Using Loving-Kindness Meditation to Cope with Entrepreneurial Fear of
Failure: The Mediating Role of Self-Compassion
Stephany Noordijk, BSc Student number: 10507868
Supervisor: Dr. Y. Engel
Master thesis MSc Entrepreneurship, August 2017 University of Amsterdam
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Stephany Noordijk who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text
and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
Abstract 4
Introduction 5
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 7
Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure: Sources and Coping Mechanisms 7
Sources of Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 9
Coping Mechanisms 11
From Loving-Kindness Meditation to Self-Compassion 13
Self-Compassion 13 Loving-Kindness Meditation 14 Hypotheses Development 16 Methods 18 Participants 19 Research Design 21
Measures and Procedures 21
Entrepreneurial fear of failure 21
Self-compassion 23
Loving Kindness Meditation 23
Control Variables 24 Results 25 Preliminary Tests 25 Correlations 26 Randomization checks 26 Manipulation checks 28 Hypotheses Testing 28 Discussion 34
Contributions and Implications 36
Limitations and future research 38
Conclusion 39
References 40
Appendix A - Tables 45
Appendix B - Figures 48
Appendix C - Measures 55
Abstract
Fear of failure is a negative emotion caused by being aware of the possibility to fail when taking risks. Such fear often inhibits entrepreneurial action or leads entrepreneurs to abandon their venture ideas altogether. In this study, we hypothesize and test the extent to which self-compassion – an emotionally positive self-attitude towards oneself that was previously shown to offset self-judgment, isolation, and rumination – may counteract entrepreneurs’ fear of failure when facing a threatening obstacle to the survival of their business. Eighty-seven entrepreneurs were randomly assigned to either listen to a brief guided loving-kindness meditation (LKM) aimed at enhancing self-compassion (intervention condition; n = 34) or to a lecture about meditation (active control condition; n = 53), after which they were presented with a realistic scenario illustrating a sudden drop in demand for their product/service. Findings show that self-compassion mediates the negative relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial fear of failure. In particular, fears about the personal ability of the entrepreneur were substantially reduced in the meditation group but not in the control group. In contrast, no support was found for the effect of self-compassion on fears about the potential of the venture idea. Further post-hoc analysis revealed that increased self-compassion had an effect more than twice as strong on entrepreneurial fear of failure for female entrepreneurs compared to male entrepreneurs. Our findings contribute to entrepreneurship research and we discuss both their theoretical and practical implications.
USING LOVING-KINDNESS MEDITATION TO COPE WITH ENTREPRENEURIAL FEAR OF FAILURE
Introduction
The entrepreneurial journey is rife with risk, uncertainty, and the impending possibility of failure, loss, and ruin (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; Koudstaal, Sloof & van Praag, 2015; Ucbasaran et al., 2012). From the first plunge into business and on to the ceaseless roller-coaster of successes and setbacks, entrepreneurs are therefore continuously dealing with fear of failure (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015). Seen as a responsive avoidance motive, fear of failure directs behavior away from negative situations in which failure is likely (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2016; Kollmann et al., 2017). Numerous fear inducing obstacles may arise throughout the process of founding and operating a new venture (Kollmann et al., 2017) but, regardless of its source, scholars generally agree that fear of failure inhibits entrepreneurial action and may even cause a negative self-view, lead to self-handicapping, and erode entrepreneurial well-being (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015; Belanger et al., 2012; Foo, 2011; Hahn et al., 2012). In the current study, we examine how the cultivation of self-compassion, evoked by Loving-Kindness Meditation (LKM) (Fredrickson et al., 2008), can present a unique and practically attainable way for entrepreneurs to better cope with fear of failure. We therefore address the following research question: To what extent does
self-compassion, as cultivated through a brief Loving-Kindness Meditation, reduces entrepreneurs’ fear of failure when encountering a threatening obstacle to their venture?
While there are several ways to deal with entrepreneurial fear of failure (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011; Boss & Sims, 2008; Shepherd & Cardon, 2009), we focus on the effects of meditation practice because of its well established positive effects on
human functioning more generally (Good et al., 2016) and, in particular, because of its impact on the central notion of self-compassion – being kind and understanding towards oneself, perceiving experiences as part of a larger human experience and not over-identifying with painful thoughts (Neff, 2003). Prior research provides useful insights into the role of self-compassion in dealing with fear of failure. Indeed, Neff et al. (2005) found a negative association between self-compassion and fear of failure in a sample of undergraduates. Briefly, self-compassion is positively associated with coping strategies and self-esteem, and negatively associated with social comparison, self-judgment, public-self-consciousness, self-rumination, anger, and need for cognitive closure (Neff, 2003; Neff & Vonk, 2009; Neff & McGehee, 2010). In other words: there are several positive effects of increased self-compassion, which are likely to be relevant for reducing fear of failure by promoting a positive attitude towards, and view of, the self. We simply suggest that this will be the case in an entrepreneurial setting as well and point to meditation practice, and especially LKM, as a readily available tool for entrepreneurs to increase their self-compassion and better cope with fear of failure.
Overall, this study offers a number of important contributions to both theory and practice. First, we address the growing literature on entrepreneurial fear of failure by going beyond the current attention to basic conceptualization, external triggers, and likely outcomes (e.g., Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015; Kollmann et al., 2017) to focus on coping strategies. This is warranted as there is still “limited understanding of how people experience fear of failure and respond to it throughout the entrepreneurial process” Cacciotti & Hayton, 2016, p. 303). Next, we extend the scarce knowledge on the role of compassion within entrepreneurship. So far, the role of self-compassion has only been studied with respect to dealing with actual failure in
entrepreneurship, and even that, only at a conceptual level (Shepherd & Cardon, 2009). Further, dealing with fear of failure through self-compassion has only been studied in an educational context among undergraduates (Neff et al., 2005; Leary et al., 2007). In the current study, we take the next step and examine this relationship with a sample of entrepreneurs, thus representing the first empirical study of self-compassion and entrepreneurial fear of failure. Finally, prior research has discovered that an eight-week intervention program of loving-kindness meditation increases self-compassion (Neff & Germer, 2013). Our research uses a single session of a brief LKM to increase compassion. We therefore do not only put the spotlight on self-compassion but also offer a practical way to study it with of a minimal and efficient intervention. Obviously, the same features that make LKM attractive as a research intervention to increase self-compassion make it ideal for entrepreneurs who can use it in practice under demanding time constraints. We thus show the relevance of meditative practices in the field of entrepreneurship and are, as far as we are aware of, the first to use LKM within this field of research.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development
Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure: Sources and Coping Mechanisms
Entrepreneurial fear of failure can be defined and examined from different perspectives. Cacciotti and Hayton (2015) describe three fundamental views on the concept. First, from an economic point of view, fear of failure is fear caused by perceived financial risk. The main idea here is that taking financial risk brings financial insecurity, which causes fear. Indeed, the fact that some individuals act despite of such risk is often seen the defining distinction between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (Brockhous, 1980; Lüthje & Franke, 2003). Second, from a social psychology perspective, fear of failure can be interpreted as a form of risk-averseness
and is a socio-cultural trait (Vaillant & Lafuente, 2007). From this view, fear of failure has a negative impact on entrepreneurial activity and processes because risk-aversion would restrain the entrepreneur from taking the necessary risks to set up a business (Koudstaal, Sloof & van Praag, 2015). Compatible with this view is the finding that fear of failure influences the ability to perceive and distinguish between opportunities (Klaukien & Patzelt, 2009). It is harder to recognize superior opportunities over lesser opportunities when an entrepreneur experiences fears of failure (Mitchell & Shepherd, 2010; Klaukien & Patzelt, 2009; Minniti & Nardone, 2007). The third perspective comes from the field of psychology. In this view, fear of failure is a negative emotion; it involves shame and discourages entrepreneurs from pursuing their ideas (Conroy, 2001; Lazarus, 1991; Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015).
In this study, we follow the recent conceptualization by Cacciotti and Hayton (2016) and elaboration by (Kollmann et al., 2017) that acknowledges these different perspectives within a unified approach to fear of failure in entrepreneurship as a phenomenon involving cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses distributed over the entrepreneurial process. Indeed, what these three perspectives have in common is the idea that fear of failure discourages entrepreneurs from accomplishing their goals and affects their effectiveness when they do pursue them. There are several arguments to support this view. In the first place, fear of failure was found to hinder entrepreneurs to set up new businesses and especially hinder less experienced entrepreneurs to commit to their vision (Pathak & Autio, 2010; Wagner & Stenberg, 2004; Khefacha et al., 2013). Second, fear of failure weakens entrepreneurs’ motivation to pursue goals after experiencing failure (Sandhu et al., 2011) and generally diminishes entrepreneurial intentions with negative influence on entrepreneurial action (Cacciotti and Hayton, 2015). Thus, while there are counter
arguments for why fear of failure may also motivate increased engagement in a task (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015), we assume (with the majority of research on this topic) that fear of failure is generally more negative for entrepreneurs. Therefore, entrepreneurs would benefit from knowledge on coping with fear of failure in order to avoid the abovementioned disadvantages.
Sources of Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure. To this point, entrepreneurial
fear of failure has been used as one theoretical construct. However, according to Cacciotti et al. (2016) it can be deconstructed into six different components. These distinctions are important to make, because it provides insight into the different sources entrepreneurial fear of failure has (Cacciotti et al., 2016). The sources of fear of failure can be externally situated in relation to the financial security of the entrepreneur and his ability to fund the venture for example (Kollmann et al., 2017). Nevertheless, entrepreneurial fear of failure can also be internally situated when the fear relates to opportunity costs, entrepreneurs’ personal ability, the potential of the venture idea or as a threat to social esteem. Cacciotti et al. (2016) made these distinctions based on 65 interviews with the purpose to clarify the entrepreneurial fear of failure construct. These different sources of fear of failure and their definitions are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Definitions of the different sources of entrepreneurial fear of failure
Source of entrepreneurial fear of failure
Definition
Financial Security As one of the sources of entrepreneurial fear of failure, financial security entails the concerns about personal financial security such as paying debt or investing too much in the start-up. This source of fear is especially prominent for entrepreneurs who recently left a secure job.
Personal Ability Starting a business involves a lot of different skills in different stages of the business. Personal ability is the ability of the entrepreneur to support the venture from the conception of the venture to later stages. Fear of failure in personal ability is a tension between the need to execute tasks and the entrepreneurs’ own perceived level of competence.
Ability to fund the venture This fear is related to both Financial Security and Personal Ability. The difference between those fears and the fear of being unable to fund the venture, is that the latter is related to the business instead of the personal life.
Potential of the Idea This fear is very specific for the entrepreneurial context, since the idea is all the entrepreneur starts with. This fear is opportunity related, it concerns fearful thoughts about the validity of the product and the market opportunity.
Threat to social esteem This source of fear was concerns the stakeholders the entrepreneur wants to satisfy. This could be family, investors or customers. These are the important others the entrepreneurs does not want to let down.
Opportunity Costs This fear mostly concerns the work-life balance of the entrepreneur Entrepreneurs can be afraid to not having enough time with important people because of the investment in time and money they make in their venture.
Adapted from Cacciotti et al. (2016)
Fear of failure occurs naturally for entrepreneurs during their working life, but in order to research it, insight about the specific situations that illicit fear is essential. There are several obstacles which could result in entrepreneurial fear of failure (Cardon et al., 2011) though exogenous obstacles – threats posed on the entrepreneur from outside of the venture – are more easily identifiable (Kollmann et al., 2017). Loss-related events in particular have been found to have a great impact on individuals’ behavior (Koudstaal et al., 2015; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). Kollmann et al. (2017) argue that especially threats to resources, market position and social capital trigger entrepreneurial fear of failure. For example, their findings point to a drop in demand-situation; i.e., when the demand for the product or service provided by the venture suddenly drops, as a powerful obstacle that is likely to induce the experience of entrepreneurial fear of failure (Kollmann et al., 2017). This confirms some of the sources of entrepreneurial fear of failure as identified by Cacciotti et al. (2016). For instance, because a drop in demand is essentially a threat to the success of the enterprise (Kollmann et al., 2017), an entrepreneur could end up questioning his personal ability or the potential of her venture idea.
Coping Mechanisms. As mentioned above, fear of failure and its affects have
been identified and conceptualized (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015), but research on coping strategies specific to the entrepreneurial context is scarce. Extensive research has been done on coping with failure in entrepreneurship (Shepherd, 2003; Shepherd, Patzelt & Wolfe, 2011; Uchasaran et al., 2013). This makes sense because the majority of entrepreneurs first experiences failure before the entrepreneur experiences success (Shepherd, 2003; Shepherd et al., 2011). Actual failure and fear of failure are related because fear of failure could result in actual failure (Pathak & Autio, 2010; Wagner & Stenberg, 2004; Khefacha et al., 2013), while actual failure could also result in fear of failure hindering the entrepreneur in pursuing new opportunities (Sandhu et al., 2011). Note, however, that while failure in an entrepreneurial setting could lead to fear of failure, it is not necessary for failure to occur before being fearful towards it. Because failure and fear of failure are interrelated, both concepts do have similarities; in both situations it is necessary to cope with a difficult situation, either an actual situation (failure) or a possible one (fear of failure). Research on coping with failure suggests that coping is making behavioral and cognitive efforts to manage the demands posed by venture discontinuance (Singh et al., 2004). Translating this to fear of failure would mean that coping with fear of failure is making behavioral and cognitive efforts to deal with this fear of failure.
A possible mechanism for coping with fear of failure is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was found to be an important mechanism influencing entrepreneurial fear of failure (Hayton et al., 2013). Self-efficacy is the belief that one can execute the behavior required to produce a desired outcome (Bandura, 1977). This concept is closely related to self-confidence and positive self-esteem. According to Bandura (1977) self-efficacy helps people to cope with fearful situations and help them to react
in a constructive way. Research in the entrepreneurial context has found that this is also the case for entrepreneurs (Arora, Haynie & Laurence, 2013; Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998). Increased self-efficacy decreases fear of failure (Martin & Marsh, 2003; Bélanger et al., 2012). In other words, positive self-belief can help an entrepreneur coping with fear of failure because of the protecting mechanism it has. An entrepreneur with positive self-belief can trust oneself in taking risks and therefore diminish the fear of failure that accompanies the situation. In that way, positive self-view could prevent entrepreneurs from drowning in fear of failure.
Still, however beneficial positive self-belief may be, it has its pitfalls, especially self-esteem, which is a positive self-belief at the conscious level of awareness (Pajares & Schunk, 2002). The definition of self-esteem is still perceived as early psychologists William James and Charles Horton Cooley proposed: judgment of to what degree the self is competent in life domains that are perceived as important, not only based on self-evaluations but also on perceived evaluations of others (Neff & Vonk, 2011). High self-esteem may lead to narcissism (Baumeister et al., 2003; Neff & Vonk, 2011) and thrives on self-enhancing illusions (Leary et al., 2007). Research by Crocker and Park (2004) suggests that when high self-esteem is invested in a certain domain, people become preoccupied by the meaning of events for their own worth and value. Pursuing self-esteem has its costs on autonomy too, because as the definition implies, self-esteem leads people to rely on other people to validate them (Crocker & Park, 2004). Because of these pitfalls, increasing self-esteem might not be the best way for the entrepreneur to cope with fear of failure. In the next section, we therefore suggest an alternative.
From Loving-Kindness Meditation to Self-Compassion
Self-Compassion. A concept related to self-esteem, is the Buddhist concept of
self-compassion. Leary et al. (2007) call it the unfamiliar cousin of self-esteem. Self-compassion is an orientation to care for oneself (Leary et al., 2007), and for most people it coexists with high self-esteem (Neff, 2003). Self-compassion consists of three components: common humanity, self-kindness and mindfulness (see Table 2). An important remark by Neff (2003) is that self-compassion is distinct from self-pity. In self-pity, people ignore the interconnectedness of the idea of common humanity and indulge in their personal suffering. Self-pity is a form of separation from the self, whereas self-compassion is about wholeness.
Table 2. Summary of the definitions of the ‘faces’ of self-compassion
Self-Compassion component
Definition
Common humanity Common humanity is the idea of seeing one’s own experience in light of the common human experience. This entails acknowledgment of suffering, failure and inadequacies as part of the human condition. This results in de idea that everyone, including the self, is worthy of compassion. Because of the interconnectedness and equality of human beings, there is no need to enhance self-esteem by changing other people’s judgments.
Self-kindness In light of the common humanity and knowing that the self is worthy of compassion, self-kindness can be cultivated. Even though several theories in psychology consider people to be primarily self-interested, common experience suggests that people are considerably hasher and unkind to themselves than to others they care about. When a person has the experience that he/she is worthy of compassion and offers non-judgemental understanding to the self, this leads to a kindness to the self.
Mindfulness Common humanity and self-kindness lead to a mindful understanding of the self. Mindfulness means that one is non-judgemental to one’s own suffering and does not avoid it, disconnect from it or identify with it. This identification can lead to self-judgement and critique towards the self. Mindfulness can be seen as a combination of being kind towards oneself and consider the self as part of the common humanity.
Adapted from Neff (2003)
Neff and Vonk (2011) found that compared to self-esteem, self-compassion is less ego-focused and predicts more stable feelings of self-worth. Their research also suggests that self-compassion was positively associated with coping strategies. Self-compassion is negatively associated with social comparison,
public-self-consciousness, self-rumination, anger and need for cognitive closure (Neff & Vonk, 2009). In addition, self-esteem and self-compassion predicted happiness, optimism and positive affect equally. Neff and McGehee (2010) found self-compassion to be an effective intervention when suffering from negative self-views and Neff et al. (2005) reported initial evidence that self-compassion is negatively associated with fear of failure and positively associated with perceived competence. Thus, self-compassion seems to be an adequate concept to complement self-esteem as a potential to deal with fear of failure. Moreover, if self-esteem can be an effective tool for entrepreneurs to cope with fear of failure (Arora, Haynie & Laurence, 2013; Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998), self-compassion has the potential to do even more. This is because not only does self-compassion helps in coping with fear of failure, but it also averts “the dark side of high self-esteem” (Neff et al., 2005; Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996).
Loving-Kindness Meditation. A way to develop and enhance
self-compassion has been found in meditation practice, particularly in Loving-Kindness Meditation (LKM) (Hoffmann et al., 2011; Boellinghaus et al., 2012; Germer & Neff, 2013; Frederickson et al, 2008). Loving-Kindness, in Pali known as metta, is a Buddhist mental state of unselfish and unconditional kindness to all beings (Hofmann, Grossman & Hinton, 2012). Unlike other forms of meditations, LKM is not only focused on awareness of the present moment but also on awareness of loving and kind concern for all beings. A typical guided LKM exercise would guide the person through different stages of contemplation. The person directs warm feelings of loving-kindness and compassion subsequently towards: (1) the self, (2) a good friend, (3) a neutral person, (4) a person associated with negative feelings, (5) all persons focused on in the exercise, dividing attention equally, and finally towards (6) the entire universe (Hoffmann et al., 2011). In the exercise, the person mindfully
investigates what occurs when generating loving-kindness and compassion rather than just imagining it mechanically (Hoffmann et al., 2011). Doing this shifts affective states to greater loving-kindness and compassion (Hoffmann et al., 2011). During LKM the person actively generates feelings of compassion towards the self (Hoffmann et al., 2011).
Prior research reports a multitude of benefits related to practicing LKM. Fredrickson et al. (2008) and Carson et al. (2005) observed enhancement of positive emotions and an increase of mental health for people practicing LKM. Several studies found that LKM decreases negative thoughts and rumination (Feldman et al., 2010; Hofmann et al, 2011). Hutcherson et al. (2008) found, using a 7-minute LKM intervention, that even a few minutes of LKM increased positive feelings towards the self. Several studies indeed measured increased self-compassion after loving-kindness meditation. Besides the abovementioned benefits of LKM in general, and more relevant to the current study, LKM practice has also been found to increase self-compassion (Smeets et al., 2014; Boellinghaus, Jones & Hutton, 2014). In their meta-analysis of 12 different studies using LKM, Boellinghaus et al. (2014) found “encouraging evidence” that LKM, and courses including LKM, resulted in increased self-compassion. Using a sample of female students, Smeets et al. (2014) found that the level of self-compassion of the students increased after participating in a three-week program including LKM. Neff and Germer (2013) found similar results using an eight-week intervention program, including LKM, increasing levels of self-compassion among community adults. As Neff and Germer (2013) say, and all these studies suggest, practicing LKM increases self-compassion, which is a teachable skill. Using fMRI, research by Lutz et al. (2009) has provided insight into the neurological process in using LKM to increase self-compassion. Their research suggests that LKM
stimulates the empathy related network in the brain, both in expert meditators and novices. Their fMRI study showed that there are effects of LKM for novices. However, in expert meditators the brain circuitries actually, physically changed – a phenomenon labeled as neuroplasticity (Lutz et al. 2008). This is in line with the Buddhist assumption that abilities like being compassionate take time and practice to develop (Hofmann et al., 2011). Altogether it can be said that LKM is a practically attainable way to increase self-compassion.
Hypotheses Development
As explained above, prior research has pointed to positive self-belief as an important mechanism that may facilitate better coping with entrepreneurial fear of failure (Hayton et al., 2013). However, Neff and Vonk (2009) found that this has several disadvantages: narcissism, self-enhancing illusions and co-dependency (Neff & Vonk, 2011; Leary et al., 2007; Crocker & Park, 2004). A proposed alternative to positive self-belief is self-compassion. This involves being kind to oneself, being accepting towards life situations and being mindful (Neff, 2003). Prior research has identified LKM as a way to increase self-compassion (Boellinghaus et al., 2012; Germer & Neff, 2013; Hoffmann et al., 2011). Consequently, this means that by practicing LKM, entrepreneurs may be able to increase their self-compassion, and, in turn, decrease entrepreneurial fear of failure when encountering a fear inducing venture obstacle. We therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: When entrepreneurs encounter a threatening situation for their venture, self-compassion mediates the negative relationship between LKM
and entrepreneurial fear of failure.
While we argue that self-compassion is generally relevant to entrepreneurial fear of failure, some associations between self-compassion and specific sources of
entrepreneurial fear of failure are expected to be especially strong due to the nature of self-compassion. Specifically, we predict that self-compassion would be more important in the case of fear related to personal ability. Personal ability concerns the fear of the entrepreneur of not being skilled enough to be able to support the venture (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015). In other words, an entrepreneur facing an obstacle might believe that she is not competent enough to successfully do her job. Neff (2003) mentions the fact that people can be unkind towards and doubting of themselves, as would be the case in entrepreneurial failure deriving from personal ability. The element of self-kindness within self-compassion specifically addresses these judgmental feelings towards the self and helps people to be compassionate and less critical towards themselves (Neff, 2003). Because of these particular elements of self-compassion, an entrepreneur who fears failure specifically because of doubts in their personal abilities, would be more likely to react positively to an increase in self-compassion. We therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2: When entrepreneurs encounter a threatening situation for their venture, self-compassion mediates the negative relationship between LKM
and fear of failure deriving from personal ability.
Furthermore, we predict that fear related to the potential of the venture idea would also be more susceptible to a change in self-compassion. The source for this kind of fear concerns doubt about the validity of the business idea (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015). For entrepreneurs experiencing this kind of doubt self-compassion might be particularly relevant as it diverts their attention away from personal responsibility for the idea and into recognition of a shared human condition under challenging circumstances (Neff, 2003). Increased self-compassion, through LKM, would therefore allow the entrepreneur to be kind, non-judgmental and accepting of
the way things are. Put differently, as self-compassionate entrepreneurs do not attach their entire sense of identity to a particular venture idea, the consequences of its failure would be less threatening to their self-concept. We expect that this would result in lower fear of failure deriving from the potential of the idea. We therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3: When entrepreneurs encounter a threatening situation for their venture, self-compassion mediates the negative relationship between LKM
and entrepreneurs’ fear of failure deriving from the potential of the idea. The conceptual model for this study (see Figure 1) summarizes and graphically displays our hypotheses.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
Methods
To test the hypothesis stated above, we conducted a between-subject experiment with entrepreneurs randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: One group of participants listened to a guided LKM audio while the other group listened to a Tedtalk about meditative practice, without engaging in actual
meditation. Thereafter, we measured self-compassion, and presented participants with a realistic scenario that was designed to induce entrepreneurial fear of failure. This approach allowed us to examine the indirect effect of LKM, through self-compassion, on entrepreneurial fear of failure.
Participants
Participants consisted of a sample of 229 entrepreneurs of which 201 started the survey. Consistent with other studies (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008) we defined as entrepreneurs those who currently (co-)own a business and were actively involved in starting it up and operating it. Participants were approached in different ways, at different locations in the Netherlands. They were recruited through social media groups for entrepreneurs (Facebook and LinkedIn), via e-mail addresses obtained from the website of the Dutch Chamber of Commerce, at co-working spaces and at a large entrepreneurship professional conference. The participants were asked to identify as entrepreneurs (consistent with our definition above) before being added to the sample. Subsequently, they were provided with a link to the survey and used their own devices (laptop, desktop or mobile) to access the questionnaire. All participants gave their informed consent for participating in this study.
An a priori sample size calculation using G*Power 3.1.9.2 (one-tailed, d = 0.5, = .05, power = 80%) revealed a requirement of 102 participants (see Appendix A, Table A1). Unfortunately, this requirement was not met because some participants were excluded from the final sample (see Appendix A, Table A2 for a detailed overview of the exclusion criteria). For example, we chose to maintain strict selection criteria and did not take into account participants who did not listen to the complete audio (9 minutes in both conditions). This resulted in the exclusion of 23
participants1. The overall drop-out also resulted in unequal group sizes for the control (n = 54) and the meditation (n = 34) conditions. The drop-out rate was not equal for both conditions in the study, the LKM group had 16 participants drop-out during the audio where the control group had 12 participants drop-out. Because unequal cell frequencies can bias conventional analysis like the Student’s t-test, we also present the t-tests using the Welch t-test, which is more robust (Overall, Atlas & Gibson, 1995). We found similar results for the student’s t-test and the Welch’s t-test (Appendix A, Table A4).
The subsequent analysis was conducted on the remaining 87 participants. The age of participants ranged from 20 to 63 years old (M = 35.21, SD = 12.56), of which 45 were female and 42 male. The average firm size (measures as number of FTE employees) of the participating entrepreneurs was 2.16 (SD = 1.30) and on average they had 2.05 (SD = 1.42) co-founders. The firm age of the participating entrepreneurs’ firms was ranging between 0 to 59 years old; the average firm was 6.02 years old (SD = 9.31), which is consistent with most research on new ventures (Hmieleski & Baron, 2008). Finally, the sample is a broad scope, including entrepreneurs operating in more than 25 different industries. No more than eight firms were operating in the same industry, thus our sample is not biased by any industry. The industries represented were diverse, the four most frequently represented were: retail, healthcare, entertainment and consulting.
1 We note, however, that when less strict criteria were applied (i.e., participants were added to the
sample if they listened to the audio for at least 5 minutes–a cut-off consistent with Tan et al. (2014) who found that 5 minutes were already sufficient to show results in a similar LKM intervention), and these 23 participants were not excluded, our results did not change (see Appendix A, Table A3). We decided to maintain the strict selection criteria because effects of the intervention were stronger for participants who had followed our instructions.
Research Design
In order to increase the validity of this study, we built our research design on a solid framework of previous research. The research design was inspired by research by Kollmann et al. (2017), using entrepreneurial specific scenarios to explore fear of failure in the entrepreneurial context. However, they used a general fear of failure measure instead of a measure specifically designed to measure entrepreneurial fear of failure (Cacciotti et al., 2015). In this study, we combined the scenario-based research, the measure for entrepreneurial fear of failure, as well as research on self-compassion (Neff, 2005; Neff & Vonk, 2009) and LKM as our main experimental intervention (Frederickson et al, 2008; Hoffmann et al., 2011).
Measures and Procedures
All measures used are presented in Appendix C.
Entrepreneurial fear of failure. In line with the theoretical development
presented above, we used the Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure scale (EFF) by Cacciotti et al., (2015) to measure entrepreneurial fear of failure. This scale was used because it is the only scale specifically targeting entrepreneurial fear of failure instead of fear of failure in general. With this scale, entrepreneurial fear of failure can be measured as a multi-dimensional scale covering all the different aspects of this concept based on a review study by Cacciotti and Hayton (2015). In the current study, a good internal consistency was found for the EFF scale, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .92. The reliability coefficients of the subscales were also good, for the subscale personal ability, the Cronbach’s alpha was .85. For the subscale potential of the idea, the Cronbach’s alpha was .88.
Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to examine discriminant validity of the scale (Appendix D). We found good discriminant validity
for fear deriving from the potential of the idea. For fear deriving from personal ability the scale was found to have less discriminant validity, it was combined in one factor with items measuring threat to social esteem. A reason for this might be that fear deriving from these two sources are theoretically close, since they are both part of the internal cognitive evaluation of the situation (Cacciotti et al., 2016). We decided to adhere to our decision to use both subscales for several reasons. (1) Because of theoretical argumentation for the different sources of fear (Cacciotti et al., 2016). (2) Because we do not need to distinguish between the sources threat to social esteem and personal ability in our analysis, and combined these sources were found to be distinct from other sources. (3) Because of the substantial face validity of the different sources of fear. (4) Because EFA is helpful in exploring factors and gathering information, however, it is common for EFA to result in too many or too few factors (Hayton, Allen & Scarpello, 2004).
EFF was measured after presenting the participants with a scenario based on research by Kollmann et al. (2017). Kollmann et al. (2017) identified a drop in demand as the most relevant obstacle for an entrepreneur which could result in fear of failure. Because of this, the scenario was very particular for the entrepreneurial context; the participants were asked to imagine themselves in a situation where the demand of their product or service has dropped sharply. They were repeatedly asked to imagine this situation as vividly as possible and this time was measured. To stimulate them to really imagine and think about the situation, they were asked to name consequences of this situation for themselves. Because of the entrepreneurial context of the scenario, it fits the dependent variable EFF very well. The efficacy of the scenario (manipulation check) was assessed using two items based on Kollmann et al. (2017): “My situation is problematic with regard to the customer demand for my
products/services” and “The customer demand situation for my products/services is difficult”. Both items were scored on a scale from 1 (not agree) to 7 (strongly agree). As intended, both the participants in the LKM condition (M = 4.62, SD = 1.39) and in the control condition (M = 4.65, SD = 1.32) agreed that the situation was challenging in terms of customer demand.
In order to check whether the scenario we presented was perceived as a believable scenario, the participants indicated on a scale from 1 to 7 how believable the scenario was. Both participants in the LKM condition (M = 5.00, SD = 1.31) and participants in the control condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.39) agreed that the scenario was believable. We also checked whether they thought they were able to imagine themselves in a situation like that and could identify with it, indicated on a scale from 1 to 7 as well. Both participants in the LKM condition (M = 4.97, SD = 1.34) and participants in the control condition (M = 4.89, SD = 1.40) agreed with this statement indicating they were able to imagine themselves in this situation.
Self-compassion. To measure the level of self-compassion after both the
meditation audio and the control audio, the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-SF) was used. This scale was developed by Raes et al. (2011) to measure an overall self-compassion score. Raes et al (2010) found a good internal consistency of the SCS-SF, Cronbach’s = .86, in this study we found Cronbach s = .82.
Loving Kindness Meditation. Participants were randomly assigned to either
the Loving-Kindness Meditation with a duration of 9:00 minutes or a control audio with a duration of 8:56 minutes in a double-blind set-up; the participants did not know about different conditions in the study and the researchers did not know who was assigned to which condition until after the study. The manipulation was checked using three statements based on Hafenbrack et al. (2013): “I was focused on my breathing”,
“I was focused on the physical sensations of my breathing” and “I felt really in touch with my body”. Participants indicated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) how much they agreed with the statements (Cronbach’s = .91). The participants in the LKM condition (M = 3.65, SD = .77) scored significantly higher on this manipulation check compared to participants in the control condition (M = 2.02, SD = 1.12), t(85) = -7.34, p < .001. This indicates a successful intervention. To check whether the participants actually listened to the audio, the time spent on listening the audio was measured. To control for people that were unable to listen to the audio due to technical errors, participants were asked whether everything had worked properly during filling out the survey. No participants reported technical errors.
Control Variables. In order to be able to compare the different groups in the
study, we controlled for several demographical variables. General variables we controlled for were gender, age, education and nationality. Related to the business of the entrepreneur, we controlled for: industry, firm size, firm age and number of co-founders. To control for trait mindfulness a short form of the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS) was used, adapted from Dane and Brummel (2013). Trait mindfulness can be defined as ‘a state of consciousness in which attention is focused
on present-moment phenomena occurring both externally and internally’ (Dane &
Brummel, 2013). This measure has been found to be very relevant in measuring mindfulness in work-related settings (Kotzé & Nel, 2016). Dane and Brummel (2013) found a reliability of Cronbach’s α = .73, in this study we found a reliability of Cronbach’s α = .76. Participants also indicated how often they meditated to control for the level of practice outside this study. Participants could indicate the frequency of their practice with the options: “never”, “once a month”, “2 – 3 times a month”, “once
a week”, “2 – 3 times a week”, “4 – 6 times a week” and “daily”. We did not exclude anyone on this basis, because there were no significant differences found between the LKM and control group (Table A4, see table A5 for detailed information). To control for optimism, the optimism and pessimism items of the widely-used Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R) were used (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). We only used the six items that provide information about optimism and pessimism and did not use the fillers. In this study, a good internal consistency was found with Cronbach’s α = .76. To control for self-efficacy, a measure for entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) was used, adapted from Zhao, Seibert and Hills (2005). In this study, we found a Cronbach’s alpha of .56, which is not high. However, Briggs and Cheek (1986) recommend reporting inter-item correlations when a scale is short (optimal inter-item correlation being between .20 and .40), because of the sensitivity to the number of items of a scale of Cronbach’s alpha values. For this scale a good inter-item correlation average of .25 was found.
Results
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations
among the study variables.
Preliminary Tests
First, assumptions for normality (Table A4 and Appendix B) and homogeneity of variances (Table A4) were checked for the variables used for the randomization check. The control variables trait mindfulness, optimism and self-efficacy were normally distributed. Characteristics of the sample related to the firm (size, number of co-founders and firm age) were not normally distributed. The sample included mostly young, small firms with a low number of co-founders (see Appendix B). This is in line with what has been observed in the population when looking at distributions for
firm size (Cabral & Mata, 2003), therefore, we did not take action to change anything to change these distributions. Furthermore, age was not normally distributed. An explanation for age not to be normally distributed, but skewed to the left, might be that the targeted sample included more young entrepreneurs on social media and in co-working spaces. Several transformations were examined, but did not significantly increase the normality, so age was used in the original state. We also checked for outliers, but decided not to exclude any participants because none of the outliers were very extreme nor did the results change after excluding them. Because of the violation of the assumption of normality for some of the variables, we included the more robust Welch t-test in our analysis as well, which had similar results (Table A4). We found no violations of the assumption of homogeneity of variances (Table A4).
Correlations. There were no unexpected correlated or uncorrelated variables
found, except for two mentioned here (Table 3). First, there was no correlation found between ESE and EFF or self-compassion, however based on the literature we decided to keep this measure for self-efficacy in the model (Arora, Haynie & Laurence, 2013; Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998). Second, there was also no correlation found between gender and EFF or self-compassion, though because of conflicting findings in literature about the role of gender in self-compassion (Neff, 2003), gender was included in the model as a covariate.
Randomization checks. Independent t-tests and chi-square tests for independence indicate that there was no significant difference between the control condition and the LKM condition for any of the measured control variables in this study (Table 3). This indicates that randomization into the experimental conditions was successful.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, correlations, t-tests and χ2 tests for the variables in this study
Note. N = 87, an = 53, bn = 34; internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas) are presented in parentheses on the diagonal; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
(1) Condition (0 = control, 1 = LKM) Controla LKMb -
(2) Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure 4.06 (1.08) 3.74 (1.14) -.13 (.92) (3) Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure (PA) 4.06 (1.38) 3.45 (1.50) -.21 .83*** (.85) (4) Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure (PI) 4.50 (1.47) 3.93 (1.62) -.18 .71*** .55*** (.88) (5) Self-Compassion 3.15 (.56) 3.40 (.57) .22* -.63*** -.55*** -.41*** (.82) (6) Trait Mindfulness 3.87 (.86) 3.56 (.66) -.19 -.34** -.20 -.30** .41*** (.76) (7) Optimism 4.54 (.82) 4.65 (.78) .06 -.27* -.29 ** -.19 .53*** .26* (.76) (8) Self-Efficacy 3.85 (.69) 3.70 (.61) -.12 -.05 -.10 -.06 .05 -.15 .27* (.56) (9) Manipulation Check 2.02 (1.12) 3.65 (.77) .63*** -.06 -.12 -.08 .25* -.07 .02 <.01 (.91) (10) Understanding Scenario Check 4.65 (1.39) 4.62 (1.32) -.01 .43*** .38*** .47*** -.16 -.20 .04 -.10 .01 (.76) (11) Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) 1.43 (.50) 1.65 (.49) .21 .20 .14 .24* .06 -.02 .16 -.10 .18 .21 - (12) Age 36.36 (12.88) 33.41 (12.00) -.12 -.33** -.18 -.31** .38*** .46*** .30** .08 -.13 -.07 .01 - (13) Firm Age 6.21 (8.25) 5.74 (10.88) -.03 -.29** -.13 -.30** .24* .26* .24* -.02 -.15 -.14 -.09 .58*** - (14) Firm Size 2.34 (1.40) 1.88 (1.01) -.17 .08 .14 <.01 -.08 <-.01 .20 .17 -.15 .19 -.20 .21* .33** - (15) Co-Founders 2.09 (1.55) 1.97 (1.22) -.04 .34** .26* .30** -.34** -.13 -.14 <.01 .04 -.02 -.20 -.44*** -.24* .24* - (16) Meditation experience 1.64 (2.01) 1.74 (1.90) .02 -.08 .02 -.15 .35*** .17 .29** .24* .29** -.06 .08 .23* .13 -.06 -.18 -
Manipulation checks. The control condition (M = 2.02, SD = 1.12) and LKM
condition (M = 3.65, SD = .77) differed significantly (t(85) = -7.41, p <.001) on the manipulation check (see also Table A4 in Appendix A). This indicates that the LKM manipulation was successful. As designed, no significant difference was found between the control condition (M = 2.33, SD = .69) and LKM condition (M = 2.31, D
= .66) in evaluating the fear inducing scenario. This indicates that both groups understood the drop-in-demand scenario in the same way (t(85) = .11, p = .912) and thus differences in EFF cannot be caused by a different understanding of the scenario inducing EFF.
Hypotheses Testing
The data were analyzed using a bootstrapping procedure for estimating direct and indirect effects with a mediator (Hayes, 2013). The results of the three hypothesized models can be found in Table 4.
To test Hypotheses 1, we examined the mediating role of self-compassion in the relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial fear of failure while controlling for entrepreneurial self-efficacy, optimism, trait mindfulness, gender, and age (Table 4; model 1). There was a significant indirect effect of LKM on entrepreneurial fear of failure through self-compassion (B = -.36, SE= .14, CI [-.67, -.14]). In line with our hypothesis, the analysis provided support for our reasoning that self-compassion mediates the negative relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial fear of failure. The complete model of the effects of LKM on entrepreneurial fear of failure was also significant (B = -.60, SE = .24, CI [-1.08, -.11], 5000 bootstrap resamples) (Figure 2). Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported. Additionally, gender was found to be a significant covariate in the model (B = .60, SE = .21, CI [.19, 1.02]). Gender was coded 1 for males and 2 for females. The significant gender covariate implies that females score
higher on entrepreneurial fear of failure compared to men. However, since this is a categorical dichotomous variable, more research is needed to determine whether this difference is significant between the categories male and female.
Figure 2. Direct and indirect effects of loving-kindness meditation through
self-compassion on entrepreneurial fear of failure; c is the unique indirect effect of LKM on EFF; Unstandardized regression coefficients on the paths, standard errors between parenthesis; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Next to entrepreneurial fear of failure in general, two specific sources of entrepreneurial fear of failure that were relevant to this study were analyzed as dependent variables as well. First, we examined the mediating role of self-compassion between LKM and entrepreneurs’ fear of failure derived from personal ability (Table
4; model 2). We found a significant indirect effect of LKM on entrepreneurial fear of
failure deriving from personal ability through self-compassion (B = -.43, SE= .18, CI [-.86, -.13]). As expected, the analysis provided support for our reasoning that self-compassion mediates the negative relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from personal ability. The total indirect effect of Loving-Kindness Meditation on Entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from personal ability was also significant (B = -.85, SE = .31, CI [-1.47, -.22], 5000 bootstrap resamples) (Figure 3). Thus, we find support for hypothesis 2. Again, in this analysis, gender was found to be a significant covariate in the model (B = .65, SE = .30, CI [.05, 1.25]), indicating that females scored higher on entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from personal
Table 4. Results for models 1, 2 and 3
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
BC 95% CI BC 95% CI BC 95% CI
Estimate SE Lower Upper Estimate SE Lower Upper Estimate SE Lower Upper
Dependent: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure Dependent: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure deriving from Personal Ability
Dependent: Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure deriving from Potential of the Idea
Total effect of LKM on
dependent variable -.60* .24 -1.08 -.11 -.85** .31 -1.47 -.22 -1.01** .32 -1.63 -.38
Unique indirect effect of LKM
on dependent variable -.36* .14 -.67 -.12 -.43* .18 -.86 -.13 -.21 .13 -.49 <.01
Unique direct effect of LKM on
dependent variable -.24 .23 -.70 .22 -.42 .30 -1.02 .18 -.80** .33 -1.45 -1.40
Unique direct effect of LKM on
Self-Compassion .32** .10 .12 .53 .32** .10 .12 .53 .32** .10 .12 .53
Unique direct effect of Self-Compassion on dependent variable
-1.11*** .24 -1.59 -.63 -1.32*** .30 -1.93 -.71 -.66 .34 -1.33 .01
Constant and control variables in the models
Constant 6.42*** 1.08 4.26 8.57 7.01*** 1.35 4.33 9.70 7.19*** 1.36 4.48 9.91
Self-Efficacy -.01 .05 -.11 .09 -.15 .24 -.63 .33 -.16 .25 -.65 .33
Optimism -.03 .02 -.08 .01 -.40 .21 -.81 .02 -.14 .21 -.55 .28
Trait Mindfulness -.36 .19 -.08 .02 -.31 .22 -.75 .12 -.48* .22 -.92 -.04
Gender (1=male, 2=female) .60** .21 .19 1.02 .65* .30 .05 1.25 .94** .30 .34 1.54
Age -.02 .01 -.04 .01 -.01 .01 -.03 .02 -.03 .01 -.05 <.01
Note. The effects were tested by dummy coding two experimental conditions to represent the effect of LKM (coded 1) versus the control condition (coded 0), the predictor in
all models was LKM condition vs. control condition (n = 87); BC 95% CI refers to the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval; Estimate refers to the effect estimate using 5,000 bootstrap samples; R2Model 1 = .29; R2Model 2 = .21; R2Model 3 = .29; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
ability compared to men. As explained above, more research is needed to clarify this effect.
Figure 3. Direct and indirect effects of loving-kindness meditation through
self-compassion on entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from personal ability; c is the unique indirect effect of LKM on EFF-PA; unstandardized regression coefficients on the paths of the model, standard errors between parenthesis; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
The second subscale of entrepreneurial fear of failure that we examined was fear about the potential of the venture idea (Table 4; model 3). In contrast with our expectations the analysis provided no support for our reasoning that self-compassion mediates the negative relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from potential of the idea, the indirect effect was not significant (B = -.21,
SE = .13, CI [-.49, <-.01])(Figure 4). Furthermore, the total effect of LKM was
significant (B = -1.01, SE = .32, CI [-1.63, -.38], 5000 bootstrap resamples). This indicates that LKM does affect entrepreneurial fear of failure derived from the potential of the idea, though not merely (or significantly) through self-compassion. Thus, hypothesis 3 is not supported. In this model, both gender (B = .94, SE = .30, CI [.34, 1.54]) and trait mindfulness (B = -.48, SE = .22, CI [-.92, -.04]) were found to be significant covariates. For gender, it means that females scored higher on entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from the potential of the idea. The significant covariate trait mindfulness indicates that a higher score on the baseline measure for
trait mindfulness (at the beginning of the experiment; before randomization into the conditions) was associated with less entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from the potential of the idea.
Figure 4. Conceptual model with direct and indirect effects of loving-kindness
meditation through self-compassion on entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from the potential of the idea; c is the unique indirect effect of LKM on EFF-PI;
unstandardized regression coefficients on the paths of the model, standard errors between parenthesis; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Post Hoc Analysis
Post hoc analysis was used to gain insight on the effects of gender on the mediated relationship of LKM and entrepreneurial fear of failure. To do this, the interaction of gender on the relationship between self-compassion entrepreneurial fear of failure was examined, using Model 14 of Hayes (2013). With this model moderated mediation can be analyzed, since we suspected gender to affect the mediation of Self-Compassion between LKM and entrepreneurial fear of failure, this model was the best fit (Hayes, 2013). The model can be found in Figure 5 and the results in Table 5. We found a significant interaction between gender and self-compassion (B = -.76, SE = .36, CI [-1.48, -.05]). To examine whether there was moderated mediation in the model, we used the index of moderated mediation suggested by Hayes (2015). We found an index of moderated mediation of I = -.24, SE = .14, CI [-.57, -.03]. This means that there was a significant difference between males and females for the mediation of self-compassion on the relationship between LKM and entrepreneurial
fear of failure. In other words, there was a significant moderation of the mediator compassion by gender. For both males and females, significant effects of self-compassion on entrepreneurial fear of failure were found, yet the effect was more than twice as strong for females (B = -.44, SE = .16, CI [-.77, -.16]) than for males (B = -.20, SE = .13, CI [-.53, -.02], 5000 bootstrap resamples). This means that self-compassion through LKM has stronger reducing effects on entrepreneurial fear of failure for females than for males. When we compare the explained variance in entrepreneurial fear of failure of model 1 and model 4, we see that model 1 explains 29% of the variance, compared to 51% explained by model 4. This indicates the added value of distinguishing between genders in explaining the variance of scores for entrepreneurial fear of failure.
Table 5. Results for post hoc analysis with the condition (LKM vs. control) as
independent variable and Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure as dependent variable, including interaction of gender and self-compassion
BC 95% CI
Estimate SE Lower Upper Predictor: LKM condition vs. control
condition (n = 87) Conditional indirect effects of Gender on
Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure through self-compassion:
Male -.20* .13 -.56 -.03
Female -.44* .16 -.80 -.17
Unique direct effect of LKM on Entrepreneurial Fear of
Failure -.23 .23 -.70 .23
Unique direct effect of LKM on Self-Compassion .31** .10 .10 .52 Index of Moderated Mediation for Gender on
Self-Compassion -.24* .14 -.57 -.03
Constant and control variables in the model
Constant 3.50 2.29 -1.06 8.06
Interaction of Gender and Self-Compassion -.76* .36 -1.48 -.05
Self-Efficacy -.01 .05 -.10 .08
Optimism -.01 .02 -.03 06
Trait Mindfulness -.13 .16 -.44 .18
Age -.01 .01 -.03 <.01
Note. The effects were tested by dummy coding two experimental conditions to represent the effect of
LKM (coded 1) versus the control condition (coded 0); BC 95% CI refers to the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval; Estimate refers to the effect estimate using 5,000 bootstrap samples; R2 = .51; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Figure 5. Conceptual model with direct and indirect effects of loving-kindness
meditation through self-compassion on entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from the potential of the idea, including moderation of the mediation by Gender; i is the index of mediated moderation; unstandardized regression coefficients on the paths of the model, standard errors between parenthesis; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine to what extent self-compassion, as cultivated through a brief Loving-Kindness Meditation, reduces entrepreneurs’ fear of failure when encountering a threatening obstacle to their venture. The findings suggest the following: the level of self-compassion of the entrepreneurs increased after a brief LKM and fear of failure decreased subsequently when presented with a threatening obstacle to their venture, particularly for fear of failure in general and fear of failure deriving from personal ability. Listening to the guided LKM increased the compassion score by 35% compared to not meditating. This increased self-compassion resulted in an average decrease of 9% in entrepreneurial fear of failure and an average decrease of 12% in entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from personal ability. Entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from the potential of the idea did not (significantly) decrease as a result of increased self-compassion. Furthermore, we found that gender influences the effects of self-compassion on entrepreneurial fear of failure. The effect of self-compassion was more than twice as strong for females
compared to the effects for males. We now consider these results in terms of prior research.
Entrepreneurial fear of failure deriving from the potential of the idea did not (significantly) decrease as a result of increased self-compassion. However, LKM itself did decrease fear of failure in entrepreneurs. This finding points out that there are more underlying beneficial mechanisms to be found in this practice, next to self-compassion, that decrease entrepreneurial fear of failure. Based on prior research, other possible underlying mechanisms related to LKM could be: being focused on the present instead of the future or past, being positive and accepting of the circumstances, and decreased levels of stress (Feldman, Greeson & Senville, 2010; Sears & Kraus, 2009; Hasenkamp et al., 2012; Fredrickson et al., 2008). A suggestion for further research would be to explain the effects of loving-kindness meditation beyond self-compassion and extend our insights even further.
Furthermore, the differing effects for males and females indicate that self-compassion is beneficial for both men and women, but female entrepreneurs could benefit even more from increasing self-compassion. First of all, this could be because self-compassion training has been found to be especially beneficial for females because they tend to have lower self-compassion levels than males (Neff, 2003; Neff, Pisitsungkagarn, & Hseih, 2008; Neff & McGeehee, 2010). This means that LKM has bigger effects for females, because there is potentially more self-compassion to gain. Secondly, research on self-criticism and ruminative coping styles suggest that females are more critical towards the self than men and ruminate more (Neff, 2003). The components of self-compassion, like self-kindness and mindfulness, have opposite effects of self-criticism. This gender difference could also be part of the explanation for the observed effects. Furthermore, gender differences for optimism and
self-confidence -generally found to be lower for females compared to males (Allen, Langowitz & Minniti, 2007) - can be disregarded since those characteristics were not significantly different for both genders in our sample (Table A6).
Contributions and Implications
Our findings contribute to both theories in entrepreneurship as well as theories in psychology. First, our findings are consistent with the literature on the effects of self-compassion on fear of failure (Neff et al., 2005; Leary et al., 2007), however, until now these effects have only been researched among undergraduates in an education context. In an entrepreneurial context, self-compassion has only been studied on a conceptual level in respect to dealing with actual failure (Shepherd & Cardon, 2009). We found that self-compassion results in lower levels of fear of failure for entrepreneurs in an entrepreneurial context. We can say that prior studies of self-compassion in an educational context can be generalized to the entrepreneurial context.
Second, the promising results of this study imply that we have found a coping strategy to cope with entrepreneurial fear of failure, with no known disadvantages (Neff, 2005). Until now, research within the field of entrepreneurship has been focused on exploring what entrepreneurial fear of failure entails, rather than how entrepreneurs practically deal with it (Cacciotti & Hayes, 2015). In this study, we made a first step in uncovering possible ways to cope with entrepreneurial fear of failure. As Neff and Germer (2013) indicated, and this study shows as well, self-compassion can be increased by training and is a teachable skill. This demonstrates the simplicity and accessibility of this coping strategy and provides us with a new solution to the problem of the lack of existing coping strategies for entrepreneurial fear of failure. Through loving-kindness meditation, self-compassion is a beneficial
mind-set when it comes to entrepreneurial fear of failure and does not have known disadvantages (Neff, 2005).
Third, not only do our findings indicate that self-compassion is beneficial in the case of entrepreneurial fear of failure, but a short loving-kindness meditation is shown to be an effective way to increase the level of self-compassion. Neff and Germer (2013) found an increase in self-compassion using an eight week long intervention program to increase self-compassion. In our study, we only used a minor intervention and already found differences between the meditation and control group. The current study shows that enhancing self-compassion only requires a few minutes of mediation. Because of the busy lives and long working hour average for entrepreneurs compared to employees (Hartog, Van Praag & Van Der Sluis (2010), having a practical attainable short way to enhance a coping strategy is certainly relevant.
Furthermore, we have shown that meditative practices could be very relevant to the field of entrepreneurship. Balog, Baker and Walker (2014) point out that because entrepreneurship is a relatively young field of research, a lot of interesting research directions are still unexplored, and one being spirituality (including meditative practices). With this study, we started exploring a research direction within entrepreneurship with very limited previous research, creating new direction to explore. As far as we know, there have been no previous studies using LKM within the field of entrepreneurship.
From a practical perspective, the present findings suggest that there is a way to cope with entrepreneurial fear of failure. Entrepreneurs experiencing fear of failure could be helped by a simple LKM intervention. As they did in our study, entrepreneurs could easily practice loving-kindness meditation themselves. The
