Motivations and Opportunity Recognition ofSocial Entrepreneursby Ronit Yitshaki and Fredric Kropp

This study explores the motivations and opportunity recognition patterns of 30 Israeli socialentrepreneurs (SEs) through life story analysis. The majority of participants were motivated by pullfactors that included prosocial behaviors based on past or current life events. Others weremotivated by push factors, including job dissatisfaction and a search for meaning. Based ongrounded theory-building and sensemaking perspectives, we develop a theoretical process modelthat links motivations, opportunity recognition, and prosocial activities of SEs. Their experiencescreated an awareness of unmet societal needs, which led to opportunity recognition and formationof social ventures to help fill the gaps.

IntroductionSocial welfare spending has been reduced in

many countries, creating a gap between socialneeds and social services (Roper and Cheney2005). This has resulted in a bigger role for theprivate sector and third sector in solving socialproblems (Haugh 2005). Consequently, socialentrepreneurs (SEs) are increasingly importantin filling unmet social needs. Yet, there is littleunderstanding of SE motivations (Corner andHo 2010; London 2010) and opportunityrecognition in the domain of social entrepre-neurship (Shaw and Carter 2007; Sullivan Mort,Weerawardena, and Carnegie 2003).

Carsrud and Brännback (2011) call for furtherresearch into the role of entrepreneurial motiva-tions, including “What motivations drive oppor-tunity recognition and how do they vary across

different types of entrepreneurs?” and “How domotives, values and skills interact to determinethe behaviors of entrepreneurs, especiallyin opportunity recognition?” (p. 19). A betterunderstanding of the characteristics and motiva-tions of SEs can help foster their developmentand effectiveness. Davidsson (2005) outlinesthree distinct areas of entrepreneurship researchthat are also applicable to social entrepreneur-ship: how opportunities are created, how certainpeople discover and exploit the opportunitieswhile others do not, and how the opportunitiesare exploited through different modes ofactions. Carsrud and Brännback (2011) positthat motivations play a critical role in transform-ing entrepreneurial intentions into action,including identifying and exploiting opportuni-ties: “Motivations may be the spark that trans-forms a latent intention into real action and

Dr. Ronit Yitshaki is at the Department of Economics and Business Administration at Ariel University.Fredric Kropp is Professor of Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Innovation at the Middlebury Institute of

International Studies at Monterey, and University Professorial Research Fellow, Entrepreneurship, Commer-cialisation and Innovation Centre (ECIC), at the University of Adelaide.

Address correspondence to: Ronit Yitshaki, Department of Economics and Business Administration, ArielUniversity, Ariel 40700, Israel. E-mail: ronity@ariel.ac.il.

Journal of Small Business Management 2015 ••(••), pp. ••–••

doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12157

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 1

therefore the missing link between intentionsand action” (p. 12).

This study examines the interrelationsbetween motivations and opportunity recogni-tion of SEs. There are two main research ques-tions: (1) What motivates SEs?; and (2) How dodifferent motivations influence opportunity rec-ognition among SEs?

We use the life story method, a form ofnarrative analysis, a useful approach in exam-ining entrepreneurial motivations in general(Gartner 2008, 2010), and the motivations ofSEs in particular (Nicholls 2010). The life storyapproach (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber1998) is considered to be an appropriatemethod for theory-building as it enables a com-prehensive examination of SE sensemaking,that is, the delineation SEs make between theirmotivations and patterns of actions (Baron2012). This theory-building approach allows anin-depth understanding of our research ques-tions, the motivations, and opportunity recog-nition of SEs (Eisenhardt 1989; Strauss andCorbin 1994).

This study focuses on small-scale local SEswho are representative of the vast majority oftheir SE cohort, provide a quick response forsocial needs of local communities, and havesignificant impact. A better understanding ofthe SEs’ motivations and how they are trans-formed into opportunities offers the potentialto enhance their effectiveness.

SEs’ MotivationsThere is much debate over the definition of

social entrepreneurship (e.g., Corner and Ho2010; Martin and Osberg 2007; Shaw andCarter 2007). Zahra et al. (2009) state thatsocial entrepreneurship “encompasses theactivities and processes undertaken to dis-cover, define, and exploit opportunities inorder to enhance social wealth by creatingnew ventures or managing existing organiza-tions in an innovative manner” (p. 519).Martin and Osberg (2007) describe SEs asthose who identify “a stable but inherentlyunjust equilibrium that causes the exclusion,marginalization, or suffering of a segment ofhumanity that lacks the financial means orpolitical clout to achieve any transformativebenefit on its own” (p. 35; see Martin andOsberg for a more detailed discussion of ratio-nalizing alternative definitions). We rely onboth of these definitions as the conceptualunderpinning of social entrepreneurship.

Socially driven motivations are a criticalcomponent in the creation of social value. Thecommercial entrepreneurship literature empha-sizes that entrepreneurial motivations arerelated to discovering and exploiting newopportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000)based on human capital and learning capabili-ties such as information acquisition and trans-formation (Corbett 2007). On the firm level,commercial ventures are characterized ashaving an entrepreneurial orientation, that is,proactiveness, risk-taking, innovativeness,competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy(Lumpkin and Dess 1996). It is argued thatmany traits and behaviors of SEs are similar tocommercial entrepreneurs including theirdrive, determination, and their maximum use ofscare resources (Shaw and Carter 2007).

A key difference between commercial entre-preneurs and SEs is that commercial entrepre-neurs are driven by economic gain or by otherpersonal goals, such as life style (Kropp,Lindsay, and Shoham 2006; Shane, Locke, andCollins 2003). SEs are compassionate towardsuffering in the community (Miller et al. 2012).This compassion may be rooted in a generalsense of empathy toward others based on one’sown similar life experiences, or a sense ofsympathy that is not based on similar experi-ences. Both empathy and sympathy can beconsidered as motivations for prosocial activi-ties (Powell and Baker 2013).

SEs are motivated by their ability to maximizesocial rather than economic returns (SullivanMort, Weerawardena, and Carnegie 2003). SEsoften focus on long-standing social needs,whereas commercial entrepreneurs often focuson breakthroughs and new needs (Austin,Stevenson, and Wei-Skillen 2006). The motiva-tion to create social impact drives SEs to accu-mulate resources and build organizationsdifferently than commercial entrepreneurs(Dorado 2006). As motivated change agents, SEschallenge institutional structures (Dorado andVentresca 2013).

SEs are motivated to change attitudesand behavior through multiple strategies,including cognitive, emotional, and behavioralapproaches (London 2010). SEs’ motivationsare based on balanced judgments that helpshape the purpose of the venture and keep thesocial mission as a central focus (Sullivan Mort,Weerawardena, and Carnegie 2003).

Short, Moss, and Lumpkin (2009) examinedthe state of social entrepreneurship research

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT2

and identified alternative management theoriesfor a wide range of research questions. Theysuggested examining SEs’ motivation throughthe lens of goal-setting theory, a well-established, heavily researched managementtheory often used to explain work motivationin industrial and organizational theory.Although goal-setting theory is typically used tounderstand employees’ motivations, commit-ment, and performance (Locke, Latham, andErez 1988), we draw on this approach to betterunderstand SE motivations. Goal-setting theorysuggests that motivations are a set of consciousprocesses establishing levels of performance toachieve goals. Following Locke (1996), actionscaused by purpose are conscious actions andchoices that can be introspectively reportedand analyzed. Motivations to accomplish goalsare an important link between intentions andactions (Baron 2012; Carsrud and Brännback2011). SE motivations are based on a desire totake actions that will benefit the communityand the society (Baron 2012). Therefore, SEmotivations are mission driven, designed toimprove the well-being of a specific group orsociety at large.

Entrepreneurs’ motivations can also beexplained by drive and incentive theories.Drive theories focus on an internal stimulus toreduce internal tension; for example, hunger orfear drive a person to find food or to escape.Though often used in describing behaviorsthat have a strong biological component,drive theory can be applied to entrepreneurialbehavior. For example, an SE might be so dis-turbed by a disadvantaged group’s conditionthat he or she is driven toward prosocial activ-ity. On the other hand, incentive theories focuson external incentives as a core motivation foraction. For example, extrinsic motivations andnecessity-based motivations can be seen asdrivers for entrepreneurial actions (Carsrudand Brännback 2011).

We focus on push and pull motivations andcareer-calling perspectives in this study. Buttnerand Moore (1997) identify two broad categoriesof motivations for starting ventures, push factorsand pull factors. Pull factors refer to motivationsfor starting a venture for “desirable” reasons,such as the ability to seize an opportunity, towork independently, and/or to be more incontrol over the work (Robichaud, LeBrasseur,and Nagarajan 2010). Push factors refer toaspects of a situation that “push” a person out ofan existing job, such as job frustration, limited

opportunities for advancement, and otherfactors that make staying in the job undesirable.Following Carsrud and Brännback (2011), drivetheories can be seen as an inherent mechanismto reduce tensions for both pull and push moti-vations. They are also compatible with goal-seeking theory as SEs consciously undertakeactions to accomplish desirable goals.

Push factors may be associated with personalor external factors. Push motivations character-ize people who have fewer opportunities in thejob market (Amit and Muller 1995). A Canadianstudy identified that entrepreneurs motivated bypush factors were older, less educated, lackedskills, and were less likely to foresee futurebusiness opportunities compared with entrepre-neurs motivated by pull factors (Robichaud,LeBrasseur, and Nagarajan 2010).

Pull factors are self-motivations driven byinternal choices, such as identifying opportuni-ties (Hakim 1989) and desires to be activesocially in order to achieve social goals(Yitshaki and Kropp 2011). Based on careertheory, pull factors may be viewed as careercalling, work related to “a calling as work thata person perceives is his purpose in life” (Halland Chandler 2005, p. 160). Career calling isbased on an inner direction of meaning thatoffers the possibility of contributing to a betterworld (Bellah et al. 1996; Buechner 1973).

Career calling can be viewed in a religiouscontext where it is based on a subjective andself-relevant view of meaning described as“divine inspiration” to do morally responsiblework (Weber 1958). It can also be viewedsecularly, deriving from an inner desire toserve others (Hall and Chandler 2005). Thecalling is identified by self-explorationmethods such as introspection and reflectionand is developed to fulfill personal needs.Individuals motivated by career calling arelikely to be driven by intrinsic motivations forcompetence, autonomy, and relatedness(Gagné and Deci 2005; Wrzesniewskiet al. 1997). They are characterized by self-awareness and high adaptability competenciesthat enable an understanding of one’s callingand an ability to adjust accordingly (Hall andChandler 2005).

Although motivation of commercial entre-preneurs has been studied (e.g., Shane andVenkataraman 2000; Shane, Locke, and Collins2003), research on motivating factors for SEs isextremely limited and anecdotal. A comprehen-sive literature review could find few articles

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 3

that focused on motivations of SEs. A gap existsin the literature regarding SEs’ personal moti-vations and their impact on their opportunityrecognition patterns (Dorado 2006; SullivanMort, Weerawardena, and Carnegie 2003). Thisstudy examines motivations and develops atypology of different types of push and pullmotivations. The interrelations between moti-vations and opportunity recognition are alsoexamined.

Social Entrepreneurship andOpportunity Recognition

Stevenson and Gumpert (1985) describe anopportunity as something that is both desir-able and possible. An opportunity representsthe chance to meet a market need and deliversuperior value through a creative combinationof resources (Ardichvili, Cardoza, and Ray2003). Shane and Venkataraman (2000)describe entrepreneurship as the process bywhich “opportunities to create future goodsand services are discovered, evaluated, andexploited” (p. 218). Entrepreneurs pursue anopportunity using a unique set of scarceresources and skills in the hope of futurereturns (Morris, Kurtato, and Schindehutte2001). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognitionmay be linked to an entrepreneur’s learningcapabilities (Corbett 2007) as well as priorknowledge (Shane 2000). Smith, Matthews,and Schenkel (2009) suggest that opportunitydefinition should be revised in light of theindividual–opportunity nexus, knowledgeassociated with systematic searching, codifiedopportunities, and prior experience.

Though the form may be different, opportu-nity recognition and exploitation are importantto commercial entrepreneurs and SEs. Bothestablish new ventures, develop and implementinnovative programs, and initiate new services.Although many of the processes associatedwith entrepreneurial activities—for example,opportunity identification, assessment, andexploitation—are similar (Brooks 2009; Cornerand Ho 2010; Meyskens et al. 2010), there aresignificant differences in the source of oppor-tunities and the supporting activities andmotivations.

Opportunity recognition in the social entre-preneurship arena can be viewed as an entre-preneur’s ability to create a solution to a socialproblem (Hansen, Shrader, and Monllor 2011).“An ‘attractive’ opportunity is one that has suf-ficient potential for positive social impact to

justify the investment of time, energy, andmoney to pursue it seriously” (Guclu, Dees,and Anderson 2002, p. 1). Opportunity recog-nition in social entrepreneurship shifts thefocus from future goods and economic returnto social values and unmet social needs withinthe social system (Oncer and Yildiz 2010;Thompson, Alvy, and Lees 2000).

SEs recognize new opportunities based ontheir personal background (Corner and Ho2010; Dorado 2006; Mair and Noboa 2006).Someone may become an SE after being per-sonally affected by a problem such as anillness, for example (London 2010). Cornerand Ho (2010) found that opportunity recog-nition in social ventures is based on a“spark”—an inspiration moment that evolvesthrough an overarching pattern where theopportunity grows and is nurtured over time.Their study indicates that opportunity recog-nition involves exploitation by multiple actorswho work together to create social value. Theidea behind the venture evolves based on pre-vious experience.

The ability to proactively set up goals, initi-ate new ideas, and achieve psychologicalsuccess is influenced by career-calling compe-tencies (Hall and Chandler 2005). Adaptabilityis important as it embodies an ability to identifyneeds and make personal changes to meetthese needs. In addition, self-awareness is asso-ciated with one’s identity. Accordingly, SEs’opportunity recognition can be explained bytheir career-calling motivations, their self-awareness, and their identity. It enables themto identify unmet social needs and take appro-priate actions. Furthermore, SEs’ self-awarenessof social injustice may be associated with theircareer-calling competencies and their ability toidentify and exploit new opportunities.

Social entrepreneurship activity is embed-ded in the social context “in which these oppor-tunities surface, get recognized, and getexploited” (Corner and Ho 2010, p. 636). Exam-ining motivations in isolation is static and limitsthe understanding regarding the dynamic evo-lution of the entrepreneurial process (Shane,Locke, and Collins 2003). Examining socialentrepreneurships in different contexts offersthe potential of a richer understanding (DiDomenico, Haugh, and Tracey 2010).

MethodologyThe study is based on in-depth interviews,

conducted during 2012, with 30 Israeli small-

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT4

scale SEs who initiated social ventures andwere still active. The interviews were con-ducted by graduate students trained and underthe direction of the authors of this study. A

summary of the respondents and type of activ-ity appears in Table 1.

The Israeli context is unique as it combineselements of a modern developed nation known

Table 1Social Venture Details

SocialVentures

Initials* Age Type Establishedin

1 A 52 Support group for drug addicts 19892 EL NA Support group for new immigrants’ families with

children who become drug addicts2007

3 AR NA Support group for divorced males 20054 E NA Orchestra for amateurs 19825 MA NA Support group for new immigrants 20086 M 44 Taking care of abandoned babies 20047 AY 75 Youth integration in the Kibbutzim 19788 DS 44 Support group for the LGBT community 19979 Z 44 Boarding school for children 2002

10 ZP 48 Day care center for disabled children 200111 YLE NA Soup kitchen and community support 200212 NV 61 Empowerment of women through entrepreneurship

education2003

13 AA 60 Promoting Rabbi Mohliver’s ideology 199714 RS 35 Economic consulting and support 200915 RP 33 Encouragement of settlements in the Negev and

Galil2002

16 DZ 36 Financial support for people with severe healthproblems

2001

17 EE 74 Providing support to Mizrahi woman 200018 AG NA Providing support for Ethiopian youth 200819 DV 34 Computer guiding in the periphery 200420 YY 46 Support center for women 200621 RA 48 Center for human dignity 200422 SA 37 Providing information about children with special

needs rights2010

23 AH 55 Empowerment and employment for Ethiopianacademics

2007

24 EBZ 63 Wigs for cancer patients 200925 YL 62 Helping with healthcare expenses 200226 RSL 55 Birthday angels 200627 YV Providing support for disabled children28 AD 35 Support group for LGBT youth 200229 AY 68 Support group for religious people who decided to

become secular1991

30 KB NA Support group for evacuated communities nearGaza

2005

*Respondents were promised anonymity.

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 5

for its neoliberal economic policy and signifi-cant investments in high technology (Senorand Singer 2009) with immigrants who oftencome from less developed economies. Socialentrepreneurship plays an important role inIsraeli society. There are growing numbers ofsocial ventures that provide services for unmetneeds (Gidron, Bar, and Katz 2004).

SEs were asked to talk about their motiva-tions and their ventures in any way they chose.Each interview took between 90 and 120minutes. All interviews was tape-recorded andlater transcribed verbatim.1 Participants dis-cussed their personal story/history and its rela-tion to their actions in the present.

Exploring behaviors by focusing on entre-preneurs’ stories can provide deep insights intotheir motivations (Anderson 2000; Gartner2008, 2010; Goss 2005; Mitchell 1997). The lifestories method analyzes the way respondentsexpress their self-identity by the referencesthey make to past, present, and future actions(Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber 1998).The technique is a narrative approach wherestories provide comprehensive informationabout how entrepreneurs construct the infer-ence between past and present events and thecoherence between the events, thoughts, andemotional expressions they choose to introduce(Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber 1998;McAdams 1999; McKenzie 2005; Rae 2005). Inaddition, life stories of entrepreneurs enableexamination of the ways in which entrepre-neurs learn and grow (Hytti 2005; Rae 2004,2005; Rae and Carswell 2000).

The stories told by entrepreneurs “providesome very powerful tools for exploring whatentrepreneurs (or others) say about whatthey do” (Gartner 2007, p. 616). The storiesrequire respondents to integrate their experi-ences in a coherent and plausible way (Mitchell1997). Giving weight to the inferences andinterpretations of meanings that intervieweesmake enables an understanding of theimplicit dimensions of their story (Lieblich,Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber 1998). Entrepre-neurs’ stories reflect subjective sensemaking ofactions and an indication of the entrepreneurs’emotions during the entrepreneurial process(Downing 2005). Following Weick, Sutcliffe,and Obstfeld (2005), “sensemaking involves

that ongoing retrospective development ofplausible images that rationalize what peopleare doing” (p. 409). The sensemaking approachemphases the “interplay of action and interpre-tation rather than the influence of evaluation onchoice” (Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld 2005,p. 409).

Thus, the use of the life story method can beseen as “narrative truth” representing remem-bered facts and a presentation of people’sselves that is made according to specificmomentary influences, rather than accurate sci-entific truth (Jones, Latham, and Betta 2008;Lindgren and Packendorff 2009).

The life story method is an inductiveapproach (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber1998). According to Eisenhardt (1989), atheory-building approach is needed at “timeswhen little is known about a phenomenon,[and] current perspectives seem inadequatebecause they have little empirical substantia-tion, or they conflict with each other orcommon sense” (p. 548). Accordingly, thisstudy is based on a discovery process that canlead to a theoretical conceptualization, whichuncovers “patterns of actions and interactionbetween and among various types of socialunits” (Strauss and Corbin 1994, p. 278).

Data AnalysisFollowing the life story approach, the inter-

views were analyzed in two stages. First, eachinterview was analyzed separately, based onthe meaningful life events told by the SE. Weanalyzed the references made between theirpast events (life events, experience in earlychildhood, and values they absorbed from theirparents) and actions they decided to take in thepresent. Each story was examined with respectto internal consistency to understand the inter-nal coherence of the story and the inferencesmade between the story parts (Lieblich,Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber 1998).

The progression of each story was also con-sidered. As SEs had an ability to start their ownstory independently, each story was uniquebecause some participants related to a lifeevent at the beginning of the interview,whereas others were more systematic. Partici-pants are active constructors of meaning bypresenting their subjective interpretations and

1All interviews were conducted in Hebrew and then translated into English. Respondent comments inquotations are translations that attempt to capture what was said in Hebrew.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT6

an understanding of their behavior (Cassell andSymon 1994). Overall, the themes identified inthe first stage of analysis provided an initialunderstanding of the patterns that emergedfrom the data. These patterns can be consid-ered as a preunderstanding stage (Gummesson2000), providing a basis for further analysis.

In the second stage, we analyzed similarthemes that emerged across the stories. Wecategorized references and identified patternsthat emerged regarding motivations and oppor-tunity recognition. Similar to case study analysismethodology (Eisenhardt 1989), the data analy-sis process was based on both “within” storyand “cross” story analysis. As most of thethemes emerged in each particular story, wewere able to shift the analysis from the indi-vidual level to collective analyses. The secondphase of data analysis enabled an understanding(Gummesson 2000) of the patterns of connec-

tions SEs made between life events, motivations,and opportunity recognition. In addition, eachstory was analyzed with respect to its internalcoherence. The entrepreneurs identified theirdominant or primary motivations that led themto identify a social opportunity. In discussingopportunity recognition, some entrepreneursdescribed that they went through a process ofidea evolution. A detailed example of the dataanalysis process is shown in Figure 1.

To obtain a systematic data structure, wealso followed the first and second order analy-sis usually recommended in cases of groundedtheory (Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton 2012; Pratt,Rockmann, and Kaufmann 2006). At this stage,our aim was to follow the sensemaking of therespondents’ thoughts, intentions, and actions(Clark et al. 2010; Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton2012) to better understand the motivations. Asshown in Figure 2, the data structure provides a

Figure 1Data Analysis Phases

Story ProgressionFuture Challenges

Opportunity Recogni�on

Mo�va�onsLife eventArea of Ac�vity

“I am very disappointed in theauthori�es. When my son was born I had to sleep near the hospital for a half year and I couldn’t work…I needed help but couldn't get any…there are many families in distress and the country can not support all.”

“I decided to expand the venture ac�vity. I think that people like me can contribute to the society and eventually lead to social change.”

“We seek to helpthose who don’t get any assistance from the social security system and other non-profit organiza�ons.”

“I decided that I should make something good for the society.”

“My son was born premature…he washandicapped.”

RS economic consultant and support “we are trying to raise money for families who lost their economic abili�es. We are trying to advise them how to plan their budget and recover.”

Mo�va�ons

Past Present Future

Opportunity Recogni�on

Stage 2: Common themes

Stage 1: Analysis of each story

Internal coherence

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 7

systematic understanding of the interrelationsbetween different stages of data analysis and SEmotivations.

To validate and triangulate the themes thatemerged from the data, we compared themwith interviews with Israeli SEs conducted byBar Shalom and Sarel (2011). This additionalstep was conducted in order to increase validity(Creswell and Miller 2000). The emergentthemes from the life story interviews are similarto those addressed by Bar Shalom and Sarel,providing confidence in the reliability andvalidity of the results (Morse et al. 2002).

FindingsPull Factors

The analysis identified 18 of the 30 (60percent) SEs who were primarily motivated bypull factors, self-motivations based on internalchoices, and desires to be socially active toachieve social goals. The pull factors weredivided into three general subcategories: lifeevents in the present and the past; social aware-

ness since childhood; and ideological motiva-tions. In addition, some of the SEs describedpersonal rehabilitation and spiritual guidanceas underlying motivations.

Ten out of 18 “pull” SEs related their primaryemotional motivations to life events. The deci-sion to become an SE differed according towhen the life event occurred. Two main pat-terns of emotional motivations emerged: emo-tional motivation based on life events in thepresent and emotional motivation based on lifeevents in the past.

Pull Factors—Life Events in the Present. SEs inthis category relate to their personal experi-ences in coping with a specific problem thatwas not adequately supported by the socialsystem. Their motivation was to solve their ownproblem by identifying other people who wereexperiencing similar problems. For example,SA explained, “My middle daughter suffersfrom cerebral palsy. Due to my disappointmentwith the national bureaucracy I decided that

Figure 2Data Structure

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT8

somebody should do something in order toassist parents of such children to cope with thedifficulties.”2 ZP, who established a venture foreducating disabled children, stated. “Actually, Ididn’t do it for the community—it is not thepoint . . . it came to me from my daughter andnot from any other place.”

EL established a social venture to supportnew immigrant families with children whobecame drug addicts as a result of her ownexperience. Her son became a drug addict, andshe felt helpless. She decided to “look forwomen that experienced similar problem . . . Idecided to organize them because when youare alone you are vulnerable but if you areunified as a group, you have power.”

Even though the initial awareness of theproblem became salient from their personalsituations, in these three cases, the motivationsextended beyond helping their own familymembers. Rather the SEs were empathic towardand wanted to improve the lot of other peoplein similar situations, to prevent them fromundergoing the pain that they, themselves, hadexperienced. Even ZP, who stated, “I didn’t doit for the community,” started a social venturethat benefitted the community.

Pull Factors—Life Events in the Past (EarlyChildhood and Adulthood). SEs in this cat-egory relate to life events in the past, eitheras children or as adults. They identified acritical event that motivated them to establisha social venture to solve a problem they facedin the past. For example, YL makes a directassociation between his experience as a childand his actions as an SE. “Many times wedidn’t have Purim rituals and I remember thatI felt ashamed . . . what is important to me isto protect other children from some of thedifficulties I faced as a child, not only thematerial issues but also emotionally . . . I alsohave a hungry baby deep in my soul. I relateto baby’s food as an important medicine for illpeople—that’s why we also help with babyfood.”

Similarly, NV explained that her own expe-rience as a divorced woman led her to become

active to help economically empower otherwomen. “I was beaten in my soft stomach . . . Ithought that everything a woman needed islove . . . and then I found myself alone . . . Icould never be active in this field without myexperience . . . entrepreneurship can empowerwomen . . . I transferred that love I had in myprevious life to other women, to internal love.”Similarly, A was motivated to be active onbehalf of divorced men because of his divorceexperience and the tendency of the court to“discriminate between women and males.”

DS said his motivation was based on hisexperience as a young adult when he recog-nized that he was gay and could not get appro-priate support. “I think to myself what pushedme, what pushed me to invest so much and Ithink that my main motivation is . . . the traumaI experienced between the ages of 14–18, thelife in a confusion zone led me eventually to beactive. Retrospectively it was a way for per-sonal rehabilitation.”

In his story, RS made an indirect connectionbetween his life event experience and motiva-tion to assist families in economic crisis. “I amthe kind of person that doesn’t like to beassisted . . . several years ago my child wasborn as a premature baby after seven years offertility treatment. My world collapsed. I feltthat I can’t trust anybody, I needed others’ helpbut I felt frustrated because I didn’t have anysupport . . . I then decided to be active inmaking something good for society.”

In all of these cases, the SEs experiencedpain in the past. Each created a social venturethat would help alleviate others from experi-encing the pain, shame, abuse, or confusionthat they had experienced. They want to helpindividuals in similar circumstances.

One part of emotional motivation for SEsinvolves transforming past events into collec-tive action. These SEs expressed their activityas Tikun, a religious concept that means a kindof healing or rehabilitation.

AY established a social venture to integrateyoung people in the kibbutz3 movement. “Ithought I wouldn’t become a social entrepre-neur if there weren’t open wounds inside me,

2Even though the respondents’ comments are in quotes, they are not a word-for-word translation fromHebrew to English. Rather they attempt to capture what was said in Hebrew in a more readable form. Thecomments represent a sample of what was said.3A kibbutz is a socialist community where property is collectively owned. The plural of kibbutz is kibbutzim.In Israel, there are secular and religious kibbutzim.

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 9

the tremendous pain I experienced in my child-hood, the feeling that nobody appreciated me,the way they treated me like a schlemiel.”4 DS,who established a support group for the LGBT(lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) com-munity said, “In my opinion, the experience Ihad, being a scared boy at the age of 14, whodiscovered that he was gay and didn’t have anyplace to go, became a dominant theme inexplaining my activities. My primary motivationwas to produce a safe place for other youngpeople in order to prevent them from havingthe experiences I had . . . In some ways, retro-spectively, it was a personal rehabilitation.”Similarly, NV, who established a social ventureto empower women through entrepreneurshipeducation said that her experience as a youngdivorced woman guided her. “I invest in myvolunteers as if they were my best friends . . . itis like I am compensating myself from where Iwas hurt and I had a chance to correct it.”

Pull Factors—Social Awareness since Child-hood. SEs in this category connect their moti-vations to a social awareness since childhood,the values they absorbed from their parents’behavior, and how their social awareness wasshaped unconsciously during their childhood.A explained, “My father served the community,my grandfather served the community. I mighthave the genes of leaders . . . similar to genesof people who have addiction . . . since I was inkindergarten I was a leader, as my father andgrandfather were. Like intergeneration transferof leadership, like alcoholism.”

M spoke of her compassion, referring to herinitiative to take care of abandoned babies,“like my mother who chose to adopt the ugliestdog from the kennel because she knew thatnobody would pick him.” AY related to hisparents as a role model for his educationalactivities: “Although my late parents facedmany difficulties, they raised my two cousins asif they were two of my natural four brothers.”

SEs in this category often spoke about valuesthat were transmitted to them from theirparents or grandparents that created awarenessin childhood or early adulthood. These valueswere modeled by elders and became an inher-ent part of their motivations.

Pull Factors—Ideological Motivation. Threepeople discussed their ideological motivationfor becoming SEs. RP said that his tendency tobecome socially active emerged when he was17 after visiting the concentration camps. Hedecided to establish a social venture based on“spreading light and good things.” RP said thattogether with friends “we looked for an ideathat would gather as many young people aspossible. An idea that many people in thesociety can share and that can be measured . . .we then discovered that settlements in theNegev and the Galil5 could meet these criteria.”

AA established a college and a museum tocelebrate Rabbi Mohliver, an early Zionist. “Ihope that the college will contribute to RabbiMohliver’s ideology based on ‘peace and love.’”E spoke about his desire to integrate musiciansand establish an orchestra for amateurs. Creat-ing musical organizations can “contribute to theindividual’s emotional wellbeing and familyharmony. If one is more relaxed or content hecan be more at peace.”

Pull Factors—Mystical or Spiritual Guidanceand Mission from Above. Respondentsdescribed a spiritual component to becomingSEs. A, who established a support group fordrug addicts, said that he got his mission ofbecoming an SE in a mystical way. He decidedto help drug addicts after one of the addicts heknew died and left a letter, money, and a willwith a request to “do whatever you can toprevent other people from dying from drugs. . . I am leaving you the necessary money forthat.”

Z, who established a boarding school forchildren, stated that his decision to be active asan SE was directed from above. “I am a spiritualman, so it is hard to me to think that I decidedsomething so dramatic regarding my life path.There is God above me. He open doors andshows the way. There is much that doesn’tdepend on me.”

Push FactorsTwelve (40 percent) of the SEs described

their decision to become SEs as a natural optionfor career development. MA, who supports newimmigrants, explained that she was very frus-

4A bungler, inept or unlucky person, for whom things never seem to turn out well.5Galilee is part of the Galil region. Both the Negev, a desert, and the Galil are underpopulated regions ofIsrael.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT10

trated by the way the social welfare systemtreated new immigrants. The idea for the socialventure was based on her professional experi-ence: “I am a social worker . . . I saw that newimmigrants face problems when they apply topublic institutions . . . public institutions areincapable of providing services that fit theirclients as business institutions do.”

Another SE stated that his motivation wasrelated to job dissatisfaction. AG, who providessupport for Ethiopian youth and immigrants,said he was dissatisfied with what he was doingand wanted to find something more satisfying.“At the beginning I felt that I was dissatisfiedwith my occupation in marketing. It led me tolook for something that would satisfy my soul.I looked for a special niche.”

Other respondents identified job dissatisfac-tion as a motivator for leaving their jobs in thecommercial world or government service tobecome an SE. For example, YL became an SEas a transition between jobs. “I was a bankerfor years and I had a very senior position.Then I had a private company that failed . . .and I started to work in a volunteer associa-tion.” Others said that they looked for a ful-filling and meaningful career. AH explained: “Iwas successful but didn’t get up in themorning with joy to chase after people’smoney . . . Those were not the values I wastaught. My partner and I decided to establish anew venture that would have deep meaningfor our souls . . . we wanted to do somethingmeaningful together.”

Opportunity Recognition by SEsSE opportunity recognition was based on

several patterns: identifying opportunitiesbased on life events in the present and in thepast, identifying social needs, and finding anidea that evolves over time.

Identifying Opportunities Based on Present andPast Experience. SEs in this category identi-fied gaps based on their own life events. Theyexperienced personal problems but could notget adequate help. Their motivation was highlyinterrelated to social awareness and opportu-nity recognition.

Some SEs related their life events to theiractivities in the present. When referring toopportunity recognition, they described unmetneeds that led them to establish social ventures,searching for other people who dealt with thesame problem. ZP explained that when he

could not find an appropriate school for hisdisabled daughter, he “cooperated with otherparents who decided to do things alone[without help from outsiders]. We did every-thing independently, we established a summercamp and we saw that we are not alone, manyparents face a similar problem.”

Others in this category identified opportuni-ties related to problems faced in the past andtheir inability to fulfill unmet needs. These SEsconnected their vulnerability in the past to adesire to help other people in similar circum-stances cope in the present. NV, who estab-lished a social venture to empower otherwomen through entrepreneurial training, con-nected her past experience of divorce to hercurrent activities. After she retired, she estab-lished a social venture to help women.

DS identified an opportunity to create asupport group for the LGBT communities inJerusalem. He was motivated by his own expe-rience during adolescence when he realizedthat he was gay. “There is a community thatdoesn’t get an answer . . . in my opinion thefact that at the age of 14 I was scared and didn’thave anybody to speak to . . . was my motiva-tion to create a safe place for youths, to preventthem from having the experience I had.” DSalso spoke about his activity as a “personalpatch” of the trauma he experienced betweenthe ages of 14–18.

Identification of Social Needs. SEs in this cat-egory are motivated by both pull and pushfactors, based on a gap between the nationalsocial services provided and the unmet needsof specific communities. Different from oppor-tunity recognition that was based on life events,SEs in this category relate to their sensitivity forweak communities and the need to establishsocial ventures to meet their needs. Mexplained that by taking care of abandonedbabies “we are actually fulfilling a gap that thecountry should be responsible for.”

MA, who established an organization tosupport new immigrants, explained that“national services are not meant to give servicesthat fit their customers like business ventures. . . they use cultural codes that cannot beunderstood by new immigrants . . . the snob-bery of social services in regard to new immi-grants is incredible.” MA referred to her activityas an opportunity that combined her profes-sional skills and the need for change in thesocial services.

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 11

Process Evolution of an Idea. This categoryincludes SEs who identify opportunities as aprocess of the evolution of an idea during theirprofessional and personal experience. They aremotivated by both pull and push factors: socialawareness since childhood and life events.However, the experiences led to social aware-ness for general social problems that was notdirectly connected to life story events. Forexample, A, who established a support groupfor drug rehabilitation said that he wasinvolved in social activities abroad where hegot a request for help from a drug addict. Theturning point that led him to become an SEseems mystical. A explained that he got initialmoney from a man in his community who diedfrom a drug overdose. “When I went to thisperson’s grave to ask his forgiveness because Ididn’t help him [when he asked], his daughtercame to me and gave me an envelope with aletter from her late father who asked me to dowhatever I could to prevent other people dyingfrom the ‘white monster’ . . . ‘I leave you moneyfor that.’”

RS established a social venture to assist fami-lies in economic trouble: “I saw a friend whowas active in helping families who had to raisemoney for health treatments and I fell in lovewith the idea of giving without return.” RSexplained that he was looking for a similar ideaand eventually decided to “help needy peoplewho fall between the social system andother social ventures, people who don’t getassistance.”

Table 2 summarizes the interrelations foundbetween SE motivations and opportunityrecognition.

DiscussionDespite the growing numbers of SEs who

fulfill unmet social needs, there is a paucity ofresearch on SE motivations and opportunityrecognition (Corner and Ho 2010; Shaw andCarter 2007). The aim of this study was toexplore the motivations of SEs and how theyidentify opportunities. It is aligned with arecent call to examine the ways in which entre-preneurs’ motivations vary across types ofentrepreneurs and how their motivations andvalues are interrelated with opportunity recog-nition (Carsrud and Brännback 2011).

Life story analysis revealed the introspectionprocess of sensemaking through which SEsexplained their motivations. SE stories demon-strated the relation between their understating

of their social mission (calling) and the way inwhich they adapted to this understanding (Halland Chandler 2005). Based on goal setting per-spective, our findings indicate that differentmotivations led to conscious and purposefulactions of SEs. SEs’ stories demonstrate thesense-making and consciousness processes thatleads to purposeful actions to achieve socialgoals (Locke 1996).

Comparing the study results with Cornerand Ho (2010), our findings show that SEmotivations are grounded in their pull andpush factors rather than an inspiration or a“spark moment.” Furthermore, our narrativeanalysis shows that SEs shape opportunitiesdynamically by drawing paths of meaningbetween their past experiences and presentactions demonstrating that motivations areinterrelated to opportunity recognition (Garudand Giuliani 2013). Their discovery of newopportunities is based on idiosyncratic lifeexperiences and prior knowledge that createsa “knowledge corridor” and an ability to rec-ognize opportunities that others might miss(Shane 2000).

The study findings contribute to the theoreti-cal development of the social entrepreneurshipliterature through an empirical examination ofthe life stories of SEs, showing interrelationsbetween SEs’ motivations and opportunity rec-ognition. As presented in Figure 3, we proposea theoretical process model that expands thecurrent literature.

The model shows that different motivationslead to social awareness and opportunity rec-ognition. Both cognitive and emotional pro-cesses are evoked in developing prosocialmotivations (Miller et al. 2012; Powell andBaker 2013). The sense-making process intro-duces a cognitive scheme that enables entre-preneurs to draw connections between theirlife experience, social awareness, and purpose-ful action. In the sense-making process, entre-preneurs delineated cognitive explanations foractions that were taken to reduce emotionaltension caused by problems they faced in thepresent or in the past (Weick, Sutcliffe, andObstfeld 2005).

In some cases, the time span to transform SEsocial awareness into action can be lengthy andcan be explained retrospectively (Baron 2012).Though goal-setting theory suggests thatactions are conscious, our model shows that inthe case of personal rehabilitation and long-standing social awareness, consciousness

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT12

Tab

le2

Fin

din

gs

Sum

mar

y*

Opport

unit

yR

ecognit

ion

Entr

epre

neu

rM

oti

vati

ons

Fin

din

gSolu

tion

Bas

edon

Pre

sent

Exper

ience

(N=

5)

Fin

din

gSolu

tion

Bas

edon

Pas

tExper

ience

(N=

5)

Iden

tifi

cati

on

wit

hSoci

alN

eeds

(N=

14)

Pro

cess

Evo

luti

on

of

anId

ea(N

=6)

Dis

trib

uti

on

of

Moti

vati

ons

Pull

Fact

ors

Live

Eve

nts

:Pre

sent

Exp

erie

nce

2,10

,22

,24

,30

8,12

,16

14Pas

tExp

erie

nce

3,11

9**

Soci

alA

war

enes

ssi

nce

Childhood

61*

*,7

Ideo

logy

4,13

,15

18Pull

(60

per

cent)

Push

Fact

ors

Nat

ura

lO

ption

for

Car

eer

Dev

elopm

ent

5,17

,18

,19

,20

,21

,23

,27

,28

,29

25**

,26

12Push

(40

per

cent)

*Num

ber

sin

cells

corr

espond

toth

eso

cial

ventu

res

inTab

le1.

**Entr

epre

neu

rsw

ho

men

tioned

mys

tica

lor

spir

itual

guid

ance

and

mis

sion

from

above

.

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 13

actions evolved over time as suggested byGarud and Giuliani (2013). Similarly, the evo-lution of social awareness in push motivationscan also be lengthy as they develop socialawareness and identification with unmet socialneed over time. Our findings indicate thatsocial awareness among push motivationsevolve because of different triggers, fromopportunities discovered in their jobs, a desireto take an action because of job dissatisfaction,and a search for a meaningful activity.

Our findings expand the literature on SEopportunity recognition by showing that mostSEs driven by pull factors become sociallyaware through life events. This finding isaligned with Smith, Matthews, and Schenkel’s(2009) understanding that opportunity recogni-tion based on previous experience uses tacitknowledge to identify new opportunities. Ourfindings suggest that tacit knowledge can begained in the social arena through personalexperience and social awareness rather thanknowledge accumulated through prior workexperience (Shane 2000).

Our process model demonstrates key differ-ences between social and commercial entrepre-neurs as it provide an important insight for the

antecedents that lead to opportunity recogni-tion by SEs. Similar to commercial entrepre-neurs, opportunity recognition among SEs isdriven by goal setting. However, it seems thatthe process of opportunity recognition in thesocial entrepreneurship arena is inherently dif-ferent. Identifying an opportunity in the socialarena is most often connected with solving aproblem. It involves a process of resolving atension between unmet social need that islinked to a broad social mission in favor of thecommunity rather than a gap between needsand demands. Though commercial entrepre-neurs’ idea development occurs after an oppor-tunity is identified (Shane, Locke, and Collins2003), in the social entrepreneurship arena, theprocess of idea development occurs at theopportunity recognition stage, especially whenSEs have tacit knowledge about specific socialneeds.

Our findings also contribute to the literatureon entrepreneurial affect: SEs driven by pullfactors related their feelings and actions to per-sonal difficulties they faced. Our process modelsuggests that unlike commercial entrepreneurs(Shane, Locke, and Collins 2003), social aware-ness is a process in which people can feel a

Figure 3From Motivation to Opportunity Recognition

Motivations

Formation/type of Social Venture

Life events in the present

Life events in the past

Awareness since childhood and adulthood

Ideology

Spiritual imperative

Push factors

Awarenessof Unmet

Social Needs

Pull factors

Natural option for career development

Opportunity recognition

Problem Solving

Personal Rehabilitation

Enhanced Sense of Purpose/Sympathy

Ethical/MoralOrientation

Time (intentions actions)

Sense-making

Purposeful actions

Empathy Based onPrior Knowledge

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT14

tension regarding their own problems andunmet needs. Accordingly, prosocial behaviorsdemonstrate empathy to the suffering andneeds of others based on the same experienceor problem (Powell and Baker 2013). Our find-ings show that pull factor motivations associ-ated with empathy and compassion that led toprosocial actions were based on SEs’ own expe-rience, whereas push factor motivations are notnecessarily related to personal experience(Miller et al. 2012; Powell and Baker 2013).

Opportunity recognition caused by pullmotivations was based on entrepreneurs’ tacitunderstanding of the gap between a group’sunmet needs. Accordingly, SEs driven by pullmotivations were influenced more by careercalling than mere vocational choice. In con-trast, push factor motivations were typicallyrelated to job dissatisfaction or career develop-ment. These findings expand the understand-ing that affect has as an influence on SEmotivations and opportunity recognition(Cardon et al. 2012). In addition, the role ofaffect in opportunity recognition among SEssuggests that opportunity recognition defini-tions should take into account emotional pro-cesses along with cognitive process (Hansen,Shrader, and Monllor 2011).

Limitations, Future Research,and Practical Implications

By design, our sample consisted of IsraeliSEs. Israel is a unique country with elements ofhighly developed economies and elements ofmuch less developed immigrants. Futureresearch should occur in other countries withdifferent demographic characteristics. One pos-sible exploration could involve correspondingto the three categories used in the Global Entre-preneurship Monitor report (Kelley, Singer, andHerrington 2011): factor-driven economies(subsistence agriculture and extraction ofnatural resources), efficiency-driven economies(increased industrialization and economies ofscale), and innovation-driven economies. Thiswould allow a more detailed examination ofmotivations and opportunity recognition in dif-ferent contexts.

Although the life story method examinesmotivations and the ways in which entrepre-neurs learn and grow (Hytti 2005; Rae 2004,2005; Rae and Carswell 2000), the stories wereconstructed retrospectively. It is possible that ahindsight or recollection bias could have been

introduced in a subconscious effort to make themotivations and identities consistent withactions taken.

Our sample focused on small-scale SEs whodealt with immediate problems, typically, on alocal scale. Zahra et al. (2009) identify threedifferent categories of SEs: social bricoleurswho tend to address small-scale local socialneeds, social constructionists who work on alarger scale within the existing social system,and social engineers who introduce revolution-ary changes. Our sample is more aligned withsocial bricoleurs. Baker and Nelson (2005)define bricolage as “making do by applyingcombinations of resources at hand to new prob-lems and opportunities” (p. 33). Responding toresource constraints, bricoleurs tend to operatein a penurious environment, engaging in cre-ative reinvention using resources for purposesthat may not have been originally intended(Fisher 2012; Senyard et al. 2013). They tend toimprovise, making it up as they go along(Baker 2007; Baker, Miner, and Eesley 2003).However, not all of the SEs in our samplecontinued to be bricoleurs. Future researchcould focus on other categories of SEs, such associal constructionists and social engineers.

Further research can also consider exploringthe differences between SEs’ entrepreneurialprocesses suggested by Fisher (2012). Examin-ing SEs’ purposeful actions through differenttheoretical perspectives—causation, effectua-tions, and bricolage processes—can contributeto theoretical development regarding the inter-relations between SEs’ opportunity recognitionand exploitation.

The role of individual values of SEs and theirmotivations can also be examined in futureresearch. Individual values play a role inshaping attitudes and behaviors (Homer andKahle 1988). Values are adaptive higher ordersocial cognitions that serve as guiding prin-ciples in people’s lives (Kropp, Lavack, andSilvera 2006; Schwartz 2005). People tend toact in ways that are consistent with theirvalues. Contextually, values can be viewed as amotivational construct based on subjectivebeliefs that are tied to specific actions andsituations (Schwartz 2005; Schwartz et al.2009). Understanding values will help under-stand motivations.

Another area of future research involves col-lecting quantitative data to validate our theo-retical process model. Though the life storymethod is useful in developing theory

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 15

(Eisenhardt 1989; Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach,and Zilber 1998), using multi-method explora-tion is required to explore generalizability(Coviello and Jones 2004).

The findings of our study suggest practicalimplications for the field of social entrepre-neurship. First, understanding SE motivationscan help social investors evaluate SEs’ abilityto be successful prosocial actors based ontheir tacit knowledge about the unmet needsof specific communities. Social investors areusually concerned about the effectiveness oftheir investments. We believe that pull-motivated entrepreneurs can establish goalsfor unmet needs and also be passionate aboutprosocial activities in order to change govern-mental policies.

Similarly, a better understanding of the moti-vations and SE opportunity recognition canprovide strategic input for government andquasi-government organizations to developpublic policy to support nascent and early-stage SEs. These policy initiatives can be tar-geted to help the SEs translate their motivationsfrom the opportunity recognition stage toventure creation. Programs can be developedto help support such entrepreneurs.

In speaking with numerous SEs, we identi-fied a wide range of business sophistication. Inthe extreme, some of the SEs were well-intentioned people with little business experi-ence who identified a problem and crafted asolution to it. Programs could be developed toassist these people in mastering what couldbroadly be called the business aspects of socialentrepreneurship. An understanding of themotivations and opportunity recognitionprocesses could enhance the probability ofdeveloping effective programs consistent withthe values of the SE.

As described earlier, SEs can use differentprocesses to create and maintain social ven-tures, such as causation, effectuation, and bri-colage. In reality, SEs may use each of theseprocesses in various stages of their ventures.Understanding the motivations, opportunityrecognition, and the role they play in venturecreations can enhance the effectiveness of SEsto create vision, elaborate strategic planning,establish measurable goals, and expand activi-ties to different communities.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to Alan Carsrud and the two

anonymous reviewers for their insightful com-

ments. We would like to thank the MiddleburyInstitute of International Studies at Montereyand the Joseph and Shelia Mark Faculty Devel-opment Fund for their support.

ReferencesAmit, R., and E. Muller (1995). “Push and

Pull Entrepreneurship,” Journal of SmallBusiness and Entrepreneurship 12(4),64–80.

Anderson, A. R. (2000). “The Protean Entrepre-neur: The Entrepreneurial Process as FittingSelf and Circumstance,” Journal of Enterpris-ing Culture 8(3), 201–234.

Ardichvili, A., R. Cardoza, and S. Ray (2003). “ATheory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Iden-tification and Development,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 18(1), 105–123.

Austin, J., H. H. Stevenson, and J. Wei-Skillen(2006). “Social and Commercial Entrepre-neurship: Same, Different, or Both,” Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice 30(1),1–22.

Baker, T. (2007). “Resources in Play: Bricolagein the Toy Store(y),” Journal of BusinessVenturing 22, 694–711.

Baker, T., and R. E. Nelson (2005). “CreatingSomething from Nothing: Resource Con-struction through Entrepreneurial Brico-lage,” Administrative Science Quarterly50(3), 329–366.

Baker, T., A. Miner, and D. Eesley (2003).“Improvising Firms: Bricolage, AccountGiving and Improvisational Competency inthe Founding Process,” Research Policy32(2), 329–366.

Bar Shalom, Y., and A. Sarel (2011). Change byDoing: Narratives of Social Entrepreneurs inIsrael. Jerusalem: Carmel.

Baron, R. A. (2012). Entrepreneurship: AnEvidence-Based Guide. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.

Bellah, R. N., W. M. Sullivan, S. M. Tipton, R.Madsen, and A. Swindler (1996). Habits ofthe Heart: Individualism and Commitmentin American Life. Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.

Brooks, A. C. (2009). Social Entrepreneurship:A Modern Approach to Social Value Cre-ation. Cambridge, MA: Root Cause.

Buechner, C. F. (1973). Wishful Thinking: ATheological ABC. New York: HarperCollins.

Buttner, E. H., and D. P. Moore (1997).“Women’s Organizational Exodus to Entre-preneurship: Self-reported Motivations and

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT16

Correlates with Success,” Journal of SmallBusiness Management 35(1), 34–46.

Cardon, M. S., M. D. Foo, D. Shepherd, and J.Wiklund (2012). “Exploring the Heart: Entre-preneurial Emotion Is a Hot Topic,” Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice 36(1),1–10.

Carsrud, A., and M. Brännback (2011). “Entre-preneurial Motivations: What Do We StillNeed to Know?,” Journal of Small BusinessManagement 39(1), 9–26.

Cassell, C., and G. Symon (1994). QualitativeMethods in Organizational Research.London: Sage.

Clark, S. M., D. A. Gioia, D. J. Ketchen, and D.J. Thomas (2010). “Transitional Identity as aFacilitator of Organizational Identity Changeduring a Merger,” Administrative ScienceQuarterly 55, 397–438.

Corbett, A. C. (2007). “Learning Asymmetriesand the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Oppor-tunities,” Journal of Business Venturing 22,97–118.

Corner, P. D., and M. Ho (2010). “How Oppor-tunities Develop in Social Entrepreneur-ship,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice34(4), 635–659.

Coviello, N. E., and M. V. Jones (2004). “Meth-odological Issues in International Entrepre-neurship Research,” Journal of BusinessVenturing 19(4), 485–508.

Creswell, J. W., and D. L. Miller (2000). “Deter-mining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry,”Theory into Practice 39(3), 124–130.

Davidsson, P. (2005). Researching Entrepre-neurship. New York: Springer.

Di Domenico, M., H. Haugh, and P. Tracey(2010). “Social Bricolage: Theorizing SocialValue Creation in Social Enterprises,” Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice 34(4), 681–703.

Dorado, S. (2006). “Social Entrepreneurial Ven-tures: Different Values So Different Processesof Creation, No?,” Journal of DevelopmentalEntrepreneurship 11(4), 319–343.

Dorado, S., and M. J. Ventresca (2013).“Crescive Entrepreneurship in ComplexSocial Problems: Institutional Conditions forEntrepreneurial Engagement,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 28, 69–82.

Downing, S. (2005). “The Social Construction ofEntrepreneurship: Narrative and DramaticProcesses in the Coproduction of Organiza-tions and Identities,” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 29(2), 185–204.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Building Theoriesfrom Case Study Research,” Academy ofManagement Review 14(4), 532–550.

Fisher, G. (2012). “Effectuation, Causation andBricolage: A Behavioral Comparison ofEmerging Theories in EntrepreneurshipResearch,” Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice 36(5), 1019–1054.

Gagné, M., and E. L. Deci (2005). “Self-Determination Theory and Work Motiva-tion,” Journal of Organizational Behavior26, 331–362.

Gartner, W. B. (2007). “Entrepreneurial Narra-tive and a Science of the Imagination,”Journal of Business Venturing 22(5), 613–627.

——— (2008). “Variations in Entrepreneur-ship,” Small Business Economics 31, 351–361.

——— (2010). “A New Path to the Waterfall: ANarrative on a Use of Entrepreneurial Narra-tive,” International Small Business Journal28(1), 6–19.

Garud, R., and A. P. Giuliani (2013). “A Narra-tive Perspective on Entrepreneurial Oppor-tunities,” Academy of Management Review38(1), 157–160.

Gidron, B., M. Bar, and H. Katz (2004). TheIsraeli Sector: Between Welfare State andCivil Society. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Gioia, D. A., K. G. Corley, and A. L. Hamilton(2012). “Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Induc-tive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodol-ogy,” Organizational Research Methods16(1), 15–31.

Goss, D. (2005). “Entrepreneurship and ‘TheSocial’: Towards a Deference-EmotionTheory,” Human Relations 58(5), 617–636.

Guclu, A., J. G. Dees, and B. B. Anderson(2002). “The process of social entrepreneur-ship: Creating opportunities worthy ofserious pursuit,” Center for the Advance-ment of Social Entrepreneurship, Duke Uni-versity, Durham, NC.

Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods inManagement Research. London: Sage.

Hakim, C. (1989). “New Recruits to Self-Employment in the 1980s,” EmploymentGazette 97, 286–297.

Hall, D. T., and D. Chandler (2005). “Psycho-logical Success: When the Career Is aCalling,” Journal of Organizational Behav-ior 26, 155–176.

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 17

Hansen, D. J., R. Shrader, and J. Monllor (2011).“Defragmenting Definitions of Entrepreneur-ial Opportunity,” Journal of Small BusinessManagement 49(2), 283–304.

Haugh, H. (2005). “A Research Agenda forSocial Entrepreneurship,” Social EnterpriseJournal 1(2), 1–12.

Homer, P. M., and L. H. Kahle (1988). “A Struc-tural Equation Analysis of the Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 54, 638–646.

Hytti, U. (2005). “New Meanings for Entrepre-neurs: From Risk-Taking Heroes to Safe-Seeking Professionals,” Journal ofOrganizational Change Management 18(6),594–611.

Jones, R., J. Latham, and M. Betta (2008). “Nar-rative Construction of the Social Entrepre-neurial Identity,” International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour and Research14(5), 330–345.

Kelley, D. J., S. Singer, and M. Herrington(2011). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:2011 Global Report. Wellesley, MA: BabsonCollege.

Kropp, F., A. Lavack, and D. Silvera (2006).“Values and Collective Self-Esteem as Predic-tors of Consumer Susceptibility to Interper-sonal Influence among University Students,”International Marketing Review 22(1), 7–23.

Kropp, F., N. J. Lindsay, and A. Shoham (2006).“Entrepreneurial, Market, and Learning Ori-entations and International EntrepreneurialBusiness Venture Performance in SouthAfrica,” International Marketing Review23(5), 504–523.

Lieblich, A., R. Tuval-Mashiach, and T. Zilber(1998). Narrative Research: Reading, Analy-sis and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Lindgren, M., and J. Packendorff (2009). “SocialConstructionism and Entrepreneurship;Basic Assumptions and Consequences forTheory and Research,” InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour andResearch 15(1), 25–47.

Locke, E. A. (1996). “Motivation through Con-scious Goal Setting,” Applied and PreventivePsychology 5, 117–124.

Locke, E. A., G. P. Latham, and M. Erez (1988).“The Determinants of Goal Commitment,”Academy of Management Review 13(1),23–39.

London, M. (2010). “Understanding SocialAdvocacy: An Integrative Model of Motiva-tion, Strategy, and Persistence in Support ofCorporate Social Responsibility and SocialEntrepreneurship,” Journal of ManagementDevelopment 29(3), 224–245.

Lumpkin, G. T., and G. G. Dess (1996). “Clari-fying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Con-struct and Linking It to Performance,”Academy of Management Review 21, 135–172.

McAdams, D. P. (1999). “Personal Narrativesand the Life Story,” in Handbook of Person-ality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed. Eds. L.A. Pervin and O. P. John. New York: Guil-ford, 478–500.

McKenzie, B. (2005). “Collecting Oral Historiesfor Entrepreneurship Research,” NewEngland Journal of Entrepreneurship 8(1),37–48.

Mair, J., and E. Noboa (2006). “Social Entrepre-neurship: How Intentions to Create a SocialVenture Are Formed,” in Social Entrepre-neurship. Eds. J. Mair, J. Robinson, and K.Hockerts. London: Palgrave, 121–135.

Martin, S., and R. Osberg (2007). “Social Entre-preneurship: The Case for Definition,” Stan-ford Social Innovation Review 5(2), 26–39.

Meyskens, M., C. Robb-Post, J. A. Stamp, A. L.Carsrud, and P. D. Reynolds (2010). “SocialVentures from a Resource-Based Perspec-tive: An Exploratory Study Assessing GlobalAshoka Fellows,” Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice 34(4), 661–680.

Miller, T. L., M. G. Grimes, J. S. McMullen, andT. I. Vogus (2012). “Venturing for Otherswith Heard and Head: How CompassionEncourages Social Entrepreneurship,”Academy of Management Review 37(4), 616–640.

Mitchell, R. K. (1997). “Oral History and ExpertScripts: Demystifying the EntrepreneurialExperience,” International Journal of Entre-preneurial Behaviour and Research 3(2),122–139.

Morris, M. H., D. F. Kurtato, and M.Schindehutte (2001). “ReconceptualizingEntrepreneurship: An Input-Output Perspec-tive,” International Journal of Entrepreneur-ship and Innovation 59(1), 21–31.

Morse, J. M., M. Barrett, M. Mayan, K. Olson,and J. Spiers (2002). “Verification Strategiesfor Establishing Reliability and Validity inQualitative Research,” International Journalof Qualitative Methods 1(2), 13–22.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT18

Nicholls, A. (2010). “The Legitimacy of SocialEntrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism ina Pre-Paradigmatic Field,” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 34(4), 611–633.

Oncer, A. C., and M. L. Yildiz (2010). “CreatingSustainable Value for Society: Social Entre-preneurship,” The Business Review, Cam-bridge 14(2), 222–228.

Powell, E. E., and T. Baker (2013). “How CanWe Help? The Distinctive Impact of Empathyand Sympathy in the Emergence of SocialVenture Missions,” Paper presented at themini conference on social change, innova-tion, and entrepreneurial activity, SASE,June, Milan, Italy.

Pratt, M. G., K. W. Rockmann, and J. B.Kaufmann (2006). “Constructing Profes-sional Identity: The Role of Work and Iden-tity Learning Cycles in the Customization ofIdentity among Medical Residents,”Academy of Management Journal 49(2),235–262.

Rae, D. (2004). “Practical Theories from Entre-preneurs’ Stories: Discursive Approaches toEntrepreneurial Learning,” Journal of SmallBusiness and Enterprise Development 11(2),195–202.

——— (2005). “Entrepreneurial Learning: ANarrative-Based Conceptual Model,” Journalof Small Business and Enterprise Develop-ment 12(3), 323–335.

Rae, D., and M. Carswell (2000). “Using a Life-Story Approach in Researching Entrepre-neurial Learning: The Development of aConceptual Model and Its Implications in theDesign of Learning Experiences,” Educationand Training 42(4/5), 220–228.

Robichaud, Y., R. LeBrasseur, and K. V.Nagarajan (2010). “Necessity andOpportunity-Driven Entrepreneurs inCanada: An Investigation into Their Charac-teristics and an Appraisal of the Role ofGender,” The Journal of Applied Businessand Economics 11(1), 59–79.

Roper, J., and G. Cheney (2005). “Leadership,Learning and Human Resource Management:The Meaning of Social EntrepreneurshipToday,” Corporate Government 5(3), 95–104.

Schwartz, S. H. (2005). “Basic Human Values: AnOverview,” Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

Schwartz, S. H., G. Melech, A. Lehmann, S.Burgess, M. Harris, and V. Owens (2009).“Extending the Cross-Cultural Validity of theTheory of Basic Human Values with a Dif-

ferent Method of Measurement,” Journal ofCross-Cltural Psychology 32(5), 519–542.

Senor, D., and S. Singer (2009). Start-UpNation: The Story of Israel’s EconomicMiracle. New York: Twelve.

Senyard, J., T. Baker, P. Steffens, and P.Davidsson (2013). “Bricolage as a Path toInnovativeness for Resource-ConstrainedNew Firms,” Journal of Product InnovationManagement 31(2), 211–230. accessedonline October 11, 2013.

Shane, S. (2000). “Prior Knowledge and theDiscovery of Entrepreneurial Opportuni-ties,” Organization Science 11(4), 448–469.

Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman (2000). “ThePromise of Entrepreneurship as a Field ofResearch,” Academy of Management Review25(1), 217–226.

Shane, S., E. A. Locke, and C. J. Collins (2003).“Entrepreneurial Motivation,” HumanResource Management Review 13, 257–279.

Shaw, E., and S. Carter (2007). “Social Entre-preneurship: Theoretical Antecedents andEmpirical Analysis of Entrepreneurial Pro-cesses and Outcomes,” Journal of SmallBusiness and Enterprise Development 14(3),418–434.

Short, J. C., T. W. Moss, and G. T. Lumpkin(2009). “Research in Social Entrepreneur-ship: Past Contributions and Future Oppor-tunities,” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal3(2), 161–194.

Smith, B. R., C. H. Matthews, and M. T.Schenkel (2009). “Differences in Entrepre-neurial Opportunities: The Role of Tacitnessand Codification in Opportunity Identifica-tion,” Journal of Small Business Manage-ment 47(1), 38–57.

Stevenson, H. H., and D. Gumpert (1985). “TheHeart of Entrepreneurship,” Harvard Busi-ness Review March–April, 85–94.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin (1994). “GroundedTheory Methodology,” in Handbook ofQualitative Research. Eds. N. K. Denzin andY. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,273–285.

Sullivan Mort, G., J. Weerawardena, and K.Carnegie (2003). “Social Entrepreneurship:Toward Conceptualization,” InternationalJournal of Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorMarketing 8(1), 76–88.

Thompson, J., G. Alvy, and A. Lees (2000).“Social Entrepreneurship: A New Look at thePeople and the Potential,” ManagementDecision 38(5), 328–338.

YITSHAKI AND KROPP 19

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and theSpirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner.

Weick, K. E., K. M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld(2005). “Organizing and the Process ofSensemaking,” Organization Science 16(4),409–421.

Wrzesniewski, A., C. McCauley, P. Rozin, andB. Schwartz (1997). “Jobs, Careers, and Call-ings: People’s Relations to Their Work,”Journal of Research and Personality 31,21–33.

Yitshaki, R., and F. Kropp (2011). “Becoming aSocial Entrepreneur: Understanding Motiva-tions Using Life Story Analysis,” Interna-tional Journal of Business and Globalisation7(3), 319–331.

Zahra, S. A., E. Gedajlovic, D. E. Neubaum, andJ. E. Shulman (2009). “A Typology of SocialEntrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processesand Ethical Challenges,” Journal of BusinessVenturing 24, 519–532.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT20