2018). Future research should use a broader set of objective measures for the humane entrepreneurial orientation of the firm (Parente et al., 2020) “expressed by the extent to which entrepreneurs and top managers are inclined to take care of firm’s competitiveness, to take care of their human resources, and to take care of relevant social values and concerns, including those regarding environmental sustainability” (p. 4). Our paper also pertains to inspire future research by provoking a deeper reflection about the scope of humane entrepreneurship as a framework within entrepreneurship. We claim that in order to enhance the area of humane entrepreneurship, we need to better understand the characteristics of those who want to start and grow businesses with a humane orientation. Therefore, future discussions should pertain to the conceptual relationship between humane, social and sustainable entrepreneurship. While social entrepreneurship 19 is a robust discipline (e.g., Bacq & Janssen, 2011), several major unresolved divides persist (Morris, Santos & Kuratko, 2020). Similarly, research in sustainable entrepreneurship has developed concepts (e.g., triple bottom line) that require more attention from humane entrepreneurship (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011). Implications Our study has important implications for entrepreneurship education (e.g., Morris & Liguori, 2016; Neck & Corbett, 2018) and responsible management education (Hibbert & Cunliffe, 2015). Personal values of entrepreneurs can differ and therefore need to be considered in the entrepreneurial process. Research has shown that entrepreneurs’ individual characteristics (e.g., identity) can determine the type of venture they will pursue (Morris et al., 2018). Entrepreneurship educators need to consider this value – venture type link and dvelop more targeted initiatives helping students find the best venture ‘match’. Similarly, entrepreneurship educators need to consider students' personal values when helping them develop entrepreneurial intentions (Fayolle & Gaill, 2015) and recognizing business opportunities (Costa, et al., 2018). These efforts need to go beyond just offering a specialized entrepreneurship course but have to be integrated throughout the entire curriculum, empowering students and stakeholders with different socio-economic backgrounds (Santos, Neumeyer & Morris, 2019). Entrepreneurship educators should also consider integrating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in their pedagogical tools as a framework to foster problem solving and sustainable opportunity development. We hope our study inspires future work in the space of humane entrepreneurship at the individual level, therefore inspiring entrepreneurs and business owners to start, grow and manage their ventures based on humane principles. References Anderson, A. R., & Smith, R. (2007). The moral space in entrepreneurship: An exploration of ethical imperatives and the moral legitimacy of being enterprising. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6), 479–497. 20 Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403. Bae, Z.-T., Kang, M. S., Kim, K. C., & Park, J. H. (2018). Humane entrepreneurship: Theoretical foundations and conceptual development. The Journal of Small Business Innovation, 20(4), 11-21. Bardi, A. & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220. Bardi, A., Jaspal, R., Polek, E., & Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Values and identity process theory: theoretical integration and empirical interactions. Identity Process Theory: Identity, Social Action and Social Change, 175-200. Barnett, J. H. & Karson, M. J. (1987). Personal values and business decisions: An exploratory investigation, Journal of Business Ethics 6(5), 371–382. Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here?. Journal of Management, 32(6), 898-925. Berzonsky, M. D., Cieciuch, J., Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2011). The how and what of identity formation: Associations between identity styles and value orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 295-299. Bolzani, D., & Foo, M. D. (2018). The “why” of international entrepreneurship: uncovering entrepreneurs’ personal values. Small Business Economics, 51, 639- 666. Brenkert, G. G. (2009). Innovation, rule breaking and the ethics of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 448–464. Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34, 511–532. Carsrud, A. L., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26. Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. (2003). The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13-39. Costa, S. F., Santos, S. C., Wach, D., & Caetano, A. (2018). Recognizing opportunities across campus: The effects of cognitive training and entrepreneurial passion on the business opportunity prototype. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 51–75. De Dreu, C. K. W. & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 913–926. Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50-76. Devins, D. (2009). Enterprise in deprived areas: What role for start-ups? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(4), 486–498. Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M., Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57, 305-332. Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935-957. 21 Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93. Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 663–666. Fayolle, A., Liñán, F., & Moriano, J. (2014). Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: Values and motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 679–689. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. Gorgievski, M. J., Stephan, U., Laguna, M. & Moriano, J. A. (2018). Predicting entrepreneurial career intentions: Values and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(3), 457-475. Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly 2(2), 105–119. Gruber, M., & MacMillan, I. C. (2017). Entrepreneurial behavior: A reconceptualization and extension based on identity theory. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 271-286, Harris, J. D., Sapienza, H. J. & Bowie, N. E. (2009). Ethics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 407–418. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50 (1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683 Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd Edition). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100 Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: a review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33–52. Hechavarria, D. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (2009). Cultural norms and business start-ups: The impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(4), 417–437. Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233–249. Hibbert, P., & Cunliffe, A. (2015). Responsible management: Engaging moral reflexive practice through threshold concepts. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 177- 188. Hinojosa, A. S., Gardner, W. L., Walker, H. J., Cogliser, C., & Gullifor, D. (2017). A review of cognitive dissonance theory in management research: Opportunities for further development. Journal of Management, 43(1), 170-199. Hirschi, A. & Fischer, S. (2013). Work values as predictors of entrepreneurial career intentions. Career Development International, 18(3), 216–231. Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 118-137. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121– 140. 22 Hueso, J. A., Jaén, I. & Liñán, F. (2020). From personal values to entrepreneurial intention: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-06-2020-0383 Hueso, J. A., Jaén, I., Liñán, F., & Basuki, W. (2020). The influence of collectivistic personal values on the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. International Small Business Journal, https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620903007 Jaén, I., Moriano, J. A. & Liñán, F. (2013). Personal values and entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical study. In: Fayolle, A., Kyrö, P., Mets, T., et al. (Eds.), Conceptual Richness and Methodological Diversity in Entrepreneurship Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.15–31. Jayawarna, D., Rouse, J., & Kitching, J. (2011). Entrepreneur motivations and life course. International Small Business Journal, 31(1), 34-56. Kautonen, T., Van Gelderen, M., & Fink, M. (2015). Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 655-674. Kim, K., Eltarabishy, A. & Bae, Z. (2018). Humane entrepreneurship: how focusing on people can drive a new era of wealth and quality job creation in a sustainable world. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 10-29. Konsky, C., Eguchi, M., Blue, J., & Kapoor, S. (2000). Individualist-collectivist values: American, Indian and Japanese cross-cultural study. Intercultural Communication Studies, 9(1), 69-84. Kramar, R. (2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource management the next approach?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069-1089. Krueger, N., Liñán, F., & Nabi, G. (2013) Cultural values and entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9-10), 703-707. Kruse, P., Wach, D., Costa, S., & Moriano, J. A. (2019). Values matter, don’t they? – Combining theory of planned behavior and personal values as predictors of social entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10:1, 55- 83. DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2018.1541003 Lanctot, J. D., & J. A. Irving (2010). Character and leadership: Situating servant leadership in a proposed virtues framework. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 28–50. Lechner, C. M., Sortheix, F. M., Obschonka, M. & Salmela-Aro, K. (2018). What drives future business leaders? How work values and gender shape young adults’ entrepreneurial and leadership aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior,107, 57–70. Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593-617. Liñán, F., Moriano, J. A., & Jaén, I. (2016). Individualism and entrepreneurship: Does the pattern depend on the social context? International Small Business Journal, 34(6), 760-776. Liñán, F., Moriano, J. A., & Jaén, I. (2016). Individualism and entrepreneurship: Does the pattern depend on the social context?. International Small Business Journal, 34(6), 760-776. Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37, 616–640. 23 Morales, C., Holtschlag, C., Masuda, A. D., & Marquina, P. (2019). In which cultural contexts do individual values explain entrepreneurship? An integrative values framework using Schwartz’s theories. International Small Business Journal, 37(3), 241-267. Morris, M. H., & Liguori, E. (2016). Preface: Teaching reason and the unreasonable. In Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy–2016 (pp. xiv–xxii). Edward Elgar Publishing. Morris, M. H., Neumeyer, X., Jang, Y., & Kuratko, D. F. (2018). Distinguishing types of entrepreneurial ventures: An identity‐based perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(3), 453-474. Morris, M. H., Santos, S. C., & Kuratko, D. F. (2020). The great divides in social entrepreneurship and where they lead us. Small Business Economics, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00318-y Murnieks, C. Y., Klotz, A. C., & Shepherd, D. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial motivation: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 115-143. Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre–paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611- 633. OECD (2019). Self-Employment Rate. https://doi.org/10.1787/fb58715e-en. Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1177-1189. Orbell, S., Hodgkins, S., & Sheeran, P. (1997). Implementation intentions and the theory of planned behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(9):945-954. Paez, J., & De-Juanas, A. (2015). Validation of “Schwartz Values Scale” for Spanish adolescents population. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 165, 195-201. Parente, R., Eltarabishy, A., Botti, A., Vesci, M., & Feola, R. (2020). Humane entrepreneurship: Some steps in the development of a measurement scale. Journal of Small Business Management, DOI: 10.1080/00472778.2020.1717292 Parente, R., Eltarabishy, A., Vesci, M. & Botti, A. (2018). The epistemology of humane entrepreneurship: theory and proposal for future research agenda. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 30-52. Pinillos, M. J., & Reyes, L. (2011). Relationship between individualist–collectivist culture and entrepreneurial activity: evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data. Small Business Economics, 37(1), 23-37. Pirson, M. (2020). Humanistic management as integrally responsible management? In O. Laasch, D. Jamali, E. Freeman, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Research Handbook of Responsible Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Pritchard, R. D., & Ashwood, E. L. (2007). Managing motivation: A manager’s guide to diagnosing and improving motivation. New York: LEA/Psychology Press. Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76-84. Santos, S. C., Neumeyer, X., & Morris, M. H. (2019). Entrepreneurship education in a poverty context: An empowerment perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(Suppl 1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12485 24 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1-65. Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (p. 221–241). American Psychological Association. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11. Schwartz, S. H. (2017). The refined theory of basic values. In Values and Behavior (pp. 51-72). Springer, Cham. Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Bain, P., Bianchi, G., Caprara, M. G., ... & Mamali, C. (2014). Basic personal values underlie and give coherence to political values: A cross national study in 15 countries. Political Behavior, 36(4), 899-930. Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 31(2), 141–149. Shaver, K. G., Gartner, W. B., Crosby, E., Bakalarova, K., & Gatewood, E. J. (2001). Attributions about entrepreneurship: A framework and process for analyzing reasons for starting a business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(2), 5- 28. Shepherd, D. A., & Haynie, J. M. (2009). Birds of feather don’t always flock together: Identity management in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 316–337. Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137-163. Shepherd, D. A., Kuskova, V., & Patzelt, H. (2009). Measuring the values that underlie sustainable development: The development of a valid scale. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(2), 246-256. Stephan, U. & Drencheva, A. (2017) The person in social entrepreneurship: A systematic review of research on the social entrepreneurial personality. In: Ahmetoglu, G., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Klinger, B. and Karcisky, T., (eds.) The Wiley Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Wiley, Chichester , pp. 205-229. Stephan, U., Tavares, S. M., Carvalho, H., Ramalho, J. J., Santos, S. C., & van Veldhoven, M. (2020). Self-employment and eudaimonic well-being: Energized by meaning, enabled by societal legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), 106047. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations: 33– 47. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. Tsui, A., (2020). Guidepost: Responsible research and responsible leadership studies. Academy of Management Discoveries, https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0244 Williams, N., & Williams, C. C. (2014). Beyond necessity versus opportunity entrepreneurship: Some lessons from English deprived urban neighbourhoods. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10, 23-40. Winston, B. E., & Ryan, B. (2008). Servant leadership as a humane orientation: Using the GLOBE study construct of humane orientation to show that servant 25 leadership is more global than western. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 212-222.