Content uploaded by Philip Roundy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philip Roundy on Mar 14, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Humility in social entrepreneurs and its implications for social impact entrepreneurial
ecosystems
Philip T. Roundy
Summerfield Johnston Centennial Scholar
UC Foundation Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship
Gary W. Rollins College of Business
University of Tennessee (Chattanooga)
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Tel: +1 423-425-4422
Email: philip-roundy@utc.edu
Thomas S. Lyons
Clarence E. Harris Chair of Excellence in Entrepreneurship
Gary W. Rollins College of Business
University of Tennessee (Chattanooga)
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Tel: +1 423-425-5725
Email: thomas-lyons@utc.edu
Forthcoming in
Journal of Business Venturing Insights
Roundy, P. T., & Lyons, T. S. (2022). Humility in social entrepreneurs and its implications for
social impact entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 17, e00296.
Keywords: entrepreneurial ecosystem; social entrepreneurship; humility; micro-foundations
2
Humility in social entrepreneurs and its implications for social impact entrepreneurial
ecosystems
Abstract
Why do some social entrepreneurs embrace the assistance of their social impact entrepreneurial
ecosystems (SIEEs) in creating and scaling social ventures while others go-it-alone and do not
capitalize on the resources in their local communities? To explain this difference in social
entrepreneurs, we draw from work in leadership and positive organizational scholarship to develop a
multi-level theory of humility in SIEEs. We theorize that social entrepreneurs’ humility affects the
extent to which they seek and contribute ecosystem resources. The humility-driven resource
behaviors of social entrepreneurs, in turn, influence SIEE-level coordination. Our theory of humility
in ecosystems contributes to understanding the micro-foundations of SIEEs and has implications for
social entrepreneurs and ecosystem builders.
Keywords: entrepreneurial ecosystem; social entrepreneurship; humility; micro-foundations
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs), the interconnected actors and forces that support
entrepreneurship within localized geographic areas, explain how communities in Silicon Valley,
Bangalore, and other regions help to develop entrepreneurs and their ventures (Goswami et al., 2018;
Nair et al., 2020; Spigel & Harrison, 2018; Stam & van de Ven, 2021; Theodoraki et al., 2020).
Social impact entrepreneurial ecosystems (SIEEs) are a subtype of entrepreneurial ecosystem
comprised of the local actors and factors that support for-profit, nonprofit, and hybrid entrepreneurial
activity focused on “social impact and the pursuit of positive change” (Gamble & Muñoz, 2021: 1;
Guerrero, Santamaría-Velasco, & Mahto, 2021; Islam, 2020a; Tauber, 2021; Thompson et al., 2018).
Like conventional entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship is a relational process embedded in an
ecosystem of partner organizations, mentors, support agencies, and impact investors influenced by
context-specific networks, values, and institutions (Barki et al., 2020; Islam, 2020a; McMullen,
2018). Social entrepreneurs can utilize the resources provided by their SIEEs to identify
beneficiaries, facilitate value creation, catalyze growth, and address societal problems (Díaz-
González & Dentchev, 2021).
3
However, some social entrepreneurs have an “ecosystem mindset” and are active SIEE
participants, alert to the resources in their local environments, and open to help from their
ecosystems; while others adopt a go-it-alone strategy and do not utilize the assets in their local social
impact communities (Cowell et al., 2018; Scheidgen, 2021). The degree to which social
entrepreneurs get “plugged in” (Stephens et al., 2019) to their SIEEs represents a far-reaching, but
untheorized, source of variation among social entrepreneurs and, potentially, a source of
heterogeneity in their ability to create and scale ventures that co-produce value with customers and
beneficiaries. Thus, while SIEEs can benefit social entrepreneurs (Thompson et al., 2018), it is not
clear why social entrepreneurs differ in the extent to which they leverage their local ecosystems.
In addition to social entrepreneurs seeking resources from their SIEEs, to support high levels
of entrepreneurship, participants must contribute resources to SIEEs. Resource contributions to
entrepreneurial ecosystems are voluntary, often informal, and distributed across participants,
including entrepreneurs (Kuckertz, 2019; Stam & van de Ven, 2021). Although there is growing
acknowledgment that entrepreneurs not only leverage resources but also contribute them to their
local ecosystems (Roundy, 2019b), research has not identified the characteristics of social
entrepreneurs as resource contributors nor has it sought to explain how entrepreneurs’ social-
psychological and moral attributes influence the degree to which they engage in SIEE resource
contributions. In sum, despite mounting evidence supporting the benefits of entrepreneurs leveraging
and contributing SIEE resources, extant ecosystem theory has not explained the differences in social
entrepreneurs’ ecosystem involvement, leaving a critical question unanswered: how do social
entrepreneurs’ characteristics influence how they seek and contribute resources to social impact
entrepreneurial ecosystems?
To address this question, we synthesize and extend work in leadership and positive
organizational scholarship on humility (Maldonado et al., 2021; Ou et al., 2018; Owens & Hekman,
2016), a virtue that is one of the “universal linchpin[s] between individual and community”
4
(Newstead et al., 2018: 449). We develop a multi-level theory explaining how social entrepreneurs’
humility affects the extent to which they seek and contribute SIEE resources and how these
behaviors, in turn, influence SIEE coordination.
2. Theoretical Foundations
2.1 Humility in leadership, organizations, and social entrepreneurship
Humility is a virtue—a “human inclination to feel, think, and act in ways that
express moral excellence and contribute to the common good” (Newstead et al., 2018: 446)—
consisting of four interrelated characteristics: accurate self-awareness, an appreciation of others’
strengths and contributions, openness to feedback, and a transcendent self-concept (Nielsen &
Marrone, 2018; Ou et al., 2014; Rego et al., 2019). Accurate self-awareness is a willingness to
“obtain accurate self-knowledge, being aware of one’s limitations, and acknowledging mistakes (Ou
et al., 2018: 1148). An appreciation for others means that a humble person can acknowledge others’
strengths without being threatened by them (Nielsen & Marrone, 2018). Openness to feedback
involves a humble person not only appreciating what others have to offer but wanting to learn from
them (Owens et al., 2013). A transcendent self-concept means that a humble person has a low self-
focus, acknowledges that something greater than the self exists, and understands “the small role that
[the person] plays in a vast universe” (Morris et al., 2005: 1331). Most organizational research,
including the perspective we adopt, focuses on “expressed” humility, the externally observable
behaviors associated with being humble that manifest in interpersonal interactions (Ou et al., 2014).
In comparison to research on the humility of leaders in mature, established organizations,
there is very little theory to guide research on the humility of entrepreneurs. An exception is
Vilanova and Vitanova (2020) who found a positive effect of entrepreneurs’ humility on investors’
willingness to fund ventures and investors’ evaluations of the likelihood of venture success. Focusing
on social entrepreneurship, Ratiu et al. (2014) argued that humble entrepreneurs are more likely to
recognize social and environmental needs, identify innovative opportunities to address those needs,
5
and effectively create triple-bottom-line ventures. Further, Kruse (2020) theorized that there is a
strong resonance between social entrepreneurship and humility because both involve an others-focus,
an orientation towards societal well-being, prosociality, and compassion (cf. Miller et al., 2012).
Effective social entrepreneurship may depend on humility because social entrepreneurs often address
problems through beneficiary-centered, design thinking approaches, which require empathizing with
and being open to learning from others (Bacq & Alt, 2018; Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018; Mair &
Noboa, 2006). In addition, in SIEEs, humility may be perceived as a more valuable moral
characteristic than in other types of entrepreneurial ecosystems where a greater emphasis is place on
economic rationality and competition (cf. Roundy, 2019a). However, despite promising connections
between humility, social entrepreneurship, and SIEEs, as Vilanova and Vitanova (2020: 6) explain,
“the entrepreneurship literature has scarcely focused on the notion of humility.”
In the next section, we respond to calls for more research on humility in entrepreneurship
(e.g., Chandler et al., 2021) and theorize that in addition to its intra-organizational ramifications
(Nielsen & Marrone, 2018), humility influences social entrepreneurs’ interactions with their local
environments and, specifically, is one explanation for why social entrepreneurs differ in their
utilization of their EEs. Humility is critical in SIEEs because it is a relational virtue and SIEEs are
fundamentally relational phenomena (Spigel, 2017). Humility also stands to play an important role in
SIEEs because, as meta-organizations (Gulati et al., 2012), SIEEs are maintained by the strength of
informal relationships, which are less structured and more tenuous than typical organizational
relationships, rather than by formal agreements between community members. An SIEE’s informal
relations depend not only on the “civic virtues” of reciprocity and trust (cf. Putnam, 2000) but, as we
theorize, on humility, which helps to strengthen and maintain social entrepreneurs’ inter-
organizational, SIEE relationships and, in so doing, improves ecosystem coordination.
3. Theory Development
3.1. Humility and resource seeking in SIEEs
6
Vibrant SIEEs are comprised of three types of attributes—social, cultural, and material
(Spigel, 2017)—which manifest in interpersonal interactions among ecosystem participants and
correspond to three general resources that social entrepreneurs can seek from their SIEEs.
Social resources are transmitted through the networks linking SIEE participants (social
entrepreneurs, impact investors, mentors, support organizations) and include knowledge, financial
capital, and access to talent (Spigel, 2017). Humility is an orientation towards relationships that
makes humble social entrepreneurs more likely to leverage SIEE networks for relational resources
and build social capital (cf. Lyons et al. 2012), for several reasons. Humble social entrepreneurs’
self-reflection helps them to identify their weaknesses, needs, and limitations (e.g., gaps in their
understanding of consumer and/or social problems). As a result of their self-awareness (Maldonado
et al., 2021), humble social entrepreneurs acknowledge that community members have
entrepreneurial strengths different from their own, that creating and scaling their ventures requires
assistance, and that they can benefit from interacting with other SIEE participants. Humble social
entrepreneurs do not operate with a hubristic belief that they “know everything” (Vera & Rodriguez-
Lopez, 2004) about the opportunity they are pursuing and are able to develop their venture without
assistance. Indeed, pride, hubris, overconfidence, and other forms of inflated and inaccurate self-
efficacy (cf. Brändle et al., 2018) are antithetical to humility (Akstinaite et al., 2020).
Humility is associated with a growth (rather than fixed) mindset (Dweck, 2016), which
means that humble social entrepreneurs do not view the strengths of others in their ecosystem as
threatening (i.e., as ego threats); instead, they are teachable, open to feedback, and have an others-
focus (Owens et al., 2013). As a result, humble entrepreneurs facilitate positive interpersonal
interactions that build trust (e.g., being genuinely appreciative of others’ contributions to their
ventures, sharing entrepreneurial successes with collaborators; Vera & Rodrigues-Lopez, 2004) and
limit negative behaviors that cause interpersonal conflict (e.g., trying to dominate others in
ecosystem interactions) (Ou et al., 2018). Thus, humble social entrepreneurs are more likely to adopt
7
an interdependent approach to venture development, recognize that an SIEE’s relationships represent
valuable sources of diverse feedback, knowledge, and skills, and take steps to become embedded in
an SIEE’s social networks (Stephens et al., 2019).
Cultural resources are embodied in an ecosystem’s values, norms, and attitudes supporting
entrepreneurship, institutional logics encouraging collaborative and cooperative behaviors, and
stories of social entrepreneurship (Donaldson, 2021; McMullen, 2018; Spigel, 2017). Humble social
entrepreneurs’ accurate self-awareness means they are more likely to be aware of their inclinations
(e.g., tendencies to be hyper-competitive with other entrepreneurs) and to assess if their personal
values are aligned with their SIEE’s culture or if they must be adjusted to fit cultural expectations. In
this way, humble entrepreneurs are open-minded (Nielsen and Marrone, 2018) about learning how to
navigate an SIEE’s culture. Humble social entrepreneurs look to other ecosystem participants, and
especially valued SIEE contributors, as role models, and appreciate what allows them to successfully
contribute to and draw resources from their ecosystems. However, humble social entrepreneurs do
not simply take note of the strengths and competencies of other ecosystem participants; their desire
for continuous learning and improvement (Morris et al., 2005; Ou et al., 2018) means that they
embrace the adaptive characteristics displayed by other SIEE members. For instance, engaging in
prosocial behaviors towards other ecosystem participants are norms that are important cultural
attributes of many vibrant EEs (Roundy, 2021). Altruistic prosocial behaviors (cf. Bolino & Grant,
2016) manifest in the cooperative actions and simple rules that guide EE interactions (e.g., “give to
the ecosystem before you get”; Feld, 2012). Humility makes social entrepreneurs more open to
learning an SIEE’s cultural expectations from other ecosystem participants and taking the steps to
align themselves with these expectations if they conflict (e.g., if a social entrepreneur is primarily
approaching an ecosystem as a resource “taker” rather than “giver”). Humble social entrepreneurs are
more likely to admit mistakes involving violations of the informal values that govern SIEE
interactions and self-correct based on reflection and feedback from other ecosystem participants
8
(Owens & Hekman, 2012). The learning orientation of humble social entrepreneurs also makes them
more attuned to the stories and histories of an SIEE because such discourse is imbued with
knowledge about the ecosystem’s culture (Roundy, 2016). Finally, humble social entrepreneurs’
transcendent self-concept and low self-focus mean that they will not think that the ecosystem
“revolves around them” but realize that to receive cultural resources they must experience “a
connection to a larger perspective” (Morris et al., 2005: 1331). With social entrepreneurs, the larger
perspective is the well-being of the SIEE’s participants and the desire to create positive spillover
effects (McDaniel et al., 2021) to beneficiaries and society (Bacq et al., 2016; Santos, 2012).
Material resources have a “tangible presence” in an EE and include physical infrastructure,
universities, and support organizations (Spigel, 2017: 54). Humble social entrepreneurs are more
likely to leverage material resources directly and be connected to material resources through their
access to an SIEE’s social and cultural attributes because of their willingness to look outside
themselves for assistance and become embedded in SIEE networks. For instance, humble social
entrepreneurs are more likely to realize that they (and their ventures) need help screening
beneficiaries for their programs and developing financially viable business models that generate
scalable social impact (cf. Islam, 2020b). Humble social entrepreneurs will seek help on such tasks
from experts with specialized knowledge at local nonprofits and incubators. In sum, humble social
entrepreneurs’ outlooks towards their strengths and limitations, other SIEE participants, and the
social, cultural, and material resources their ecosystems can provide suggest the following
proposition about the relationship between entrepreneurs’ humility and an SIEE’s resources.
Proposition 1: Humility is positively associated with social entrepreneurs seeking social,
cultural, and material resources from their social impact entrepreneurial ecosystems.
3.2. Humility and resource contributions to SIEEs
In addition to seeking resources from their ecosystems, humble social entrepreneurs are more
likely to contribute resources to their SIEEs because humility increases social entrepreneurs’
9
perceived interdependence with ecosystem participants and engagement in prosocial behaviors in the
local social impact ecosystem.
First, as theorized, humility gives social entrepreneurs an others-focus that emphasizes
interdependence rather than self-reliance and self-promotion (Owens et al., 2013). As Nielsen and
Marrone (2018) explain, humility “underlies the choice and capacity to approach one’s work (and
life) from a larger, interdependent perspective that is productive, relational and sustainable” (805).
Part of humble social entrepreneurs’ interdependence is attributable to their self-awareness (rather
than self-focus) and to having a realistic view of themselves, which reinforces their “social worth”
(i.e., communal view of self; Bacq & Alt, 2018) and makes them recognize their need for others and
that successfully pursuing opportunities to address social problems depends on the reciprocity of
productive relationships. In this way, humility gives social entrepreneurs a “collective and relational
orientation” that encourages resource contributions and fosters stronger and healthier inter-group
relations (Nielsen et al., 2010). Further, the transcendence aspect of humility is “grounded in a self-
view that something greater than the self exists” (Morris et al., 2005; Ou et al., 2014: 37), which
causes humble social entrepreneurs to be connected to a larger movement, perspective, or purpose for
operating their ventures and be driven by community-oriented goals like reducing poverty or
improving the environment (Nielsen & Marrone, 2018). Humble social entrepreneurs also are not
threatened by the success of others in their ecosystems, see the value in being part of a strong
community of capable social entrepreneurs, and are more likely to view other SIEE participants as
assets, not threats (Owens et al., 2011). Because of their appreciation for others and their
interdependence-orientation, humble social entrepreneurs acknowledge the ecosystem’s role in their
successes, are less likely to attribute their successes solely to their own efforts, and will desire to
reciprocate and “give back” to their SIEEs (Abubakre et al., 2021; Owens et al., 2013).
Humble social entrepreneurs not only pursue interactions with other SIEE participants but,
once connections are formed, they engage in prosocial actions that strengthen relationships. For
10
instance, humble individuals are more likely to be charitable, volunteer help, have a “pay it forward”
attitude, and be motivated by kindness (Exline & Hill, 2012; La Bouff et al., 2012). Humble social
entrepreneurs are also less likely to engage in behaviors that harm relationships and stifle resource
exchange; for example, humility reduces “impulses towards defensiveness, aggression and excessive
self-focus” (Nielsen & Marrone, 2018: 807) and decreases “the need for entitlement or domination
over others” (Ou et al., 2018: 1151). Humble social entrepreneurs value helping others and do not
exhibit a strong desire for self-enhancement because humility is contrary to excessive pride about
one’s accomplishments and jealously towards the success of others. Indeed, humble social
entrepreneurs’ growth-oriented mindset means they are not threatened by others’ successes or believe
that when someone else “wins” they “lose”; rather, they are pleased by others’ success because they
can learn from it (Dweck, 2016). Overall, humble social entrepreneurs are motivated by contributing
to others’ development (Vera et al., 2004) and by being “helpful relationship partners” (Nielsen &
Marrone, 2018: 814), which suggests the following proposition about how they interact with their
local social impact communities.
Proposition 2: Humility is positively associated with social entrepreneurs contributing
resources to their social impact entrepreneurial ecosystems.
3.3. Humility and the coordination of SIEEs
As humility becomes more prevalent in an SIEE, the micro-dynamics of social entrepreneurs’
resource seeking and contributing behaviors influence macro-, ecosystem characteristics.
Specifically, the effects of individual humility-induced behaviors aggregate to positively influence
ecosystem coordination, an ecosystem-level attribute and form of “social cohesion” (Munoz et al.,
2020a) that represents the degree to which an ecosystem’s elements are organized to support
ecosystem development (Roundy, 2020a). In addition to the presence of an SIEE’s attributes, the
extent that attributes are coordinated is critical for ecosystem functioning (cf. O’Connor et al., 2018).
11
Humility-induced resource seeking and contributing behaviors influence three dimensions of
coordination: cognitive, social, and cultural.
First, by frequently seeking and contributing resources, humble social entrepreneurs’
interactions with their SIEEs increase cognitive coordination, the degree to which SIEE participants
share a view of the ecosystem as a distinct entity (Foss & Lorenzen, 2009). Such interactions draw
attention to the SIEE, its resources, and its participants, which helps to reify the ecosystem’s
existence in community members’ minds. Humble social entrepreneurs’ use of an SIEE is visible to
other community members and encourages them to think about their local community as a resource
repository for entrepreneurs. A shared acknowledgment of the ecosystem’s existence as a distinct
entity in the minds of community members is critical because it is the basis for participants’
commitment to developing an ecosystem (Goswami et al., 2018).
Humble social entrepreneurs’ interactions with an SIEE during their resource seeking and
contributing activities also increase an ecosystem’s social coordination (Fang et al., 2021), the degree
to which networks connect SIEE participants in their actions to support ecosystem development. By
leveraging and contributing to SIEEs, humble social entrepreneurs strengthen ecosystem
relationships and, thereby, increase network density (e.g., Theodoraki et al., 2018). Humble social
entrepreneurs’ others-focus and relational orientation improve social coordination by creating and
cementing relational bonds that “coordinate the right match among the various players in the
ecosystem” and improve the flow of information and other resources among SIEE participants
(Colombo et al., 2019; Goswami et al., 2018: 117).
Finally, humble social entrepreneurs’ interactions in their SIEEs increase an ecosystem’s
cultural coordination, the extent to which SIEE participants share a common culture that is
supportive of ecosystem development (Roundy, 2020b; Spigel, 2016). When humble social
entrepreneurs engage in resource seeking or contribution activities with other SIEE participants these
interactions reenact and reinforce the values, norms, and narratives that help to organize an
12
ecosystem. In sum, as humility among social entrepreneurs increases, humility-driven behaviors
contribute to the interdependence and cohesiveness of SIEE functioning. Figure 1 and Table 1
summarize our theoretical arguments.
Proposition 3: Humble social entrepreneurs’ resource seeking and resource contributing
behaviors are positively associated with social impact entrepreneurial ecosystem
coordination.
---Insert Figure 1, Table 1---
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Social entrepreneurs occupy a unique position in SIEEs: they must mobilize resources for
their social ventures and their local social impact ecosystems. The main question our theory
addresses is, why are some social entrepreneurs more willing than others to seek and contribute SIEE
resources? We unpack the implications of our theory in the sections that follow.
4.1. Implications for theory and practice
Although EE research is beginning to examine how entrepreneurs’ differences influence their
ecosystem activities (Sperber & Linder, 2019), EE theory has not focused on how entrepreneurs’
moral characteristics impact EE activities. By focusing on differences in humility, a virtue
(Argandona, 2015), we draw attention to an individual-level construct with cross-level implications
that represents a “demand-side” source of heterogeneity in the utilization of ecosystems and, in the
aggregate, the coordination of ecosystems. With this focus, our theory helps to address criticisms that
the EE literature is “under-theorized” (Wurth et al., 2020: 1) and “atheoretical” (Belitski &
Büyükbalci, 2021: 730). We also answer calls to explore the micro-dynamics of ecosystems (Roundy
& Lyons, 2021; Spigel, 2019) and how entrepreneurs interact with other EE participants (Scheidgen,
2021), rather than focusing on an ecosystem’s macro characteristics (e.g., regional economic
indicators) (Figure 2). Further, our theory teases apart the facilitating mechanisms involved in
resource “leveraging/seeking” and “contributing to” an EE and clarifies the meaning of the terms,
which are commonly used in EE research but without identifying the distinct activities involved.
13
---Insert Figure 2---
Social entrepreneurs face unique issues relative to conventional entrepreneurs (Munoz et al.,
2020b). For instance, Islam (2020a) explored how, in addressing social problems, entrepreneurs
pursue an “ecosystem growth strategy” in which they scale their impact by influencing the system of
direct and indirect forces contributing to the problem (e.g., by organizing an advocacy campaign to
change public policy). Our work contributes to the emerging literature focused on the distinctive
dynamics involved in social entrepreneurs’ interactions with their contextual and place-based
ecosystems (Kibler et al., 2015; Munoz & Cohen, 2017). Social entrepreneurs are, arguably, more
dependent on an ecosystem of support than conventional entrepreneurs because social entrepreneurs
often rely on local nonprofits and social service organizations to facilitate the creation and delivery of
social value, local investors who align with their dual missions to catalyze venture growth, and local
mentors to provide knowledge and advice (e.g., Roundy, 2019b). Our theory adds to this research
stream by explaining how humility influences social entrepreneurs’ involvement in their local SIEEs.
Humility is receiving heightened interest from organizational scholars; with studies primarily
focusing on its intra-organizational effects (cf. Nielsen & Marrone, 2018). Our theory contextualizes
and extends work on entrepreneur humility to the SIEE level and explains the linkages between
humility-driven behaviors and a system-level outcome, ecosystem coordination. Research on
humility in other organizational contexts has clarified the mechanisms by which humility “cascades
downward across organization levels” while calling for “multi-level” theory to explain the other
effects of humility (Ou et al., 2014: p. 36). We answer this call by explaining how the behaviors
associated with humility cascade “upward” from entrepreneurs to ecosystems thereby expanding
work in positive organization studies to the meta-organizational level and identifying a type of inter-
organizational context—SIEEs—in which humility is particularly valuable.
14
4.2. Boundary conditions and opportunities for future research
Our theoretical model suggests several boundary conditions, which represent opportunities
for future research to refine our theory of social entrepreneur humility. First, our arguments draw
attention to the importance of ecosystem culture (Donaldson, 2021) and, specifically, to social
entrepreneurs being embedded in SIEEs with cultures that promote and value humility and humble
behaviors. Humility may be valued to different degrees and conceptualized differently across
national cultures (e.g., Oc et al., 2015). Variation may also exist across ecosystem cultures to the
extent that entrepreneurs and other participants’ exhibit and value humility. For instance, although
there is evidence that early-stage investors evaluate humble conventional (i.e., non-social)
entrepreneurs as having higher constructive qualities and as being more compatible with investors
than non-humble entrepreneurs (Vilanova and Vitanova 2020), research is needed to understand if
some types of EEs (e.g., hyper-competitive ecosystems focused on supporting high-growth
companies) and some EE participants (e.g., venture capitalists) prefer entrepreneurs who come across
as aggressive and overconfident, rather than humble. If so, then the applications of our theory are
bound to EEs and ecosystem participants that value humility as a moral characteristic.
Future research also is needed to explore if there are conditions in which humility may
hinder, rather than help, entrepreneurs’ ability to gain and contribute resources to their ecosystems
and their interactions with other ecosystem participants. For instance, humility is not the same as
self-deprecation, self-degradation, lack of self-confidence, or weakness (Tangney, 2009); however, if
social entrepreneurs do not have a firm grasp on what humility is (and is not), they may experience
negative outcomes from behaviors tied to their misconceptions of humility. If, for example, social
entrepreneurs (wrongly) assume that humility means having low self-efficacy then, as Bacq et al
(2016) observe, this can be detrimental to entrepreneurs’ intentions to create social value.
There is also evidence that when humble leaders interact with followers who are self-serving,
leader humility induces followers to inflate their perceptions of self-capabilities and self-worth,
15
which leads to several negative outcomes (Qin et al., 2020). Further, some of the effects of
entrepreneurs’ humility may depend on if others perceive humility as genuine or hypocritical (i.e., as
motivated by impression management behaviors) (Bharanitharan et al., 2021). These examples of the
potential negative effects of humility underscore the importance of considering how social
entrepreneurs’ humility is received by others. Ultimately, it is important for scholars studying
humility in EEs and SIEEs not to let the “pendulum” between agency and structure swing too far
towards the effects of an individual attribute without sufficiently acknowledging that the success of
social entrepreneurs’ humility-related behaviors depend, in part, on the reciprocated behaviors of
other SIEE participants and the culture and social structures of the ecosystem.
In developing a theory to explain how social entrepreneurs’ humility influences their
interactions with SIEEs, we focused on a narrow set of resource seeking and giving behaviors
because these behaviors were theoretically proximate to our focal construct, humility. Future
research is needed that explores if humility influences more encompassing behaviors, such as those
involved in ecosystem leadership—deliberate activities aimed at developing an ecosystem,
coordinating its elements, and improving its functioning (Miles & Morrison, 2020; Roundy, 2020).
For instance, humility may make social entrepreneurs more willing to take on leadership roles in
their SIEE and certain characteristics and outcomes of humility (e.g., its effects on the behavioral
integration of groups; cf. Ou et al., 2018) suggest that humble entrepreneurs may be better leaders.
However, humility is not synonymous with leadership competence and also may involve social
entrepreneurs taking a step back and acknowledging that others are better equipped to lead.
Leadership effects will likely depend on entrepreneurs’ ecosystem relationships and on reciprocated
and collective behaviors (Contractor et al., 2012) that are more socially complex than the effects of
humility on social entrepreneurs’ personal decisions to seek and contribute SIEE resources.
Finally, although we primarily focus on the outcomes of social entrepreneur humility, our
theory raises questions about humility’s antecedents and, specifically, about how social entrepreneurs
16
develop, practice, and improve their humility. Research finds that humility can be refined through
training and experience (Ou et al., 2011; 2014), which suggests that humility is a concept that could
be incorporated into the social entrepreneurship development programs offered by support
organizations (e.g., Lyons et al., 2021). In addition to promoting humility in the curriculum of formal
programs offered by incubators, universities, and business development centers, on an informal basis,
EE participants could also emphasize humility as a core virtue of SIEEs, alongside other beneficial
values (e.g., cooperation, collaboration, and trust; e.g., Muldoon et al., 2018) and prioritize humility
as a characteristic expected in intra-ecosystem interactions. In general, exploring the impact of
virtues on entrepreneurial behaviors and ecosystem outcomes are further opportunities to understand
the micro-dynamics of EEs and how entrepreneurial characteristics influence EE functioning. Such
work stands to create greater connections between EE research and micro-focused fields (e.g.,
organizational behavior, business ethics, positive organizational studies) while also revealing
important insights about the micro-foundations of SIEEs and how ecosystems influence—and are
influenced by—the characteristics of entrepreneurs and other ecosystem participants.
References
Abubakre, M., Faik, I., & Mkansi, M. (2021). Digital entrepreneurship and indigenous value systems: An
Ubuntu perspective. Information Systems Journal, forthcoming.
Akstinaite, V., Robinson, G., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2020). Linguistic markers of CEO hubris. Journal of
Business Ethics, 167(4), 687-705.
Argandona, A. (2015). Humility in management. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 63-71.
Bacq, S., & Alt, E. (2018). Feeling capable and valued: A prosocial perspective on the link between
empathy and social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 33, 333-350.
Bacq, S., Hartog, C., & Hoogendoorn, B. (2016). Beyond the moral portrayal of social entrepreneurs: An
empirical approach to who they are and what drives them. Journal of Business Ethics 133, 703-718.
Barki, E., de Campos, J. G. F., Lenz, A. K., Kimmitt, J., Stephan, U., & Naigeborin, V. (2020). Support
for social entrepreneurs from disadvantaged areas navigating crisis: Insights from Brazil. Journal of
Business Venturing Insights, 14, e00205.
Belitski, M., & Büyükbalci, P. (2021). Uncharted waters of the entrepreneurial ecosystems research:
Comparing Greater Istanbul and Reading ecosystems. Growth and Change, 52(2), 727-750.
17
Bharanitharan, D. K., Lowe, K. B., Bahmannia, S., Chen, Z. X., & Cui, L. (2021). Seeing is not believing:
Leader humility, hypocrisy, and their impact on followers' behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(2),
101440.
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too:
A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in
organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599-670.
Brändle, L., Berger, E. S., Golla, S., & Kuckertz, A. (2018). I am what I am-How nascent entrepreneurs’
social identity affects their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 9, 17-23.
Chandler, J. A., Short, J. C., & Wolfe, M. T. (2021). Finding the crowd after exogenous shocks:
Exploring the future of crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 15, e00245.
Colombo, M. G., Dagnino, G. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Salmador, M. (2019). The governance of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 419-428.
Contractor, N. S., DeChurch, L. A., Carson, J., Carter, D. R., & Keegan, B. (2012). The topology of
collective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 994-1011.
Cowell, M., Lyon-Hill, S., & Tate, S. (2018). It takes all kinds: Understanding diverse entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Journal of Enterprising Communities – People and Places in the Global Economy 12(2),
178-198.
Díaz-González, A., & Dentchev, N.A. (2021). Ecosystems in support of social entrepreneurs: A literature
review. Social Enterprise Journal. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.utc.edu/10.1108/SEJ-08-2020-0064.
Donaldson, C. (2021). Culture in the entrepreneurial ecosystem: a conceptual framing. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(1), 289-319.
Dweck, C. (2016). What having a “growth mindset” actually means. Harvard Business Review, 13, 213-
226.
Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and
framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306.
Exline, J. J., & Hill, P. C. (2012). Humility: A consistent and robust predictor of generosity. The Journal
of Positive Psychology, 7(3), 208-218.
Fang, T. P., Wu, A., & Clough, D. R. (2021). Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social
coordination and ecosystem emergence. Strategic Management Journal, 42(2), 233-272.
Foss, N., & Lorenzen, M. (2009). Towards an understanding of cognitive coordination: Theoretical
developments and empirical illustrations. Organization Studies, 30(11), 1201-1226.
Gamble, E. N., & Muñoz, P. (2021). How tax incentives slow down positive change in social impact
ecosystems and what can we do about it. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 16, e00284.
Goswami, K., Mitchell, J. R., & Bhagavatula, S. (2018). Accelerator expertise: Understanding the
intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 117-150.
18
Guerrero, M., Santamaría-Velasco, C.A. and Mahto, R. (2021). Intermediaries and social
entrepreneurship identity: implications for business model innovation. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(2), 520-546.
Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta‐organization design: Rethinking design in
interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571-586.
Islam, S. M. (2020a). Unintended consequences of scaling social impact through ecosystem growth
strategy in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13,
e00159.
Islam, S. M. (2020b). Towards an integrative definition of scaling social impact in social
enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13, e00164.
Kibler, E., Fink, M., Lang, R., & Muñoz, P. (2015). Place attachment and social legitimacy: Revisiting
the sustainable entrepreneurship journey. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 3, 24-29.
Kruse, E. (2020). Humility and social entrepreneurship. In Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social
Responsibility, Marques, J. and Dhiman, S. (Eds.) (pp. 83-98). Springer, Cham.
Kuckertz, A. (2019). Let's take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously!. Journal of Business
Venturing Insights, 11, e00124.
LaBouff, J. P., Rowatt, W. C., Johnson, M. K., Tsang, J. A., & Willerton, G. M. (2012). Humble persons
are more helpful than less humble persons: Evidence from three studies. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 7(1), 16-29.
Lyons, T. S., Alter, T. R., Audretsch, D., & Augustine, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship and community: The
next frontier of entrepreneurship inquiry. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 2(1).
Lyons, T. S., Lyons, J. S., & Samson, J. A. (2021). The Paradigm Shift in Entrepreneurship Education. In
Entrepreneurship Skill Building: Focusing Entrepreneurship Education on Skills Assessment and
Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Mair, J., and E. Noboa. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are
formed. In Social Entrepreneurship, ed. J. Mair, J.A. Robinson, and K. Hockerts, 121–35. Basingstoke
and New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Maldonado, T., Vera, D., & Spangler, W. D. (2021). Unpacking humility: An examination of leader
humility and leader personality and why it matters. Business Horizons, forthcoming.
McDaniel, M., Sutter, C., Webb, J. W., Elgar, F. J., Parker, K. F., & Nwachu, J. (2021). Breaking the
cycle of crime: Promoting the positive social spillover potential of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing Insights, 16, e00249.
McMullen, J. S. (2018). Organizational hybrids as biological hybrids: Insights for research on the
relationship between social enterprise and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Business Venturing,
33(5), 575–590.
Miles, M. P., & Morrison, M. (2020). An effectual leadership perspective for developing rural
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 54(4), 933-949.
19
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. (2012). Venturing for others with heart and
head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 616-
640.
Morris, J. A., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents
and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323-1350.
Muldoon, J., Bauman, A. and Lucy, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystem: do you trust or distrust?
Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(2): 158-177.
Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Towards a social-ecological understanding of sustainable
venturing. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 1-8.
Muñoz, P., Kimmitt, J., & Dimov, D. (2020). Packs, troops and herds: Prosocial cooperatives and
innovation in the new normal. Journal of Management Studies, 57(3), 470-504.
Muñoz, P., Cacciotti, G., & Ucbasaran, D. (2020). Failing and exiting in social and commercial
entrepreneurship: The role of situated cognition. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 14, e00196.
Nair, S., Gaim, M., & Dimov, D. (2020). Toward the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities:
organizing early-phase new-venture creation support systems. Academy of Management Review,
forthcoming.
Nielsen, R., & Marrone, J. A. (2018). Humility: Our current understanding of the construct and its role in
organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20 (4), 805-824.
Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Slay, H. S. (2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the humility concept
and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1),
33-43.
Newstead, T., Macklin, R., Dawkins, S., & Martin, A. (2018). What is virtue? Advancing the
conceptualization of virtue to inform positive organizational inquiry. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 32(4), 443-457.
O’Connor, A., Stam, E., Sussan, F., & Audretsch D. (2018) Entrepreneurial ecosystems: The foundations
of place-based renewal. In: O'Connor, A., Stam, E., Sussan, F., Audretsch, D.B. (eds) Entrepreneurial
Ecosystems. Place-Based Transformations and Transitions. New York: Springer. pp. 1-22.
Oc, B., Bashshur, M. R., Daniels, M. A., Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). Leader humility in
Singapore. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 68-80.
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble chief
executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’
responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34-72.
Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2018). Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO
humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1147-1173.
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble
leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 787-818.
20
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2016). How does leader humility influence team performance?
Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management
Journal, 59(3), 1088-1111.
Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2013). Expressed humility in organizations:
Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24(5), 1517-1538.
Owens, B. P., Rowatt, W. C., & Wilkins, A. L. (2011). Exploring the relevance and implications of
humility in organizations. Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, K. Cameron and G.
Spreitzer (eds.) 1, 260-272.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Qin, X., Chen, C., Yam, K. C., Huang, M., & Ju, D. (2020). The double-edged sword of leader humility:
Investigating when and why leader humility promotes versus inhibits subordinate deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 105(7), 693.
Ratiu, C., Cherry, B., & Nielson, T. R. (2014). Humility in social entrepreneurship: A virtuous circle. In
Emerging Research Directions in Social Entrepreneurship, Pate, L, & Wankel, C. (pp. 11-31). Springer,
Dordrecht.
Rego, A., Owens, B., Yam, K. C., Bluhm, D., Cunha, M. P. E., Silard, A., Gonçalves, L., Martins, M.,
Simpson, A.V., & Liu, W. (2019). Leader humility and team performance: Exploring the mediating
mechanisms of team PsyCap and task allocation effectiveness. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1009-
1033.
Roundy, P. T. (2016). Start-up community narratives: The discursive construction of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 232-248.
Roundy, P. T. (2019a). Regional differences in impact investment: A theory of impact investing
ecosystems. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(4), 467–485.
Roundy, P.T. (2019b). Back from the brink: The revitalization of inactive entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 12: e00140.
Roundy, P.T. (2020). Do we lead together? Leadership behavioral integration and coordination in
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Leadership Studies 14 (1), 6-25.
Roundy, P. T. (2021). Leadership in startup communities: how incubator leaders develop a regional
entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Management Development, forthcoming.
Roundy, P.T., & Lyons, T.S. (2021). Where are the entrepreneurs? A call to theorize the micro-
foundations and strategic organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Organization,
forthcoming.
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3),
335-351.
Scheidgen, K. (2021). Degrees of integration: How a fragmented entrepreneurial ecosystem promotes
different types of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 33 (1-2), 54-79.
21
Sperber, S., & Linder, C. (2019). Gender-specifics in start-up strategies and the role of the entrepreneurial
ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 53(2), 533-546.
Spigel, B. (2016). The cultural embeddedness of regional innovation: a Bourdieuian perspective.
In Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation, Shearmur, R., Carrincazeaux, C., & Doloreux, D. (Eds.).
Edward Elgar Publishing, 88-99.
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 41 (1), 49-72.
Spigel, B. (2019). Envisioning a new research agenda for entrepreneurial ecosystems: Top-down and
bottom-up approaches. Reflections and Extensions on Key Papers of the Twenty-five Years of Advances in
Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth 20, 127-147.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018) Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal 12 (1), 151-168.
Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56:
809–832
Stephens, B., Butler, J.S., Garg, R., & Gibson, D.V. (2019). Austin, Boston, Silicon Valley and New
York: Case studies in the location choices of entrepreneurs in maintaining the Technopolis. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 146, 267-280.
Tangney, J. P. 2009. Humility. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Synder (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology:
483-490. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tauber, L. (2021). Beyond homogeneity: redefining social entrepreneurship in authoritarian
contexts. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 50-68.
Theodoraki, C., Messeghem, K., & Audretsch, D. B. (2020). The effectiveness of incubators’ co-opetition
strategy in the entrepreneurial ecosystem: Empirical evidence from France. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2020.3034476
Thompson, T.A., Purdy, J.M., & Ventresca, M.J. (2017). How entrepreneurial ecosystems take form:
Evidence from social impact initiatives in Seattle. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12 (1), 96-116.
Vera, D., & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2004). Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of competitive
advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 393-408.
Vilanova, L., & Vitanova, I. (2020). The power of expressed humility: Investors' reaction to humble
entrepreneurs. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2020, No. 1, p. 18884).
Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2021). Toward an entrepreneurial ecosystem research
program. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, forthcoming.
22
Figure 1: The effects of social entrepreneur humility on social impact entrepreneurial
ecosystem involvement and coordination
Figure 2: Humility and the micro-foundations of social impact entrepreneurial ecosystems
23
Table 1: A theory of social entrepreneur humility, SIEE involvement, and ecosystem coordination
SIEE activity
Focus
How does social entrepreneur humility influence SIEE involvement and coordination?
Seeking
social
resources
Pursuing
resources from
the networks
linking SIEE
participants
Self-reflection increases entrepreneurs’ awareness of personal (and venture) needs and
limitations and increases their perceived interdependence with other SIEE participants
SIEE members are viewed as assets, not threats, and as sources of knowledge, skills, and abilities
Openness to feedback, an others-focus, and teachability facilitate positive interactions and trust-
building in SIEE relationships and limit pride, hubris, and relational conflict
Seeking
cultural
resources
Pursuing
resources from
an SIEE’s
values, norms,
logics, and
stories
Accurate self-awareness helps social entrepreneurs assess if their values and behaviors are in
alignment with SIEE culture
Open-mindedness towards normative expectations helps entrepreneurs navigate SIEE culture
Entrepreneurs view successful SIEE participants as role models, are attuned to SIEE discourse as
learning opportunities, and embrace the adaptive cultural characteristics of other SIEE members
Entrepreneurs admit violations of SIEE norms and informal ‘simple rules’ and self-correct
A transcendent self-concept gives entrepreneurs a community focus on improving SIEE
participants’ well-being and creating societal benefits
Seeking
material
resources
Pursuing
resources with a
tangible
presence in the
SIEE
Entrepreneurs are willing to look to SIEE participants for assistance in business model
development, program delivery, and social impact scaling
Entrepreneurs acknowledge reliance on local infrastructure, universities, markets, and support
Entrepreneurs seek help from experts and mentors with specialized knowledge at local nonprofits
and entrepreneurial support organizations
Contributing
resources
Providing
resources to the
SIEE
An others-focus, transcendence, and self-awareness increases entrepreneurs’ perceived value of
reciprocity, interdependence, and having a flourishing social impact community
Entrepreneurs’ charitable attitudes increase prosocial behaviors towards other SIEE participants
SIEE
coordination
The degree to
which an SIEE’s
elements are
organized to
support
ecosystem
development
Seeking and contributing behaviors increase cognitive coordination by drawing attention to the
SIEE, creating a shared acknowledgment of its existence, and reifying it in the community
Seeking and contributing behaviors increase social coordination by creating and cementing
relational bonds that strengthen SIEE relationships and increase network density
Seeking and contributing behaviors increase cultural coordination by reenacting and reinforcing
the values, norms, and narratives that organize the SIEE
