Growth Opportunities and Entrepreneurial Performance: Testing Strengths Use and Meaning-Making as Moderators of the Relationship

Abstract

The present study investigates how developable behavioral (strengths use) and cognitive (meaning-making) mechanisms moderate the relationship between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance. We relied on a cross-sectional design. Data were gathered from 208 Romanian entrepreneurs and analyzed via hierarchical multiple linear regressions. The employed moderators boost the investigated relationship, both separately and interactively. The three-way interaction shows that entrepreneurs have to employ strengths use and meaning-making concomitantly to be able to capitalize on growth opportunities effectively. Consequently, this will enable entrepreneurs to rate their business performance more positively because they will perceive they have the necessary resources to invest in the business. Conversely, at low levels of strengths use and meaning-making, the presence of growth opportunities erodes entrepreneurial performance. This study identifies strengths use and meaning-making as vital psychological tools that allow an increase in entrepreneurial performance thus altering business-related investment and continuance decisions.

Keywords

growth opportunities entrepreneurial performance strengths use meaning-making

Entrepreneurs’ satisfaction with their firm performance is of critical importance because it plays a pivotal role in investment and continuance decisions (Gorgievski et al., 2011; Murphy & Callaway, 2004; Wach et al., 2016). Entrepreneurs who positively perceive their business performance will be inclined to invest more resources in their firm, irrespective of their current financial position (Gorgievski et al., 2011; Wach et al., 2016). This will determine an enhancement of the firms’ performance, safeguarding the survival odds of the business. Thus, to ensure the long-term positive consequences of entrepreneurship (i.e., job creation, economic growth; Bosma & Kelley, 2019), it becomes crucial to understand the factors associated with entrepreneurial performance. Entrepreneurial performance reflects the overall satisfaction entrepreneurs exhibit toward their firm performance (i.e., turnover, number of employees; Gorgievski et al., 2014).

Past research identifies fixed (e.g., grit, innovativeness, need for achievement; Mooradian et al., 2016) and malleable individual factors (e.g., self-efficacy; Şahin et al., 2019) as well as contextual resources (alliances; Seo, 2020) related to entrepreneurial performance. Among contextual resources, personal growth opportunities appear to play a vital role. Personal growth opportunities represent “activities leading to the acquisition of new knowledge or skills for purposes of personal growth” (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009, p. 451). Engaging in personal growth opportunities is associated with higher levels of life satisfaction among entrepreneurs and lower levels of business exit intentions (Beutell et al., 2019) as well as an increase in business performance (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Johnson, 2016). As such, entrepreneurs who partake in growth opportunities (i.e., training) develop new abilities (e.g., strategic planning) that allow them to manage their business better. Acknowledging this, policy makers and educators worldwide have started to offer a growing number of personal growth opportunities to entrepreneurs, such as training, workshops, or courses (Valerio et al., 2014). However, does participation in a training session equivalate with efficient integration of the presented information?

Existing literature, which reports relatively low levels of training efficiency (Greenberg et al., 2003; Matricano, 2017), indicates that only a limited number of entrepreneurs exhibit a thorough appropriation of new skills or knowledge. Hence, two further questions arise. What sets these individuals apart other than fixed individual differences (e.g., cognitive abilities; Tsai & Huang, 2008)? Are there specific developable components that distinguish between successful and run-off-the-mill entrepreneurs? Based on the job demands-resources (JD-R; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) and conservation of resources (COR; Hobfoll, 2011) theories, we argue that malleable individual factors, such as individual strategies and personal resources (Demerouti et al., 2019), provide a viable answer to the above questions.

The JD-R theory is well-known for explaining the link between contextual resources (i.e., personal growth opportunities) and performance outcomes using a motivational process (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Demerouti et al., 2019). Individuals who perceive an abundance of contextual resources at their disposal become more energetic and motivated, reflecting in their performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). However, individuals are not passive receivers influenced by contextual resources; they are actors who actively alter the relationship between contextual resources and workplace outcomes through individual strategies and personal resources (Demerouti et al., 2019). Individual strategies represent intentional behaviors that individuals rely upon to accomplish goals or tasks (Demerouti et al., 2019). For instance, asking fellow entrepreneurs to recommend a training session they found useful would reflect a proactive behavior encompassed by individual strategies. Personal resources are cognitive-motivational beliefs people hold regarding how much control and impact they have over their environment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Building on the previous example, engaging in the training session with the mindset that it will provide novel and valuable information reflects a cognition stemming from a personal resource (i.e., optimism).

Both personal resources and individual strategies have been gradually added to the JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Demerouti et al., 2019) as possible reinforcers of the relationship between contextual resources and workplace outcomes. As such, when individuals encounter contextual resources in their work, possessing behavioral (i.e., individual strategies) and cognitive (i.e., personal resources) tools will enable them to capitalize on said resources effectively (Demerouti et al., 2019). Considering this, the present article argues that the positive link between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance may be enhanced when entrepreneurs employ proactive behaviors (how I do it) and/or cognitive interpretations (why I do it) in the process. Thus, we propose strengths use (van Woerkom et al., 2016) and meaning-making (Van den Heuvel et al., 2009) — as potential moderators of the already established relationship between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Johnson, 2016).

Strengths use — capitalizing on one’s strong points, such as humor or perseverance (van Woerkom et al., 2016), entails behaviors that allow individuals to thrive and flourish at work (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Meaning-making, a cognitive mechanism, enables individuals to integrate challenging events into a framework of personal meaning resulting in a sense of meaningfulness (Van den Heuvel et al., 2009). We chose this variable configuration because both strengths use (Worrell, 2011) and meaning-making (Van den Heuvel et al., 2009) have been argued to play an essential role in a work context dominated by change and uncertainty, a framework that entrepreneurs frequently encounter (Gorgievski et al., 2014). Nevertheless, while researchers recognize the importance of relying on strengths use (Worrell, 2011) and meaning-making (Kaffka, 2017) in the entrepreneurial process, we do not know whether these variables also moderate the relationship between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance. The present study intends to close this gap in knowledge.

Regarding specific contributions of this article, our model (1) builds upon the JD-R theory by testing the hypothesized relation where individual strategies and personal resources strengthen the link between contextual resources and performance outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017); (2) answers the plea of Beutell et al. (2019) for a more dynamic understanding of entrepreneurial processes, combining behavioral, cognitive, and contextual components to predict entrepreneurial performance; and (3) provides practitioners with a configuration of malleable cognitive and behavioral tools that can facilitate the appropriation of new knowledge or skills. This is vital for two reasons. First, capitalizing on personal growth opportunities is associated with entrepreneurial performance (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Johnson, 2016), reflecting in entrepreneurs’ investment and continuance decisions (Gorgievski et al., 2011; Wach et al., 2016). Second, growth opportunities are linked to the emergence of high-growth entrepreneurs, who can secure the business’s long-term growth (DeMartino et al., 2015; Dillen et al., 2019), thus enabling an increase in job creation and economic growth (Bosma & Kelley, 2019).

Personal Growth Opportunities and Entrepreneurial Performance

Entrepreneurs who encounter learning opportunities report higher levels of social recognition and better customer relations, reflecting on increased entrepreneurial performance (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016). Entrepreneurial learning also yields an association with revenue increase (Johnson, 2016). Thus, entrepreneurs who engage in personal growth opportunities, such as training or workshops (e.g., develop motivating skills), appear to develop the skills needed to enhance their firm performance. However, based on the theoretical considerations of the JD-R theory, we argue that the possession of strengths use (how I do it) and meaning-making (why I do it) may alter the existent link between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance.

Strengths Use as a Moderator

Strengths use refers to individuals employing their strengths (i.e., creativity or prudence) in their daily life (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Research indicates that employees who rely on their individual characteristics at work tend to feel energized and flourish (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Entrepreneurs make no exception, with seasoned entrepreneurs employing their strengths to achieve success (Worrell, 2011). For instance, entrepreneurs might behave in a perseverant mode (strength) during a training session (growth opportunity), by asking follow-up questions or volunteering in live demonstrations. This should capacitate them to be more receptive to the information, make better use of it, and thus appropriate the new skill. As previously presented, capitalizing on the opportunity efficiently, due to employing their strengths in the process, should also reflect in entrepreneurial performance. Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a: Strengths use boosts the positive effects of personal growth opportunities on entrepreneurial performance.

Meaning-Making as a Moderator

Nowadays, entrepreneurs encounter an ever-growing number of training and workshops advertised as gateways to success (Valerio et al., 2014). However, countless training options can lead to uncertainty regarding which of these opportunities an entrepreneur should pursue. Meaning-making can prove to be a valuable tool in this situation because it enables individuals to explain different events they are facing in their work and their life (Van den Heuvel et al., 2009). Thus, entrepreneurs who rely upon meaning-making can glean significant cognitive resources (Walton & Wilson, 2018) because they will be able to choose and exploit various opportunities efficiently. To illustrate, entrepreneurs may have to choose between two training sessions: develop motivating skills or develop strategic planning skills. Meaning-making should allow them to identify which need is more stringent according to their business needs and choose the relevant one accordingly. This sensemaking process should equip entrepreneurs with a more energetic volitional and success-oriented mindset toward said growth opportunity because they will link it to their development and, consequently, business performance. Therefore, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 1b: Meaning-making boosts the positive relationship between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance.

Personal Growth Opportunities, Strengths Use, and Meaning-Making—Three-Way Interaction

Finally, according to the COR theory (Hobfoll, 2011), which stipulates that individuals act in such a way as to foster, attract, and retain resources to avoid the occurrence of stress, behavioral strategies and cognitive resources are rarely present in isolation (Hobfoll, 2011). Instead, they tend to accumulate and travel together in resource caravan passageways (Hobfoll, 2011). Indeed, past research shows that relying on one’s strong points at work allows individuals to provide more meaning to their activities (Dik et al., 2019). Based on these theoretical and practical considerations, we argue that entrepreneurs who rely upon meaning-making will be more prone to engage in strengths use as well. Thus, entrepreneurs who find purpose or meaning to engage in an activity that leads to the acquisition of new skills (why I do it), and who employ authenticity or zest in the process (how I do it), are bound to integrate the new knowledge more efficiently. This should be associated with an increase in entrepreneurial performance because entrepreneurs will feel ready to face new challenges and help their business grow. We, therefore, advance our final hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The three-way interaction between personal growth opportunities, strengths use, and meaning-making will be related to entrepreneurial performance. Specifically, strengths use will increase the positive relationship between personal growth opportunities and the entrepreneurial performance of entrepreneurs who have a high level of meaning-making.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The sample contains 208 Romanian entrepreneurs—individuals who are currently (1) founders, (2) owners, and (3) managers of their firm (cf. inclusion criteria; Baron, 2007). We chose these three indicators as inclusion criteria because founders, as opposed to next-generation owners, exhibit entrepreneurial orientation as well, a critical component of entrepreneurship (Ljungkvist et al., 2019). Thus, our sample consists of entrepreneurs who were also involved in the creation of the business. The age range is 19–72 years, with an average of 38.8 years (SD = 11.37), and 59% of the respondents are male. More than half of the participants are married (63%) and have at least a bachelors’ degree (68%). Participants have a mean total entrepreneurial experience of 9.31 years (SD = 7.79) and a mean tenure in leading their current firm of 8.05 years (SD = 7.15). Their businesses range from construction to import–export services or software development.

Data were collected using the snowball sampling procedure. With support from the Public Relations Department of the County’s Industrial and Technological Park, the researchers invited a network of entrepreneurs from Western Romania to complete the questionnaire; they were then asked to recommend two other entrepreneurs from their network, who could be recruited for the study. The researchers approached a total number of 390 entrepreneurs, and 212 entrepreneurs agreed to complete the survey (54% completion rate). While comparing respondents’ ownership statements with the official records of the Romanian Ministry of Labor, we identified four respondents who did not figure as current owners of the business. Considering these respondents did not meet the inclusion criteria, their data were discarded. Participants received an informed consent form before completing the survey, where they were informed about the aims and scope of the study, data confidentiality, and the right to retreat from the study at any point. Participation was voluntary, and no incentives were offered for participation.

Measures

We used Romanian versions of all instruments. The instruments for assessing personal growth opportunities and strengths use have already been used on a sample of Romanian employees, yielding good psychometric properties (Tisu et al., 2021). The two remaining instruments (meaning-making and entrepreneurial performance) were generated using the standard back-translation technique by two independent specialists, who agreed upon the final version of the instruments (Brislin, 1970). In addition, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis for these two instruments with both scales (meaning-making and entrepreneurial performance) reaching the cutoff indices for good fit indicated by Marsh et al. (2005; for details please see the Supplementary Material).

Personal growth opportunities were measured with a three-item scale from the JD-R Questionnaire (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is “My work offers me the possibility to learn new things.” Higher scores indicate the presence of many growth opportunities.

Strengths use was assessed using the scale with nine items developed by van Woerkom et al. (2016). Responses were rated on a 7-point scale, options ranging from 0 (almost never) to 6 (almost always). An example item is “In my job, I try to apply my talents as much as possible.” Higher scores reflect entrepreneurs who employ their strengths often in their activities.

Meaning-making was measured with the Meaning-Making Scale developed by Van den Heuvel et al. (2009), comprising seven items on a 6-point Likert-type scale. Options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I actively take the time to reflect on events that happen in my life.” Higher scores indicate a higher tendency to engage in meaning-making.

Entrepreneurial performance was assessed with a five-item scale developed by Stephan and Richter (2006), previously used in the study of Gorgievski et al. (2014). Responses were rated on 7-point Kunin Faces Scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). A sample item is “How satisfied are you with your business profit?” Higher scores reflect increased entrepreneurial performance.

Results

Means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, and the internal consistency for the study’s variables are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Correlation Coefficients, and Reliability Coefficients Table.

Observed Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	38.82	11.37	—
2. Gender	1.6	0.50	.01	—
3. Entrepreneurial experience	9.31	7.79	.66**	.14*	—
4. Tenure with current business	8.05	7.15	.47**	.05	.68**	—
5. Personal growth opportunities	12.75	1.76	−.11	.02	−.08	−.17**	(.80)
6. Strength use	54.05	6.57	.07	.10	.09	−.10	.44**	(.91)
7. Meaning-making	29.77	3.36	.13*	−.07	.06	−.01	.26**	.32**	(.71)
8. Entrepreneurial performance	24.34	3.91	−.08	−.06	.06	.12*	.12*	.19**	.16**	(.83)

Note. N = 208, Cronbach’s α coefficients are displayed on the main diagonal.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Correlations

The correlation matrix in Table 1 shows that the correlations are in the expected directions; the data show a positive correlation between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance (r = .12, p < .05). A noteworthy relation appears between entrepreneurs’ tenure with the current business and personal growth opportunities. This relation is statistically significant and negative (r = −.17, p < .05).

The Moderating Effect of Strengths Use

To test Hypothesis 1a, we performed a hierarchical multiple regression (Cohen et al., 2003) in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20.0 using strengths use as a moderator. We first transformed the predictor (personal growth opportunities) and moderator (strengths use) into z-scores. Both variables were then included in Step 1 and their interaction term in Step 2.

The results of the moderator analyses related to Hypothesis 1a are presented in Table 2. Hypothesis 1a suggests an interaction between personal growth opportunities and strengths use in predicting entrepreneurial performance. Strengths use and personal growth opportunities interact significantly with entrepreneurial performance (β = .24, p < .001). We plotted these significant interactions at ±1 SD from the mean of personal growth opportunities (see Figure 1A; Aiken & West, 1991; Vîrgă & Iliescu, 2017) and performed simple slope analyses to analyze the valence of these interactions.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Linear Regression: The Moderating Effect of Strength Use in the Relationship Between Personal Growth Opportunities and Entrepreneurial Performance.

Variable	B	95% CI for B		SE B	β	R ²	ΔR²
Variable	B	LL	UL	SE B	β	R ²	ΔR²
Step 1						.04	.04*
Constant	24.34***	23.81	24.87	.27
Personal growth opportunities	0.15	−0.44	0.74	.30	.04
Strengths use	0.66*	0.07	1.25	.30	.17*
Step 2						.09	.05***
Constant	24.04***	23.50	24.58	.27
Personal growth opportunities	0.37	−0.22	0.96	.30	.10
Strengths use	0.67*	0.10	1.25	.29	.17*
Personal Growth Opportunities × Strengths use	0.68***	0.29	1.06	.20	.24***

Note. N = 208, CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Strengths use moderates the impact of personal growth opportunities on entrepreneurial performance, β = .24, p < .001; F(3, 204) = 6.72, p < .001; ΔR² = .05. When there are few personal growth opportunities, entrepreneurs with low levels of strengths use do not show a lower level of entrepreneurial performance, β = −.31, t(208) = .96, p = .34. When there are many personal growth opportunities, however, entrepreneurs with high levels of strengths use report a higher level of entrepreneurial performance, β = 1.05, t(208) = 2.70, p < .01.

Thus, the data conferred support to Hypothesis 1a, indicating that strengths use boosts the positive relationship between high personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance.

The Moderating Effect of Meaning-Making

To test Hypothesis 1b, we conducted hierarchical multiple regressions as described in the previous section, with meaning-making as the moderator.

Table 3 indicates the results of the moderator analyses for Hypothesis 1b, where we expected an interaction between meaning-making and personal growth opportunities in predicting entrepreneurial performance. The interaction between meaning-making and personal growth opportunities is significant for entrepreneurial performance (β = .24, p = .001). These significant interactions were also plotted at ±1 SD from the mean of personal growth opportunities (see Figure 1B). To determine the nature of these interactions, simple slope analyses were conducted.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression: The Moderating Effect of Meaning-Making in the Relationship Between Personal Growth Opportunities and Entrepreneurial Performance.

Variable	B	95% CI for B		SE B	β	R ²	ΔR²
Variable	B	LL	UL	SE B	β	R ²	ΔR²
Step 1						.03	.03*
Constant	24.34***	23.81	24.87	.27
Personal growth opportunities	0.30	−0.25	0.85	.28	.08
Meaning-making	0.56*	0.02	1.11	.28	.14*
Step 2						.09	.06***
Constant	24.16***	23.64	24.67	.27
Personal growth opportunities	0.50	−0.04	1.05	.28	.13
Meaning-making	0.48	−0.06	1.01	.27	.12
Personal Growth Opportunities × Meaning-making	0.71***	0.30	1.11	.21	.24**

Note. N = 208, CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Meaning-making moderates the impact of personal growth opportunities on entrepreneurial performance, β = .24, p = .001; F(3, 204) = 6.34, p < .01; ΔR² = .06. When confronted with few personal growth opportunities, entrepreneurs who exhibit high levels of meaning-making fail to report a higher level of entrepreneurial performance, β = −.20, t(208) = 0.66, p = .51. Nevertheless, the results of the simple slope analysis regarding the association between many growth opportunities with high levels of meaning-making and entrepreneurial performance are significant, β = 1.21, t(208) = 3.19, p < .01.

Thus, Hypothesis 1b was also supported by the data, showing that meaning-making enhances the positive relationship between high personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance.

The Three-Way Interaction of Personal Growth Opportunities, Strengths Use, and Meaning-Making

To test Hypothesis 2, we included personal growth opportunities, strengths use, and meaning-making (Step 1), all their two-by-two interaction (Step 2), and the three-way interaction between personal growth opportunities and the moderators (strengths use and meaning-making; Step 3) in the hierarchical regression analyses (Dawson, 2014). The results (Table 4) indicate that the three-way interaction accounts for a statistically significant part of the variance in entrepreneurial performance, supplementary to all other included variables, and their twofold interactions (ΔR² = .03, p = .02).

Table 4.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression: The Moderating Effect of Strength Use and Meaning-Making in the Relationship Between Personal Growth Opportunities and Entrepreneurial Performance.

Variable	B	95% CI for B		SE B	β	R ²	ΔR²
Variable	B	LL	UL	SE B	β	R ²	ΔR²
Step 1						.05	.05*
Constant	24.34***	23.82	24.87	.27
Personal growth opportunities	0.09	−0.50	0.68	.30	.02
Strengths use	0.55	−0.06	1.15	.33	.14
Meaning-making	0.45	−0.12	1.01	.28	.11
Step 2						.11	.06**
Constant	24.08***	23.54	24.63	.28
Personal growth opportunities	0.40	−0.20	0.99	.30	.10
Strengths use	0.53	−0.06	1.11	.30	.13
Meaning-making	0.38	−0.17	0.92	.28	.10
Personal Growth Opportunities × Strengths Use	0.47	−0.01	0.96	.25	.17
Personal Growth Opportunities × Meaning-making	0.51	−0.03	1.06	.28	.17
Strengths Use × Meaning-making	−0.26	−0.88	0.37	.32	−.07
Step 3						.14	.03*
Constant	23.97***	23.42	24.52	.28
Personal growth opportunities	0.13	−0.50	0.76	.32	.03
Strengths use	0.42	−0.17	1.01	.30	.11
Meaning-making	0.12	−0.46	0.71	.30	.03
Personal Growth Opportunities × Strengths Use	0.74**	0.21	1.27	.27	.26**
Personal Growth Opportunities × Meaning-making	0.73*	0.16	1.30	.29	.24*
Strengths Use × Meaning-making	−0.39	−1.02	0.24	.32	−.10
Personal Growth Opportunities × Strengths Use × Meaning-making	0.43*	0.07	0.79	.18	.25*

Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hence, we inspected the nature of this relationship. We plotted the levels of entrepreneurial performance as a function of strengths use and meaning-making at high and low levels of personal growth opportunities (see Figure 2; Aiken & West, 1991). The highest levels of entrepreneurial performance are noticed when both strengths use and meaning-making are high in the presence of many personal growth opportunities, β = 2.02, t(208) = 3.78, p < .001. For entrepreneurs, when strengths use and meaning-making are low, and there are many personal growth opportunities present, entrepreneurial performance appears to drop, β = −.91, t(208) = −2.42, p = .02. When one moderator has low levels, while the other has high levels, the relationship between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance is nonsignificant. These results support the moderating role of strengths use and meaning-making between many personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance. Tests of slope difference indicate a significant difference among the slopes of high strengths use—high meaning-making when there are many personal growth opportunities—and all other slopes: high strengths use and low meaning-making, t(208) = 2.98, p < .01; low strengths use and high meaning-making, t(208) = 3.03, p < .01; and low strengths use and low meaning-making, t(208) = 4.25, p < .001. In conclusion, Hypothesis 2 is also supported by our data highlighting the moderating role of strengths use and meaning-making between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance.

Discussion

Employing the JD-R (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) and COR (Hobfoll, 2011) theories, this study tested how malleable individual strategies and personal resources moderate the relationship between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance. Our results indicate that strengths use and meaning-making condition the emergence of the relationship.

Detailing our main findings, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported by our data, indicating that strengths use (Hypothesis 1a) and meaning-making (Hypothesis 1b) do, indeed, facilitate the relationship between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance. Entrepreneurs who focus on their strong points (e.g., temperance) and seek to match them with favorable development circumstances can integrate the new information efficiently (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). This efficient appropriation will allow them to link the growth opportunity to their performance, probably because entrepreneurs will perceive they have developed the necessary skills to help their business grow and flourish. Similarly, entrepreneurs who reflect on why they encounter specific growth circumstances can adapt (Van den Heuvel et al., 2009), choose the relevant opportunities, and capitalize on them effectively. This will also be associated with an increase in entrepreneurial performance, probably because entrepreneurs will predominantly engage in development circumstances which they perceive as necessary to master, to help their business thrive.

The result of the three-way interaction (Hypothesis 2), however, highlights the fact that the relationship between personal growth opportunities and entrepreneurial performance is conditioned by the presence of both cognitive interpretations (i.e., meaning-making; why I do it) and intentional behaviors (i.e., strengths use; how I do it). These results are in line with the COR theory, which states that individuals need to rely on various resources concomitantly, to be able to capitalize and gain further resources (Hobfoll, 2011). Therefore, only entrepreneurs who exhibit proactive behaviors (i.e., strengths use) doubled by the cognitive energy to enact them (i.e., meaning-making) in the presence of personal growth opportunities have enhanced entrepreneurial performance. Furthermore, when entrepreneurs encounter many growth opportunities but lack both strengths use and meaning-making, this specific contextual resource appears to turn into a stressor. A potential explanation is that entrepreneurs might feel overwhelmed by the many opportunities they encounter. Not relying on their strong points and not deciding which option to pursue will elicit a sense of helplessness, in which personal growth opportunities will transform into perceived missed opportunities. Consequently, this will generate the feeling that entrepreneurs have insufficient resources to invest in the firm, thus detracting from how they perceive their business performance, possibly leading to an exit decision (Gorgievski et al., 2011; Wach et al., 2016).

Also, it appears that long-term entrepreneurs no longer seek to engage in personal growth opportunities, although these are associated with an enhanced entrepreneurial performance. A possible explanation is that they see such opportunities as stressors, rather than resources, due to a depletion in behavioral and cognitive resources. Alternatively, it may be argued that they believe they no longer need to develop new skills due to having already established their firm. Regardless, this is a problematic tendency. As DeMartino et al. (2015) note, only engaging in growth opportunities will allow a constant increase in innovativeness, thus safeguarding the business’s long-term survival. Based on our results, strengths use and meaning-making appear to be possible solutions to this situation, enabling entrepreneurs to efficiently appropriate new skills and abilities necessary to become high-growth entrepreneurs (Dillen et al., 2019).

Limitations and Future Directions

The first limitation of this study is that we employed a correlational design. Therefore, the results do not allow any causal conclusions and should be interpreted in a somewhat exploratory manner. Hence, future studies should aim to validate these findings through experimental, randomly controlled trials to test whether manipulating specific resources will culminate with changes in entrepreneurial performance. Second, we relied upon self-report instruments for data collection at a single time point, making the data susceptible to common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Employing a longitudinal design and more diverse means of data collection (e.g., objective performance indicators) to test this model would, therefore, lend further credibility to it. Third, the sample included in this study consists of entrepreneurs from Eastern Europe, limiting the generalization of our research to specific cultural profiles. As previously demonstrated (Farndale & Murrer, 2015), cultural factors influence how individuals perceive and enact contextual resources. Hence, future studies should try and replicate these results in other specific cultures, choosing the appropriate personal resources and individual strategies as moderators.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The polar role assumed by personal growth opportunities to entrepreneurial performance provides a crucial theoretical implication. Personal growth opportunities act as a resource when entrepreneurs possess the necessary cognitive and behavioral tools to capitalize on the development opportunities while turning into a stressor when these are missing. Our findings add to the critique raised by Van Veldhoven et al. (2020) regarding the universality of job resources. While development opportunities are considered ubiquitously positive (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Dijkhuizen et al., 2016), our results indicate that they have a conditional effect. Entrepreneurs must capitalize on personal growth opportunities and efficiently integrate the information by employing strengths use (how I do it) and meaning-making (why I do it) in the process; otherwise, personal growth opportunities appear to turn into a stressor regarding entrepreneurial performance. This finding raises a series of essential questions. What other resources exhibit a similar pattern in an entrepreneurial context? Are there other personal resources or individual strategies that entrepreneurs might develop to assure that contextual factors are perceived as resources rather than stressors? Can the possession of other resources differentiate between successful entrepreneurs and run-off-the-mill entrepreneurs? Considering these questions, we encourage scholars to investigate further dynamic relationships that relate to entrepreneurial performance, employing different configurations of cognitive and behavioral mechanisms (Demerouti et al., 2019).

In addition, the interaction between personal growth opportunities and strengths use explained 5% of entrepreneurial performance’s variance. In comparison, the interaction between personal growth opportunities and meaning-making accounted for 6% of the variance. Furthermore, the triple-interaction effect accounted for 3% of entrepreneurial performance’s variance. These results suggest a similar effect size compared to other studies investigating moderation effects in the JD-R paradigm (Hu et al., 2011; Tisu et al., 2021).

From a practical perspective, we have provided HR practitioners and entrepreneurs with a set of developable psychological resources that may be fostered to capitalize on personal growth opportunities successfully. Utilizing the Values in Action Inventory of Strenghts (VIA-IS) (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), entrepreneurs can identify their top character strengths. Subsequently, they can be trained to use these strengths in their work. Niemiec (2018) has already provided a field guide for practitioners comprising different methods through which strengths use can be promoted. For instance, after discovering their top strengths, entrepreneurs can be coached to utilize their strengths at work in a new way every day for a week.

Similarly, meaning-making can also be cultivated through specific interventions (Walton & Wilson, 2018). For instance, specialists may help entrepreneurs generate a series of reflecting questions to explore the impact of events in entrepreneurs’ work and private life. This sensemaking process would enable the integration of challenging circumstances, thus safeguarding entrepreneurs’ mental energies and allowing the recognition of relevant personal growth opportunities entrepreneurs might pursue (Kaffka, 2017).

As such, stakeholders who organize various growth opportunities (i.e., trainings) for entrepreneurs should also incorporate approaches like those mentioned above to prepare participants for an efficient appropriation of the information. This would ensure that participation in the training does not lead to detrimental outcomes from a psychological perspective and, consequently, to a resource depletion process (Hobfoll, 2011). Therefore, through the development of individual strategies and cognitive resources among participants, the specialist could enable an increase in success rates of entrepreneurial training programs (Matricano, 2017).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that personal growth opportunities are linked to entrepreneurial performance. However, personal growth opportunities are not always a blessing; their relationship to entrepreneurial performance is conditioned by the presence of both behavioral strategies and cognitive resources. In their absence, personal growth opportunities appear to turn into a stressor, which erodes entrepreneurial performance. Nevertheless, this study identifies a set of necessary and developable individual strategies and personal resources that can help entrepreneurs capitalize on encountered growth opportunities successfully. Being able to appropriate new skills efficiently will then reflect in their entrepreneurial performance. Thus, strengths use and meaning-making represent vital psychological tools that can modify business-related investment and continuance decisions, thus differentiating between run-off-the-mill and successful entrepreneurs.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-jcd-10.1177_08948453211037397 - Growth Opportunities and Entrepreneurial Performance: Testing Strengths Use and Meaning-Making as Moderators of the Relationship

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-jcd-10.1177_08948453211037397 for Growth Opportunities and Entrepreneurial Performance: Testing Strengths Use and Meaning-Making as Moderators of the Relationship by Luca Tisu and Delia Vîrgá in Journal of Career Development

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

Luca Tisu

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Aguinis

Kraiger

(2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2014). Job demands-resources theory. In Chen

P. Y.

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide: Work and wellbeing (pp. 37–64). Wiley-Blackwell.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. http://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Bakker

A. B.

van Woerkom

(2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. Canadian Psychology, 59(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000120

Baron

R. A.

(2007). Behavioral and cognitive factors in entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs as the active element in new venture creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.12

Beutell

N. J.

Alstete

J. W.

Schneer

J. A.

Hutt

(2019). A look at the dynamics of personal growth and self-employment exit. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(7), 1452–1470. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0239

Bosma

Kelley

(2019). Global entrepreneurship monitor—2018/2019 global report. Gráfica Andes.

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

10.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Dawson

J. F.

(2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

12.

DeMartino

Sriramachandramurthy

Miller

J. C.

Angelis

J. N.

(2015). Looking inside the black box of growth efforts in declining small firms: The role of growth factors, planning, and implementation. In Corbett

A. C.

Katz

J. A.

Mckelvie

(Eds.), Entrepreneurial growth: Individual, firm, and region advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 17, pp. 265–296). Emerald Group Publishing.

13.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B

Xanthopoulou

(2019). Job demands-resources theory and the role of individual cognitive and behavioral strategies. In Taris

Peeters

De Witte

(Eds.), The fun and frustration of modern working life: Contributions from an occupational health psychology perspective (pp. 94–104). Pelckmans Pro.

14.

Dijkhuizen

Gorgievski

van Veldhoven

Schalk

(2016). Feeling successful as an entrepreneur: A job demands—resources approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0354-z

15.

Dik

B. J.

O’Connor

W. F.

Shimizu

A. B.

Duffy

R. D.

(2019). Personal growth and well-being at work: Contributions of vocational psychology. Journal of Career Development, 46(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894845317730642

16.

Dillen

Laveren

Martens

De Vocht

Van Imschoot

(2019). From “manager” to “strategist”: An examination of the evolving role of persistent high-growth entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(1), 2–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2017-0010

17.

Farndale

Murrer

(2015). Job resources and employee engagement: A cross-national study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(5), 610–626. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2013-0318

18.

Gorgievski

M. J.

Antonio Moriano

Bakker

A. B.

(2014). Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 106–121. http://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0169

19.

Gorgievski

M. J.

Ascalon

M. E.

Stephan

(2011). Small business owners’ success criteria, a values approach to personal differences. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2011.00322.x

20.

Greenberg

D. H.

Michalopoulos

Robins

P. K.

(2003). A meta-analysis of government-sponsored training programs. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390305700102

21.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health, and resilience. In Folkman

(Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147). Oxford University Press.

22.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

T. W.

(2011). The job demands–resources model: An analysis of additive and joint effects of demands and resources. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.009

23.

Johnson

(2016). Examining learning antecedents to entrepreneurial success (available from ProQuest Central 1791977604) [Doctoral dissertation]. Regent University. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1791977604?accountid=196263

24.

Kaffka

G. A.

(2017). The co-construction of entrepreneurial sensemaking: An empirical examination of socially situated cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurial cognitive development [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Twente Repository. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036543200

25.

Ljungkvist

Boers

Samuelsson

(2019). Three stages of entrepreneurial orientation: The founder’s role. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(2), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2018-0630

26.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K.-T.

Grayson

(2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In Maydeu-Olivares

McArdle

J. J.

(Eds.), Multivariate applications book series: Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

27.

Matricano

(2017). Can policymakers improve the effectiveness of entrepreneurship training programmes? Evidence from Italy. Industry and Higher Education, 31(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0950422216684071

28.

Mooradian

Matzler

Uzelac

Bauer

(2016). Perspiration and inspiration: Grit and innovativeness as antecedents of entrepreneurial success. Journal of Economic Psychology, 56, 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.08.001

29.

Murphy

G. B.

Callaway

S. K.

(2004). Doing well and happy about it? Explaining variance in entrepreneurs’ stated satisfaction with performance. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-07-02-2004-B003

30.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford University Press and American Psychological Association.

31.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

32.

Şahin

Karadağ

Tuncer

(2019). Big five personality traits, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(6), 1188–1211. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2018-0466

33.

Seo

(2020). Entrepreneurial collaboration for R&D alliance performance: A role of social capital configuration. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(6), 1357–1378. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2020-0023

34.

Stephan

Richter

P. G.

(2006). Erfolgreiche Unternehmen in Deutschland, Polen, Tschechien & Bulgarien, Bd.2: Personen, Strategien, Gesundheit und Erfolg in KMU [Successful entrepreneurs in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic & Bulgaria, 2, personality, strategies, health and success in SMEs]. TUD Press.

35.

Tisu

Rusu

Sulea

Vîrgă

(2021). Job resources and strengths use in relation to employee performance: A contextualized view. Psychological Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294121997783

36.

Tsai

M. T.

Huang

Y. C.

(2008). Exploratory learning and new product performance: The moderating role of cognitive skills and environmental uncertainty. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 19(2), 83–93. http://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.hitech.2008.10.001

37.

Valerio

Parton

Robb

(2014). Entrepreneurship education and training programs around the world: Dimensions for success. The World Bank.

38.

Van den Heuvel

Demerouti

Schreurs

B. H. J.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Does meaning-making help during organizational change? Development and validation of a new scale. The Career Development International, 14(6), 508–533. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910997277

39.

Van Veldhoven

Van den Broeck

Daniels

Bakker

A. B.

Tavares

S. M.

Ogbonnaya

(2020). Challenging the universality of job resources: Why, when, and for whom are they beneficial? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 69(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12211

40.

van Woerkom

Mostert

Els

Bakker

A. B.

de Beer

Rothmann

Jr . (2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010

41.

Vîrgă

Iliescu

(2017). The well-being of Romanian workers in Spain: Antecedents and moderators. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 49–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1225728

42.

Wach

Stephan

Gorgievski

(2016). More than money: Developing an integrative multi-factorial measure of entrepreneurial success. International Small Business Journal, 34(8), 1098–1121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615608469

43.

Walton

G. M.

Wilson

T. D.

(2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000115

44.

Worrell

P. R.

(2011). Entrepreneur strengths study: Results from a preliminary study of the brief signature strengths and GRIT-S Scale of seasoned entrepreneurs [Resource document]. Retrieved September 24, 2020 from https://bigelowllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20200504-Entrepreneur-Strength-Study-Branding-Update.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB