To start or not to start? An exploratory study of work meaningfulness among start-up co-founders

Abstract

This study explores startup co-founders’ perceptions of meaningful work experiences in the dynamic and uncertain context of entrepreneurship. While entrepreneurial research has extensively examined firm-level outcomes such as performance and growth, the subjective experiences of entrepreneurs have remained relatively underexplored especially in an emerging country context. This study addresses meaningful work experiences of 12 startup co-founders from Turkiye by employing a qualitative research design and using in-depth interviews. Drawing on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Job Characteristics Model (JCM), this research identifies key dimensions of meaningful work, including significance, autonomy, identity, challenge and resilience, recognition and support, and work-life balance. Our findings suggest that the complex interplay of intrinsic motivation and external validation contributes significantly to perceived entrepreneurial well-being and resilience. We present a three-dimensional model of perceived meaningfulness with professional, psychological, and societal aspects for meaningfulness experiences. We extend existing literature by demonstrating how startup ventures offer fertile ground for psychological fulfillment, not merely through financial success but through personal growth and societal impact.

Highlights

1 Introduction

In the vast expanse of entrepreneurial research, considerable attention has been devoted to exploring and explicating firm-level outcomes such as performance and growth (Wiklund et al., 2019) or economic and societal advantages such as poverty alleviation (Sutter et al., 2019). Although this body of work has advanced our understanding of the macro-level benefits of entrepreneurship, people pursue entrepreneurship for a variety of deeply personal and unique reasons. One such reason is the pursuit of meaning and purpose in one’s work and life in general, a fundamental part of human existence and quality of life (Frankl, 1959; Martela et al., 2021). There is still much need in the literature for studies into the subjective experiences of entrepreneurs themselves, particularly with regard to how they find meaning in their work in the unpredictable and volatile world of start-up ventures (Schwarz and Wahl, 2023). Additionally, previous research on meaningfulness has suggested that “… the organizational task of helping people find meaning in their work is complex and profound, going far beyond the relative superficialities of satisfaction or engagement — and almost never related to one’s employer or manager,” reflecting the relatively intrapersonal nature of meaningful work experience (Bailey and Madden, 2016). Addressing this gap, the present study seeks to explore the intricate psychological processes by which entrepreneurs navigate and construct work meaning amidst the inherent risks and challenges of entrepreneuring. We aim to explore the interplay between meaningful work and entrepreneurship, with a particular focus on the unique context of start-up ventures.

Understanding the psychology of entrepreneurs is crucial for grasping their motivations, behaviors, and overall well-being. Entrepreneurs often exhibit a higher degree of initiative and self-starting behavior compared to traditional employees, as they are known for their proactivity and ability to overcome barriers (Hahn et al., 2012). However, entrepreneurship is also rife with challenges such as exhaustion, work intensity, fatigue, and uncertainty, all of which impose, as de-energizing elements, significant emotional burdens on individuals and especially on founders (Kakatkar et al., 2021, 2024). Despite this, the emotional and psychological toll of entrepreneurship, particularly in relation to well-being and experiences of meaningfulness of co-founders, has received scant attention in both academic and practical discourse with some notable exceptions (Brieger et al., 2021; Kremer and Kruse, 2024; Schwarz and Wahl, 2023; Stephan, 2018).

Defined as an individual’s perception of “… authentic connection between their work and a broader transcendent life purpose beyond the self” and “the subjective experience of how existentially significant and valuable people find their work to be” meaningful work has been shown to be a critical factor for employee motivation, commitment, engagement, satisfaction, decreased turnover intentions and absenteeism, and higher performance, outranking other aspects of work such as pay, promotion or working conditions (Bailey and Madden, 2016; Martela et al., 2021). Overall, a meta-analysis has shown that people who find their work to be meaningful feel better and work better (Allan et al., 2019). Rooted in the understanding that work holds diverse meanings for individuals, previous research acknowledges the multifaceted nature of meaningful work, which extends beyond conventional metrics such as income and stability (Duffy and Dik, 2013; Shir et al., 2019). Such experiences of meaningful work and factors pertaining to promoting and constructing more meaningful experiences in organizations and a meaningful workplace have been vastly researched (Lysova et al., 2019) while the entrepreneurial perspective on meaningfulness has been comparatively underexplored. Entrepreneurs, especially those in start-up ventures, face a unique challenge; they must actively construct and foster a sense of meaning in their work, even in the face of extreme uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. This “meaning crisis,” in which entrepreneurs must generate their own sense of purpose amid volatile circumstances, is both a heavier burden and a potentially greater opportunity for personal fulfillment. This is particularly salient when we consider that employees often rely on their organization and leaders for deriving meaning from their work experience, founders have to create meaning by building and nurturing their own venture, which renders the latter’s experience much more personal and even an existential experience (Kakatkar et al., 2024).

The start-up environment’s capacity to propel individuals toward a deep sense of purpose and well-being (Shir and Ryff, 2022) makes the exploration of co-founders’ experiences of meaningfulness particularly relevant. Despite the inherent challenges of entrepreneurship, this environment offers rich possibilities for meaning making, and understanding this process is a timely and necessary endeavor. In this context, this study draws on two theoretical frameworks, namely Self-Determination Theory and Job Characteristics Model to probe the psychology of entrepreneurs, investigating how the start-up context fosters meaningfulness and contributes to entrepreneurial perceptions of meaningful work. To explore these dynamics, a qualitative research design was employed, utilizing in-depth interviews with startup co-founders. The study has focused on co-founders of start-up ventures to capture the richness and depth of their subjective experiences, the challenges they face, and the perceived meaningfulness derived from their entrepreneurial journey.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Foundations of meaningful work

Self-Determination Theory has been used as a guiding framework in many studies exploring entrepreneurship (Al-Jubari et al., 2019; Du et al., 2021; Lanivich et al., 2021; Nikolaev et al., 2020). Self-Determination Theory offers a potent theoretical framework for explicating antecedents of meaningful work (Martela et al., 2021). The theory argues that humans have certain innate psychological needs, which are designated as autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and the satisfaction of those is a prerequisite for human wellness (mental and physical), vitality, growth, and sense of meaningfulness. From an entrepreneurial lens, SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000) helps explain that meaningful work satisfies the intrinsic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, enhancing motivation and engagement. A psychological theory of motivation that emphasizes the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in human behavior and developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in the 1980s, SDT suggests that people are naturally inclined to grow, develop, and engage in activities that foster psychological well-being when their innate psychological needs are met. The theory distinguishes between different types of motivation and explores how environmental and social factors influence motivation and well-being. Basic psychological needs at the core of SDT include autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to the need to feel in control of one’s actions and decisions, and a sense of volition and willingness when engaging in activities, meaning individuals must feel they are acting in alignment with their values and interests (Deci and Ryan, 2008). Competence describes the need to feel effective and capable of achieving desired outcomes. This involves mastering tasks and gaining a sense of proficiency (Deci and Ryan, 1985). People are motivated to engage in activities where they can demonstrate their skills and capabilities. Finally, relatedness refers to the need to feel connected to others and experience a sense of belonging and attachment. Positive social relationships and feeling cared for by others are critical for fulfilling the need for relatedness (Ryan, 1995). Thus, autonomy is associated with a sense of volition and feelings of ownership for one’s actions; competence means having sense of mastery, efficacy and effectance in one’s work activities, and relatedness is the extent to which an individual feels connected to others, belonging and as part of caring relationships (Martela et al., 2021), all which have been shown to play key roles in evaluations of meaningfulness.

Studies have also utilized Job Characteristics Model to explore aspects of entrepreneurship (Rauch and Frese, 2007; Schjoedt, 2009). Job Characteristics Model (Hackman and Oldham, 1976), a framework used to understand how specific job characteristics affect employee motivation, satisfaction, and performance, posits that jobs can be designed to enhance intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction by incorporating key job dimensions. The model is widely used in organizational psychology and job design practices (Fried and Ferris, 1987). The JCM identifies five core dimensions of jobs that influence employee motivation, satisfaction, and performance, including skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. The JCM suggests that job dimensions such as task significance, identity, and autonomy contribute to perceiving work as meaningful. Accordingly, jobs that involve a variety of tasks are generally more motivating because they prevent monotony and allow employees to use different skills (skill variety). When a job involves completing a whole, identifiable piece of work from start to finish, an employee can see their contribution to the final product or outcome, and thus experience greater satisfaction (task identity). Employees are more motivated when they believe their work has a meaningful impact on others (task significance). Jobs with high autonomy foster greater responsibility and ownership of outcomes, which enhances motivation (autonomy). Feedback helps employees understand how well they are performing, which can improve motivation and learning (feedback).

Drawing from the premises of self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) and job characteristics model (Hackman and Oldham, 1976) we posit that the satisfaction of fundamental needs for autonomy, competence, relatedness, identity, significance, and feedback plays a pivotal role in shaping the perceptions of meaningful work among individuals engaged in entrepreneurial activities. In the realm of start-up ventures, characterized by intrinsic motivation, self-directed behavior, and autonomous decision-making, the likelihood of perceiving work as meaningful is likely to be notably higher (Allan et al., 2016). Moreover, our study recognizes the potential of entrepreneurship, particularly within start-up ventures, to serve as a buffer against the challenges posed by the imminent waves of automation and the specter of the “useless class” (Harari, 2017). By understanding the intricacies of meaningful work in the context of start-up ventures, the research aims to offer insights into how individuals can find contentment even in the face of the bleak scenarios associated with human redundancy.

2.2 Meaningful work and meaning of work from an entrepreneurial perspective

Work meaning refers to individuals’ personal experiences and general beliefs, values, and attitudes about their work. When the practices of a work are aligned with social and cultural expectations, work is likely to be perceived as meaningful (Allan et al., 2019). As such, meaning of work is more about the type of meaning associated with one’s work, while meaningful work is more about the amount of significance attached to one’s work (Rosso et al., 2010). Although generally used in an interchangeable way, meaning of work and work meaningfulness are not necessarily synonymous concepts with the latter denoting an inevitably positive meaning. Much of the research in the meaning of work literature uses meaning of work or work meaning in a positive lens, implying a work meaningfulness perspective. Rosso and colleagues argue that “meaningful” and “meaningfulness” would be more accurate choices when authors of meaning research address the amount of significance individuals associate with their work, and we follow their lead.

From an organizational viewpoint, the meaning of work has been embedded primarily in a psychological perspective with an emphasis on subjective interpretations of work experiences whereas a sociological perspective would underline the role of social or cultural value systems in ascriptions of meaningfulness to work activities. The extant research in organizational behavior has emphasized the psychological perspective of individual experiences and feelings rather than societal forces in understanding work meaningfulness. The meaningful work in that sense enables feelings of transcendence, encourages identification with one’s organization and purpose, and helps promote positive organizational outcomes (Jiang and Johnson, 2018; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010). As such, meaningful work provides benefits across individual and organizational levels, making meaningful work a priority for both employers looking to boost their organization’s performance and individuals for eudaimanic wellbeing and higher satisfaction with life (Johnson and Jiang, 2017; Schwarz and Wahl, 2023).

Although a variety of factors have been identified as potential sources of meaning such as individual attitudes or organizational values with little consensus on a general framework, work meaningfulness has emerged as a pivotal construct in understanding organizational outcomes such as employee engagement, satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Rosso et al., 2010). Because of such benefits, meaningful work and experiences/activities that spur it has received considerable attention in the literature (Both-Nwabuwe et al., 2017; Jiang and Johnson, 2018). Drawing on interviews with 135 individuals from 10 different work domains, including entrepreneurs, a previous research study defined meaningful work as individuals’ perception of some authentic connection between their work and a broader transcendent life purpose beyond their self (Bailey and Madden, 2017). This study found that individuals perceiving their job to be fulfilling of their potential, creative, absorbing, and interesting are more likely to perceive their work as meaningful as well as those who receive recognition for their accomplishment, and that meaningful work does not always imply positive work experiences. Steger et al. (2012) define meaningful work, a multidimensional construct, as “subjectively meaningful experience consisting of experiencing positive meaning in work, sensing that work is a key avenue for making meaning, and perceiving one’s work to benefit some greater good.” The significance of finding meaning in one’s work transcends mere economic necessity, encapsulating a desire for purpose, value, and impact (Schnell and Hoffmann, 2020). Work meaningfulness is defined as the subjective sense that one’s work is significant, purposeful, and contributes to a broader spectrum. It encompasses individuals’ perceptions of their work’s value beyond its tangible rewards. Meaningful work literature offers various elements of meaningfulness such as significance, broader purpose, and self-realization (Martela and Pessi, 2018) or significance, purpose, coherence and belonging (Schnell and Hoffmann, 2020; Schwarz and Wahl, 2023). Meaningful work and research on how to find meaning has been receiving attention from practitioners probably because a lack of meaning can have negative and even severe consequences such as absenteeism or depression. The meaning of work has been associated with many important outcomes in organizational settings such as work motivation, engagement, job satisfaction, empowerment, organizational identification, career development, individual performance, and personal fulfillment as well as associations with negative outcomes such as stress and absenteeism (Glavas and Kelley, 2014; Lepisto and Pratt, 2017; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010; Steger, 2016).

Although research has long acknowledged that entrepreneurs undergo extreme emotional experiences in their daily initiatives and that their well-being may be compromised on a daily basis few studies have examined the role of meaningfulness and psychology of meaning behind entrepreneurs’ actions. With this study, we address the role of perceived meaning for startup co-founders. Previous research has ascribed the term “the new money” for meaningful work, implying the financial and performance benefits that accompany perceptions of meaning and purpose (Schwarz and Wahl, 2023).

In an interview with his brother, the founder and CEO of OpenAI Sam Altman refers to founder burnout as a product of things not working and a lack of momentum (Combinator, 2016). And in another address to the question of how to deal with burnout as a founder, he offers a stark yet motivating perspective: “it sucks and you keep going. Unlike a student where you can sort of throw your hands and say, you know what, I’m really burned out. I’m just going to get bad grades this quarter. One of the hard parts about running a startup is that it’s real life and you just have to get through it.” (PSkinnerTech, 2023). This statement encapsulates the formidable pressures faced by founders, who often carry the weight of their ventures on their shoulders, with scant room for personal setbacks. In the dynamic world of startups, co-founders are frequently caught in the tension between fostering value and the imperative of generating profit. This dichotomy not only challenges their resilience but can also veer them away from their foundational goals, with repercussions on the perceived meaningfulness of their work. The pursuit of balancing societal contribution with profitability poses a complex dilemma, occasionally diverting them from their initial mission, with significant implications for their sense of purpose and the broader impact of their venture.

Entrepreneurship has been characterized as an emotionally demanding and uncertain journey associated with high levels of stress and fear in addition to comparatively higher levels of job satisfaction (Shir et al., 2019). Although entrepreneurial ventures come with high levels of uncertainty, risk, potential for bankruptcy, and many other challenges coupled with high levels of stress and anxiety, many entrepreneurs report being satisfied with their lives (Schwarz and Wahl, 2023; Stephan, 2018). To what extent such feelings of satisfaction correlate with entrepreneurial search for and creation of meaning and purposefulness remains to be explored. Additionally, research distinguishing between outcomes of necessity versus opportunity entrepreneurship finds that the former correlates with lower educational attainments, lower levels of wellbeing and life satisfaction, higher financial concerns related with debt accumulation, and lower levels of autonomy and growth opportunities. Opportunity entrepreneurs driven by a growth and independence mindset might thus be more likely to seek and find meaning in their pursuits. Opportunity entrepreneurs, assuming an ideal and virtuous kind of entrepreneurship in contrast to a vicious and malevolent counterpart (Ryff, 2019), are more likely to transcend a pursuit of self-gratification to consider the wellbeing of others such as employees, the community in which their ventures are embedded, the environment as well as the society and the planet at large. This provides the basic rationale for our choice to interview startup co-founders.

Previous research has investigated the relationship between meaningful work and entrepreneurship, comparing the perceived meaningfulness of work among entrepreneurs, employees, and freelancers (Kooskora and Vilumets, 2020), highlighting that entrepreneurs tend to report higher levels of perceived meaning in their work, particularly in dimensions such as inspiration, unity with others, and self-development. That is, entrepreneurs experience higher levels of meaning in their work compared to employees, especially in areas that align with personal growth. A large-scale research study has confirmed that self-employed individuals are more satisfied with their lives than paid employees even when compared within similar occupations (Hessels et al., 2018) and higher job satisfaction associates with jobs that are high in autonomy, task variety, and task significance (Hytti et al., 2013). A critical factor that relates to entrepreneurs’ well-being is the extent to which they find their work meaningful, whether they can make a genuine difference with their business activities. Additionally, entrepreneurs who create social value experience heightened self-esteem and self-worth by aligning their business activities with societal benefits. This alignment strengthens their positive self-concept, which enhances their job satisfaction and reduces burnout (Brieger et al., 2021). While research has explored meaningful work experiences in the context of specific industries or individual topics (Schwarz and Wahl, 2023), this paper examines the extent of meaningful work experiences and the “meaning compass” of startup co-founders.

3 Method

Given the exploratory nature of our study, we chose a qualitative research design incorporating in-depth interviews with start-up co-founders to allow for a rich exploration of their experiences and perceptions. This methodology aligns with our intention to capture the subjective realities of entrepreneurs, providing valuable insights into the meaningful work and entrepreneurship nexus. Qualitative research explores a problem or topic by identifying variables that are not easily measurable (Creswell and Poth, 2016). Instead of establishing cause-and-effect between variables of interest, the underlying motivation in qualitative approach is to observe data related to the context, processes, and perceptions. This approach enables an observation of patterns and understanding of the perspectives of actors within their specific contexts (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992). Through our study, we hope to be able to respond to calls for more qualitative research into entrepreneurship (Van Burg et al., 2020) which helps advance our understanding of entrepreneurship as a phenomenon (Suddaby et al., 2015). In sum, the research design centered on salient experiences of co-founders and their perceptions of meaning regarding their entrepreneurial actions. The number of qualitative studies within entrepreneurship research is on the rise thanks to its capacity to make meaningful contributions to the field (Javadian et al., 2020).

3.1 Data collection

We adopted a purposive sampling approach to identify and recruit participants, focusing on co-founders of start-up ventures. Our recruitment began on LinkedIn, where we contacted a previous connection who fit the study’s criteria. Following this initial contact, we employed a snowball sampling strategy, leveraging the networks of each participant to identify additional potential participants. This iterative process allowed us to build a broader pool of self-identified co-founders, enhancing the diversity of our sample.

In total, we reached out to 87 co-founders through LinkedIn. Of these, 42 responded to our inquiry: 25 declined participation, while 17 consented to be interviewed. During the interview process, three participants were unavailable for any of the scheduling options provided over a two-month period. Additionally, two interviews were excluded from the analysis: one participant later withdrew their consent, and another, who transitioned to a traditional white-collar career, was removed based on inter-rater agreement due to concerns about the relevance of their perspective at the time of the interview. These considerations resulted in a final sample of 12 co-founders whose interviews form the basis of our analysis. This sample size aligns with qualitative research standards, ensuring both depth and diversity of insights while achieving thematic saturation (Creswell and Poth, 2016; Glesne and Peshkin, 1992).

Based on the theoretical framework, we try to understand how co-founders of start-up ventures describe the meaningfulness of their work, and how their perceived meaningfulness helps them tackle work-related challenges. Through an in-depth exploration of startup co-founders’ firsthand experiences, we also seek to identify what role psychological experiences such as autonomy, significance, identity, and social support play in shaping the meaningful work experiences of start-up co-founders, and how challenges and uncertainties inherent in start-up ventures influence entrepreneurs’ perceptions of meaningful work and their overall well-being. Relying on these overarching questions, we have identified a set of questions as guideposts during the interviews. For interviewing co-founders of start-up ventures on the topic of perceived work meaningfulness, we crafted questions to capture the richness and depth of their experiences, challenges, and the meaningfulness they derive from their entrepreneurial journey. These questions have been designed to elicit insights into the co-founders’ perceptions of meaningful work, their motivations, challenges, and the broader impact of their start-up. Sample questions include, What inspired the vision and mission behind your start-up?, Can you share a moment or experience in your start-up journey that you found particularly meaningful?, How do your personal values align with the goals and practices of your start-up?, Can you describe a challenging time in your start-up and how you found meaning or growth in that experience? and How do you believe your start-up contributes to societal well-being or addresses social challenges?

3.2 Interviews and data

Co-founders are the focus of interest in our qualitative study. A total 12 start-up co-founders from Turkiye have participated in our study (see Table 1). We approached each one of them and collected data through personal interviews to enable an in-depth exploration of the topic. Individual semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted on Zoom, with each session lasting approximately 1 h. The interview protocol began with general questions to establish rapport with the participants. On average, each co-founder interview transcript is 18 pages. These questions focused on the participants’ experiences, feelings, beliefs, and convictions regarding their entrepreneurial ventures. Both planned and impromptu questions were used to elicit further details. Each interview was audio-recorded with the participant’s permission and transcribed verbatim. We used an AI program to transcribe the interview records. We also undertook steps such as reviewing archival online data, organizational websites, newspaper articles, and conducting LinkedIn searches to triangulate and validate interviewee responses, particularly for fact-checking purposes related to startup ventures and co-founders. This process also allowed us to familiarize ourselves with the interviewees prior to the meetings.

3.3 Analysis and thematic coding

We followed an iterative approach in our thematic coding, beginning with open coding to identify first-order concepts, followed by axial coding to develop overarching themes. Discrepancies in coding were resolved through collaborative discussions among the authors. We adopted traditional content analysis and undertook an iterative process of reading and categorizing participants’ statements to create our first-order codes. The finalization of these first-order codes took multiple waves of iteration with continuous discussions between the authors and through the resolution of disagreements. We went back and forth between the data to (1) discover and narrow, and (2) to enrich and validate (Mathias et al., 2015). Reading interview transcripts multiple times, we looked for and began to realize certain commonalities across responses and referred to the existing literature to create themes. This enabled us to link our preliminary findings back to theory and build connections with the extant literature. However, we did not aim to confine our coding only to the theoretical mapping or predefined constructs.

Two researchers coded the data with frequent meetings to resolve coding conflicts in order to reduce the possibility of bias in the interpretation of qualitative data. Systematic coding and analysis were used to increase reliability. This initial stage aimed to identify recurring concepts and ideas grounded in the participants’ language. Each author independently reviewed the transcribed data, marking phrases, sentences, or short paragraphs with relevant or potential codes and categories. At this stage, we utilized a conventional content analysis approach, allowing codes to emerge inductively from the data (Senthanar et al., 2021). For instance, when participants discussed challenges related to “work-life balance” or described experiences of “resilience,” these phrases were coded directly as such. After the initial coding, we engaged in a collaborative process to compare and refine the codes. Emerging themes were then mapped onto the theoretical premises of Self-Determination Theory and the Job Characteristics Model (Deci and Ryan, 2008; Hackman and Oldham, 1976). This iterative process involved comparing inductively derived codes with the deductive insights drawn from meaningfulness literature, particularly regarding autonomy, competence, relatedness (SDT), and job characteristics like significance, task variety, and feedback (JCM). This combined inductive-deductive approach ensured an alignment between participants’ lived experiences and the theoretical frameworks underpinning the study. For example, participants’ references to managing flexibility while balancing family and work were coded under work-life balance through inductive coding. These codes were further contextualized within the autonomy and resilience dimensions of SDT, demonstrating how balancing demands enhances perceived control and coping capacity, through deductive relevance.

The iterative coding process continued until consensus was reached, resulting in a thematic structure that integrates data-driven insights with theoretical constructs. This approach enabled us to build a multidimensional model of entrepreneurial meaningfulness that reflects both the unique nuances of participant experiences and the broader theoretical findings of meaningful work literature.

4 Findings

Based on the interview data, we identified Dimensions of Work Meaningfulness for Start-up Ventures. As such, the paper proposes a multidimensional model of work meaningfulness drawing mainly from Self-Determination Theory and Job Characteristics Model which state that satisfaction of the intrinsic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as well as skill and task variety, significance and feedback are critical for human wellbeing (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Hackman and Oldham, 1975), and these in turn contribute to perceptions of meaning at work, enhancing motivation and engagement.

4.1 Significance

Significance is the belief that one’s work matters and has a positive impact on oneself, others, or society. Finding significance in one’s work goes together with the belief that you have an impact which is positive (a negative impact is also possible, and it would not be associated with meaning-making in the sense we imply in this paper). Significance is also associated with opportunities for growth. Some participants characterize “significance” with creating value first for themselves to provide a means for self-perpetuation and then using this as leverage to create significance in a more altruistic way, that is for people, environment, and society at large. Participants also assume different opinions and ideas of the concept “significance” when asked what they find to be significant or what provides them with a sense of significance about their work, product, idea, or model. The opportunity to live a decent life through one’s entrepreneurial initiative is considered a means of finding significance as is the possibility to realize one’s ambitions and passion. Trendsetting, game-changing and original ideas act as perpetrators of significance and are proudly mentioned by participants. Participants claim that what provides them with significance also offers a window to satisfaction with one’s job, motivation, and opportunity to make a difference. Significance helps them get rid of chronic or existential boredom and find value in what they do both at and after work. These ideas do however seem to be influenced by and change through time, culture, and context. Sample quotes from interviews are presented in Table 2.

4.2 Autonomy

Autonomy represents the degree to which individuals feel they have control over their work processes and decisions. Autonomy does not mean a lack of constraints or limits nor absolute freedom but rather a perceived independence and capacity to make an impact without having to get permission from someone else or having to do so within some limits because of power imbalances (such as financial dependence on investor/s or based on political/cultural/organizational barriers). Participants report benefiting from flexible decision-making processes and delegation of responsibility to team members based on expertise and trust. Autonomy in this sense is achieved through working with people who are not “colleagues” but “team members.” Some participants report having created a work culture where their absence is happily compensated by team members and moral licensing allows them to feel okay with a tad of otherwise irresponsible behavior, such as not feeling motivated to go to the office one fine morning and staying at home. Autonomy is a mindset where there is space and tolerance for individual preferences, expectations, and problems. Startup co-founders declare being content with both their own autonomy and providing their teams with greater autonomy and space. However, it is also the case that autonomy might be the least of concerns when there are financial or legal challenges to deal with or when they experience a crisis with customers, consumers, investors, or team members. Autonomy is a concern for moments when things are on track. Sample quotes are presented in Table 3.

4.3 Identity

Identity refers to the alignment between one’s work and personal values, beliefs, and sense of self. Some participants tend to define their business as part of their body like a limb or sometimes like a child, adopting parental terminology. The lines between the person’s character and the business gets blurred. For example, if co-founder has a large risk appetite, this reflects on the startup itself through a spillover effect. The startup, its birth, its life cycle, its potential demise, and significant turning points are described as critical life experiences in co-founder’s personal life. There are descriptions of feelings of excitement about work-related experiences in a way when one falls in love or feelings of utter disappointment, disillusionment, misery and even depression in case of setbacks, roadblocks, and failures. On the other, some participants demystify such narratives by positioning their entrepreneurship in a more pragmatist framework and distance their self from their current business. Their identity is more aligned with “entrepreneurship” as a professional process and less with whatever they are on at the present. There are also stories that connect the entrepreneurial journey to a personal narrative in the founder’s life experience. From an identity perspective, startup initiative contributes to exploring, realizing, reflecting, developing, and transforming one’s inner self, mentality, mindset, and world view. Sample quotes are presented in Table 4.

4.4 Challenge and resilience

Participants report engaging in diverse and challenging tasks that utilize and expand their abilities. Challenges provide opportunities for building resilience, which associates with experiencing meaningfulness. Each participant has faced significant challenges in their respective fields, yet they have demonstrated persistence and adaptability in overcoming these obstacles. When they were insurmountable, they found a way out and looked somewhere else for moving on. Almost all of them refer to “uncertainty” as one of the biggest challenges that they had to learn to be comfortable with. The participants highlight access to funds as another formidable challenge. Psychological challenges seem secondary to financial obstacles and difficulties in access to funding. There are also regulatory challenges that they frequently voice out as primary reason for why they seek to go abroad, considering regulations are the hardest to affect. They take financial risks to realize their investment, and both idea creation and implementation might become their responsibilities. The resistance to change and introducing a new service/product with higher efficiency and persuading end users to replace their existing habits are also challenges entrepreneurs find as crucial obstacles to overcome before to score a significant and meaningful outcome. The (un)availability of a startup ecosystem that is not congenial to and welcoming of startup co-founders is yet another challenge. According to participants, team-making and dealing with team members’ problems might be challenging at times. Despite those challenges, the interviews reveal a common narrative of resilience among startup co-founders. Resilience and passion for entrepreneurial ideas/projects act as buffers to those challenges. Family is interestingly both a challenge to face at the initial stages of entrepreneurship and one of the strongest resilience factors throughout. Sample quotes are presented in Table 5.

4.5 Recognition and support

Startup co-founders find meaning in and through receiving constructive feedback and acknowledgment for their contribution. This might be in the form of social validation, attracting more investors and expansion to overseas. This theme emphasizes the importance of others’ appreciation and support for finding meaning in one’s initiatives. Within this theme, we can count customer feedback (verbal/online etc.), capital investment decisions, product promotions, social capital building activities including invitation to meetings, expeditions, among others. Participants engage in recognition and support building activities such as public opinion polls, experiments, product placements and promotions, discounted sales, etc. They report undertaking social responsibility projects such as providing mentorship to university students and offering gig work opportunities. Recognition and support also help co-founders find motivation and cultivate resilience to proceed through tough times. The importance of community and support systems is a recurring theme, highlighting the value of networks and collaborative effort. As such, it acts as complementary to challenge and resilience theme. Sample quotes are presented in Table 6.

4.6 Work-life balance

This theme refers to co-founders’ experiences for managing their work-life balance, and their coping mechanisms, ways of managing stress, and finding customized strategies for maintaining work-life balance such as spending time with valued ones, travelling, gaming, exercising, reading, running, and others. The absence of a balance does not necessarily signal lack of happiness or satisfaction with life. Rather, most participants report being contend with their non-traditional (lack of) balance which probably opens opportunities for discovering their limits. This very absence of balance might even provide a meaningful experience. Their understanding of a balance might be crooked in favor of work but that does not exclude some fun or relaxing activities. We have recorded statements such as the following;

“We don’t really have set working hours. I mean, we can even be discussing things while having a coffee...I don’t have much of a work-life balance. But honestly, it’s not something that bothers me. I’m not bothered by it being this way.” (F1)

“Work-life balance and such concepts aren’t really a part of the lives of founders, to be honest.” (F2)

“There's no such thing as work-life balance, by the way...Someone once told me—'Do you believe in work-life balance?’ They said, ‘I believe in work-life harmony.’ Let me put it that way too.” (F7)

Sample quotes are presented in Table 7.

Table 8 provides a summary of the above findings including overarching themes, main categories, and corresponding themes that we draw from interviews with co-founders regarding their perceptions of meaningfulness.

5 Discussion

Our goal in conducting this study was to provide insight into the dynamics of meaningful work in the context of entrepreneurship, particularly among co-founders of startups. The subjective perception that one’s work is important, meaningful, and contributes to a wider range of things is known as work meaningfulness (Rosso et al., 2010). It includes people’s opinions on the value of their work that extends beyond material benefits like the possibility for emancipation (Rindova et al., 2009). In accordance with this conceptualization, we contribute to a better understanding of how personal requirements and satisfaction of significance, autonomy, identity, and resilience intersect with the entrepreneurial experience by integrating the theoretical foundations of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Job Characteristics Model (JCM). By utilizing a qualitative approach, we were able to capture the complex relationship between perceived meaningfulness and entrepreneurship, highlighting the distinctive combination of personal development, career advancement, and societal contribution that it provides.

Utilizing the premises of both Self Determination Theory and Job Characteristics Model in our study, we propose a multidimensional model of work meaningfulness comprising significance, autonomy, identity, challenge and resilience, recognition and support, and work-life balance. Significance refers to the belief that one’s work matters and has a positive impact on others or society. Research has found perceptions of significance to be a determinant of job satisfaction (Hytti et al., 2013). Autonomy represents the degree to which individuals perceive to have control over their work processes and decisions with previous research documenting higher levels of satisfaction among self-employed people due mostly to their greater levels of autonomy (Benz and Frey, 2008) and research investigating the intricate dynamics of autonomy in entrepreneurship (van Gelderen, 2016). Identity refers to the alignment between one’s work and personal values, beliefs, and sense of self. Previous research shows that a sense of identity is central to entrepreneurial processes (Malmström, 2021; Shepherd and Haynie, 2009). Challenge and resilience describe entrepreneurs’ experiences of engaging in diverse and challenging tasks that utilize and expand their abilities, with research exploring the role of challenges and resilience during entrepreneurship journey (Brieger et al., 2021; Bullough and Renko, 2013; Shir et al., 2019). Previous research has acknowledged the role that challenges play in constructing meaningful work experiences, such as Bailey and Madden (2016) who claimed that “the experience of coping with these challenging conditions led to a sense of meaningfulness far greater than they would have experienced dealing with straightforward, everyday situations.” This is in line with the premises of the job characteristic model associating jobs that allow for some experiences such as greater skill variety and significance to be seen as more meaningful. Recognition and support contribute to perceived meaningfulness through receiving constructive feedback and acknowledgment for one’s contributions. Research has investigated the role of feedback in performing an entrepreneurial task (Haynie et al., 2012). Work-life balance, achieving a satisfying level of equilibrium between the demands of work and life with positive experiences across both domains, associates with higher levels of entrepreneurial subjective well-being which in turn has an indirect impact on firm growth (Drnovšek et al., 2024). Work-life balance is crucial for entrepreneurs, who often blur the lines between work and personal life. Positive experiences in balancing these domains lead to enhanced well-being and productivity. Previous research provide evidence that work centrality and the degree of involvement with one’s work compared to other domains of life will likely to be associated with higher levels of meaningfulness, and individuals with high levels of work centrality will probably find job loss and retirement to be almost devastating experiences (Rosso et al., 2010). Collectively, these themes and appertaining codes comprise our multidimensional model of perceived meaningfulness for startup co-founders (see Figure 1 for a summary).

Figure 1

Our findings suggest that the fulfillment of intrinsic and extrinsic needs plays a pivotal role in shaping entrepreneurs’ sense of purpose. The ability to exercise creative control and the challenge of navigating uncertainty are highlighted as key motivators. Entrepreneurs derive meaning not only from the freedom to pursue their vision but also from the resilience developed in response to the inevitable hurdles they face (Bullough and Renko, 2013). This aligns with the JCM’s premise that high autonomy and task significance foster motivation and engagement (Rauch and Frese, 2007). Hackman and Oldham’s contention that experienced meaningfulness of work is a key psychological condition for development of internal work motivation applies to our sample co-founders as well.

Moreover, in line with the premises of self-determination theory which posits that experiences of autonomy, competence and relatedness lead to motivation, and enhanced levels of motivation result in greater levels of experienced meaningfulness, we find that co-founders derive experienced meaningfulness in professional, psychological, and social domains. As such, our study extends the conversation beyond individual motivations by examining how social recognition and identity contribute to entrepreneurial meaning. Entrepreneurs frequently intertwine their personal values and professional endeavors, positioning their ventures as extensions of their own identity (Shepherd and Haynie, 2009). This reflects a deeper existential pursuit, where work transcends economic gain and becomes a vehicle for self-expression and societal impact. Recognition from peers, customers, and the broader community further amplifies this sense of purpose, echoing findings that social validation enhances job satisfaction and resilience (Brieger et al., 2021).

It should be noted however that entrepreneurial meaningfulness is not a distinct type of meaningfulness but rather a contextualized experience of meaningful work shaped by the entrepreneurial journey. This concept captures how entrepreneurs derive meaning through personal alignment with their ventures, resilience in overcoming challenges, and contributions to broader societal goals. For example, participants frequently linked their sense of significance to the impact of their work on society, such as addressing environmental challenges or fostering community development. Similarly, autonomy emerged as a cornerstone of entrepreneurial meaningfulness, allowing participants to align their work with personal values and to exercise creative control. However, autonomy was also constrained by external factors, such as investor demands, highlighting the tensions inherent in the entrepreneurial process. Identity alignment played a critical role, with participants often describing their ventures as extensions of themselves—a perspective that blurred the lines between personal and professional identities. Despite, our study contributes to the literature by shifting the focus from static models of meaningful work to a more dynamic understanding of how meaning evolves in response to entrepreneurial challenges and opportunities.

This tripartite model reflects a holistic understanding of how entrepreneurs derive meaning from their work, with psychological resilience, professional mastery, and societal contribution as interlocking components. The model allows for a dynamic interpretation of meaningful work, where these dimensions interact fluidly, compensating for weaknesses in one area by drawing on strengths in another. Psychological dimension, consisting of identity, resilience, and work-life balance, represents aspects that are central to how entrepreneurs navigate the uncertainty of startup ventures. Identity is deeply entwined with their work, as entrepreneurs often view their ventures as an extension of themselves, blurring the lines between personal and professional identities. Previous research has revealed that founders are seeking to align their personal identity with that of a founder’s identity through the life cycle of their venture (O’Neil et al., 2022). Resilience plays a crucial role in how these entrepreneurs withstand challenges. They often frame their setbacks as part of a broader narrative of growth and personal development, which aligns with self-concept theories. As such, the psychological experience of meaningfulness is highly personal, shaped by intrinsic motivations and the sense of overcoming obstacles through resilience. Professional dimension, consisting of significance and autonomy, emphasizes how entrepreneurs derive meaning through the significance of their work and enjoyment of freedom in decision-making and direction-setting. For many, receiving feedback, whether from customers, investors, or team members, reinforces their sense of competence and task significance. However, the role of feedback should be evaluated with caution given the potential for being overwhelmed by an excessive amount of it (Baur et al., 2024). At a societal level, meaningful work is often tied to the broader social or environmental impact entrepreneurs aim to achieve. For instance, participants in the study reference their drive to contribute to sustainability or societal wellbeing, aligning their ventures with global challenges such as environmental conservation or social equity. This dimension is particularly reflective of eudaimonic well-being—the pursuit of meaning through contribution to a greater good (Hahn et al., 2012; Ryff, 2019; Shir and Ryff, 2022). Entrepreneurship is not merely about personal or financial gain but is often perceived as an avenue to create value for society, communities, or specific social causes. That is one reason why the Corporate Social Responsibility lens could also be applied to understand how entrepreneurial activities are increasingly tied to ethical considerations and societal responsibilities, enhancing the perceived meaningfulness of the work (Rosário and Figueiredo, 2024).

In line with the previous research from different contexts and using different approaches (Tommasi et al., 2024), we utilized The Job Characteristics Model and Self-Determination Theory as theoretical backbones, to explain why autonomy, significance and feedback are so crucial to the entrepreneurial experience of meaningful work. The autonomy enjoyed by entrepreneurs allows for greater alignment between personal values and work, contributing to both professional satisfaction and personal fulfillment. Simultaneously, the challenges inherent in entrepreneurship—such as financial instability or market uncertainties—are mitigated by resilience-building, which is often fostered through professional networks, social validation, and community support. For startup founders, who often wear multiple hats and engage in diverse activities, the professional challenges they face enhance their sense of job fulfillment, provided they can demonstrate competence and receive validation through positive outcomes. The integration of SDT and JCM in this study reveals that the entrepreneurial journey, while fraught with challenges, provides fertile ground for meaningful work. The entrepreneurial context offers unique opportunities for individuals to actualize their potential, exercise autonomy, and contribute to broader societal goals. Two overarching theories provide justification for our tripartite model while our model goes beyond the dominantly psychological perspective of existing organizational research on experienced meaningfulness.

Finally, we conducted the current study in Turkiye, an emerging country with a predominantly risk averse cultural context. With an uncertainty avoidance score of 85 and power distance score of 66 out of 100 in terms of Hofstede’s culture typology (The Culture Factor Group, 2024), Turkiye’s culture still displays a hierarchical predisposition and overall tendency to avoid risky initiatives associated with entrepreneurship. From this lens, an entrepreneurial risk appetite runs counter to the general cultural values in Turkiye. Previous research has associated the alignment between social and cultural values (such as individualism versus collectivism), and those of the individual to be a source of motivation for entrepreneurship and perceived meaningfulness (Assmann and Ehrl, 2021; Rosso et al., 2010). As such, we could have identified different meaningfulness experiences in our study than those reported in WEIRD contexts. However, one of the largest research initiatives on meanings of work on a sample of 15,000 participants across eight different countries has interestingly shown that meanings of work across cultures were “more alike than different,” with similar levels of work centrality and intrinsic values (MOW International Research Team, 1987). It seems that co-founders across the digitalized world becomes increasingly similar in their experienced meaningfulness, and it is highly likely that there is more within-culture variety in terms of entrepreneurs’ meaningfulness experiences than between cultures. However, more research is needed from the emerging world for more nuanced discussion of such arguments.

6 Implications for practice

On the psychological dimension, entrepreneurs often experience high levels of stress due to the inherent uncertainty of startups. Practical initiatives such as mental health programs, peer mentorship, and coaching services could be implemented to help entrepreneurs build psychological resilience. These initiatives should focus on helping them navigate setbacks and view challenges as learning opportunities, enhancing both their personal growth and business outcomes. Given that autonomy and identity alignment provide a large amount of meaning to entrepreneurs, support networks that maintain this autonomy are essential components of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business incubators, accelerators, and investors should ensure that while offering guidance, they do not undermine the entrepreneurial freedom to innovate and steer their ventures in line with personal values.

On the professional dimension, targeted training programs designed around key entrepreneurial skills—such as leadership, financial management, marketing, and innovation—can enhance their sense of competence. Additionally, programs must be designed to offer ongoing feedback, as this is crucial for preserving motivation and job engagement. One of the most important things for an entrepreneur to feel satisfied in their job is validation. This may be achieved through structured feedback loops, which include peer-based appraisal, customer reviews, and frequent check-ins with investors.

On the social dimension, entrepreneurs who perceive their work as socially valuable experience higher levels of meaningfulness and engagement. Embedding social impact into business models—through Corporate Social Responsibility strategies, sustainability initiatives, or addressing local community issues—can provide entrepreneurs with a greater sense of purpose. Many entrepreneurs aim to solve societal challenges, from sustainability to social equity. By offering rewards to businesses that emphasize social innovation—like subsidies or public-private partnerships—policymakers and other stakeholders in the business ecosystem can promote this approach. This could make socially conscious entrepreneurship more visible and feasible, facilitating the integration of social objectives with financial success for business owners.

7 Limitations and future directions

Investigating work meaningfulness leads to a better comprehension of people’s desire to find significance in their work. We would like to draw attention to a few areas that warrant further investigation.

Longitudinal designs that monitor the evolution of entrepreneurs’ perceptions of meaningful work could be advantageous for future research. Researchers can gain a better understanding of how the psychological, professional, and societal aspects of work meaningfulness fluctuate and how these fluctuations affect both long-term business success and subjective well-being by studying entrepreneurial teams at various stages of their ventures (e.g., early-stage, growth, exit) (Patzelt et al., 2021; Strese et al., 2018). In a similar vein, previous research that has compared experienced entrepreneurs with novice entrepreneurs has shown marked differences between their perceptions and approaches (Baron and Ensley, 2006).

Entrepreneurship takes place in different cultural contexts, each with its own set of norms and values (Pinillos and Reyes, 2011; Tiessen, 1997). Research should explore how the Tripartite Model of meaningful work applies across various cultural settings. For instance, do entrepreneurs in individualistic cultures (focused on autonomy and self-expression) derive meaning differently than those in collectivist cultures (focused on community and societal contributions)?

Research could investigate potential gender differences in how entrepreneurs perceive and construct meaning in their work. Previous studies suggest that women entrepreneurs might prioritize relationship-building and societal impact more strongly than their male counterparts (Fernández-Guadaño and Martín-López, 2023). Understanding these gendered experiences can provide a more nuanced picture of how men and women derive meaning from entrepreneurial ventures, particularly in areas like work-life balance and social contribution.

In addition, we acknowledge that demographic characteristics might play roles in meaningful work experiences. Although age has been related with declining levels of wellbeing, there is the possibility that entrepreneurial activities in later ages could offset the later-age wellbeing declines by providing purpose. Temporality of meaningful work experiences has already been documented by Bailey and Madden (2017) who displayed the relatively episodic nature of this experience across different occupations, and this could have repercussion on an intraindividual level where different life stages could associate with different degrees of meaningfulness perceptions. This line of research has recently gained momentum, differentiating between meaningfulness experiences as either a permanent/steady mindset or as a changeable/episodic experience, with repercussions for the digital world of work (Tommasi et al., 2020). Positive interpersonal relationships and family life experiences have been found to contribute to higher levels of wellbeing through helping behaviors and personal growth opportunities (Ryff, 2019). Entrepreneurial ventures might also contribute to and be influenced by high quality interpersonal relationships and family roles. In addition to many other benefits, entrepreneurial activities have the potential to promote and enhance individual and societal wellbeing, on both physical and psychological grounds, which stands as a relatively underexplored venue especially in nascent emerging country contexts.

Despite its potential contributions to research and practice, our study has several limitations. First, although our participants are currently active in the largest cities in the country, the sample size remains relatively small, limiting the generalizability of our findings to the broader startup ecosystem within the country or similar contexts globally. Furthermore, a more stratified sample, encompassing startups at various stages of their lifecycle—early, mid, and late—could offer deeper insights into how experiences of meaningfulness evolve over time. Lastly, expanding the participant pool to include startups distributed across all seven geographic regions would provide a more comprehensive and geographically diverse perspective on our topic of interest. Last but not the least, our study relies on self-reported data, which is subject to biases such as social desirability or retrospective inaccuracies, potentially affecting the reliability of our findings. Future research could address these limitations to enhance the robustness and applicability of the insights.

References

• 1

  Al-Jubari I. Hassan A. Liñán F. (2019). Entrepreneurial intention among University students in Malaysia: integrating self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.15, 1323–1342. doi: 10.1007/S11365-018-0529-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Allan B. A. Autin K. L. Duffy R. D. (2016). Self-Determination and Meaningful Work: Exploring Socioeconomic Constraints. Front. Psychol.7:173242. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2016.00071/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Allan B. A. Batz-Barbarich C. Sterling H. M. Tay L. (2019). Outcomes of Meaningful Work: A Meta-Analysis. J. Manag. Stud.56, 500–528. doi: 10.1111/JOMS.12406

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Assmann D. Ehrl P. (2021). Individualistic culture and entrepreneurial opportunities. J. Econ. Behav. Organ.188, 1248–1268. doi: 10.1016/J.JEBO.2021.06.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Bailey C. Madden A. (2016). What makes work meaningful — or meaningless. Sloan Review Magazine. Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-makes-work-meaningful-or-meaningless/ (Accessed August 15, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Bailey C. Madden A. (2017). Time reclaimed: temporality and the experience of meaningful work. Work Employ. Soc.31, 3–18. doi: 10.1177/0950017015604100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Baron R. A. Ensley M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Manag. Sci.52, 1331–1344. doi: 10.1287/MNSC.1060.0538

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Baur C. A. E. Breugst N. Knockaert M. (2024). Too much of a good thing: when feedback diversity harms entrepreneurs’ opportunity evaluation. Academy of management proceedings August 2024.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Benz M. Frey B. S. (2008). The value of doing what you like: Evidence from the self-employed in 23 countries. J. Econ. Behav. Organ.68, 445–455. doi: 10.1016/J.JEBO.2006.10.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Both-Nwabuwe J. M. C. Dijkstra M. T. M. Beersma B. (2017). Sweeping the floor or putting a man on the moon: How to define and measure meaningful work. Front. Psychol.8:273738. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2017.01658/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Brieger S. A. De Clercq D. Meynhardt T. (2021). Doing good, feeling good? entrepreneurs’ social value creation beliefs and work-related well-being. J. Bus. Ethics172, 707–725. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04512-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Bullough A. Renko M. (2013). Entrepreneurial resilience during challenging times. Bus. Horiz.56, 343–350. doi: 10.1016/J.BUSHOR.2013.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Combinator Y . (2016). Sam Altman: how to build the future. Youtube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYMqVwsewSg&t=479s (Accessed August 16, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Creswell J. W. Poth C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches. United States of America: Sage Publications.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Deci E. L. Ryan R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Deci E. L. Ryan R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq.11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Deci E. L. Ryan R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol.49, 182–185. doi: 10.1037/A0012801

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Drnovšek M. Slavec A. Aleksić D. (2024). “I want it all”: exploring the relationship between entrepreneurs’ satisfaction with work–life balance, well-being, flow and firm growth. Rev. Manag. Sci.18, 799–826. doi: 10.1007/s11846-023-00623-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Du Y. Hu H. Wang Z. (2021). Entrepreneurs’ Felt responsibility for constructive change and entrepreneurial performance: a moderated mediation model of technology action and market orientation. Front. Psychol.12:751821. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.751821

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Duffy R. D. Dik B. J. (2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going?J. Vocat. Behav.83, 428–436. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Fernández-Guadaño J. Martín-López S. (2023). Gender differences in social entrepreneurship: evidence from Spain. Women's Stud. Int. Forum96:102663. doi: 10.1016/J.WSIF.2022.102663

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Frankl V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Fried Y. Ferris G. R. (1987). The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol.40, 287–322. doi: 10.1111/J.1744-6570.1987.TB00605.X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Glavas A. Kelley K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Bus. Ethics Q.24, 165–202. doi: 10.5840/BEQ20143206

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Glesne C. Peshkin A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Hackman J. R. Oldham G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. J. Appl. Psychol.60, 159–170. doi: 10.1037/H0076546

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Hackman J. R. Oldham G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform.16, 250–279. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Hahn V. C. Frese M. Binnewies C. Schmitt A. (2012). Happy and Proactive? The role of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in business owners’ personal initiative. Enterp. Theory Pract.36, 97–114. doi: 10.1111/J.1540-6520.2011.00490.X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Harari Y. N. (2017). The rise of the useless class. TED Ideas. Available at: https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class/ (Accessed August 20, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Haynie J. M. Shepherd D. A. Patzelt H. (2012). Cognitive adaptability and an entrepreneurial task: the role of metacognitive ability and feedback. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 237–265. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00410.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Hessels J. Arampatzi E. van der Zwan P. Burger M. (2018). Life satisfaction and self-employment in different types of occupations. Appl. Econ. Lett.25, 734–740. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2017.1361003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Hytti U. Kautonen T. Akola E. (2013). Determinants of job satisfaction for salaried and self-employed professionals in Finland. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.24, 2034–2053. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2012.723023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Javadian G. Dobratz C. Gupta A. Gupta V. K. Martin J. A. (2020). Qualitative research in entrepreneurship studies: a state-of-science. J. Entrep.29, 223–258. doi: 10.1177/0971355720930564

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Jiang L. Johnson M. J. (2018). Meaningful work and affective commitment: a moderated mediation model of positive work reflection and work centrality. J. Bus. Psychol.33, 545–558. doi: 10.1007/S10869-017-9509-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Johnson M. J. Jiang L. (2017). Reaping the benefits of meaningful work: The mediating versus moderating role of work engagement. Stress Health33, 288–297. doi: 10.1002/SMI.2710

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Kakatkar A. Patzelt H. , and BreugstN. (2021). Towards a dynamic model of entrepreneurial fatigue. Academy of management proceedings. 2021. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2021.23

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Kakatkar A. Patzelt H. Breugst N. (2024). Towards a Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Energy. Enterp. Theory Pract.48, 1037–1081. doi: 10.1177/10422587231224197

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Kooskora M. Vilumets Ü . (2020). “The role of meaningful work in the context of startup events and entrepreneurial activities”. In: Corporate social responsibility in rising economies, CSR, sustainability, ethics and governance. eds. MitraN.SchmidpeterR.. 31–50. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-53775-3_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Kremer D. Kruse S. (2024). Entrepreneurs’ well-being: the role of personality and background heterogeneity between co-founders. Academy of management proceedings August 2024.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Lanivich S. E. Bennett A. Kessler S. R. McIntyre N. Smith A. W. (2021). RICH with well-being: An entrepreneurial mindset for thriving in early-stage entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res.124, 571–580. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Lepisto D. A. Pratt M. G. (2017). Meaningful work as realization and justification. Organizational Psychology Review, 7, 99–121.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Lysova E. I. Allan B. A. Dik B. J. Duffy R. D. Steger M. F. (2019). Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration. J. Vocat. Behav.110, 374–389. doi: 10.1016/J.JVB.2018.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Malmström M. (2021). Constructing an Entrepreneurial Identity: How Enterprise Intentions Among Young People are Motivationally Formed. Entrep. Res. J.14, 187–224. doi: 10.1515/erj-2017-0165

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Martela F. Gómez M. Unanue W. Araya S. Bravo D. Espejo A. (2021). What makes work meaningful? Longitudinal evidence for the importance of autonomy and beneficence for meaningful work. J. Vocat. Behav.131:103631. doi: 10.1016/J.JVB.2021.103631

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Martela F. Pessi A. B. (2018). Significant work is about self-realization and broader purpose: Defining the key dimensions of meaningful work. Front. Psychol.9:363. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2018.00363

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Mathias B. D. Williams D. W. Smith A. R. (2015). Entrepreneurial inception: The role of imprinting in entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Ventur.30, 11–28. doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2014.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MOW International Research Team (1987). The meaning of working. London: Academic Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Nikolaev B. Boudreaux C. J. Wood M. (2020). Entrepreneurship and subjective well-being: the mediating role of psychological functioning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44, 557–586. doi: 10.1177/1042258719830314

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  O’Neil I. Ucbasaran D. York J. G. (2022). The evolution of founder identity as an authenticity work process. J. Bus. Ventur.37:106031. doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2020.106031

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Patzelt H. Preller R. Breugst N. (2021). Understanding the life cycles of entrepreneurial teams and their ventures: an agenda for future research. Enterp. Theory Pract.45, 1119–1153. doi: 10.1177/1042258720978386

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Pinillos M. J. Reyes L. (2011). Relationship between individualist-collectivist culture and entrepreneurial activity: Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data. Small Bus. Econ.37, 23–37. doi: 10.1007/s11187-009-9230-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Pratt M. G. Ashforth B. E. (2003). “Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work” in Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline. eds. CameronK. S.DuttonJ. E.QuinnR. E. (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler), 309–327.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  PSkinnerTech . (2023). Sam Altman talks about Founder Burnout in 2023. Youtube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UAA3lify4L0 (Accessed September 16, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Rauch A. Frese M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy.16, 353–385. doi: 10.1080/13594320701595438

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Rindova V. Barry D. Ketchen D. J. (2009). Entrepreneuring as Emancipation. Acad. Manag. Rev.34, 477–491. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2009.40632647

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Rosário A. T. Figueiredo J. (2024). Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility: Analysing the state of research. Sustainable Environment, 10. doi: 10.1080/27658511.2024.2324572

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Rosso B. D. Dekas K. H. Wrzesniewski A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Res. Organ. Behav.30, 91–127. doi: 10.1016/J.RIOB.2010.09.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Ryan R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. J. Pers.63, 397–427. doi: 10.1111/J.1467-6494.1995.TB00501.X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Ryan R. M. Deci E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol.55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Ryff C. D. (2019). Entrepreneurship and eudaimonic well-being: Five venues for new science. J. Bus. Ventur.34, 646–663. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.09.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Schjoedt L. (2009). Entrepreneurial job characteristics: an examination of their effect on entrepreneurial satisfaction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 619–644. doi: 10.1111/J.1540-6520.2009.00319.X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Schnell T. Hoffmann C. (2020). ME-work: development and validation of a modular meaning in work inventory. Front. Psychol.11:599913. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.599913

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Schwarz M. Wahl A. (2023). Meaningful work in entrepreneurial teams: start-ups as places to find more meaningfulness?Int. J. Entrep. Ventur.15, 145–163. doi: 10.1504/IJEV.2023.130702

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Senthanar S. MacEachen E. Premji S. Bigelow P. (2021). Entrepreneurial experiences of Syrian refugee women in Canada: a feminist grounded qualitative study. Small Bus. Econ.57, 835–847. doi: 10.1007/s11187-020-00385-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Shepherd D. Haynie J. M. (2009). Birds of a feather don’t always flock together: Identity management in entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur.24, 316–337. doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2007.10.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Shir N. Nikolaev B. N. Wincent J. (2019). Entrepreneurship and well-being: The role of psychological autonomy, competence, and relatedness. J. Bus. Ventur.34:105875. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.05.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Shir N. Ryff C. D. (2022). Entrepreneurship, self-organization, and eudaimonic well-being: a dynamic approach. Entrep. Theory Pract.46, 1658–1684. doi: 10.1177/10422587211013798

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Steger M. F. (2016). Creating meaning and purpose in work. In: The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of positivity and strengths-based approaches at work. eds. OadesL. G.StegerM. F.FaveA. DellePassmoreJ.. (Wiley-Blackwell). 60–81. doi: 10.1002/9781118977620.ch5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Steger M. F. Dik B. J. Duffy R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: the work and meaning inventory (WAMI). J. Career Assess.20, 322–337. doi: 10.1177/1069072711436160

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Stephan U. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: a review and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32, 290–322. doi: 10.5465/AMP.2017.0001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Strese S. Gebhard P. Feierabend D. Brettel M. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ perceived exit performance: Conceptualization and scale development. J. Bus. Ventur.33, 351–370. doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2018.01.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Suddaby R. Bruton G. D. Si S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. J. Bus. Ventur.30, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2014.09.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Sutter C. Bruton G. D. Chen J. (2019). Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme poverty: A review and future research directions. J. Bus. Ventur.34, 197–214. doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2018.06.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  The Culture Factor Group . (2024). Country comparison tool. Available at: https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=turkey (Accessed December 25, 2024)

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Tiessen J. H. (1997). Individualism, collectivism, and entrepreneurship: A framework for international comparative research. J. Bus. Ventur.12, 367–384. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(97)81199-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Tommasi F. Ceschi A. Sartori R. (2020). Viewing meaningful work through the lens of time. Front. Psychol.11, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/FPSYG.2020.585274/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Tommasi F. Sartori R. Ceschi A. Dickert S. (2024). What makes a workday meaningful? Evidence on the role of task significance, competence and subjective meaningful work. In Evidence-based HRM: a global forum for empirical scholarship. ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/EBHRM-01-2024-0013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  Van Burg E. Cornelissen J. Stam W. Jack S. (2020). Advancing qualitative entrepreneurship research: leveraging methodological plurality for achieving scholarly impact. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46, 3–20. doi: 10.1177/1042258720943051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  van Gelderen M. (2016). Entrepreneurial Autonomy and its Dynamics. Appl. Psychol.65, 541–567. doi: 10.1111/APPS.12066

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Wiklund J. Nikolaev B. Shir N. Foo M.-D. Bradley S. (2019). Entrepreneurship and well-being: Past, present, and future. J. Bus. Ventur.34, 579–588. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar