Entrepreneurial Social Identity Management Through Language Use

Abstract

This study draws upon interview data and a grounded theoretical methodology to explore entrepreneurial social identity management. Interviews were conducted with forty-three entrepreneurs in several U.S. cities. The women and men discussed past conversations with (non)entrepreneurs, with foci on self- and other stereotyping, associated language use, prototypicality, and motivation. Open and axial coding of the interview content revealed a new model of entrepreneurial social identity management. The model’s implications for understanding entrepreneurs’ social identity and motivation were discussed.

Keywords

entrepreneurship entrepreneurial identity self-categorization theory labeling linguistic category model norm talk

Entrepreneurs hold high social status in the U.S., due, in part, to enviable stereotypes and the arguable ideal that many employees should develop the entrepreneurial spirit (e.g., Crawford, 2015). Given that entrepreneurial identity is considered a social identity (e.g., Duening, 2017; Fauchart & Gruber, 2011), intra- and intergroup communication may play a role in its management. This communication, and associated cognitions and motivations, are at the center of this exploration of how entrepreneurs manage their social identities through language use.

Entrepreneurial Identity and Communication

Group prototypes are arguably key to social identity formation (see Reid & Anderson, 2010). Interestingly, and concerning entrepreneurship, Morris and Webb (2015, p. 465) have suggested that “no standard prototype of the entrepreneur has emerged.” This state may be rooted in challenges associated with defining entrepreneurship, given its “amorphous” and “highly varied” nature (Duening, 2017, p. 2). Notwithstanding, scholars across several academic disciplines have explored entrepreneurial identity in terms of personal attributes, such as risk-taker, innovator (e.g., Brockhaus, 1980), maverick, relentless (Drakopoulou Dodd & Anderson, 2007), and possessing high self-esteem (Welsch & Young, 1982). Also examined have been entrepreneurs’ identities in terms of the roles they assume, and these often regard the type of entrepreneurship pursued (e.g., small business vs. high-growth venture, or pursued alone vs. in partnership) (e.g., Hoang & Gimeno, 2010). Importantly, many researchers have associated entrepreneurial identity formation with interaction (e.g., Baumeister, 2011; Falck et al., 2012; Rigg & O’Dwyer, 2012). However, the research literature has shown limited concern for communication behaviors, including descriptions of how entrepreneurs manage their group identity through language use. The present study utilizes the intergroup perspective (i.e., entrepreneur—non-entrepreneur) to address this gap, the importance of this endeavor being underscored by increases in the incidence of “boundaryless careers” (e.g., Roperet al., 2010), professionals turning to entrepreneurship to adapt to a changing employment landscape (World Economic Forum, 2020), and the increasing awareness among many professionals of the need to develop an entrepreneurial mindset (Kuratko, 2015; Pando, 2017).

Self-Categorization and Language Perspectives

This inquiry into entrepreneurial identity management draws upon self-categorization theory (SCT; Turner et al., 1987) as a guiding framework. SCT proposes that social identities are activated in the context of particular relationships at certain times, and that these identities are represented by ingroup prototypes. The theory suggests that these prototypes are internalized, generate self-stereotyping and the communication of social norms, and that they are highly salient to group members’ self-image. Furthermore, SCT maintains that group members cognitively enhance or otherwise negotiate their “fit” with the ingroup prototype through intergroup comparisons. Finally, and key to the current study, is the suggestion that ingroup prototypes are the basis for linguistic manifestations of stereotypes (Reid & Anderson, 2010). It is in that spirit that the following additional concepts, or strategies, are discussed, as they sensitized the analysis.

The first strategy is group labeling (e.g., Rakic & Maass, 2019; see also Allport, 1954). Labels, given their noun form, may be particularly effective for defining group boundaries (as compared to adjectives), and they may function to influence self-perception (e.g., Walton & Banaji, 2004). The second language strategy of interest is linguistic intergroup bias (LIB; Maass, 1999), that stems from the linguistic category model (LCM; Semin & Fiedler, 1988). The LIB suggests that certain verb forms and adjectives vary in their levels of concreteness and abstractness, and that individuals may engage stereotyping by using more abstract language for positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors, and more concrete language to describe positive outgroup and negative ingroup behaviors. The third language strategy of interest is “norm talk” (e.g., Hogg & Tindale, 2005). This concept refers to ingroup speech that transmits and negotiates group norms, and that is therefore associated with ingroup prototypicality management. Hogg and Tindale usefully applied norm talk and ingroup prototypicality in the context of leadership communication (see also Hogg & Giles, 2012). This inspired its application here, given established synergy at the interface of the entrepreneurship and leadership intellectual domains, that includes acknowledgement of the necessity of leadership for successful entrepreneurship (Reid et al., 2018). Accordingly, these domains also have intersected in communication studies (e.g., Park et al., 2014) and social psychology (e.g., Steffens et al., 2013).

This study is unique in its adoption of intergroup communication and SCT approaches to entrepreneurship. The aforementioned literature on language strategies, and SCT, support this study’s under-explored question: How do entrepreneurs manage their social identity through talk, and in terms of group prototypes and linguistic manifestations of stereotypes?

Methods

Participants

Forty-three entrepreneurs across a variety of fields were recruited for a study on entrepreneurial identity. All volunteers confirmed that they had founded or co-founded a current business or social entrepreneurship venture, and they answered in the affirmative when asked if they self-identified as an “entrepreneur.” They were recruited by way of lists of top entrepreneurs featured in Forbes Magazine and Entrepreneur Magazine, assistance from a university Center for Business and university alumni association members, and subsequent snowball sampling from all sources. Participants hailed from 15 large or medium-sized metropolitan areas in seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Participant gender was balanced (women n = 22; men n = 21), average age was 46.6 years, and the sample’s ethnic makeup was 67.4% European American (n = 29), 11.6% Latino/a American (n = 5), 7% African American (n = 3), 7% Middle Eastern (n = 3), 4.6% Native American (n = 2), and 2.3% Asian (n = 1). 11.6% participants had completed secondary education (n = 5), 53.5% an undergraduate degree (n = 23), and 34.9% a graduate or professional degree (n = 15). For participants with employees, the median number of employees was 9 (range = 0–250,000). 32.5% of participants employed no one (n = 14). Finally, participants founded ventures in diverse markets, such as: design, product invention, consulting, public relations and marketing, health services, cannabis industry services, tourism, social entrepreneurship, media, and sports.

Interviews

Semi-structured face-to-face, telephone, or video chat interviews ranging from 35 to 55 minutes (mean = 45 minutes) were administered by the author. Participants were asked to reflect on who they were as entrepreneurs. These reflections focused on similarities with, and differences from, members of the ingroup (other entrepreneurs), and outgroup (non-entrepreneurs, including their employees), that became salient in verbal interactions. Participants discussed how (if at all) and why they managed their social identity through talk, and in terms of social status, group prototypes, and linguistic manifestations of stereotypes. The numbered interview recordings were professionally transcribed.

Analysis

The analysis was conducted using grounded theory techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), and aforementioned language perspectives (see Hogg & Tindale, 2005; Rakic & Maass, 2019; Semin & Fiedler, 1988), were used as sensitizing frameworks, an approach aligned with the Straussian view that emergent data categories often draw from concepts related to established theory (see also Hayes, 1997; Tracy, 2013). Therefore, significant attention was given to evidence of social categorization and its negotiation through language behaviors, as the author engaged in line-by-line analysis of transcripts. Descriptive codes were created for relevant content, and an iterative, constant-comparative method was used with the data set for purposes of internal verification. Theoretical saturation occurred in the first 30 transcripts. Subsequent axial coding further refined the codes into larger identity-related concepts and language strategies, and attention was given to relationships among them. This procedure resulted in a model of entrepreneurial social identity management through language use. Member checks (n = 7) were completed to ensure consistency of the results with the participants’ reports.

Results

A Grounded Theoretical Model

The current model of entrepreneurial social identity management through self-categorization and language use integrates and reflects self-categorization theory (SCT; Turner et al., 1987) propositions and mechanisms, the notion of comparative fit of group prototypes, and aforementioned strategies related to the social psychology of language. Definitions and explanations of relationships among the model’s components are offered, along with exemplars that detail the model’s key elements related to language use. Pseudonyms have been substituted for participants’ names. Following the model (see Figure 1) from top to bottom, and consistent with SCT propositions, all participants self-categorized as entrepreneurs, and the majority reported having had a desire to communicatively (and often psychologically) manage their prototypicality to develop and/or protect high ingroup status. This desire often was revealed through participants’ reports of past or current interest in affirming or defending the legitimacy of their ventures, and/or interest in otherwise communicating their success along prototypical dimensions (e.g., monetizing a novel idea, assuming full responsibility). As seen further down the model, for many participants, perceptions of high, low, or insecure comparative fit with the entrepreneur group prototype also was related to eventual prototypicality management. Prototypical fit generally regarded self-perceptions of being a “real” entrepreneur, having the ability to embrace the risk and challenge of entrepreneurship, bringing “cutting edge” vision to one’s field, developing and/or maintaining a viable venture/business, and being willing or able to give and/or receive ingroup support. Concerning venture viability, insecure comparative fit was evidenced in participants questioning whether their business could end at any moment for financial reasons, and/or due to other personal or relational circumstances. High(er) prototypical fit in terms of venture viability was indicated by certainty about business success and security, and/or a perceived belief in one’s having the characteristics needed to thrive and control internal and external threats to the venture.

Figure 1.

A grounded model of entrepreneurial social identity management through self-categorization and language use.

The combined prototypicality concerns, outlined above, formed the basis for the model’s next stage. That is, prototypicality was managed through language strategies that included linguistic stereotyping (e.g., Reid & Anderson, 2010), and “norm talk” (e.g., Hogg & Tindale, 2005). As indicated by the model’s cyclical arrows, these communicative behaviors were, in turn, generative of a continued desire for prototypicality management and associated higher status, and a higher perceived comparative fit that enhanced group membership security at the individual level. Findings related to the model’s language strategies for prototypicality management, and that carried implications for the development or affirmation of comparative fit for group membership security, are further detailed below.

Language Strategies for Prototypicality Management

Group labeling

First, most participants enacted linguistic self- and other stereotyping through group labeling (e.g., Rakic & Maass, 2019; see also Allport, 1954). This language strategy enabled participants to distinguish themselves from non-entrepreneurs—in positive ingroup, and negative outgroup, terms. These labels often were used in ingroup and intergroup communication. In addition to the label entrepreneur—the group boundaries of which were debated—typical examples of ingroup labels included: maverick, game changer, influencer, business head, big thinker, Willy Wonka, workaholic, and multitasker. Outgroup labels also assisted participants in negotiating comparative fit with the high-status prototype, and this labeling reflected the SCT notion that the explicit categorization of an outgroup member may assist in establishing oneself as not being prototypical of that category. Examples of outgroup labels included: W-2 (i.e., in reference to the tax form, someone whose income depended on wages earned from an employer), robot (i.e., obedient corporate clone), 9-5’er, clock watcher, brick wall (i.e., individual with an unimaginative, fixed mindset), dreamer, and wantrepreneur (aspiring entrepreneur who did not possess the necessary qualities for success). Interestingly, the majority of outgroup labels were dehumanizing metaphors, that are considered particularly vivid and efficient tools for establishing the perceived homogeneity of the outgroup (e.g., Rakic & Maass, 2019).

Language abstraction

Second, most participants engaged in linguistic self- and other stereotyping through the use of biased language abstraction, behavior that was consistent with the linguistic category model (LCM; Semin & Fiedler, 1988). This was evidenced in the use of adjectives and various verb forms in descriptions of ingroup and outgroup members’ past communicative behavior. In ascending order of abstraction, and for the entrepreneurial ingroup, participants used descriptive verbs (e.g., ask questions, say yes, invent), interpretive verbs (e.g., take risks, create own destiny, leave a footprint, pivot, don’t take no for an answer, create something bigger, scan the landscape for possibilities, withstand rejection), state verbs (e.g., have the Midas touch, have a growth mindset, be on one’s toes), and adjectives (e.g., out of the box, brave, in the weeds, practical, and always on). For the outgroup, participants used only interpretive verbs (e.g., complain about one’s boss, tippy-toe around risk, be taken care of, settle, look for short cuts), state verbs (e.g., have a fixed mindset, have ideas only), and adjectives (e.g., sheltered, tunnel-visioned, corporate classic, emotional, conventional, theoretical). Consistent with the LCM, high levels of abstraction were positive for the ingroup and negative for the outgroup, and absent were concrete, descriptive action verbs for negative outgroup behaviors. Also noteworthy was the paucity of descriptive verbs for the ingroup. Overall, the abstractions were largely descriptive of group member characteristics that supported a “survival of the fittest” approach to membership in the competitive entrepreneur profession.

Norm talk

Third, evident in many participants’ reports was ingroup speech that transmitted and negotiated group norms, and that was therefore associated with group prototypicality management. This “norm talk” (e.g., Hogg & Tindale, 2005) centered on entrepreneur-specific norms for the following: combining novel ideas with business sense; constantly seeking the next big idea; making great sacrifices to put the venture first; developing competence across a wide range of roles; assuming complete responsibility for the venture; using professional etiquette; sharing insecurities; networking; engaging in quid pro quo behavior; and offering and accepting mentorship and other professional support (e.g., participants discussed giving frank advice about business plans, office space, insurance, equipment, and/or employee relations). As an example of norm talk for ingroup professional support, Ray, 50, who founded a media enterprise, said of entrepreneurs:

They learn from one another. . . A story about failing is just as valuable as a story about succeeding. [Entrepreneurs say] been there, done that. This is why it won’t work. Don’t waste your time.

Concerning etiquette norms developed and perpetuated through talk, Thomas, 50, who founded a career-coaching business, discussed the social construction of an aspect of group prototypicality, and how entrepreneurs signaled it to one another:

We call each other “competimates” because we are kind of competing [for business], but there is a pretty strong code in our profession that we support each other being successful as well. . . People who step into this profession are surprised to find out we are like, “Here is my stuff; this is what I did.”

For some participants, entrepreneurial norm talk regarded what “real” entrepreneurs should not do. This talk largely concerned the prohibition of exaggerating or misrepresenting business accomplishments—for instance, conveying success and status that did not align with web site traffic or actual sales numbers. One participant regarded offenders as engaging in “peacocking” behavior (interestingly, the verb form of a dehumanizing metaphor). As an example of “peacocking” norm regulation, Diana, 52, a social media promoter, reported ingroup norm talk among entrepreneurial “influencers” condoning use of the term “influencer” to describe themselves. She said, “We call ourselves ‘participants.’ We don’t go around saying ‘Hey, I’m an influencer.’” Indicative of this norm’s enforcement through ingroup talk, she said, regarding known violations: “We make fun of them.” Interestingly, and as suggested here, norms may dictate that some positive ingroup linguistic labels may not be used openly, even among the ingroup.

Discussion

The model enhances our understanding of entrepreneurial experience in several ways. For example, it highlights the importance for some entrepreneurs of achieving or maintaining prototypical fit with entrepreneurship. The salience, importance, and reward of comparative fit for this group may be enhanced by porous boundaries and merit-based membership. Informative as well is the finding that this fit is managed through language strategies—largely through linguistic manifestations of stereotyping and ingroup norm talk. Regarding the former, findings suggest that entrepreneurs choose stereotyping label distinctions that focus on achievement or the creation of value, and biased language abstractions that highlight entrepreneurship’s competitive nature. Findings in this entrepreneurial context support the view that linguistic intergroup bias is used “to protect or promote ingroup status” (Reid, 2012, p. 24; see also Maass et al., 1996). In turn, the results also suggest that some entrepreneurs’ norm talk functions not only to often competitively promote the success and legitimacy of one’s own venture, but also to foster climates of professional support among entrepreneurs. Behavior representative of a potentially appropriate balance between these seemingly contradictory approaches is illustrated in the “competimates” example above.

Overall, the language strategies indicate that prototypicality management for at least some members of this group is achieved through the use of representations of group ideals that involve both ingroup coalescence, and divergence from the outgroup. Interestingly, reports of insecurity regarding prototypical fit were more pronounced among participants with nascent ventures, and/or those with no employees. These entrepreneurs were more likely to utilize outgroup labeling and abstract outgroup adjectives. Any pursuit of positive distinctiveness from the use of such strategies for these groups may have served sensemaking or compensatory functions, given the potential hardships of nascent and/or solitary entrepreneurship. Such hardships for these individuals also could have included a prototype-threatening awareness of possible ejection from their high-status group membership at any time, given changing circumstances. Such insecurity likely applies to other social identity group memberships, such as those defined by age.

Concerning theory, the current model unfolded against the backdrop of SCT (Turner et al., 1987), a welcome addition to the study of entrepreneurship, a discipline that lacks a “’traditionally’ distinct or common theoretical domain” (Busenitz, et al., 2014). In line with SCT propositions, the results show that entrepreneurs may: (1) self-categorize both explicitly and implicitly, (2) distinguish themselves from a non-entrepreneurial outgroup in us/them terms, (3) make sense of their communicatively-emergent professional identity through self-stereotyping and accompanying depersonalization, and (4) develop and maintain high prestige along choice dimensions. Additionally, the results resonate with SCT’s emphasis on the salience of prototypical comparative fit concerns, as noted above.

In conclusion, the model identified here extends our understanding of how some entrepreneurs manage their social identity, including how they lend meaning to their career path through comparative prototype fit, linguistic manifestations of stereotyping behavior, and through norm talk. To note, this study’s use of self-report data was inherently a limiting factor, due to the potential for participants’ social desirability bias, exaggeration, and subjective interpretations of group identity characteristics. The results have several applications. First, knowledge of the dimensions and importance of ingroup support in professional identity enhancement may inform programmatic content for organizers of entrepreneur support groups. These groups are essential, as entrepreneurs do not have an overarching professional association that guides its members in defining, developing, and maintaining, positive identities. Second, the results also may point to perspectives and behaviors that entrepreneurs may wish to avoid. Awareness of these factors can assist some entrepreneurs in aligning with who they aspire to be, in other words achieving what Mathias (2017) regards as “identity alignment” (p. 97). Third, awareness of the significance of identity, prototype fit, and language strategies, may be useful for managers interested in promoting corporate entrepreneurship through leadership training, and for educators in academic business and/or communication programs. Regardless of the particular application, this research provides insights that may assist in demystifying aspects of this profession that holds mythical status in many contemporary Western societies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Christopher Hajek

Author Biography

Christopher Hajek is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Texas at San Antonio, USA. His research is grounded in intergroup communication in a variety of social and professional contexts.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2011). Self and identity: A brief overview of what they are, what they do, and how they work. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1234, 48–55.

Brockhaus

R. H.

(1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509–520. https://doi.org/10.2307/255515

Busenitz

L. W.

Plummer

L. A.

Klotz

A. C.

Shahzad

Rhoads

(2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985–2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 981–1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12120

Crawford

M. B.

(2015). The world beyond your head: On becoming an individual in an age of distraction. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Drakopoulou Dodd

Anderson

A. R.

(2007). Mumpsimus and the mything of the individualistic entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 25(4), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607078561

Duening

T. N.

(2017). Entrepreneurial identity: Professional virtues moderate attraction and persistence. In Duening

T. N.

Metzger

M. L.

(Eds.), Entrepreneurial identity: The process of becoming an entrepreneur (pp. 1–30). Edward Elgar Publishers.

Falck

Heblich

Luedemann

(2012). Identity and entrepreneurship: Do school peers shape entrepreneurial intentions? Small Business Economics, 39(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9292-5

Fauchart

Gruber

(2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935–957. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0211

10.

Hayes

(1997). Theory-led thematic analysis: Social identification in small companies. In Hayes

(Ed.), Doing qualitative analysis in psychology (pp. 93–114). Psychology Press/Erlbaum.

11.

Hoang

Gimeno

(2010). Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.07.002

12.

Hogg

M. A.

Giles

(2012). Norm talk and identity in intergroup communication. In Giles

(Ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 373–387). Routledge.

13.

Hogg

M. A.

Tindale

R. S.

(2005). Social identity, influence, and communication. In Harwood

Giles

(Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 141–164). Peter Lang.

14.

Kuratko

D. F.

(2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: Accelerating creativity and innovation in organizations. In Shalley

C. E.

Hitt

M. A.

Zhou

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 477–488). Oxford University Press.

15.

Maass

(1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 79–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60272-5

16.

Maass

Ceccarelli

Rudin

(1996). The linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for ingroup-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.512

17.

Mathias

(2017). Entrepreneurial identity and motivation. In Duening

T. N.

Metzger

M. L.

(Eds.), Entrepreneurial identity: The process of becoming an entrepreneur (pp. 83–102). Edward Elgar Publishers.

18.

Morris

M. H.

Webb

J. W.

(2015). Entrepreneurship as emergence. In Shalley

C. E.

Hitt

M. A.

Zhou

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 457–475). Oxford University Press.

19.

Pando

(2017, July). The foreseeable future of entrepreneurship. Forbes Magazine (Forbes Technology Council). https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2017/07/18/the-foreseeable-future-of-entrepreneurship/#524a38e738d3.\

20.

Park

S. H.

Kim

Krishna

(2014). Bottom-up building of an innovative organization: Motivating employee intrapreneurship and scouting and their strategic value. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(4), 531–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914541667

21.

Rakic

Maass

(2019). Communicating between groups, communicating about groups. In Harwood

Gasiorek

Pierson

NussBaum

J. F.

Gallois

(Eds.), Language, communication, and intergroup relations: A celebration of the scholarship of Howard Giles (pp. 66–97). Routledge.

22.

Reid

S. A.

(2012). Social psychological approaches to intergroup communication. In Giles

(Ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 19–30). Routledge.

23.

Reid

S. A.

Anderson

G. L.

(2010). Language, social identity, and stereotyping. In Giles

Reid

Harwood

(Eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 91–104). Peter Lang.

24.

Reid

S. W.

Anglin

A. H.

Baur

J. E.

Short

J. C.

Buckley

M. R.

(2018). Blazing new trails or opportunity lost? Evaluating research at the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.005

25.

Rigg

O’Dwyer

(2012). Becoming an entrepreneur: Researching the role of mentors in identity construction. Education + Training, 54(4), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211236181

26.

Roper

Ganesh

Inkson

(2010). Neoliberalism and knowledge interests in boundaryless careers discourse. Work, Employment & Society, 24(4), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017010380630

27.

Semin

G. R.

Fiedler

(1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558

28.

Steffens

N. K.

Haslam

S. A.

Ryan

M. K.

Kessler

(2013). Leader performance and prototypicality: Their inter-relationship and impact on leaders’ identity entrepreneurship. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1985

29.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.) Sage.

30.

Tracy

S. J.

(2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell.

31.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

Oakes

P. J.

Reicher

S. D.

Wetherell

M. S.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.

32.

Walton

G. M.

Banaji

M. R.

(2004). Being what you say: The effect of essentialist linguistic labels on preferences. Social Cognition, 22(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.193.35463

33.

Welsch

H. P.

Young

E. C.

(1982). The information source selection decision: The role of entrepreneurial personality characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management, 20, 49–57.

34.

World Economic Forum. (2020, January). Executive summary. http://reports.weforum.org