The Advantages of Entrepreneurial Holism: A Possible Path to Better and More Sustainable Performance

Abstract

In the present business environment, the strategic challenge of increasing performance along multiple dimensions simultaneously—e.g., financial, social, and personal—has never been greater. Thus, the purpose of this study is to improve the understanding of how firms can successfully pursue diverse performance goals simultaneously. To that end, specifically, this study’s objectives are to not only explore whether entrepreneurs are more successful than their corporate manager peers in that pursuit but also to explore how being an entrepreneur and being spiritual provide possible paths to being successful in such a pursuit. We draw upon a recent survey of 168 medium-sized venture entrepreneurs and their corporate executive peers in the US to better understand how such integration of roles and goals can be managed. Results indicate that being an entrepreneur and being spiritual lead to greater synergies among the performance outcomes, with some exceptions. The holistic nature underlying the findings has implications for policy (e.g., resource allocation) and for practice in that all firms should be seeking ways to find synergies not only between pairs of outcomes (e.g., profits and CSR) but among networks of outcomes (and at different levels of impact).

1. Introduction

If sustainable human development is the new performance goal for firms, then a mixture of business strategy, innovation, and ethical values is needed to get there. We argue that, at least in the US, such a mixture is more likely to be found in businesses headed by spiritually minded entrepreneurs who have created synergies across their pursuit of commercial, social, and religious aims and who see all of these parts as consistent with a personal calling to ‘do better’. We provide empirical support for this argument based on recent data collected from a select set of 168 US entrepreneurs and peer corporate executives.

The purpose of this study is to improve the understanding of how firms can successfully pursue diverse performance goals simultaneously. To that end, specifically, this study’s objectives are to not only explore whether entrepreneurs are more successful than their corporate manager peers in that pursuit but also to explore how being an entrepreneur and being spiritual provide possible paths to being successful in such a pursuit. We see firms having standard financial objectives (i.e., to outperform rivals on accounting and market-based measures), as well as corporate social responsibilities (e.g., objectives involving stewardship of their communities, environment, and other stakeholders, such as to leave them better off than they found them). We see managers as having standard personal objectives (e.g., to have career success, to balance work with life, to fulfill a calling) as well as spiritual objectives (e.g., to make business decisions that align with religious beliefs and to perform work that respects different spiritual approaches). This study explores whether such objectives can simultaneously be fulfilled. For example, one of our objectives is to determine whether higher levels of self-reported spirituality affect the perceived performance of other areas (i.e., in the other objective-seeking areas). Another related objective is to determine whether that effect interacts with entrepreneurship.

This study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by answering several recent calls for more quantitative studies on the effects of religious–spiritual values on financial and non-financial outcomes (Hunjra et al. 2021; Shin et al. 2022), including on corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the organizational level (Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten et al. 2014); the role of spirituality in entrepreneurial behavior (Ganzin et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2021), especially as a unifying logic in the business system (Hunjra et al. 2021); and, the effects of such values in North American settings.

This study addresses two related research questions concerning how to move toward the goal of sustainable human development for business. The first is whether entrepreneurs, relative to their corporate executive peers, realize a more holistic connection among the socially responsible, the financial, the spiritual, and the personal performances emanating from their organizations. The second is whether, once other factors are controlled for, being an entrepreneur, being spiritual, or being both significantly improves those diverse areas of performance.

Our research questions are important to address for several reasons: First, there remain conflicting and inconsistent arguments and evidence on whether CSR, business performance, and spirituality are mutually reinforcing in general (e.g., Hunjra et al. 2021) and, for smaller firms more specifically (e.g., Jackson et al. 2015). Second, despite that, there exists a strong logic for the consistency of objectives across the three (e.g., Zahra and Wright 2016). Third, the impacts of spirituality–religiosity on business, and especially on entrepreneurial behaviors and outcomes like CSR, while of significant recent interest, remain under-appreciated (Ganzin et al. 2020).

So, the problem we focus on here is the strategic challenge of increasing performance along multiple dimensions simultaneously—e.g., financial, social, spiritual, and personal—to satisfy the multiple stakeholders involved in supporting the firm’s survival and growth. From a theoretical perspective, we find that, although several theories exist that have been applied to explain possible synergies among dyads of goals (i.e., we mention six such theories in the literature review), none considers all four of the diverse goals (listed) simultaneously. That ‘gap’ exists because (i) the problem is ‘not simple’—it crosses several levels of analysis (e.g., from organizational to personal and societal) and involves the consideration of multiple contingencies and potential trade-offs; and (ii) the problem is relatively new. As such, it has attracted less theoretical attention than problems that are more easily generalizable and modellable (e.g., problems that involve only one level of analysis and only one goal). So, the research gap this study fills involves explaining how firms can succeed when they pursue multiple diverse goals (i.e., more than two) and under what circumstances (given the current conflicting thought and evidence). The study also addresses the gap in evidence of spirituality’s effects on business (e.g., by answering the calls for more quantitative studies on its effects in specific areas of interest).

The remainder of this study provides relevant background information, arguments for the hypotheses relating to the research questions, a description of the empirical methods and the results of the analysis, and then a discussion of the implications and areas for future work.

2. Brief Background

There are several theories that support the aspirational possibility that businesses, especially entrepreneurial ones, can find synergies among their CSR, financial, spiritual, and personal human goals (e.g., of personal fulfillment). Such theories are useful in explaining current real-world examples of such success, like Patagonia, Inc. (Ventura, CA, USA).

There are at least five different theories that have relevance: Boltanski and Thévenot’s ([1991] 2006) Economies of Worth framework addresses organizational life through a moral lens (Cloutier and Langley 2017), often drawing on religion and spirituality to explain how to pursue multiple goals that matter simultaneously. Congruence Theory considers the value of fit between the firm and social causes (Ham and Han 2013; Hendijani and Steel 2023). Stakeholder Theory helps explain a firm’s concurrent engagement in pro-social, pro-human resource, and commercial activities (De Grosbois 2016; Mahajan et al. 2023). Social Identity Theory helps explain how key decision-makers, especially entrepreneurs, will seek consistency among their social, personal, spiritual, and business interests (e.g., Peterson 2004; Żur 2021). Similarly, Person–Organization Fit Theories also entertain such a pursuit of holism (Brieger et al. 2021). And Boundary Theory recognizes ‘integration’ as a primary strategy for managing roles between work and other activities (e.g., the spiritual, social, and personal) (Smith et al. 2019). We expect entrepreneurs to be better at such integration because they have relatively more control over ‘what work is’ (i.e., in its values, mission, vision, implementation) than their peers.

One reason for studying such a ‘goal synergy’ phenomenon is the fact that religion and business remain strongly linked in several geographical contexts of interest, especially in those also high in entrepreneurial activity. One such context is the US, where entrepreneurship is prominent, religiosity is important, and the link between the two has been proven significant in field studies (Dana 2021; Dougherty et al. 2013). When religious ideals—like the Protestant work ethic (e.g., Sheetal and Savani 2021; Weber 1985) or modern Christian (environmental) stewardship (e.g., Van Dyke 2013)—appear to align individual efforts with other greater (non-private) outcomes, then such synergies appear more likely. In other words, in order to best understand the phenomenon considered here, past research has indicated that studying it in a location like the US will be more enlightening, given more representative complexity will be at play. However, it also means that some measures may have to be adjusted to that context. At the same time, social responsibility and business performance are relatively well-understood multi-dimensional measures; the spirituality–religiosity concept is less so, given it has dozens of alternative definitions, with none widely accepted (see de Brito Sena et al. 2021; Markow and Klenke 2005). Given the US enjoys a diversity of religious and spiritual belief systems, we measure religiosity more generally, capturing it in terms of ethics, commitments, meanings, and values that structure the idea of living a good life within a God-based belief system (e.g., that involves prayer and unspecified religious affiliation) (Shin et al. 2022).

Based on the relevant research described above, we find that there is a gap in the literature on the study of simultaneously pursuing multiple diverse goals (specifically, across financial, social, spiritual and personal). It is a gap that this study seeks to fill. And it is a gap that, despite solid earlier work on how goals like operational efficiency and CSR can be consistent (see Porter and Van der Linde 1995), based on simple logic like pollution is waste (which indicates production inefficiencies), continues to exist. In other words, extending such a theory to more than two (seemingly) diverse goals is relatively new. Also in the embryonic research stage is work involving spirituality in this realm. That stage appears evident in the lack of agreement on the definition (and measures) of spirituality and the relative lack of empirical study of its effects on business and especially on entrepreneurial performance (i.e., a place where it is more likely to have an impact given the centrality of the entrepreneur to their organization’s behavior). As such, there are calls for more quantitative research to identify basic facts and better applications (of spirituality).

3. Hypotheses

To address our research questions, we argue two related hypotheses. The first hypothesis concerns the holistic connection among performance outcomes for entrepreneurs relative to peer executives. (Making that contrast helps control for their common ability as decision-makers to have considerable influence over their firm’s social and strategic behaviors.) Although there is significant research connecting select pairs of these separate outcomes (e.g., profitability with CSR rating), for entrepreneurs, there is nothing in the literature that does so across all of the social, commercial, personal, and spiritual (at the individual level), let alone in the US context.

The preceding background materials indicate that there are logics that exist to support the idea of a holistic, synergistic pursuit of these goals because there is an overlap of values involved—i.e., in doing good, doing well, doing right by God, and being happy doing so (e.g., Brieger et al. 2021; Weber 1985). This makes even more sense when the business is the ‘child’ of the decision-maker—i.e., when an entrepreneur is involved who can imprint values and vision on their firm (Brieger et al. 2019). Such a situation is consistent with person–organization fit theory (e.g., Kristof-Brown et al. 2005; Semrau and Biemann 2022).

The idea that these outcomes (and the behaviors that produce them) can be mutually reinforcing is supported by research on the synergies between pairs of such outcomes. For example, financial markets often respond positively to CSR initiatives (Haque and Ntim 2020; Orazalin et al. 2023). Executive religiosity can contribute to personal well-being and business performance (e.g., Giacalone and Jurkiewicz 2003). More so, such spirituality can provide a set of principles that guides practice and improves important stakeholder relationships (e.g., with employees, customers, the community, suppliers, partners, regulators, and investors) to affect the targeted performance measures (Astrachan et al. 2020).

Despite the similarity in decision-making power, entrepreneurs and executives are likely to differ significantly in several ways relevant to this study. For example, research has shown that they often differ over personal and professional measures of success (e.g., Berman and Miner 1985; KPMG 2000), as well as business issue priorities (Banks and Taylor 1991; Wood et al. 2022). Research has also indicated differences in decision-making itself, with entrepreneurs relying not only on rational, quantitative analysis like their executive peers but also on greater intuition and a greater comfort with uncertainty than their peers, factors often associated with religiosity (e.g., Arend 2023; Paprika 2010). Recent comparative studies further show differences in strategic management processes based on various outcome metrics dealing with customers, competitors, and more (e.g., Yigit and Kanbach 2023). That said, other studies have indicated that their effects on growing business performance are similar (e.g., Daily and Dalton 1992). Overall, the message is clear that entrepreneurs will differ from their executive peers over priorities and behaviors, and in such ways that will allow entrepreneurs to be more intuitively holistic.

Based on these arguments, past evidence, and the more central responsibility that entrepreneurs have in their firms, our first hypothesis follows:

H1. 

The connections among the set of primary performance outcomes (i.e., firm financial and CSR outcomes and individual spirituality, work satisfaction, and calling) will be significantly stronger (i.e., more positively correlated) among entrepreneurs than their peer corporate executives.

The second hypothesis concerns the separate and combined influences of being an entrepreneur and of being spiritual on business, social, and personal performance. We expect these to be highly significant in simple terms (i.e., without controlling for other factors)—given the results of previous studies—but also when other relevant factors are controlled for. We argue that these influences will be significantly positive because the greater innovation, responsibility, and vision imbued in new venture creation and ‘faith’-fully applying ethics in a ‘calling’ is more likely to result in greater commercial, communal, and self-actualized outcomes.

Greater spirituality has been associated with greater commitments to stakeholders and to deeper business purposes (e.g., Alshebami et al. 2023; Ganzin et al. 2020), including CSR (e.g., Angelidis and Ibrahim 2004). It can also be used to improve organizational performance (Hunjra et al. 2021) and enhance employee well-being and quality of life (Shin et al. 2022). Morally binding values, such as religious/spiritual ones, can fundamentally alter organizational decision-making towards more ethical behavior that is good for both society and the employees involved (Sorenson 2013).

The orientation of entrepreneurs has been argued and empirically depicted to enhance firm performance (e.g., Rauch et al. 2009). The innovativeness and devotion to their own causes are associated with improved financial outcomes and self-actualization (e.g., Feng and Chen 2020). Given many entrepreneurs see their work, when successful, ‘as a way to give back’ and to ‘do well by doing good’, the connection of new ventures to positive social impact has been noted (Laszlo 2008).

Combining these influences—of entrepreneurs with higher religiosity—should generate an even greater impact on firm and individual performance outcomes (Henley 2017). When innovation is directed by strong ethics and a deeper calling, then more positive effects are expected across the measures that entrepreneurs care about.

Based on these arguments, past evidence, and the moderating logic involved, our second hypothesis follows:

H2. 

Identifying as an entrepreneur and as more spiritual (as well as both simultaneously) will each increase the performance of the business, of its CSR, and of the individual’s own satisfaction.

4. Empirical Methods

We recruited 168 participants—84 US entrepreneurs (of ventures with at least 10 FTEs) and 84 US corporate executives (of firms with at least 100 FTEs)—through online panel provider CloudResearch to take part in our IRB-approved research study. Data collection occurred from October through December 2023. These participants were triple-verified (i.e., using multiple reliable recruitment sources and multiple filter questions and consistency checks). These high-level decision-makers were targeted because they play a central role in the implementation of CSR and strategic activities (Hunjra et al. 2021). In exchange for an appropriate payment, they completed a 35 min long online survey. This method provides a reliable way to access a suitably diverse sample (e.g., Landers and Behrend 2015). And it provides data quality at least as high as non-paid random samples (e.g., Behrend et al. 2011), given attention checks were embedded in the survey (Griep et al. 2023).

We collected data through a single survey instrument and a single respondent per questionnaire. To address concerns about common method bias and common source bias, the standard procedural remedies were applied (Podsakoff et al. 2003): respondents’ privacy was assured; item ambiguity was mitigated by simplifying questions and concepts; and scale items were separated. As is standard, Harman’s one-factor test was completed (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The unrotated principal component analysis over all variables revealed six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which, combined, accounted for 65% of the total variance, whereas the largest factor only explained 29.9% of it. Such results are inconsistent with common method effects (given that statistically significant links were not found among all of the relations posited (Bacharach et al. 2005)).

We also considered social desirability response bias (Trevino and Weaver 2003). To reduce the potential for this bias, our informed consent statement explained that the survey was confidential, anonymized, and used for research purposes only. (Thus, participants had no reason to present a more favorable picture of themselves than otherwise.) Social desirability response bias did not appear to impair the analysis, given the high variance in the scores of the various components of performance, CSR, and other constructs. As others have in this type of study, we also relied on the empirically supported belief that self-reported behavior is strongly correlated to actual behavior (Gatersleben et al. 2002) to interpret our results.

As with similar research (e.g., Hunjra et al. 2021), our constructs for spirituality, firm performance, CSR, and other multidimensional variables were based on several questions each. These constructs were verified (with components having load factors over 0.50 (Cua et al. 2001) and providing Cronbach’s alpha all over 0.8, with the exception of our measure of riskiness [which had an alpha of 0.7]). Like related research, when appropriate, controls were applied to an individual (e.g., age, gender, trait), firm (e.g., size), and industry (e.g., growth, turbulence) level (Brieger et al. 2021; Shin et al. 2022).

Table 1. Variable descriptions and descriptive statistics.

Variable	Description	Mean	StdDev	Min	Max
PERFALLX	15-item construct (C-alpha = 0.881): My firm’s customers are always satisfied with its products and services + Most of my firm’s customers are regular customers + I am satisfied with the current financial situation of my business + Relative to your rivals, your firm been growing its sales + Characterization of your organization’s most recent year-over-year sales growth + Compared to rivals, my firm’s profitability is + Relative to rivals, my firm has boosted its cash flows + Relative to rivals, the qualifications of my employees have improved + Relative to rivals, fewer employees have left my firm + I am satisfied with the overall performance of my business + My firm has enlarged its market share + I have the necessary resources to meet the demands at my work + I have unconditional support at work + Relative to rivals, my firm has boosted its investments (e.g., in equipment, training, etc..) + Most of my firm’s suppliers are regular suppliers [based on similar criteria in (Haber and Reichel 2005; Mithas and Rust 2016 and Zhou et al. 2008)]	0.950	0.536	−0.846	1.923
CSRX	11-item construct (C-alpha = 0.905): The most important aspect of my career is its role in helping to meet the needs of others + My company encourages its employees to participate in voluntary activities + My company emphasizes the importance of social responsibilities to society + Making a difference for others is the primary motivation in my career + My work contributes to the common good + I am always trying to evaluate how beneficial my work is to others + My company makes investments to create a better life for future generations + My company implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment + My company targets sustainable growth which considers future generations + My company supports NGOs (non-governmental organizations) working in problematic areas + My company contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of society (based on similar criteria found in Farooq et al. 2014 and Turker 2009)	0.956	0.709	−1.455	2.000
PER_OX	6-item construct (C-alpha = 0.851): I feel good about my future + I feel very satisfied with my life + I believe there is some real purpose for my life + I am self-actualized + I have hope and purpose + I have strong social support in my life (based on similar criteria found in Cohen et al. 1985 and Sawatzky et al. 2005)	1.102	0.656	−1.167	2.000
ENT	Are you currently an owner, partner, founder, president or corporate executive at a new venture that employs at least 10 FTEs; or, have you started or helped start such a venture within the last 10 years? (yes = 1; no = 0) (based on similar criteria in Sardana and Scott-Kemmis 2010 and Busenitz and Barney 1997)	0.500	0.501	0.000	1.000
SP_X	10-item construct (C-alpha = 0.966): I have a personally meaningful relationship with God + prayer is important to me + I believe that God is concerned about my problems + My relationship with God contributes to my sense of well-being + I believe that God loves me and cares about me + I often think about religious issues + I believe that God or something divine exists + I often take part in religious services + I often pray + I often experience situations in which I have the feeling that God or something divine intervenes in my life. (based on the Religious Well Being subscale of Paloutzian and Ellison 1982)	0.677	1.122	−2.000	2.000
ENTxSPX	interaction term (calculated using standardized values for the two terms)	0.210	0.974	−2.378	2.378
FIRMREV	the current size of the firm in annual sales revenues (below $1 m USD = 1; $1 m up to $10m = 2; $10 m up to $100 m = 3; over $100 m = 4)	2.732	0.865	1.000	4.000
IND_HTECH	(5-pt Likert scale) my firm’s industry is ‘high-tech’	0.560	1.130	−2.000	2.000
IND_GR1	(5-pt Likert scale) there is a lot of growth in my firm’s industry	0.982	0.872	−2.000	2.000
INDTUNCX	5-item construct (C-alpha = 0.806): My firm’s industry is very turbulent + There is a lot of exit and entry in my firm’s industry + There is great uncertainty in this industry + Predicting demand in this industry is very difficult + The supply chain is unstable in this industry. (based partly on work by St-Pierre et al. 2023)	0.068	0.901	−2.000	1.800
INDRELX	2-item construct (C-alpha = 0.834): There are a lot of religious-affiliated firms in this industry + Most of my firm’s customers are religious. (based partly on work by Swimberghe et al. 2011)	−0.268	1.189	−2.000	2.000
AGE	participant age (22–29 = 1; 30–39 = 2; 40–49 = 3 … 80–plus = 7)	2.667	1.030	1.000	6.000
MALE	identify as male (= 1; otherwise = 0)	0.649	0.479	0.000	1.000
EXTROV	(7-pt Likert scale) extraverted, enthusiastic/ NOT reserved, quiet	0.622	1.348	−3.000	3.000
SELF_DISC	(7-pt Likert scale) dependable, self-disciplined/ NOT disorganized, careless	2.027	1.034	−1.500	3.000
EMOSTAB	(7-pt Likert scale) calm, emotionally stable/ NOT anxious, easily upset	1.723	1.116	−1.500	3.000
CREATV	(7-pt Likert scale) open to new experiences, complex/ NOT conventional, uncreative	1.518	1.184	−1.500	3.000
SP_ADTG	4-item construct (C-alpha = 0.804): My spiritual beliefs help me deal with anxiety + A ‘higher power’ has significant control over my destiny + My spiritual beliefs influence my business decision-making + A ‘higher power’ mostly provides my ‘instincts’/‘gut feelings’ (based partly on work by Ganzin et al. 2020 and Judge and Douglas 2013)	0.394	0.908	−1.500	1.500
RISKX	4-item construct (C-alpha = 0.662): risk-loving, uncertainty-seeking + I am not afraid to take risks + I am not afraid of failing + I like to participate in challenges	0.903	0.660	−0.667	2.000
CALLX	3-item construct (C-alpha = 0.876): I believe that I have been called to my current line of work + I was drawn by something beyond myself to pursue my current line of work + I am pursuing my current line of work because I believe I have been called to do so (based partly on work by Dik et al. 2012 and Kolodinsky et al. 2018)	0.593	1.056	−2.000	2.000
PER_WX	15-item construct (C-alpha = 0.898): I am satisfied with the happiness I feel in my work + My business work enhances my life interpersonally + My business work enhances my life spiritually + My business work enhances my life intellectually + My business work enhances my life physically + My business work enhances my life emotionally + My business work enhances my life overall + I am satisfied with the combination of work and life + I am satisfied with my current individual income + My work helps me live out my life’s purpose + I see my career as a path to purpose in life + My career is an important part of my life’s meaning + I try to live out my life’s purpose when I am at work + I enjoy my work + I am happy to meet the challenges of work. (based partly on research on purposeful work by Xie et al. 2016, and on work satisfaction by Chang and Chen 2020)	0.761	0.573	−1.250	1.625

depicts all the variables involved in the analysis, with their full compositions, bases, and descriptive statistics. On the left is the variable name used in reporting the analyses. In the middle is the detailed description of the construction of the measure of the level of the variable’s value based on a respondent’s answers to the indicated survey questions. And, on the right are several descriptive statistics of those levels: the average level, its standard deviation (a measure of the variance of the level), and the minimum and maximum levels obtained in this study.

We considered three dependent variables: PERFALLX, which is a 15-item construct (α = 0.881) measuring the firm’s commercial performance, financially and along the supply chain (e.g., having repeat, satisfied customers and suppliers); CSRX, which is an 11-item construct (α = 0.905) measuring the firm’s social responsibility (e.g., my company makes investments to create a better life for future generations); and, PER_OX, which is a 6-item construct (α = 0.851) measuring personal ‘life’ performance (e.g., I feel good about my future).

We used three primary and two secondary explanatory variables: ENT indicates whether the respondent is an entrepreneur (i.e., currently an owner, partner, founder, president, or corporate executive at a new venture that employs at least 10 FTEs or started or helped start such a venture within the last 10 years); given we hypothesize over the entrepreneurial role (i.e., as owner–manager–innovator) being impactful to the economy and society and the self, it was included. SP_X is a 10-item construct (α = 0.966) measuring the respondent’s spirituality–religiosity (e.g., I have a personally meaningful relationship with God); this factor was included because religion/spirituality has a significant association with US entrepreneurial activity (e.g., Dougherty et al. 2013; Neubert 2013), as well as social responsibility and personal fulfillment (e.g., Astrachan et al. 2020; Chatterji 2020; Ganzin et al. 2020; Karakas 2010). And ENTxSPX is the interaction term (calculated using standardized values for the two previous items); this was included to pick up the synergies, and reinforcing values between the factors. The two secondary variables applied mainly in the analysis of the first hypothesis to better understand what the possible integration of firm performance with social responsibility and personal fulfillment could look like through work: CALLX is a 3-item construct (α = 0.876) measuring the participant’s occupational calling (e.g., I believe that I have been called to my current line of work); it provides one reason for why the integration would occur. And PER_WX is a 15-item construct (α = 0.898) measuring the respondent’s personal occupational fulfillment (e.g., I am satisfied with the happiness I feel in my work); it provides another reason, as a proxy of the non-monetary rewards from work (i.e., as a payoff-based rather than a needs-based reason for work).

We applied a relevant selection from thirteen control variables to the regression analyses. When trying to explain organizational performance—both traditional and social—we controlled for five firm and industry characteristics likely to affect at least one of them (and that have been used in prior studies—see Table 1): FIRMREV measures the current size of the firm in annual sales revenues (below $1m USD = 1; $1m up to $10m = 2; $10m up to $100m = 3; over $100m = 4); IND_HTECH indicates how high-tech the industry is (on a 5-pt Likert scale); IND_GR1 indicates industry growth (on a 5-pt Likert scale); INDTUNCX is a 5-item construct (α = 0.806) measuring the industry’s turbulence, instability and uncertainty; and, INDRELX is a 2-item construct (α = 0.834) measuring the degree of religious-affiliation in this industry. When trying to explain personal performance (i.e., as fulfillment), we controlled for eighteen factors, mostly at the individual level (e.g., some ‘big-five’ traits that have also been applied in previous studies; see Table 1): AGE measures the participant’s age (22–29 = 1; 30–39 = 2; 40–49 = 3… 80–plus = 7); MALE captures the participant’s gender identity; EXTROV is a 2-item personality trait measure of extroversion; SELF_DISC is a 2-item personality trait measure of self-discipline; EMOSTAB is a 2-item personality trait measure of emotional stability; CREATV is a 2-item personality trait measure of creativeness; RISKX is a 4-item construct (α = 0.662) measuring risk-taking (e.g., I am not afraid to take risks); SP_ATDG, which is a 4-item construct (α = 0.804) measuring how the respondent’s set of spiritual beliefs helps them deal with anxiety, influences their decision-making, controls their destiny and provides their ‘gut’ instincts. So, besides demographic and psychographic factors, other ways that work can provide satisfaction (e.g., in creativity or risk-taking) and other ways that spirituality can be used (e.g., as a ‘crutch’) were included. We also included CALLX and PERFALLX to factor out the fulfillment from simply meeting a need-as-calling or from vicariously seeing the firm succeed.

5. Testing and Results

To test H1, we applied a two-sample hypothesis testing for correlation via a Fisher transformation (using a two-tailed z-statistic).

Table 2. Correlation analysis.

	CSRX		PERFALLX		SP_X		CALLX
PERFALLX	0.713	(0.08)
	0.547
SP_X	0.529	(0.08)	0.541	(0.002)
	0.302		0.109
CALLX	0.768	(0.05)	0.667	(0.004)	0.634	(0.08)
	0.609		0.337		0.441
PER_WX	0.746	(ns)	0.767	(0.04)	0.546	(0.04)	0.714	(ns)
	0.775		0.603		0.285		0.740

Notes: Correlations shown, normal for entrepreneurs, italics for managers. Differences of correlations computed based on Fisher transformations and 2-tailed z-statistic tests. (p-values in parentheses).

provides the results: 8 of the 10 possible correlation differences are statistically significant; 3 of 4 of the possible correlation differences of CSRX are statistically significant; and all are for both PERFALLX and SP_X. It appears that, in general, and with at least marginal statistical significance, entrepreneurs enjoy a much more holistic set of performance outcomes among their personal measures (of work and spirituality) and among their business measures (of commercial and social responsibility) than their corporate executive peers. Thus, H1 is partially supported.

To test H2, we conducted three sets of (two-step) OLS regressions. The first steps were all similar in that they applied the same three explanatory variables to the performance-measuring dependent variables. The second step added relevant control variables to the analyses.

Table 3. Regression analyses.

	PERFALLX				CSRX				PER_OX
ENT	0.285	(0.000)	0.182	(0.007)	0.228	(0.001)	0.126	(0.074)	0.258	(0.000)	0.018	(0.793)
SP_X	0.298	(0.000)	0.102	(0.139)	0.393	(0.000)	0.215	(0.003)	0.321	(0.000)	0.361	(0.001)
ENTxSPX	0.184	(0.008)	0.182	(0.003)	0.080	(0.242)	0.043	(0.503)	−0.022	(0.756)	−0.073	(0.222)
FIRMREV			−0.141	(0.025)			−0.016	(0.808)
IND_HTECH			0.099	(0.159)			0.180	(0.016)
IND_GR1			0.339	(0.000)			0.191	(0.011)
INDTUNCX			−0.158	(0.020)			−0.058	(0.412)
INDRELX			0.194	(0.013)			0.234	(0.005)
AGE											−0.107	(0.070)
MALE											−0.043	(0.486)
EXTROV											0.137	(0.039)
SELF_DISC											−0.086	(0.167)
EMOSTAB											0.205	(0.002)
CREATV											−0.092	(0.220)
SP_ADTG											−0.345	(0.001)
RISKX											0.226	(0.002)
CALLX											0.235	(0.003)
PERFALLX											0.236	(0.004)
Adj R2	0.216		0.432		0.231		0.380		0.192		0.473
F-ratio	16.351	(0.000)	16.889	(0.000)	17.723	(0.000)	13.786	(0.000)	14.204	(0.000)	12.518	(0.000)

Notes: standardized coefficients reported N = 168; VIFs all under 4 (p-values in parentheses).

provides the results: ENT and SP_X were highly significant in all first parts, indicating that entrepreneurship and religiosity are roughly correlated with higher performance across commercial, social, and personal dimensions. When controls were added, results altered for the commercial and personal dimensions but remained (though at a less significant level) for social responsibility. For commercial performance, entrepreneurship remained highly significant, but spirituality switched to being a moderator (i.e., with the interaction term becoming significant and the direct effect mostly disappearing). For personal performance, only spirituality survived as significantly positively correlated. H2 is only partially supported but with an interesting pattern: religiosity was a significant factor alone for non-financial performance, as was entrepreneurship for financial performance (with a marginally significant effect on social performance); their interaction was significant for only the financial measure.

Our results match well with a recent study of Pakistani corporate managers, who also displayed significant correlations among firm financial performance, CSR, and personal religiosity (Hunjra et al. 2021). However, the results also differ from some past studies that revealed no direct influence of religiosity on CSR behavior (e.g., Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten et al. 2014). Also, in terms of consistency with expectations, note that the industry growth control is a significant positive factor in the expected direction for the firm performance regressions; the calling and firm performance controls are significant positive factors in the personal fulfillment regression (while the spiritual ‘crutch’ proxy is a significant negative factor).

The results of any empirical study are subject to limitations, and ours are no different. Our study suffers from the usual limitations for survey-based research in business: sample restrictions involving limits on geography, recruitment, pool size, and the number of controls; survivor bias; common method bias; recall bias; and non-response bias (note regarding the latter: we applied the standard proxy testing for differences between early and late responses and found none of significance). As such, care should be taken applying our results under different conditions (and so we call for further studies on this phenomenon that use different locations, added controls, and so on to check for robustness and extend the modeling).

Now consider two important implications of these limitations for our results: First, our sample’s entrepreneurs are ‘unusual’ in the sense that they are associated with (survived) medium-sized ventures; for such size, they are more likely to have been strong innovators and leaders. The positive results associated with them (especially financially) are perhaps less surprising then, even relative to equally successful peers (i.e., the executives at firms of considerable size). As for the finding that personal fulfillment is not significantly correlated with being an entrepreneur (when controlling for other factors), that should actually not be disappointing given that the peers are also quite accomplished in getting to their executive positions, likely indicating that they also must be receiving something more out of the job than just a paycheck.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

We contribute to the strategy, entrepreneurship, CSR, and religiosity literature by providing what we understand as the first empirical study to connect these concepts with commercial and personal performance in a US-focused study, one that leveraged a relevant reference point (of peer corporate executives). The study’s contribution lies in adding to an understanding of how firms seek to meet the challenge of satisfying multiple stakeholders simultaneously (including employees). The analysis and results help explain how entrepreneurship (e.g., as a mindset of employees; as coming from the organization’s founders) and spirituality (e.g., as practiced by the employees and as signaled by the firm’s leaders) can improve the management of work, of employees (e.g., their work-life enjoyment and fulfillment), of organizational competitiveness, and of impacts on society.

The analysis of our first research question revealed that entrepreneurs are more likely (than their corporate executive peers) to achieve more holistic success, which supports the argument that they do apply their relatively more centralized power to pursue greater consistency across diverse performance goals (which, in turn, supports ideas in identity theory, integration, and bounded rationality). The analysis of our second research question revealed that entrepreneurship and spirituality each provide the basis for possible synergies across (different sets of) diverse goals and that both are needed to be successful in achieving synergies across the larger set. This result supports the core idea in cybernetics (Ashby 1956; Boisot and McKelvey 2011) that it takes (internal) complexity to address (external) complexity; simple (e.g., single-basis) approaches will not work. These results point to two ways to improve a firm’s multi-dimensional performance: first, centralize the coordination of the pursuit of multiple goals in competent leadership (as entrepreneurs do with their founding power and holistic vision), and second, be prepared to address the additional externally facing complexity (of pursuing multiple goals) with added internal complexity (in drawing on multiple sources of skill, perspective, and inspiration).

The results indicate that entrepreneurs enjoy a relatively holistic—perhaps synergistic—set of behaviors and outcomes, seemingly connected to a healthy, ethical belief system. However, we repeat here that our results are subject to several limitations of the empirical analysis (e.g., survivor bias, common method bias, recall bias, and a specific geographic and temporal focus). This implies that there are lessons to be learned from further study of entrepreneurs, especially spiritual ones, in terms of developing sustainable human activity. (Finding ways to harness and instill such ‘religiosity’ may be a challenge, however, given its personal and sometimes divisive nature.) Such studies may lead to better policies aimed at supporting such entrepreneurs’ activities, as well as better policies focused on larger firms’ executives that would better instill such a positive set of consequences.

The main implication for the related theorizing from this study is that the observed ‘performance holism’ observed from many (medium-sized venture) US entrepreneurs stems not from one source but two: entrepreneurship and religiosity. Our study is unique in being able to identify both the separate and combined effects of these sources on an important and diverse set of outcomes (and goals). Entrepreneurship provides more connection between financial and social performance, while religiosity does so between social and personal. There is synergy between the two for finances (i.e., for feeding the economic machine so its profits can be directed to other pursuits, like social stewardship and self-actualization). This insight is an important contribution as it suggests a more complicated twist on existing theories that tend to simplify models to focus on only one identity or only one moral lens, only one fit, or only one approach to diverse stakeholders or on a ‘full’ integration. In our study, it appears that there is room to consider two drivers of action that can be separated but also synergized depending on the decision, action, and goal at play; if this is the reality, it may be time to alter the theories (e.g., economies of worth, congruence, identity, stakeholder, fit, and congruence) accordingly, regardless of any difficulty in so doing (e.g., the added modeling of the conditions for separation and integration of the main drivers of behavior).

Our study also suggests a few practical implications. For example, based on the results of our study, we can tentatively recommend firms to encourage, to model, and to provide on-site resources that support more spiritual and entrepreneurial behaviors for employees, especially for strategic decision-makers and creators (e.g., Huang et al. 2021; Indradevi 2020). We further recommend firms to encourage, to model, and to provide on-site resources that support more thought towards, more planning for, and more actions in pursuit of holistic performance outcomes (e.g., perhaps through an appropriately modified balanced scorecard approach—see Chehimi and Naro (2024) and Kaplan and Norton (1992)) to help identify the opportunities for the synergies and the threats of dis-synergies in their firm and its geographic cluster (see Porter and Kramer 2002; Porter 1998, respectively).

There are many possible areas for future work (e.g., regarding the connections to family firms, to specific industries, to specific social outcomes and targets). The first involves the social impacts of entrepreneurship (Terjesen et al. 2016) relative to corporations and other entities (like NGOs) in terms of revisiting ways to allocate resource support based on that differential relative impact. Relatedly, it would be useful to determine the critical scale of an entrepreneurial venture necessary to create a measurable social impact, given this remains a question (e.g., Jenkins 2006). Second, future work could explore the direction of causality, or coevolution, of CSR, profitability, spirituality, and self-fulfillment at any firm, given the positive relationships among pairs identified in the literature (e.g., Orlitzky et al. 2003). It would be useful to have cases and interviews that provide more details on the explicit rationalizations of these connections (e.g., Hengst et al. 2020) that could then be tested and verified and then applied to strategic planning. Third, future work could determine the pros and cons of using religiosity as a means of providing spiritual capital and sticky ethical standards ‘that begin at the top’ (Stead et al. 1990). Arguments have been made that, given the unprecedented dynamics and complexities facing firms, it may be that a return to some familiar forms of spirituality in strategic management could help us all (e.g., Karakas 2006). Regardless of the paths taken, the potential for harnessing the synergies of important dimensions of performance in firms—accounting for size and newness—should be a new priority in strategic thinking.