Skip to main content

Experiment with Self-Identities; Don’t Be Rigidly Defined by Them

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 558 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter returns to the theme of self-identity orientation. It shows more precisely why marginalized and minority entrepreneurs’ progress depends on their ability to flexibly view themselves in various situations or times. It revisits a popular but potentially limiting view of authenticity in mainstream society. This perspective calls for an unflinching commitment to being one’s true self. However, this chapter shows that the story is more complicated because entrepreneurs have multiple versions of themselves, some of which will serve them better in some situations, or stages of their ventures. It specifically encourages marginalized and minority entrepreneurs without a track record of stellar performance to take an innovative and playful approach to their self-identity orientation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

eBook
USD   19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gry Agnete Alsos, Tommy Høyvarde Clausen, Ulla Hytti and Sølvi Solvoll, “Entrepreneurs’ Social Identity and the Preference of Causal and Effectual Behaviours in Start-Up Processes,” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 28, no. 3–4 (2016), pp. 234–258; Jason Lortie, Gary J. Castrogiovanni and Kevin C. Cox, “Gender, Social Salience, and Social Performance: How Women Pursue and Perform in Social Ventures,” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, vol. 29, no. 1–2 (2017), pp. 155–173; Isaac H. Smith and Warner P. Woodworth, “Developing Social Entrepreneurs and Social Innovators: A Social Identity and Self-Efficacy Approach,” Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 11, no. 3 (2012), pp. 390–407.

  2. 2.

    Peter Younkin and Venkat Kuppuswamy, “Discounted: The Effect of Founder Race on the Price of New Products,” Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 34, no. 2 (2019), pp. 389–412.

  3. 3.

    Shepherd and Patzelt (2018).

  4. 4.

    Brickson (2000); Roberts (2005).

  5. 5.

    Roberts (2000).

  6. 6.

    The concept of image discrepancy is discussed in greater detail in Roberts (2000).

  7. 7.

    This point is grounded in insights from the following sources: by Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries, “The Dark Side of Entrepreneurship,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 85, no. 6 (1985), 160–167; Shepherd and Patzelt (2018).

  8. 8.

    Deniz Ucbasaran, Dean A. Shepherd, Andy Lockett and S. John Lyon, “Life After Business Failure: The Process and Consequences of Business Failure for Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Management, vol. 39, no. 1 (2013), pp. 163–202.

  9. 9.

    Ucbasaran et al. (2013).

  10. 10.

    Susan Harter, “Authenticity,” in C R. Snyder and Shane J. Lopez, eds., Handbook of Positive Psychology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 382–394; Herminia Ibarra, “Provisional Selves: Experimenting with Image and Identity in Professional Adaptation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4 (1999), pp. 764–791; Roberts (2005).

  11. 11.

    Roberts (2005).

  12. 12.

    Thomas and Gabarro (1999).

  13. 13.

    Mary J. Benner, “Securities Analysts and Incumbent Response to Radical Technological Change: Evidence from Digital Photography and Internet Telephony,” Organization Science, vol. 21, no. 1 (2010), pp. 42–62; Peter Boatwright, Suman Basuroy and Wagner Kamakura, “Reviewing the Reviewers: The Impact of Individual Film Critics on Box Office Performance,” Quantitative Marketing and Economics, vol. 5, no. 4 (2007), pp. 401–425; Greg Fisher, Suresh Kotha and Amrita Lahiri, “Changing with the Times: An Integrated View of Identity, Legitimacy, and New Venture Life Cycles,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 41, no. 3 (2016), pp. 383–409; Lubomir P. Litov, Patrick Moreton and Todd R. Zenger, “Corporate Strategy, Analyst Coverage, and the Uniqueness Paradox,” Management Science, vol. 58, no. 10 (2012), pp. 1797–1815.

  14. 14.

    Jordi Quoidbach, Daniel T. Gilbert and Timothy D. Wilson, “The End of History Illusion,” Science, vol. 339, no. 6115 (2013), pp. 96–98.

  15. 15.

    Balachandra et al. (2019); Parhankangas and Ehrlich (2014).

  16. 16.

    Ibarra (1999); Herminia Ibarra, “The Authenticity Paradox,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 93, no. 1–2 (2015), pp. 52–59.

  17. 17.

    Ibarra (2015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Horatio M. Morgan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Morgan, H.M. (2020). Experiment with Self-Identities; Don’t Be Rigidly Defined by Them. In: Underdog Entrepreneurs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20408-2_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics