Why and when entrepreneurs with calling perform better? The effects of calling and money motivation on entrepreneurial performance

Money motivation has been widely acknowledged as an important driver for promoting entrepreneurship and generating entrepreneurial performance (Mensah et al., 2023; Naffziger et al., 1994). However, a large number of empirical studies suggest that some entrepreneurs do not start a business purely in pursuit of wealth (Adeniyi et al., 2024; Chandra et al., 2021; Lyu et al., 2024; Murnieks et al., 2020). They start their businesses to meet social needs and thus make the world a better place (Ip, 2024; Jin et al., 2022; Santos et al., 2021; Sutter et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2024). The preference for making positive contributions to societal development through one’s own work and experiencing a sense of self-fulfillment is referred to as “calling”. Research on organizational behavior has shown that calling can be very effective in promoting individual innovation (Liu & Xu, 2022; Lv et al., 2021), and enhancing job performance and well-being (Jin et al., 2022; Vianello et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2017; 2023). Given the great potential of calling to better understand entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial processes and activities (Da Palma et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021), calling has recently been introduced into entrepreneurship research. For example, Chen et al. (2022) explored the boundary conditions under which calling drives entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial efforts, and Da Palma et al. (2018) explored whether calling can influence an entrepreneur’s ability to attract resources for a new venture.

However, research on the impact of money motivation and calling on entrepreneurs has been conducted independently in the past. In fact, for many entrepreneurs, starting a business may be driven by either money motivation or calling. It is unclear whether these two factors influence entrepreneurs in a complementary or an oppositional manner. Murnieks et al. (2020) called that more studies are needed to explore the impact of the interaction between motivational factors on entrepreneurs. Therefore, our research question is to investigate whether calling and money motivation impact entrepreneurial performance in a complementary or an oppositional manner. To reach this aim, we drew on self-regulation theory, which suggests that humans are goal-oriented and regulated by feedback control processes (Bandura, 1991; Wright et al., 2000), to propose our hypothesized model. Specifically, this study believes that calling will motivate entrepreneurs’ innovative behaviors, thereby improving entrepreneurial performance. Money motivation will mitigate the positive effect of calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behaviors, such that the mediation effect will be stronger when money motivation is low than when money motivation is high (see Fig. 1). To avoid common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and allow for the establishment of causal relationships between key variables (Mathieu & Taylor, 2006), we used a two-wave survey to collect data from entrepreneurs who are in the stage of venture initiation.

Research hypothesis model.

Full size image

This article not only enriches the understanding of the drivers of entrepreneurial performance, but also expands the professional boundaries of calling (Thompson & Bunderson, 2019). Additionally, we deepen the understanding of the impact of money motivation on entrepreneurs. The research findings also provide important practical implications for entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship educators and policy makers on cultivating entrepreneurs’ calling and money motivation.

Self-regulation theory

Self-regulation theory suggests that humans are goal-oriented and regulated by feedback control processes (Bandura, 1991; Wang et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2000). Specifically, this theory proposes that once individuals have a clear goal, they will take action to achieve it. In this process, individuals evaluate what has happened, compare the results they have achieved with what they want to achieve, take action to reduce differences, and ultimately reach an ideal state (Bandura, 1991). Due to the fact that the most obvious psychological characteristic of individuals with strong calling have a clear understanding of their goals in the work and a strong tendency to take action to achieve what they believe to be intentional goals (Elangovan et al., 2010; Jin et al., 2022; Wan et al., 2021), we believe that self-regulation theory provides an overarching theoretical framework for this study.

Hypothesis development

Innovative behavior as a mediator

The self-regulation theory states that individuals driven by goals will exhibit self-regulation behaviors conducive to goal achievement, which in turn leads to resultant outcomes (Wright et al., 2000). One of the entrepreneurial goals of entrepreneurs with strong calling is to meet social needs through their own products or services and have a positive impact on society (Da Palma et al., 2018; Stevens et al., 2015; Yitshaki & Kropp, 2016). To achieve this goal, they realize the need for continuous innovation (exploratory or exploitative innovation) (Gali et al., 2020; Gupta et al., 2020; Hietschold et al., 2023). Moreover, entrepreneurs with strong calling also have a strong action-oriented (Elangovan et al., 2010; Jin et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2017; 2024). Therefore, we expect that entrepreneurs with stronger calling will exhibit more innovative behaviors to improve their products or services and have a positive impact on society than those with weaker calling. Research in the field of organizational behavior also shows that employees with stronger calling will exhibit more innovative behaviors at work (Lv et al., 2021; Duan et al., 2020). Furthermore, when entrepreneurs develop products and services that meet social needs through innovation, they can attract more customers to buy their products or services, thereby gaining more market share and increasing market penetration (Blichfeldt & Faullant, 2021; Jajja et al., 2017). At the same time, innovation can also benefit enterprises gain unique competitive advantages, such as highly loyal customer groups and reputable brand value (Azeem et al., 2021; Yang & Tan, 2017), facilitating startups in achieving sustainable growth in the market (Nathan & Rosso, 2022). Based on the above arguments, we anticipate that entrepreneurs with a strong sense of calling will engage in more innovative behaviors, which in turn helps entrepreneurs achieve better entrepreneurial performance. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Innovative behavior mediates the positive association between entrepreneurs’ calling and entrepreneurial performance.

The moderating role of money motivation

Self-regulation theory further states that the extent to which self-regulated behavior leads to resultant outcomes is also influenced by situational or personal factors (Duckworth et al., 2016). For instance, the association between entrepreneurs’ behaviors and performance depends on personal factors such as the entrepreneur’s perceptions of risk, counterfactual thinking, and susceptibility to cognitive errors (Baron, 2004). Motivation, as an intrinsic impetus that triggers, directs, and sustains physiological and psychological activities, has not only stimulated but also guided personal behavior (Kanfer et al., 2017). As a driver to acquire personal wealth and income, money motivation is an extrinsic driving force for entrepreneurs to engage in innovation and entrepreneurship (Good et al., 2022; Kuratko et al., 1997), and has long been considered an important driver to promote entrepreneurship and generate entrepreneurial performance (Murnieks et al., 2020; Naffziger et al., 1994). Based on self-regulation theory, we argue that money motivation not only has a stimulating effect on entrepreneurs’ innovative behavior because of its activating function but also plays an important moderating role between innovative behavior and entrepreneurial performance because of its guiding function. Specifically, we anticipate that money motivation negatively moderates the positive association between innovative behavior and entrepreneurial performance. This is because entrepreneurs with higher money motivation are primarily focused on short-term financial return and business success from innovation during the innovation and entrepreneurship process and want to maximize their personal profits through innovation, which in turn reduces the effectiveness of entrepreneurs’ innovative behavior (Ganguli et al., 2021). On the contrary, entrepreneurs with lower money motivation are instead more likely to promote the entrepreneurial performance of their firms as they are more concerned with the innovativeness and social value of the innovation itself and expect to provide better products and services to their customers through the innovation (Komatsu Cipriani et al., 2020). Based on the above analysis, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Money motivation negatively moderates the positive association between innovative behavior and entrepreneurial performance; this means that the positive impact of entrepreneurs’ innovative behavior on entrepreneurial performance of entrepreneurial firms is stronger when money motivation is relatively lower.

Hypothesis 1 suggests that innovative behavior mediates the positive association between calling and entrepreneurial performance. Hypothesis 2 states that money motivation negatively moderates the positive association between innovative behavior and entrepreneurial performance. Based on the moderated mediation model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007), we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Money motivation negatively moderates the indirect effect of calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behavior; this means that the indirect effect of calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behavior is stronger at a low level of money motivation.

Participants and procedures

The participants in this study are founders who are presently starting and working in the company. With the help of a contact person from a technology business incubator and using a two-wave, web-based survey, we sampled 280 founders of firms, all of whom belonged to technology startups in China. We engaged a professional research institution to identify a list and contact information of Chinese target enterprises that met the sample criteria for this study. The founders were initially contacted by phone to explain the purpose of the study was to understand their opinions on entrepreneurship and to inform them that all individual responses would be kept confidential and anonymous. If a founder agreed to participate, we dispatched an electronic invitation via email, which included a link to Sojump (www.sojump.com), a Chinese online survey platform that assists researchers in data collection. Additionally, we attached a cover letter outlining the aim of the survey and assuring the confidentiality and anonymity of the responses once again. Founders who are interested in participating could click on the link in e-mail to respond to the survey. Participants were also told that they would receive a follow-up survey due to collecting data across two waves. In order to control for the potential impact of common method biases on research results and enhance the persuasiveness of causal relationships between variables, this study adopted a time-lagged study design to collect data, following the suggestion of Podsakoff et al. (2003). At Time 1, participants were asked to provide their demographic information (i.e., gender, age, education level, marital status, and entrepreneurial frequency), entrepreneurs’ calling, and money motivation. At Time 2 (one month later), participants reported their innovative behavior and entrepreneurial performance.

At Time 1, we distributed 280 questionnaires, of which 233 completed responses were received (response rate of 83.21%). One month later (Time 2), a follow-up survey was sent to the 233 participants who completed the first survey. Of the 233 participants, 174 submitted valid responses, yielding a response rate of 74.68%. Thus, the final sample consisted of 174 founders. In this final sample, the average age of founders was 26.27 (SD = 4.360) and the average number of start-ups was 1.33 (SD = 0.708). 65.5% of the founders were male and 89.7% were unmarried. The educational composition was as follows: those with a master’s degree or above were 8.0%, with a bachelor’s degree were 20.7%, with an associate degree were 69.0%, with a high school or secondary school degree were 1.7%, and with a junior high school degree or below were 0.6%.

Instruments

Entrepreneurs’ calling

Entrepreneurs’ calling was evaluated with the 12-item “Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ)” developed by Dik et al. (2012). The scale includes three dimensions: transcendent summons, prosocial orientation, and, purposeful work, with each dimension including four items. To reduce the burden on participants to complete the questionnaire, we selected the first two items from each dimension. Sample items included “I was drawn by something beyond myself to pursue entrepreneurship” (Transcendent summons), “The most important aspect of entrepreneurship for me is its role in helping to meet the needs of others or society” (Prosocial orientation), “Entrepreneurship is an important part of my life’s meaning” (Purposeful work). The responses were based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). In this study, the internal consistency was α = 0.917.

Innovative behavior

The innovative behavior of entrepreneurs was evaluated with the scale used in the research of Li et al. (2010). The scale divides innovative behavior into two dimensions: exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation, comprising a total of seven items. Among them, exploratory innovation included three items, such as “Constantly try risky immature technologies and techniques”. Exploitative innovation included four items, such as “Constantly use current technologies/techniques to increase functions and kinds of products/services”. The responses were based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The internal consistency of innovative behavior was α = 0.969.

Entrepreneurial performance

Following the practice of Li and Atuahene-Gima (2001), we used the growth performance of start-ups to evaluate founders’ entrepreneurial performance. There were four items: “Relative to our principal competitors, our company is quite satisfied with the enterprise’s profit growth internally”, “Relative to our principal competitors, our company’s sales growth is faster”, “Relative to our principal competitors, our company has a higher cash flow from market operations”, and “Relative to our principal competitors, our company’s market share growth is faster”. The responses were based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The internal consistency of entrepreneurial performance was α = 0.963.

Money motivation

The money motivation of entrepreneurs was estimated with the scale developed by Kuratko et al. (1997). Participants were first presented a leading question, “Why do you want to start a business?” and were then asked to respond to three items including “I want to acquire personal wealth through entrepreneurship”, “I want to increase my personal income through entrepreneurship”, and “I want to increase my income opportunities through entrepreneurship”. The responses were based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The internal consistency of money motivation was α = 0.975.

Control variables

Previous studies have found that age, gender, marital status, education level, and entrepreneurial frequency could affect the entrepreneurial performance of entrepreneurs (Liu & Hao, 2019; Santos et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2022). Therefore, following the suggestion of Bernerth and Aguinis (2016), this study included the above variables as control variables in the statistical analysis.

Discriminant validity

In this study, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with Mplus 8.3 to test discriminant validity between the core constructs including entrepreneurs’ calling, innovative behavior, entrepreneurial performance, and money motivation. As shown in Table 1, the four-factor model fitted the data well (χ² = 255.608; df = 164; RMSEA = 0.057; SRMR = 0.046; CFI = 0.932; TLI = 0.921). The fitting index was better than other competitive models, indicating that participants could distinguish calling, innovative behavior, entrepreneurial performance, and money motivation.

Common method bias

The data for this study were self-reported by the founders, which may lead to common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore, it is necessary to test whether there is potential common method bias. In Mplus 8.3, this study tested for common method bias by controlling for the effects of an unmeasured latent method factor as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). The test results indicated that after adding method factor, the model did not show a significant improvement compared to the theoretically hypothesized four-factor model (χ² = 250.341; df = 163; RMSEA = 0.055; SRMR = 0.057; CFI = 0.935; TLI = 0.924; ∆RMSEA = −0.002; ∆SRMR = 0.011; ∆CFI = 0.003; ∆TLI = 0.003) (Hou et al., 2004), suggesting this study did not suffer from common method bias.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

In this study, SPSS 25.0 was used to calculate the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients between variables. The results are shown in Table 2. It can be seen that entrepreneurs’ calling was significantly and positively related to innovative behavior (r = 0.356, p < 0.01) and entrepreneurial performance (r = 0.260, p < 0.01), while innovative behavior was significantly and positively related to entrepreneurial performance (r = 0.774, p < 0.01). The above results were consistent with the research hypotheses, providing preliminary support for subsequent hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis testing

As the preliminary analysis above supported the structural validity of our measurement model, we proceeded to conduct structural equation modeling focused on directional relations between observed variables (Hoyle, 2012). This study employed 5000 bootstrap resamples to obtain 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs) for hypothesis mediation effect test in MPLUS 8.3. The results were summarized in Fig. 2 and Table 3.

Note. N = 174; All regression coefficients are standardized; ^*p < 0.05; ^***p < 0.001.

Full size image

Hypothesis 1 stated that innovative behavior mediates the positive association between entrepreneurs’ calling and entrepreneurial performance. As shown in Table 3, the indirect effect of entrepreneurs’ calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behavior was significant (b = 0.202, 95% BootcCI = [0.043, 0.371]). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that money motivation negatively moderates the positive association between innovative behavior and entrepreneurial performance. As illustrated in Fig. 2, money motivation acted as a significant negative moderator in the relationship between innovative behavior and entrepreneurial performance (b = −0.138, 95%BootcCI = [−0.279, −0.038]). Specifically, when money motivation was relatively lower, the entrepreneurs’ innovative behavior had a stronger positive impact on entrepreneurial performance. Hence, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Hypothesis 3 stated that money motivation negatively moderates the indirect effect of entrepreneurs’ calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behavior. As presented in Table 3, the higher the money motivation, the weaker the mediating role of innovative behavior in the association between calling and entrepreneurial performance, that is, the positive indirect effect of entrepreneurs’ calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behavior was significant at lower (−SD, estimate = 0.226, 95% BootCI = [0.042, 0.412]) versus higher money motivation (+SD, estimate = 0.178, 95% BootCI = [0.048, 0.345]; difference = −0.049, 95% BootCI = [−0.156, −0.006]). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Despite the desire to make positive contributions to society through entrepreneurship and the desire to earn money may coexist among entrepreneurs (Lyu et al., 2024), little study has to date considered conjointly these two motives to determine their effects on entrepreneurial activity. To fill this important void, the main goal of this study was to investigate whether calling and money motivation impact entrepreneurial performance in a complementary or an oppositional manner. Based on the self-regulation theory (Bandura, 1991; Wright et al., 2000), we proposed that calling improved entrepreneurial performance via innovative behaviors. Money motivation further moderated the effect of calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behaviors in an oppositional manner. All hypotheses were supported by the analyses of a time-lagged dataset. The results provided meaningful implications for theory and practice.

Theoretical Implications

The present study contributes to extant literature in several meaningful ways. To begin with, this study enriches the understanding of driving factors of entrepreneurial performance and expands the level of outcomes of calling. Previous studies primarily focused on the impact of personal calling on individuals’ performance (see review, Dobrow et al., 2023; Duffy & Dik, 2013; Thompson & Bunderson, 2019). However, performance involves multiple-levels, including individuals, teams and enterprises (Heredia et al., 2022; Triana et al., 2021). As far as we know, to date, little study has studied the impact of calling on enterprise-level performance. Based on the self-regulation theory and sampling entrepreneurs, we took the initial step in examining the impact of calling on business performance and the underlying mechanism for the relationship between entrepreneurs’ calling and entrepreneurial performance. The results revealed that as an internal driving force, calling can motivate entrepreneurs to engage in more innovative behaviors, which in turn contribute to better entrepreneurial performance. In addition, the research results also indicate that, inconsistent with the function of motivation, in the presence of calling, money motivation only guides innovative behavior and further affects entrepreneurial performance, while its direct activation of innovative behavior is not significant. These findings help us better understand why the internal driving force is crucial for enterprises (Murnieks et al., 2020).

Second, this study extends the occupational boundaries of calling by examining the impact of calling on entrepreneurial performance among entrepreneurs. To date, calling has been studied among IT managers, salespeople, hotel employees, health care workers, accountants, bank employees, and working managers (see review, Thompson & Bunderson, 2019). In fact, calling is also closely relevant to entrepreneurs. The survey study by Amit et al. (2001) found that a large number of entrepreneurs start businesses not only to attain wealth and good living but also to make a difference. In other words, a large number of entrepreneurs have a desire to leverage their particular gifts and consuming passions in service of a cause or purpose beyond self-interest. Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Da Palma et al., 2018), calling is prevalent among entrepreneurs. Importantly, the current study first revealed the process that calling impacts the entrepreneurial performance of entrepreneurs based on an overarching theoretical framework (i.e., the self-regulation theory), providing meaningful theoretical insight into the effects of calling on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

Third, we deepen the understanding of money motivation by identifying that money motivation may have negative effects under certain conditions. Money motivation has been the most heavily considered by economists as a primary driver of venture initiation activity (Adeniyi et al., 2024; Mensah et al., 2023; Murnieks et al., 2020). Thus, prior studies almost always focused on the positive effects on entrepreneurial activities (Cassar, 2007; Manish & Sutter, 2016; Townsend & Hart, 2008). Put simply, there is an assumption that the money motivation is always beneficial. However, the current study found that the positive effects of calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behavior is mitigated when money motivation is high. In fact, Victor and Stephens (1994) stated that new organizational forms (e.g., lean and decentralized organizational structures) may have negative effects under certain conditions.

Practical implications

This study also provides entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship educators, and policymakers with practical implications in developing entrepreneurs’ calling and moderating their money motivation. First, the positive effect of entrepreneurs’ calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behavior emphasizes the importance of cultivating their calling, which is crucial for enhancing innovative capabilities to improve business performance. Policymakers could invest in entrepreneurship education and training programs to provide entrepreneurs with essential knowledge, skills, and resources, cultivate their innovation capabilities, and influence their perspectives, thus inspiring their calling. Entrepreneurial educators could guide students to recognize their own calling and values through innovation and entrepreneurship courses or training activities, helping them develop positive entrepreneurial motivation and a heightened awareness of entrepreneurial actions (Adeniyi et al., 2024). Entrepreneurs should identify their calling and values through continuous reflection and exploration (Xin et al., 2018), so that they would fully leverage the intrinsic driving force of calling in a fiercely competitive business environment. To make positive contributions to social development through their work, entrepreneurs should actively seek entrepreneurial opportunities that align with their value, continuously pursue innovation and change, and carve out a space in the competitive market.

Second, this study emphasizes the importance of moderate money motivation for entrepreneurs to achieve entrepreneurial success. Although money motivation has long been regarded as an important driving factor to promote entrepreneurship and generate entrepreneurial performance (Mensah et al., 2023; Naffziger et al., 1994), astonishingly, this study found that the weaker the money motivation, the stronger the positive impact of the calling on entrepreneurial performance via innovative behavior. Thus, in order to better balance the relationship between calling and money motivation, policy makers could formulate incentive policies to guide entrepreneurs with moderate money motivation, such as different incentives, i.e., tax incentives, entrepreneurial rewards and innovation subsidies, to encourage entrepreneurs to pursue long-term business success and social value in the process of innovation and entrepreneurship, rather than just short-term economic returns. Entrepreneurship educators should not only pay attention to cultivating calling of entrepreneurs, helping them to clarify the goal and significance of entrepreneurship (Penno et al., 2022; Wan et al., 2021), but also focus on guiding their appropriate money motivation, teaching them correct values and business ethics, so that they can correctly handle the relationship between money motivation and the realization of social value in the process of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs could and also need to have money motivation, however, to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome of both business success and the creation of social value, entrepreneurs should establish the right entrepreneurial motivation and let the desire for money make way for more valuable pursuits, thus achieving personal growth, career success, and promote business development and social progress. In conclusion, the failure of entrepreneurs will not only have a devastating impact on the economy, life and other aspects of the entrepreneurs themselves, but also be costly to society (Costa et al., 2023), so we constantly need to underline the importance of cultivating calling and moderate money motivation and continuously implement them in practice.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the theoretical and practical implications mentioned above, this study had several limitations that provide opportunities for future research. The first limitation pertains to the research methodology, where the data heavily depended on self-reported information from the entrepreneurs themselves. Consequently, potential biases such as memory bias and social desirability might have impact on the results. In order to enhance the reliability and validity of the results, future research could consider incorporating multiple data sources, including archival or other-reported data, to replicate the results. Second, although we collected data at two different time points, this study was cross-sectional in nature (Cole & Maxwell, 2003), which limits the causal inference that could be made from the results. Future research should adopt a rigorous longitudinal research design to examine how calling influences entrepreneurial performance. Such a design allows us to confidently determine the causal linkages between variables.

This study sheds light on whether calling and money motivation influence entrepreneurial performance in a complementary or an oppositional manner. Based on the self-regulation theory, we proposed that calling and money motivation impact entrepreneurial performance in an oppositional manner. Specifically, calling contributes to entrepreneurial performance through triggering entrepreneurs’ innovative behaviors, and this process is mitigated by money motivation. The hypotheses were supported by the time-lagged data from entrepreneurs during venture initiation. This study deepens the understanding of the impact of calling and money motivation on entrepreneurs and expands the professional boundaries of calling research. Meanwhile, this study enlightens that entrepreneurship educators and policymakers should develop entrepreneurs’ calling and moderate their money motivation.