The Entrepreneurial Quest for Emancipation: Trade-Offs, Practices, and Outcomes in an Indigenous Context

Abstract

This paper builds on theoretical developments that view entrepreneurship as emancipation, i.e., entrepreneurial activities as generators of change and pursuit of freedom from perceived constraints. Using a representative data set of 1095 SMEs owned by Indigenous entrepreneurs in Canada, the authors investigate how pursuit of this freedom affects (i) the way entrepreneurs enact several aspects of their ventures and (ii) the performance outcomes achieved. Findings reveal how the initial motivations of entrepreneurs (seeking change for the social collective of which they are a part versus seeking autonomy for themselves) lead to distinct business practices, which in turn impact differentially entrepreneurial outcomes.

Introduction

Scholars have been advancing critical perspectives about the role of entrepreneurship in society, the diverse motivations of entrepreneurs, and the urge to consider broader dimensions of value created by entrepreneurs, beyond economic outcomes (e.g., Dana & Light, 2011; Davies & Doherty, 2019; Goss et al., 2011; Hota et al., 2020; Imas et al., 2012; Tedmanson et al., 2015; Welter et al., 2017). Among frameworks used to guide empirical research is Rindova et al. (2009) view of entrepreneuring as emancipation, i.e., entrepreneurial activities as generators of change—broadly understood and not limited to economic outcomes—and as pursuit of liberation from perceived constraints. From this standpoint, entrepreneurs are agents of social change (Barth, 1963, 1967; Dana, 1995, pp. 62–63). The framework proposed by Rindova et al. (2009) has three main elements: (i) seeking autonomy (breaking away from authority and constraints—either for the entrepreneurs themselves or for the social collective of which they are a part); (ii) authoring (the design of new arrangements and relationships); and (iii) making declarations (engaging in discursive acts to create change).

So far, studies advancing the emancipation framework have primarily focused on specific groups of entrepreneurs. The literature largely examines the empowering potential of entrepreneurship for women in developing countries (e.g., Al-Dajani et al., 2015; Haugh & Talwar, 2016; McAdam et al., 2020; Sabella & El-Far, 2019) and the role of entrepreneurship as emancipatory work for stigmatized populations, such as former terrorists and sex workers (Chandra, 2017; Ruebottom & Toubiana, 2020). Jennings et al. (2016) depart from this focus, examining one of the elements of the emancipation framework (authoring) in mainstream businesses operating in a developed economy context. The emancipation framework, however, has been introduced as a broadly applicable perspective that challenges preconceived notions of entrepreneurial motivations and legitimate outcomes, independent of an entrepreneur’s demographics or a country’s level of economic development. There is a growing recognition in the literature that many entrepreneurs start their venture pursuing goals different from and / or going beyond economic gains (Dana, 1995, 2007; Jennings & Brush, 2013; McMullen & Warnick, 2016). However, the norm in mainstream entrepreneurship literature is still to judge entrepreneurial success by economic indicators, while other dimensions of value (and values) remain underrepresented (Welter et al., 2017; Wiklund et al., 2019). By focusing heavily on economic success, we as a scholarly community deprive ourselves of knowledge on the rich and diverse motivations, practices, and outcomes that entrepreneurs pursue.

For a change-creation perspective on entrepreneurship to truly be able to find its place in contemporary entrepreneurship discourse, we need both theoretical advancements and empirical testing in diverse contexts. Against this backdrop, the research question upon which we focus in this paper is that raised by Rindova et al., (2009, p. 481) regarding how entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves differ from those seeking to enact change for the social collective: “Do entrepreneurs who view autonomy as freedom for themselves do things differently and achieve different outcomes from those who view autonomy as freedom—and change—for the social collectivity of which they are a part?” While the intuitive answer is “yes”, what is less clear is how, via which mechanisms, entrepreneurs in the two groups (freedom for themselves, freedom for the social collective) work toward their emancipation objectives. The answer to this question is crucial to understanding emancipation in practice, as it addresses entrepreneurial motivations (seeking autonomy), practices (authoring rules and arrangements, and making declarations), and outcomes.

In this research, we focus on entrepreneurs operating as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation that is incorporated under a federal or provincial charter in Canada. By focusing on this group, we respond to calls to address the rich and diverse motivations and values that drive entrepreneurs (Welter et al., 2017; Wiklund et al., 2019). Entrepreneurs could be looking for freedom for themselves or seeking change for the community / social collective of which they are a part; those looking to make change for a social collective can operate as for-profit, not-for-profit, or hybrid (combining social and economic mission) organizations, such as certified B-Corps. In our case, entrepreneurs seeking change for the social collective incorporate social goals, even if not explicitly / legally registered as an organization with a social mission.

We advance research on the emancipatory perspective in entrepreneurship in the following ways. First, we contribute to better understanding the theoretical basis of the emancipation framework by providing conceptual linkages among the different dimensions of emancipation. Specifically, we complement the emancipation framework with literature on entrepreneurial motivations and autonomy to provide the theoretical rationale for the relationships among the emancipation dimensions. We focus on how the initial seeking autonomy motivation will impact subsequent choices related to authoring and making declarations, and how these in turn will influence businesses’ economic and non-economic outcomes. As such, we build on existing literature to develop a testable model that helps explain the process of enacting emancipatory entrepreneurship, and the variety of outcomes achieved as a result.

Second, we empirically test our model with a representative data set of indigenous-owned SMEs in Canada. Indigenous people are descendants of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived and later became dominant through conquest, occupation, or settlement (Peredo et al., 2004; United Nations, 2015). There are more than 476 million indigenous people worldwide (International Labour Organization, 2019), and the history of colonization and acculturation has left many of them in an economically disadvantaged position. In Canada, there are about 1,673,785 people who identify themselves as an indigenous person (representing 4.9% of the total population in Canada) (Statistics Canada, 2016). Of all indigenous people in Canada, 731,480 Indigenous people live in urban areas, which accounts for 43.7% of the total indigenous population. Of indigenous people living in urban areas, 51% are First Nations people, 45% Métis and 1% Inuit (Anderson, 2019). Indigenous people in Canada are pursing economic development with the objectives of self-determination and economic self-sufficiency, and preservation of traditional values while improving socio-economic circumstances for individuals, families, and communities (Anderson et al., 2006). Indigenous entrepreneurship has been defined as the creation, management and development of new ventures by indigenous people for the benefit of indigenous people (Dana, 2007); the desired and achieved benefits of venturing can range from the narrow view of economic profit for a single individual to the broad view of multiple, social and economic advantages for entire communities (Hindle & Lansdowne, 2002, p. 2). Our empirical context, therefore, is particularly fitting for exploring the emancipation perspective, with its diversity of motivations and outcomes.

Overall, our study assesses the broader applicability of the emancipatory framework and builds avenues for testable research that—while being mindful of context—also aims at developing broader and deeper understanding of the emancipatory potential of entrepreneurship. In what follows, we first introduce our theoretical framework, including the context, and develop hypotheses building on Rindova et al. (2009) emancipation framework, complementing it with literature on entrepreneurial motivation. Next, we introduce the method, data, and the way the emancipation dimensions have been contextualized and operationalized. We then present the results and conclude with a discussion of findings, as well as limitations and future research directions.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Rindova et al. (2009) define entrepreneuring as “efforts to bring about new economic, social, institutional, and cultural environments through the actions of an individual or group of individuals” (p. 477). The broadened emphasis on newness (encompassing economic, social, and related aspects) both resonates with economic definitions of entrepreneurship focused on innovation (Schumpeter, 1934), and departs from them by escaping the default individualist assumptions based on economics, and moving toward theorizing both the deeply individualist (seeking autonomy from perceived constraints) and deeply social (and change-creating) aspects of entrepreneuring (Rindova et al., 2009, p. 481).

The three core elements (seeking autonomy, authoring, and making declarations) of Rindova et al. (2009) framework are as follows. The seeking autonomy aspect involves breaking free from authority and breaking up of constraints—either for the entrepreneurs themselves or for the social collective of which they are a part. It is defined as an entrepreneur’s desire to break free from external authority; entrepreneurs could be looking for freedom for themselves (e.g., independence, using creative potential, be their own boss, etc.), or freedom (and change) for the social collective of which they are a part. In other words, seeking autonomy is aspirational and involves moving to a desired state from a current one.

The second aspect—authoring—refers to “defining relationships, arrangements, and rules of engagement that preserve and potentially enhance the change potential of a given entrepreneurial project” (Rindova et al., 2009, p. 483). This is the design of new arrangements and relationships that support the entrepreneur’s intentions to change. Thus, authoring means taking ownership of oneself (or one’s group) by redefining social arrangements (Chandra, 2017). The third aspect—making declarations– is defined as discursive and rhetorical acts regarding the actor’s intention to create change, and through this, seeking to alter “societal beliefs about the very nature of things” (Rindova et al., 2009, p. 486) and use entrepreneurship to achieve progress on his/her own terms.

Our research question, about how (via which mechanisms) entrepreneurs work toward their emancipation objectives, is therefore a crucial one for understanding the emancipatory potential of entrepreneurship. We approach this question by examining how the initial motivation for seeking autonomy affects authoring and making declarations, and in turn how these practices influence the outcomes achieved. Furthermore, it is recognized that the context plays an important role for understanding emancipation in practice (Calas et al., 2009). The answer to the question: “From what constrictive status quo do entrepreneurs seek emancipation?” will be very different depending on context; e.g., entrepreneurs in economically underprivileged contexts will face different constraints compared to the ones in economically well-developed regions (Jennings et al., 2016). Therefore, in what follows, we first explain the context of this study, and then proceed to develop the hypotheses.

Context

The context for this study is that of indigenous people in Canada, where legislation includes three groups as legally indigenous: (i) First Nations; (ii) Inuit; and (iii) Métis, who are of mixed ancestry. Dana (1995) showed that the motivations for and the entrepreneurship practices of Alaska Natives were very different than those of non-indigenous people accustomed to a different context. Comparing indigenous and non-indigenous entrepreneurs in Canada, Dana (1996) revealed similar findings. This can be explained by unique cultural capital that shaped values of each ethno-cultural group. For countless generations, indigenous people in Canada were able to feed their families and live a good life as they perceived it, by harvesting sustainably and caring for their environment as prescribed by the teachings of the elders who discouraged waste. In the pre-colonial context marked by the absence of governmental welfare programs, insurance for the future was acquired by avoiding any abuse of natural resources. People learned it was right to fish for the day and feed members of the community, but cultural capital taught that nobody had the right to kill excessively and hoard. Among indigenous peoples, neither land nor seas were owned by anyone. Resources were available for fair use by all, but not for abuse.

Before the introduction of capitalism, indigenous peoples fully understood the concept of stakeholder—but they were unfamiliar with the notion of stockholder. In their traditional context, there was a return on sustainable behaviors, rather than a return on investment. Irresponsible conduct could have serious implications on future generations. In contrast, the context of non-indigenous settlers allowed those settlers to have the mindset that it was fine to maximize return on investment in the short run. Ignoring environmental impact, their enterprises obtained a competitive advantage in the global economy. Today, both groups seek success in the global economy, but it is understandable that indigenous peoples prefer to participate “in the global economy on their own terms” (Anderson et al, 2006, p. 48). Even before the creation of Canada, cultural capital taught indigenous Canadians the importance of acting sustainably; it is therefore no wonder that many indigenous people are motivated to be entrepreneurs with a goal of social betterment and not simply profit maximization.

Indigenous people in Canada are accepting of development, as long as it does not harm stakeholders. In Baffin Island, for example, the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation has been mining iron ore since 2015. All was fine as long as the mine had minimal impact on the environment. In February 2021, a group of hunters decided while they were fine with existing operations, they deemed unethical that the corporation announced that it “needed” to expand. The hunters then blockaded Mary River iron ore mine. Their argument was that they were thinking about younger generations, for whom they wanted a clean environment and healthy food; their cultural capital taught them that healthy food for the future was everyone’s responsibility and that this should not be compromised for short-term economic gain (CBC news, 2021).

Context is essential for understanding entrepreneurship by both providing individuals with opportunities and setting boundaries for individual actions; thus, individuals may experience the context as an asset or a liability (Welter, 2011). The majority of indigenous populations are characterized by relative economic deprivation (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Peredo et al., 2004). From this perspective, one might perceive the indigenous context as a liability. However, the indigenous context provides entrepreneurs with culture-specific values and skills (Dana, 2015; Hindle & Moroz, 2010) that can be leveraged in the marketplace to bring about social and economic change.

The Canadian approach to indigenous entrepreneurship has been centered on seeking to end dependency through economic self-sufficiency, i.e., the emphasis has been on creating businesses that can participate successfully in the global economy while at the same time preserving cultural traditions and improving socio-economic circumstances for indigenous communities (Anderson et al., 2006; Peredo et al., 2004). The indigenous context offers a fertile ground to examine the question of entrepreneurship as a change—creating activity (Calas et al., 2009) aiming at achieving a variety of outcomes, not limited only to economic ones. We now proceed to develop the hypotheses of our study with a focus on how seeking autonomy affects authoring and making declarations, and through them the outcomes entrepreneurs achieve.

Seeking Autonomy and Authoring

The limited entrepreneurship research on emancipation that takes as a theoretical departure the work of Rindova et al. (2009) has examined authoring practices (i.e., ways of organizing that depart from the status quo) that relate to work-life balance, e.g., reducing the number of hours worked, putting limits on business-related activities, and minimizing work-to-family interference (Jennings et al., 2016). While Jennings et al. (2016) do not provide a theoretical distinction between entrepreneurs looking for freedom for themselves versus those looking for freedom for the social collective, their arguments are based on an assumption that—in the context of developed economies—constrictive corporate practices constitute a major constraint from which entrepreneurs try to escape. Such practices either do not allow entrepreneurs to easily achieve work-life balance or limit their individual freedom in some other ways (e.g., reducing their creative expression and / or feelings of independence). In this line of theorizing, entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves would be likely to enact authoring practices that enhance the potential for individual freedom, for instance, setting their work routines and schedules to accommodate family priorities or using their ventures as a vehicle to enhance control over the direction of their careers and life. Similar accounts are reported in the literature on entrepreneurial autonomy where some of the major entrepreneurial drivers have been found to be decisional freedom, regulating their own time, self-expression, being in charge, and working according to their own goals and values (Van Gelderen, 2016; Van Gelderen & Jansen, 2006).

In contrast to entrepreneurial practices looking to achieve individual freedom, accounts of entrepreneurship as a broader change-creating activity (i.e., aiming to affect change for the social collective), unravel authoring practices that challenge preconceived cultural and/or industry norms and are usually concerned with a wider range of value created. For instance, Haugh and Talwar (2016) discuss authoring practices in the form of flexible business models that build subtle avenues for social change while preserving some cultural traditions. In Haugh and Talwar’s research context of a rural women enterprise where women are looking to “break free” from cultural norms that constrain their ability to do paid work, the innovative authoring arrangements seem to allow for both individual feelings of empowerment (from access to income and increased confidence), and social and political empowerment (from increasing the women’s status in the community and their participation in public life). Similar accounts of emancipation practices are reported in other studies that focus on women empowerment in developing countries through entrepreneurship (e.g., Datta & Gailey, 2012; Scott et al., 2012).

Through authoring different practices, structures and relationship engagements, entrepreneurship creates and/or amplifies cracks in rigid social and economic relationships that have imposed constraints on entrepreneurs or other members of their social surroundings (Rindova et al., 2009). However, entrepreneurs’ initial motivations for venturing will have an effect on the kinds of structures and relationships that are being built, in order to support the change-creation potential of the venture. Such a view is supported by research on entrepreneurial motivations, where motivation is an important explanatory mechanism for entrepreneurial aspirations and behaviors (e.g., Carsrud & Brännback, 2011; Dana, 1997; Hessels et al., 2008). Thus, if entrepreneurs are initially motivated by a personal wish to break away, dedicating attention to communal objectives might be challenging; however, when the initial motivation has been on freeing and changing the status quo for others (e.g., Chandra, 2017; Dorado & Ventresca, 2013), an entrepreneur might forgo authoring practices related to individual freedom (e.g., personal flexibility and control) in order to accommodate communal objectives. The balance between individual freedom and communal objectives can be partially explained by cultural capital (Light & Dana, 2013); transmitted between generations, cultural capital shapes prevalent values including cultural notions about what is right or wrong. In a fishing community with two ethno-cultural groups, Light and Dana (2013) found that while local indigenous respondents felt it was fine to harvest the fish they needed for subsistence, only people with external cultural capital were willing to have enterprises to fish a surplus to be sold commercially to consumers outside the community.

In the context of our study, focusing on indigenous entrepreneurs in Canada, it is recognized that indigenous people want to rebuild their communities and participate in the economy on their own terms with a degree of self-determination (Anderson et al., 2006). Dana (2007) defines indigenous entrepreneurship as “self-employment based on indigenous knowledge” (p. 5), where indigenous knowledge is “the way of living within contexts of flux, paradox, and tension, respecting the pull of dualism and reconciling opposing forces” (Battiste & Henderson, 2000, p. 42). More specifically, indigenous entrepreneurship can aim for a broad variety of outcomes on a continuum from economic profit for a single individual to social and economic progress for entire communities (Hindle & Lansdowne, 2002). Thus, it is important to recognize that even though indigenous entrepreneurship is often considered as a form of collective / community-focused endeavor (Peredo & McLean, 2013; Peredo et al., 2004), indigenous entrepreneurship can encompass a broad spectrum of venturing motivations (including seeking freedom for myself or seeking freedom for the social collective), which can manifest itself in diverse authoring practices. Specifically, following the preceding discussion, we expect that there will be a trade-off between authoring personal change practices (e.g., individual flexibility and control) and authoring practices that include broader social value, depending on the initial motivation for seeking autonomy. Formally:

H1

There is a trade-off between authoring practices such that (a) entrepreneurs seeking freedom for the social collectivity will be less likely to enact practices that allow for individual flexibility and control (authoring personal change), while (b) entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves will be less likely to enact authoring practices that address social change.

Seeking Autonomy and Making Declarations

A crucial aspect of Rindova et al. (2009) emancipation framework is the concept of making declarations, i.e., engaging in discursive acts that affirm the entrepreneur’s intention to create change. Communicative action thus becomes central to emancipation (Chandra, 2017). As such, speech is an important part of the change-creation process (Dey & Mason, 2018; Ruebottom, 2013).

Strategic narratives as legitimation activities have long been recognized in the entrepreneurship literature, as they establish patterns of meaning and position the entrepreneurs in their environment (Martens et al., 2007). This strand of research has typically focused on how entrepreneurs influence stakeholders’ beliefs in a venture’s legitimacy, therefore affecting the venture’s access to resources and survival / growth prospects. In contrast to this body of research, the emancipation perspective acknowledges that instead of merely seeking to position themselves within established institutions to gain legitimacy, entrepreneurs might need to openly expose contradictions and differences in order to gain stakeholders’ support for an intended change. As Rindova et al. (2009) explain, “in contrast to much current research on new venture legitimation that takes existing institutions as given and as a resource to be used to increase legitimacy, an emancipatory perspective suggests the need to attend to the institutional work that accompanies entrepreneuring activities” (p. 487). Creating “cracks” and exposing contradictions in prevailing institutional arrangements, however, is a formidable task for entrepreneurs. This task is made more complex by the need to balance the desire to affect a change and the accompanying rhetoric through which entrepreneurs position themselves, with the limitations imposed by existing institutions (O’Neil & Ucbasaran, 2016).

To explain how entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves differ from entrepreneurs seeking to affect change for the social collective with respect to making declarations, we build on research proposing that motivations are an essential component of the legitimation process. Motivation leads to specific individual actions (Drori & Honig, 2013; O’Neil & Ucbasaran, 2016), as well as to decisions about the structures and activities entrepreneurs will create. Motivation, thus, will determine the extent to which entrepreneurs will choose to engage in discursive acts challenging existing beliefs and/or institutional arrangements. Due to the high level of obstacles entrepreneurs confront when trying to “dream a brave new world” (Rindova et al., 2009), we expect that entrepreneurs seeking to affect a change for the social collective will be innately more motivated to engage in making declarations; indeed, they must do so if they are to “stand out” and “break free”. The literature has provided examples of how entrepreneurs seeking for individual freedom (e.g., creative expression, control over working hours, etc.) can achieve their dreams within the constraints of typical industry arrangements through authoring innovative practices (Jennings et al., 2016). However, those entrepreneurs looking to alter “societal beliefs about the very nature of things” (Rindova et al., 2009, p. 486) need to mobilize broader stakeholder support, and consequently will be more likely to declare their change-creating intent. Therefore, we expect:

H2a

Entrepreneurs seeking freedom for the social collectivity will be more likely to engage in making declarations than entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves.

Furthermore, we expect that social context will be an important factor that will shape the willingness to engage in making declarations. According to Statistics Canada (2016) more than half of indigenous people in Canada live “on reserve.” Entrepreneurs in our context can live and operate either from “on reserve”—where they are placed in a context supportive of their social identity as an indigenous person (entrepreneur), or “off reserve.” While there are many differences among the different groups of indigenous people, one common aspect is their shared deep connection to the Land (Anderson et al., 2006; Lalonde et al., 2016; Peredo & McLean, 2013; Peredo et al., 2004). The connection to the Land is understood as more than just geographic proximity (i.e., living on traditional land /reserve further away from urbanization), to encompass beliefs about the interconnection between all things in nature—spirits, animals, humans. It has been suggested that the conception of Land plays a central role in indigenous identity and is an important anchor for constructive social change and maintenance of positive social identity (Lalonde et al., 2016). In the same vein, people residing on reserve have a different identity than those “off reserve.” On a reserve, people socialize with like-minded people and it is relatively easier to preserve cultural traditions such as living off the land, for example harvesting wild rice.

To understand how social context may impact entrepreneurs’ willingness to engage in making declarations, we borrow from identity theories (Stets & Burke, 2000; Stryker, 1980; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Entrepreneurship is an inherently social activity, and the entrepreneur’s sense of self and social identity will impact entrepreneurial choices and decisions (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011). Peoples’ identities are based on self-views emerging from membership in particular groups or roles (Stets & Burke, 2000). In particular, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) is useful in understanding identity as it relates to an individual’s social relationships and membership in groups or social categories. People are usually embedded in multiple role relationships and hold multiple identities (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Identity theorists have identified the notion of salience (Stryker, 1980; Stryker & Serpe, 1994) as important to understanding people’s identity enactment. Salience refers to the readiness to act out a focal identity (Murnieks et al., 2014). Depending on the social context, one’s social identity may be more or less salient. Different situations contextually activate different behaviors (Stryker & Burke, 2000). We expect that entrepreneurs placed in their social context on reserve (living on traditional land) will be more likely to exhibit high indigenous identity salience and engage in making declarations about their desire to “break free” as an expression of their position as an indigenous entrepreneur. Identity theory postulates that the higher the salience of an identity, the greater the probability of behavioral choices in line with expectations related to that identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000). In addition, entrepreneurs living and operating from a reserve are likely to have higher commitment to an identity, defined as the number of persons to whom one is tied through an identity and the relative strength of the ties (Stets & Burke, 2000). This commitment increases the salience of an indigenous identity and the probability that entrepreneurs will act on this identity by engaging in a discourse that affirms emancipatory entrepreneurial work. Thus, we propose:

H2b

Social context (being on reserve) will positively moderate the relationship between seeking autonomy and making declarations.

How Seeking Autonomy Affects Performance Outcomes: The Mediating Role Of Authoring And Making Declarations

Literature recognizes that the initial motivation and impetus of the entrepreneur will drive strategic decisions and actions that will subsequently impact the organization’s performance; scholars have examined, for instance, how values and motivations impact organizational structure and trajectory in the context of pro-social organizing and hybrid ventures (e.g., Battilana & Lee, 2014; Davies & Doherty, 2019; Siqueira et al., 2018). Such a perspective aligns with Rindova et al. (2009) view that an emancipatory perspective should pay greater attention to how entrepreneurs—as Barthian (1963; 1967) agents of change—imprint their creative visions on the reality that surrounds them. The conventional notion of “traditional” entrepreneurship versus social entrepreneurship assumes that individuals starting a venture with a concern primarily for themselves will pursue economic objectives, while those starting a venture with the objective to help others will focus on social outcomes (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; McMullen & Warnick, 2016; Peredo & McLean, 2013).

Within the context of entrepreneurship as emancipation, however, individuals who are looking for freedom for themselves may not necessarily have the objective of high economic performance; rather, they may start a business with the goal of attaining a better work-life balance for example (Eddleston & Powell, 2012; Jennings & Brush, 2013; Jennings et al., 2016), or having a greater freedom in expressing their creative potential and the autonomy to decide what to do (Van Gelderen, 2016). Such motivations may lead to very different authoring practices, and consequently different performance outcomes. Entrepreneurs looking for a better work-life balance may set their schedules in a way that accommodates personal/family priorities (Jennings & McDougald, 2007), thus potentially forgoing some business opportunities (and achieving lower financial performance, while preserving their autonomy). The entrepreneurship literature has provided many examples of authoring practices that depart from the status quo in an attempt to accommodate different life priorities, such as scaling back commitments in the business domain, and turning down opportunities for free publicity in order to keep the business size manageable (Jennings et al., 2016). Indeed, the autonomy motive for venturing into entrepreneurship has been found to oftentimes limit growth (Van Gelderen, 2016).

On the other hand, entrepreneurs looking for control over their work and expressing their creative potential may put more emphasis on innovating new products and / or processes (Birley & Westhead, 1994; Carter et al., 2003), thus potentially reaching very different outcomes compared to their counterparts who -while also looking for freedom for themselves- have chosen authoring practices that accommodate other life priorities. The types of outcomes achieved by entrepreneurs are thus not simply a function of their initial motivation (freedom for myself or freedom for the social collective), but rather the way in which entrepreneurs enact their vision for (individual) freedom through different authoring practices. Entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves to achieve better work-life balance will likely enact different practices from the entrepreneur who starts a business with the objective of having the decisional freedom and control over creative aspects of the business that will allow them to launch new products on the market. Both groups are motivated by autonomy and “freedom for themselves”, but the difference in authoring practices will lead to different outcomes.

Furthermore, the making declarations aspect of emancipation can also impact the outcomes of the entrepreneurial project. Choosing to engage in a rhetoric that asserts the entrepreneurs’ desire for change will act as a catalyst for actions and will increase the entrepreneurs’ commitment to the goals espoused by the rhetoric (O’Neil & Ucbasaran, 2016; Rindova et al., 2009). In our context of indigenous entrepreneurs, engaging in discursive acts that express the indigenous peoples’ desire for self-determination and economic self-sufficiency is crucial (Peredo & McLean, 2013; Peredo et al., 2004). Indigenous entrepreneurship has been suggested as an important path for the creation of an enterprise culture that simultaneously respects indigenous traditions and empowers indigenous people as economic agents (Hindle & Lansdowne, 2002; Hindle & Moroz, 2010). As such, a rhetoric legitimizing indigenous entrepreneurship can serve as an important link between the initial seeking freedom motivation and the outcomes achieved. Scholars in entrepreneurial legitimation and discourse have suggested the use of identity theories as helpful in understanding the legitimation work involved in making declarations (O’Neil & Ucbasaran, 2016). We surmise that engaging in discursive acts to assert an indigenous entrepreneurship legitimation will result in increased indigenous identity salience and commitment, and thus will lead to actions and outcomes consistent with such identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Thus, even if the entrepreneurs were initially motivated to seek freedom for themselves, engaging in a rhetoric that asserts their identity as an indigenous entrepreneur (which is an act of emancipation) may lead them to prioritize practices that will help achieve social outcomes beneficial for the (indigenous) community. We therefore expect that the relationship between seeking freedom for themselves (vs. for the social collective) and outcomes achieved is not straightforward but is mediated by the enactment of different practices. Formally:

H3

Authoring and making declaration practices will mediate the relationship between the initial seeking freedom motivation and the outcomes achieved.

Figure 1 summarizes our conceptual model and visualizes the hypothesized relationships among variables.

Fig. 1

How does seeking autonomy affect business outcomes?

Method

Sample and Data

In this research, we employ data built by the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (CCAB). The data includes a representative sample of 1,095 indigenous business owners. CCAB developed the 2010 Aboriginal Business Survey (ABS) to contribute to the understanding of the opportunities and challenges faced by privately owned indigenous businesses in Canada, their aspirations, goals and strategies, and the key factors that contribute to growth (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2010, p. 1). The authors were given access to the data files through a partnership between the first two authors' university and CCAB, including a memorandum of understanding, and ongoing research collaboration and knowledge dissemination events.¹

The ABS is based on a telephone survey conducted with a sample of self-identified First Nations, Métis and Inuit, who own a private small business (not owned by the community). A small business in this setting is defined as that with 100 employees or less and owned 51% or more by indigenous entrepreneurs. CCAB was responsible to develop the sampling frame. CCAB identified lists for contact information for indigenous businesses. To identify potential respondents, CCAB also included notices on its website, other indigenous websites, press releases, and networking with a range of organizations to locate respondents. CCAB also set up a 1–800 number as well as a referral approach to boost the sample (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2010, p. 45).

The ABS questionnaire was designed using Statistics Canada’s 2002 Aboriginal Entrepreneur Survey as a guideline (as well as input from the 1996 and 1997 Aboriginal Business Surveys from Industry Canada). Environics Research Group developed an initial content outline and additional drafts. Input on the questionnaire design was solicited from the ABS Research Advisory Board and study supporters. The questionnaire was pre-tested with a small sample of participants, conducted in the same manner as for the full survey. Minor questionnaire changes were implemented following feedback from the pre-test (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2010, p. 46).

Data collection was conducted from September 10 to November 19, 2010 by Environics Research Group, one of Canada’s leading public opinion research firms. Fieldwork was conducted at Environics’ central facilities in Toronto where field supervisors were present at all times to ensure accurate interviewing and recording of responses. During fieldwork, 10% of each interviewer’s work was unobtrusively monitored for quality control. All interviews were conducted in English and the average interview length was 22 min. Five calls or more were made to each business selected into the sample before classifying it as a “no answer.” Importantly, the survey was conducted in accordance with the standards set out by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association and applicable federal legislation (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act), and was registered with the Canadian Survey Research Council (Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, 2010, p. 46).

CCAB reports that the effective response rate for the survey was 30%. For more details on the call disposition and the calculation of response rate, please check Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business (2010, p. 47). The data set provides demographic information, insights into corporate governance, markets, competitive advantage and size of business, and business performance, use of private capital and government programs and indigenous business owners’ perceptions of federal government procurement strategy for indigenous business criteria.²

The 2010 ABS data set provides key information to answer our research question on how entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves and those seeking freedom for the social collective work toward their emancipation objectives. In particular, the ABS provides data to test our hypotheses related to the interconnections among seeking autonomy, authoring, making declarations, and economic and non-economic outcomes. Based on ABS data, these hypotheses are tested in the context of self-identified indigenous entrepreneurs, owners of small businesses, which at the same time are private enterprises (not owned by the community or the reserve band).

Measures

Since we examine the influence of seeking autonomy on business outcomes through the mediation of authoring and making declarations, we have three sets of variables: dependent variables, mediating variables, and independent variables.

Dependent Variables

Dependent variables include business outcomes. We operationalize business outcomes with different economic and non-economic indicators taken from the ABS survey.

Revenue Growth

To measure revenue growth, we use ABS question: “between 2009 and 2010, have your business’s gross sales revenues?”. This question included 3 possible answers: (0) decreased, (1) stay the same, (2) increased.

Success

We measure success using ABS question: “Based on your own personal objectives for your business, how successful do you feel your business has been to date?” A 5-point scale was used: (1) not at all successful, (2) not very successful, (3) somewhat successful, (4) very successful, and (5) extremely successful.

Product Innovation

We used ABS question: “in the past 3 years, did your business introduce any new products or services?”: (0) no, and (1) yes.

Process Innovation

We used ABS question: “in the past 3 years, did your business introduce any new processes?”: (0) no, and (1) yes.

Training Employees

We used ABS question “did your business support or provide training or education for its employees in the past year?”: (0) no, and (1) yes.

Percentage Indigenous Employees

For each business in the data set, we divided the total number of current indigenous employees by the total number of current employees. Increasing the rates of employment and training of indigenous people is considered a major objective by many indigenous entrepreneurs, and as such represents a social goal resonating with our empirical context.

Mediating Variables

We measure five mediating variables. Four of these are indicators of authoring practices and the remaining one reflects making declarations.

Authoring

Following Jennings et al. (2016) and earlier literature on emancipation, authoring is measured with attention to practices that depart from the status quo in a conventional corporate life and give the entrepreneurs the opportunity to do things in their own way. We include both authoring personal change and authoring social change.

Authoring personal change. For authoring personal change, we operationalize two variables: (i) set own schedule; and (ii) control destiny.

Set own schedule is based on the following multiple response open-ended question included in the ABS questionnaire: “What would you say are the greatest advantages or benefits of being a small business owner?”. In particular, we focused on answers for the category ‘set own schedule / hours’. There were 247 respondents who choose this category. However, we discounted the number of respondents who at the same time indicated that ‘working long hours/ time off is limited’ is a greatest disadvantage or challenge of being a small business owner. Therefore, the measure of setting own schedule is a binary variable that indicates as “1” an entrepreneur who set his/her own working time and “0” otherwise. This measure is comparable to the one used by Jennings et al. (2016): “work less than 40 h a week”. Arguably, there is correspondence between setting own schedules and working less hours.

Control destiny is also elaborated from the question, “What would you say are the greatest advantages or benefits of being a small business owner?”. We focus, in particular, on response categories: (1) control my own destiny/ life/ career; and (2) freedom/ do what I want. These categories were converted into binary variables. The final measure of control destiny is a binary variable where 1 indicates the respondents who chose at least one category of the two previously indicated, and 0 otherwise.

Authoring social change. To operationalize authoring social change, we built on research examining new business models departing from the status quo as an indicator of authoring (e.g., Haugh & Talwar, 2016). In our case, the entrepreneurs embrace a business model where social objectives are given high importance (Peredo & McLean, 2013; Peredo et al., 2004). Authoring social change includes two variables as follows.

Community employment. This variable measures the importance of community employment as a business objective. The ABS question asked to rate the importance of community employment for the business over the coming year. The scale used range from 1 = not important at all to 5 = very important.

Community service. The second variable measures the importance of community service as a business objective. Similar to community employment, a 5-point scale was used: 1 = not important at all to 5 = very important.

Making Declarations

To operationalize making declarations, we aligned ourselves with Rindova et al. (2009) concept that the entrepreneur’s intention to create change should be ingrained in discursive or rhetorical actions. To contextualize this concept, we used the ABS question, “What do you regard as your competitive advantage in your industry?” and focused on the response category ‘identified as an aboriginal business’. We use a binary variable where 1 represents those entrepreneurs who clearly identified as an indigenous business in their dealings with different stakeholders. Our logic is as follows. Being indigenous businessperson who explicitly identifies as such can be a challenging task; in fact, there are stereotypes cast on indigenous people that can exclude them from business prospects. A telling example from our own qualitative research with indigenous people is when one participant (who is indigenous, but not visibly so) explained how after being identified as indigenous he was told “we are sorry, but we were looking for someone professional to do this job”. Therefore, identifying oneself as indigenous can be considered a discourse / rhetoric regarding the actor’s intention to create change, “altering societal beliefs about the very nature of things” (Rindova et al., 2009, p. 486).

Independent Variables

Our main independent variable is seeking autonomy. We measure this variable with reference to the entrepreneur’s main reasons for starting a business which are in line with the “breaking free from constraints” theorizing of Rindova et al. (2009). These authors propose two components for seeking autonomy: freedom for themselves and freedom for the social collectivity. In our present study, both components have been operationalized using responses to an open multiple response question in the ABS questionnaire. The question posed was, “What is the main reason why you decided to start your own business?” There were 15 categories of responses. Respondents chose a maximum of four. We focus on responses given to the first two selected options (whatever the categories are) because of the great majority of responses provided (95.3% of responses).

Freedom for Themselves

To measure freedom for themselves, we focus on the following response categories: (1) to be my own boss / entrepreneurial vision; (2) independence / freedom / creative control; (3) enjoy my job / use of skills / nature of my work; (4) better / more support for family / have more time / stay home; and (5) dislike / tired of working for others / previous job. Each of these categories was recoded into a binary variable. We then summed up all five binary variables to create an initial freedom for themselves measure. This new variable has 0 as minimum value (which includes 51.3% of responses) and 2 as maximum value (5.4% of responses). Given that the percentage of responses for value 2 is very low, we created a binary variable that merges responses to values 1 and 2 into a new category coded as 1 and 0 otherwise. Therefore, the final measure of freedom for themselves used in the study is a binary variable that equals 1 if the respondents chose at least 1 category of the five previously indicated.

Freedom for the Social Collectivity

To operationalize freedom for the social collectivity we center on the following categories: (1) help people / give back to community / First Nations, and (2) create employment for others / indigenous communities. We followed a similar procedure as for the freedom for themselves variable. Each of these two categories was recoded into a binary variable. We then summed up the two binary variables to create the measure for freedom for the social collectivity. This new variable has 0 as minimum value (which includes 90% of responses) and 2 as maximum value (0.3% of responses). Given that the percentage of responses for value 2 is extremely low, we created a binary variable that merges responses to values 1 and 2 into a new category coded as 1 and 0 otherwise. Thus, the measure of freedom for the social collectivity equals 1 if the respondents chose at least one category of the two previously indicated.

Moderating Variable

Location

We used the question, ‘Is this business located on a reserve or not?’ (0) no, and (1) yes. It is important to include this variable since the entrepreneurial activities of indigenous people in their indigenous setting (reserve) are situated in communities of indigenous people with shared social, economic and cultural patterns (Peredo et al., 2004). The characteristics of entrepreneurship among indigenous people who migrate individually or in relatively small groups, especially to urban areas, may well be different and it has been suggested that they may more closely resemble that of ethnic enclaves (Peredo et al., 2004).

Control Variables

We used a number of control variables, typically employed in empirical research in entrepreneurship.

Gender

We used a binary variable, where 0 equals male entrepreneurs and 1 equals female entrepreneurs.

Age

We used the age of the entrepreneur in years.

Education

We used business training as critical variable to capture the education of the entrepreneur. In particular we used question ‘did you take any business training courses at the college or university level?’ (0) no, and (1) yes.

Firm Age

We used the firm age since inception in years.

Firm Size

We used the total number of current employees.

Industry

We considered 10 sectors: (1) agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting, mining and oil & gas extraction; utilities; (2) construction; (3) manufacturing; (4) wholesale trade, retail trade, and transportation and warehousing; (5) information and cultural industries (e.g., broadcasting, internet, publishing); (6) finance & insurance, and real estate and rental & leasing; (7) professional, scientific and technical services (e.g., accounting, advertising, legal), management of companies & enterprises, administration & support, waste management and remediation services; (8) educational services, and health care and social assistance; (9) arts, entertainment & recreation, and accommodation & food services; and (10) other services.

Analytical Procedures

Our analytical approach includes mediation analysis, and we follow Hayes’s (2013) procedures. First, in Models 1 to 4 (Table 3), we analyze the relationship between seeking autonomy (freedom for themselves and for the social collectivity) and authoring, and in Model 5 we assess the relationship between seeking autonomy and making declarations. Second, in Models 6 to 11 (Table 4), we test the relationship between seeking autonomy and multiple economic and non-economic outcomes (revenue growth, success, product innovation, process innovation, training employees, and percentage of indigenous employees). In order to avoid a false dichotomy evaluation between seeking freedom for themselves and seeking freedom for the social collectivity, we enter each of these independent variables in different models: Model a and Model b, respectively.

Third, we test the significance of indirect effects (i.e., the effects of seeking autonomy on business outcomes through the mediation of authoring and making declarations). We employ bootstrap confidence intervals and follow Hayes’s (2013, p.106, 112) steps. In particular, this study estimates bootstrap bias corrected confidence interval estimations for indirect effects using 5000 random samples.

Depending on the measurement of mediators and dependent variables, we employ logistic regressions (for authoring personal change, making declarations, product and process innovation and training employees models), ordered logistic regressions (for authoring social change, revenue growth and success models), and ordinary least squares (for percentage of indigenous employees models). All empirical models are estimated with robust standard errors.

Findings

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Around 49% of respondents report seeking freedom for themselves, and 10% are seeking freedom for the social collectivity. For authoring personal change, nearly 18% of respondents set their own schedule and 23% aim to control their destiny. As for authoring social change, 61% rate community employment was important or very important, while 65% rate community service was important or very important. Approximately 13% of respondents engage in making declarations (identify as an indigenous business). About 43% of respondents report that their revenue has increased in the last year; 55% indicate their businesses are very successful or extremely successful; 49% report that their businesses introduced new products or services, while 40% indicate that their businesses introduced new processes in the past three years; 67% businesses support or provide training or education for its employees; and on average businesses in the sample have 65% of indigenous employees.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents bivariate correlations. Freedom for themselves is positively correlated with product innovation, process innovation, set own schedule, control destiny; and it is negatively correlated with community service, age, and location on reserve. Freedom for the social collectivity is positively correlated with training employees, percentage of indigenous employees, community employment, community service, making declarations, firm size, and location on reserve. Freedom for the social collectivity is negatively correlated with set own schedule and control destiny.

Table 2 Correlations

Testing Hypotheses 1 and 2a: Seeking Autonomy, Authoring and Making Declarations

Table 3 presents the results on the influence of seeking autonomy (freedom for themselves and freedom for the social collectivity) on authoring and making declarations. In Models 1 and 2, logistic regressions results show that freedom for themselves has a positive relation with control destiny (0.578, p < 0.001), while freedom for the social collectivity has a negative relation with set own schedule (− 0.732, p < 0.051) and control destiny (− 0.697, p < 0.05). Results also indicate that freedom for themselves is negatively related with community service (− 0.204, p < 0.091) and that freedom for the social collectivity is positively related with business models that value community employment (0.958, p < 0.001) or community service (0.946, p < 0.001). Overall, these findings provide support to H1, which states that there is a trade-off between authoring practices such that (a) entrepreneurs seeking freedom for the social collectivity will be less likely to enact practices that allow for individual flexibility and control (authoring personal change), while (b) entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves will be less likely to enact authoring practices that address social change.

Table 3 The influence of seeking autonomy on (mediators) authoring and making declarations

Findings in Models 3 and 4 indicate that freedom for the social collectivity has a positive association with making declarations (1.083, p < 0.01), while freedom for themselves is not significantly related to making declarations (− 0.366, p > 0.10). These findings provide support to H2a, which states that compared to entrepreneurs seeking “freedom for themselves”, entrepreneurs seeking “freedom for the social collectivity” will be more likely to engage in making declarations that challenge the status quo.

Testing Hypothesis 2b: Moderating Effect of Location on Reserve in the Relationship Between Seeking Autonomy and Making Declarations

In Table 3, Models 5a and 5b present the moderation results of location on reserve. In Model 5a, the moderation effect of location on reserve on the relationship between freedom for themselves and making declarations is positive (0.938, p < 0.025). Figure 2a depicts that for those entrepreneurs whose businesses are located on reserve, freedom for themselves has a positive relationship with making declarations; however, for those businesses located off reserve, freedom for themselves has a negative relationship with making declarations.

Fig. 2

Moderation effects of location on reserve

In Model 5b, the moderation effect of location on reserve on the association between freedom for the social collectivity and making declarations is negative (− 1.145, p < 0.061). Figure 2b visualizes the moderation effect. For entrepreneurs whose businesses are located off reserve, the relationship between freedom for the social collectivity and making declarations is positive; however, for those businesses located on reserve there is a flat relationship between freedom for the social collectivity and making declarations.

Altogether, these results provide mixed support to H2b. The social context (i.e., location on a reserve) moderates the relationship between seeking freedom and making declarations. In the case of freedom for themselves, location on reserve has a positive moderation; however, in the case of freedom for the social collectivity, it is entrepreneurs located off reserve who tend to be engaged in making declarations.

Testing Hypothesis 3: Mediation of Authoring and Making Declarations

Table 4 presents the results on the impact of seeking autonomy, authoring, and making declarations on a range of business outcomes. Table 5 summarizes direct and indirect effects of seeking autonomy on business outcomes.

Table 4 Seeking autonomy, mediators, and outcomes

Table 5 Significant direct and bias corrected indirect effects

Revenue Growth

Freedom for the social collectivity affects revenue growth through the mediation of set own schedule. In Table 4, Model 6b, set own schedule negatively affects revenue growth (− 0.481, p < 0.006), and in Table 3, freedom for the social collectivity negatively affects set own schedule (− 0.732, p < 0.051). In this sense, freedom for the social collectivity indirectly affects revenue growth. We tested the significance of this indirect effect following the procedure of Hayes (2013) as indicated previously. In Table 5, the indirect effect of freedom for the social collectivity has a bias corrected confidence interval that lies between 0.027 and 1.069, at 95% confidence level. In other words, freedom for the social collectivity affects revenue growth by having less flexibility to set own schedule.

Success

Freedom for themselves and freedom for the social collectivity indirectly affect perceptions of success. In Table 4, Model 7a, community service positively affects success (0.2, p < 0.004), and in Table 3 freedom for themselves affects community service (− 0.204, p < 0.091). In Table 5, the bias corrected confidence interval of the indirect effect of freedom for themselves on success through community service lies between − 0.106 and − 0.003, at 90% confidence level. These results show that freedom for themselves indirectly affects success via community service.

Freedom for the social collectivity affects success through the mediation of set own schedule and community service. In Table 4, Model 7b, set own schedule is negatively related to success (− 0.512, p < 0.002) and community service is positively related to success (0.201, p < 0.004). In Table 3, Model 1b, freedom for the social collectivity is negatively related to set own schedule (− 0.732, p < 0.051), and in Model 4b, freedom for the social collectivity is positively related to community service (0.946, p < 0.001). As reported in Table 5, bias corrected indirect effects of freedom for the social collectivity on success are significant at 95% confidence level (via set own schedule) and at 99% confidence level (via community service).

Product Innovation

Freedom for themselves affects product innovation through the mediation of control destiny. In Table 4, Model 8a, control destiny affects product innovation (0.521, p < 0.003), and in Table 3, Model 2a, freedom for themselves affects control destiny (0.575, p < 0.001). We test the indirect effect of freedom for themselves on product innovation through control destiny and find that the bootstrap confidence interval lies between 0.014 and 0.729, at 99% confidence level.

Freedom for the social collectivity affects product innovation also through the mediation of control destiny. In Table 4, Model 8b, control destiny affects product innovation (0.553, p < 0.001), and in Table 3, Model 2b, freedom for the social collectivity affects control destiny (− 0.697, p < 0.05). In Table 5, the indirect effect of freedom for the social collectivity on product innovation via control destiny (− 0.385) is significant at 95% confidence level.

Process Innovation

Freedom for themselves affects process innovation through the mediation of control destiny and community service. In Table 4, Model 9a, control destiny (0.492, p < 0.005) and community service (0.198, p < 0.006) are related to process innovation. In Table 3, Models 2a and 4a, freedom for themselves is related to control destiny (0.575, p < 0.001) and to community service (− 0.204, p < 0.091). Table 5 shows that indirect effects of freedom for themselves on process innovation via set own schedule (0.283) and community service (− 0.04) are significant at 99% and 90% confidence levels, respectively.

Freedom for the social collectivity affects process innovation through the mediation of set own schedule, control destiny and community service. In Table 4, Model 9b, set own schedule (− 0.574, p < 0.003), control destiny (0.548, p < 0.002), and community service (0.177, p < 0.014) are related to process innovation. In Table 5, Models 1b, 2b and 4b, freedom for the social collectivity is related to set own schedule (− 0.732, p < 0.051), control destiny (− 0.697, p < 0.05) and community service (0.946, p < 0.001). In Table 5, indirect effects of freedom for the social collectivity on process innovation via set own schedule (0.42), control destiny (− 0.382) and community service (0.167) are significant at 95% confidence level.

Training Employees

While freedom for themselves does not affect training employees directly or indirectly, freedom for the social collectivity is directly related to training employees (1.143, p < 0.01). We did not find empirical evidence of the mediation of authoring and making declarations between seeking autonomy and training employees.

Percentage of Indigenous Employees

Freedom for themselves is indirectly related to percentage of indigenous employees through the moderated mediation of making declarations. In Table 4, Model 11a, making declarations positively affects percentage of indigenous employees (0.118, p < 0.002). In Table 3, Model 5a, the interaction between freedom for themselves and location on reserve has an effect on making declarations (0.938, p < 0.025). Table 5 shows that the indirect effect of freedom for themselves on the percentage of indigenous employees via the mediated moderation of making declarations and location on reserve is significant at 95% confidence interval.

Freedom for the social collectivity indirectly affects the percentage of indigenous employees through the mediation of community employment and making declarations. In Table 4, Model 11b, community employment (0.047, p < 0.002) and making declarations (0.116, p < 0.002) affect the percentage of indigenous employees. In Table 3, Models 3b and 5b, freedom for the social collectivity affects community employment (0.958, p < 0.001) and making declarations (1.083, p < 0.005). In Table 3, Model 5b, the interaction between freedom for the social collectivity and location on reserve also affects making declarations (− 1.145, p < 0.061). Table 5 shows that indirect effects of freedom for the social collectivity on the percentage of indigenous employees through the mediation of community employment (0.045), making declarations (0.126) and the moderation with location on reserve (− 0.133) are significant at 99% and 95% confidence levels, respectively.

Altogether, these findings support H3 which states that authoring and making declaration practices will mediate the relationship between the initial seeking freedom motivation and the outcomes achieved. In particular, freedom for themselves indirectly affects business outcomes through the mediation of control destiny, community service and making declarations. Additionally, freedom for the social collectivity indirectly affects business outcomes via the mediation of set own schedule, control destiny, community employment, community service and making declarations.

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

This article studied entrepreneurial practices and outcomes from the perspective of entrepreneurship as emancipation. Particularly, our study centered on how entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves differ from those seeking to enact change for the social collectivity in their authoring and making declarations practices. We tested our hypotheses on a representative national sample of indigenous businesses in Canada.

Theoretical Implications

The results from our analysis provided us with three main findings, which we in turn discuss. First, our study makes a theoretical contribution by unveiling the significant relationship between two core elements—seeking autonomy and authoring—of Rindova et al. (2009) emancipatory framework. Our theorizing and findings indicate that entrepreneurs seeking “freedom for themselves” approached authoring in a significantly different way compared to those seeking to enact change in the social collective of which they are a part. Those who are seeking freedom for themselves are more likely to control their destiny (and therefore more likely to author personal change); however, those who are seeking freedom for the social collectivity are more likely to author social change and less likely to set their own schedules and to control their destiny. This result is particularly intriguing and calls for more attention toward the role of entrepreneur’s identity and the way they may perceive themselves as belonging to a certain category (Conger et al., 2018), such that seeing themselves as entrepreneurs with a social mission may pose a conflict with values of individual freedom and flexibility. Entrepreneurs’ sense of identity is therefore important in understanding choices related to specific authoring practices. Given that we examined entrepreneurship from the perspective of emancipation, this finding presents interesting implications regarding the emancipatory potential of entrepreneurship in settings where the collective well-being might take precedence over individual expressions of freedom. Our results indicate a trade-off between individual-focused and community-focused authoring practices. Engaging in entrepreneurial activities to break up constraints for the social collective might lead to self-imposed constrains for the individual flexibility and control. As Van Gelderen (2016: 560) states, “entrepreneurs have the autonomy to decide to forego autonomy.” Our findings, thus, advance the emancipatory framework by revealing the relationship between seeking autonomy and authoring, and the trade-off in authoring practices depending on the initial seeking autonomy motivation. This finding also invokes linkages to the literature on subjective well-being as an outcome of entrepreneurial activities, where both personal psychological functioning (autonomy and control, meaning and purpose) and social functioning (sense of belonging and local support) are considered important mechanisms to achieve well-being (e.g., Nikolaev et al., 2019).

Second, regarding entrepreneurs’ engagement in making declarations, our findings indicate that those entrepreneurs who view autonomy as freedom for the social collectivity are more likely to engage in discursive acts. However, our findings present nuanced understanding about the moderating role of social context on initial motivation (freedom for themselves and freedom for the social collective). While entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves and located on reserve were more likely to engage in making declarations, for the groups of entrepreneurs seeking freedom for the social collective it was the ones off reserve who were more likely to do so. Contrary to our expectations based on social identity theory (Stryker & Burke, 2000), entrepreneurs off reserve seeking to create social change seemed to assert their indigenous identity more. The salience of their identity and the willingness to act on it was not diminished, but amplified off reserve. Similar findings have been reported for other ethnic groups when located outside of their native settings. For instance, Ruby (2006) revealed that Muslim Canadian women attached more importance to wearing a veil while in Canada than in their countries of origin. Our findings suggest that, from a social identity perspective, emancipatory entrepreneurial acts may bring the entrepreneur’s (ethnic) identity to the fore when placed in a “stranger in a strange land” context (O’Neil & Ucbasaran, 2016), while trying to achieve objectives for the social collective. Although no previous research has examined the relationship between seeking autonomy and making declarations from an emancipatory perspective, our findings complement the literature which “emphasizes the role of language as a key tool for actor agency” (Ruebottom, 2013, p. 99) by adding the importance of language and discourse in the context of seeking freedom for the social collectivity.

Third, our findings also show how the authoring and making declaration practices impact the outcomes achieved, and mediate the relationship between seeking autonomy and entrepreneurial outcomes. Extant research has examined outcomes of authoring and has not studied the different outcomes as a result of seeking autonomy for oneself versus the social collective. For instance, Jennings et al. (2016) report that those authoring personal change are more likely to report higher levels of psychic benefits, satisfaction with their work-life balance, family satisfaction or degree of overall life satisfaction. Other studies—in the context of women entrepreneurs in developing areas—point to emancipatory outcomes for women such as personal development / satisfaction, and economic independence / financial contribution to the family (Al-Dajani et al., 2015; Haugh & Talwar, 2016). Our findings add to the understanding of the differential outcomes of seeking autonomy by taking a broader view of emancipation to include both emancipatory motivations: seeking freedom for oneself and seeking freedom for the social collectivity, and the authoring and making declarations practices that lead to the achievement of different outcomes. By specifying a mediation role for authoring and making declarations, we offer a more nuanced understanding about how the initial motivation of entrepreneurs drives the adoption of different practices, which consequently lead to differential performance outcomes. While entrepreneurs seeking freedom for the social collectivity were more likely to enact practices that would lead them to social outcomes such as employee training and providing employment to indigenous employees, entrepreneurs looking for freedom for themselves presented more varied practices that may lead to a broad array of outcomes, such as decrease in revenue (if entrepreneurs prioritize other aspects of their lives and set their scheduled accordingly), increase in innovation (if entrepreneurs prioritize self-expression), or achievement of social outcomes (offering employment for indigenous employees) via the mediation of making declarations. Another interesting finding is the effect of seeking freedom on innovation. While entrepreneurs seeking freedom for themselves were found to achieve product and process innovation via the mediation of control destiny, entrepreneurs seeking freedom for the social collectivity were following a different path to process innovation via the mediation of community service. This finding complements recent studies which find that novel processes and social dimension of business activities can be balanced (Candi et al., 2019).

Practical Implications

The results of our study also provide practical implications for entrepreneurs seeking to achieve change for themselves or for the community in which they are engaged. First, entrepreneurs need to be aware of the trade-offs inherent in choosing to focus on social goals at the expense of feelings of personal freedom (control over their destiny, personal flexibility). If entrepreneurs focus on achieving benefits for the social collective while limiting their own personal autonomy, feelings of burnout may occur that can impact entrepreneurs’ well-being and subsequently their ability to fulfill the social mission they are pursuing. Individual’s well-being is affected by social functioning, such as social belonging and relationships arising from engagement in social mission activities, but it is also impacted by psychological functioning, including feeling of self-determination and autonomy (Nikolaev et al., 2019; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryff, 2019). Therefore, entrepreneurs looking for social change should be aware of the delicate balance between working toward social goals and maintaining their personal psychological functioning.

Second, our nuanced findings about innovation outcomes suggest that there are different pathways to innovation. Innovation is usually associated with achieving the creative vision of the entrepreneur for bringing new products to market. Indeed, for entrepreneurs looking for freedom for themselves, the path to innovation was mediated by controlling their destiny and expressing their creative potential; however, entrepreneurs interested in social change were able to achieve process innovation via the mediation of community service. This finding has important implications for entrepreneurs and suggests that embracing community service can be a path to designing new processes that can bring benefits to the entrepreneurs and their communities. Embeddedness within the local community can open up new avenues of organizing, novel understanding of clients’ needs, and co-creation of value together with the community (Lashitew et al., 2020).

Finally, entrepreneurs’ willingness to engage in discursive acts embracing their identity is important for emancipation. In our context, entrepreneurs located on reserve were more inclined to voice the indigenous identity of their businesses as part of their competitive advantages. More interestingly, entrepreneurs located off reserve were more prone to engage in making declarations (expressing their indigenous identity) when their initial motivations were to seek change for the social collective. Voicing out entrepreneurs’ indigenous identity has further effect on creating more employment for indigenous peoples in and outside of indigenous communities. In this sense, entrepreneurs are encouraged to express their identities as part of their business practices because their identities provide entrepreneurs with culture-specific values and skills to be used in the marketplace to bring about social and economic change (Dana, 2015; Hindle & Moroz, 2010).

Concluding Remarks

Overall, our research advances the discussion on emancipatory entrepreneurship by focusing on entrepreneurs’ attempts to dislodge the status quo. We do so by conceptualizing and operationalizing all three aspects of Rindova et al. (2009) framework and examining a diverse range of performance outcomes of emancipation in a large representative data set of indigenous SMEs in Canada. The study answers recent calls that view the entrepreneurial process as one in which the head engages the heart (Shepherd, 2015) by going beyond financial goals. This study, thus, contributes to the literature about the change-creating potential of entrepreneurship by differentiating between the different “freedoms” that entrepreneurs pursue and how this initial motivation affects subsequent authoring and making declarations practices, as well as outcomes. Furthermore, by focusing on a sample of indigenous entrepreneurs, we join others (e.g., Haar et al., 2019; Olabisi et al., 2019; Peredo & McLean, 2013; Peredo et al., 2004) in showcasing the uniqueness and contributions of indigenous communities around the world to business practices.

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research

While our study advances the literature on emancipatory entrepreneurship, it also has some limitations that offer fruitful avenues for future research. Our research context—indigenous businesses—provided an excellent setting for studying practices and outcomes from entrepreneurship taking an emancipation perspective. Because indigenous people over the world have long faced economic hardship as well as challenges to preserving their traditions and identity, an emancipation perspective seems particularly appropriate to examine their entrepreneurial activities. While a useful lesson for all, we do not claim that the Canadian experience is universally generalizable. Canada has strong institutions that support citizens, fair rules, and generous welfare packages, so we cannot expect findings to be identical in developing countries that may experience corruption and other forces. Consequently, a limitation is that given the importance of the institutional environment, the generalizability of findings to other contexts is limited.

One of the questions that remains unanswered is the appropriate translation of the emancipation framework to different contexts. For instance, what constitutes making declarations in a non-indigenous context will likely be very different from our conceptualization and measurement in this study. Indeed, because emancipation means different things in different contexts (Calas et al., 2009; Jennings et al., 2016), future research can usefully explore diverse measures that reflect the elements of the emancipation framework. Furthermore, in the current study, we examined performance outcomes at the organizational level only. Another promising line for future inquiries could focus on the individual (vs. organizational) consequences or outcomes from emancipation, especially when entrepreneurs are unable to achieve the desired “freedom” (be that individual-focused or collective-focused). Rindova et al. (2009) realize that entrepreneurs might find themselves trapped in the arrangements they make to gain legitimacy and access to resources. Empirical research also has found that autonomy does not come automatically with business ownership (Van Gelderen, 2016) and that “many entrepreneurs find themselves unable to enact their dreams in practice” (Jennings et al., 2016, p. 21). The extent to which being unable to enact their dreams influences entrepreneurs’ cognition, passion, and long-term organizational or social outcomes presents an important future line of research. Lastly, given that this study is an early attempt to model empirically all three elements of the emancipatory perspective, we relied on a cross-sectional representative sample to test our hypotheses. Future research can use longitudinal designs to further study the processes within the emancipation perspective (Chandra, 2017).