Abstract
Prior research established that religion shapes country-level entrepreneurial activity as well as individual-level entrepreneurial decisions. The organizational level has received less research attention. It is particularly unclear how the combination of entrepreneurship and religion is forged in established religious organizations. Through a historical case study of the Church of England’s efforts toward developing an entrepreneurial orientation (EO), my paper sheds light on that issue. The findings indicate that, in religious settings, an entrepreneurial orientation materializes through a lengthy, contested process. Two mutually reinforcing mechanisms – polysemy dynamics and idea sedimentation – play an important role in this process. I theorize that these mechanisms, despite delaying EO development, address resistance and thereby drive progress toward a comprehensive entrepreneurial orientation.
Plain English Summary
How do traditional religious organizations end up embracing entrepreneurial ideas? This historical case study of the Church of England answers that question. Religious organizations, especially those facing decline, are increasingly feeling the pressure to launch entrepreneurial initiatives. When such initiatives are seen as violations of religious beliefs, they tend to be resisted. How religious organizations overcome such resistance, and how they try to combine entrepreneurial and religious principles, is unclear. My study shows that the Church of England became more entrepreneurial after it (1) slowly arrived at a common understanding of what entrepreneurship meant to them and (2) continued building on entrepreneurial ideas that were previously accepted or rejected. The main implication of this study is that, while religious organizations may be slow to combine entrepreneurial and religious values, the process is difficult to stop once it has been set in motion.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Many entrepreneurs describe themselves as religious (Drakopoulou-Dodd & Seaman, 1998; Liu et al., 2019). Because religion permeates all aspects of people’s lives (Smith et al., 2021), these entrepreneurs often run their ventures based on religious values (Essers & Benschop, 2009; Gümüsay et al., 2020). Notwithstanding the importance of religion, research on entrepreneurship and religion has long been scarce (Gümüsay, 2015). Recently, this has started to change; there is now a growing body of work studying how religion influences macro-level entrepreneurial phenomena, e.g., entrepreneurial activity within a country, as well as individual-level entrepreneurial decision-making (Rietveld & Hoogendoorn, 2022).
Although our understanding of the macro-level and individual-level impact of religion on entrepreneurship is growing, prior studies largely overlook the organization-level links between religion and entrepreneurship. We know that combining religion and entrepreneurship improves organizational performance (Liu et al., 2019; Pearce et al., 2010). Emerging research also suggests that creating the conditions under which religion and entrepreneurship coalesce is critical (Gümüsay et al., 2020), particularly when entrepreneurial values are newly introduced into an organization (see Al-Tabbaa et al., 2022). Yet, exactly how entrepreneurial and religious values are combined in these situations is unclear.
A better understanding of the adoption of entrepreneurial practices by religious organizations is important for two main reasons. First, the phenomenon is increasingly common; religious organizations, like other nonprofit organizations, more and more frequently feel pressured to take entrepreneurial initiatives (Al-Tabbaa et al., 2022; Fritz & Ibrahim, 2010). Second, from a theoretical viewpoint, studying this process can generate more general insights into how organizations become entrepreneurially oriented – something research to date has failed to explain (Miller, 2011; Wales et al., 2013). Hence, this paper addresses the following research question: How does the process of developing an entrepreneurial orientation unfold in a religious organization?
To answer my research question, I conducted an archival study of the Church of England (CofE). From 1980 onwards, the CofE’s central legislative body started debating various entrepreneurial initiatives in its efforts to address decline. Using the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) literature as an analytical lens, I tracked how these debates evolved. I identified four phases that differ in terms of the type and number of entrepreneurial initiatives launched and the ideas underpinning them. Progress through the phases was driven by polysemy dynamics and idea sedimentation. Polysemy dynamics, i.e., the broadening and narrowing of definitions assigned to key terms, addressed criticism aimed at initiatives that were regarded as too entrepreneurial or not entrepreneurial enough. Idea sedimentation – the burying and resurfacing of ideas – increased the opportunities advocates of entrepreneurial change had to use prior debates as the basis for new arguments.
These findings have three main theoretical implications. First, I shed new light on the relationship between entrepreneurship and religion. Previous studies establish a linear relationship, showing that religion influences entrepreneurial behavior and performance. In contrast, my findings suggest that the relationship can be recursive; entrepreneurial and religious values mutually influence each other. Second, I introduce two mechanisms (polysemy dynamics and idea sedimentation) that drive entrepreneurial change within religious organizations. My third contribution is to the entrepreneurial orientation literature, which focuses on what happens before and after EO has emerged and, therefore, overlooks the process of EO development. My results indicate that this process is unlikely to be quick in religious settings. Yet, it may be difficult to stop once it is set in motion.
2 Literature review
2.1 Religion and entrepreneurship
The literature on entrepreneurship and religion consists of two main strands: “studies focusing on the choice of entrepreneurship over wage work and studies analyzing the influence of religion on entrepreneurial decision-making” (Rietveld & Hoogendoorn, 2022: 1314). The first stream of work concludes that religion shapes whether people become entrepreneurs; religiosity, through the values and norms it prescribes as well as the social capital it provides (Audretsch et al., 2013; Choi, 2010; Zelekha et al., 2014), increases both country-level and individual-level entrepreneurial activity (Drakopoulou-Dodd & Seaman, 1998; Henley, 2017; Parboteeah et al., 2015). The second line of research shows that religion, because it affects people’s outlook on life, shapes the business decisions religious entrepreneurs make (Liu et al., 2019; Pieper et al., 2020). They are, for instance, more likely to display prosocial and sustainability-oriented behaviors (Xu et al., 2022).
Hence, prior research primarily explains how religion influences macro-level entrepreneurial activity and decisions made by individual entrepreneurs. A smaller subset of the literature examines how religion and entrepreneurship are combined at the organizational level. These studies demonstrate that religion positively affects entrepreneurial activity within organizations (Abdelgawad & Zahra, 2020; Eze et al., 2021; Fritz & Ibrahim, 2010; Sabah et al., 2014). They also suggest that entrepreneurial initiatives launched by religious organizations not only improve the performance of these organizations themselves (Liu et al., 2019; Pearce et al., 2010) but also have wider implications; churches in England, for instance, have fueled the global social enterprise movement (Spear, 2010; Tracey, 2012).
While the combination of religious and entrepreneurial principles benefits many organizations, it does not work for all. There is evidence that, like individual entrepreneurs (Essers & Benschop, 2009; Griebel et al., 2014), organizations may experience tensions between their entrepreneurial and religious identities. These stem from the moral belief that religious institutions are sacred and should, therefore, not get involved in market-related activities (Gümüsay et al., 2020; Yue et al., 2019). The current literature, however, seldom discusses how such tensions are handled. When it does, it focuses on organizations that have always been run according to both religious and entrepreneurial principles (e.g., Gümüsay et al., 2020). Hence, we know very little about what happens when non-entrepreneurial religious organizations attempt to develop an entrepreneurial orientation.
2.2 Entrepreneurial orientation
As Tracey (2012) argued, leveraging the literature on entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has “the potential to provide significant steps forward in our understanding of religious organizations” (Ibid.: 106). The EO literature demonstrates that entrepreneurship is not the exclusive domain of small new ventures (Miller, 2011; Randerson, 2016) but also takes place when established organizations “take calculated risks, innovate, and pursue proactive behaviors” (Putniņš & Sauka, 2020: 712). While it mostly studies the performance effects of EO in for-profit contexts (Anderson et al., 2022; Calabrò et al., 2021; Lomberg et al., 2017; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; McKenny et al., 2018), EO research provides several insights that have informed my analysis of EO development in a religious organization.
The first relevant insight is that EO can manifest itself in various ways: as top management style, organizational configuration, or new entry initiatives (Kindermann et al., 2023). The latter is the most widely discussed manifestation of EO (Wales et al., 2020) and takes the form of launching new ventures that introduce new products or enter new markets (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Top management style is often equated to EO rhetoric, i.e., the “strategic use of words in organizational narratives to convey (…) risk taking, innovativeness, [and] proactiveness” (Watson et al., 2019: 752). Organizational configuration refers to the internal organizational processes – e.g., systems, structures, routines – that support entrepreneurial behavior (Wales et al., 2020).
Second, the EO literature points out that what the dimensions of EO – risk taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness – exactly look like varies within organizations (Miller, 2011); each sub-unit is made up of different employees, with different responsibilities, who may exhibit EO in different manners (Wales, 2016; Wales et al., 2011). Across organizations, there can also be variations. In nonprofits, for instance, EO is directed at the fulfillment of social mission rather than profit optimization (Morris et al., 2011). EO is also more relational and collaborative in nonprofits than it is in for-profit businesses (Al-Tabbaa et al., 2022).
Thirdly, recent studies of EO argue that the orientation of an organization may change over time (Wales, 2016). This is a radical departure from the prior consensus that organizations with similar structures and resources, operating in comparably hostile and dynamic environments (Kreiser et al., 2020; Wales et al., 2013; Wiklund et al., 2009), are “consistently entrepreneurial or conservative” (Anderson et al., 2022: 15). CEOs are depicted as the main agents of change; their willingness to pursue entrepreneurial initiatives varies throughout their tenure (Boling et al., 2016; Grühn et al., 2017).
In sum, I derived three main insights from the EO literature: (1) EO can manifest itself in top management style, in organizational configuration, or in new entry initiatives; (2) the three core dimensions of EO are context dependent, i.e., what is seen as risky, innovative, and proactive differs across settings; and (3) the level of an organization’s EO varies over time. Notwithstanding these contributions, the EO literature does not fully explain how EO materializes in religious settings because it mostly studies for-profit businesses (Al-Tabbaa et al., in press; Balasubramanian et al., 2020) and does not pay much attention to the social construction and emergence of EO (e.g., Miller, 2011; Randerson, 2016; Wales et al., 2020).
3 Methods
3.1 Research setting
To answer my research question, I studied entrepreneurial initiatives launched by the Church of England (CofE). The CofE is an interesting context for examining the organization-level links between religion and entrepreneurship because it is a religious organization that, after a long period in which it focused on its usual, community-oriented activities, started developing entrepreneurial initiatives in an attempt to reverse decline (Spear, 2010; Zygan & Le Grys, 2018). Unlike prior research, I was therefore able to analyze whether and how entrepreneurship affects religion, as opposed to the other way around. An additional reason for selecting the CofE is that it keeps detailed records of all decisions it takes, which uniquely allowed me to track the process of EO development.
The CofE is one of the most prominent religious organizations in England: “By virtue of its long history of association with the state, the Church of England regards itself as the Church of the nation” (Zygan & Le Grys, 2018: 541). This status is reflected in the CofE’s structure. It is divided into “territorial packages with discrete boundaries” (GS proceedings 1994: 230)Footnote 1 that cover the whole of England. Hence, everyone lives close to a church that looks after them, i.e., is tasked with the ‘cure of their souls’. Parishes are the smallest ‘territorial package’. They are grouped into deaneries, which in turn are combined into dioceses. Each of these layers delegates members to two of the Church’s main decision-making bodies: the General Synod (GS) and the Archbishops’ Council (see Fig. 1).
Source: Church of England (2022a) and Diocese of Worcester (2022)
Structure of the Church of England.
3.2 Data sources
I have conducted a historical case study. Historical case analyses are appropriate when examining phenomena that unfold over long periods of time (Augustine & Piazza, 2022). The process of EO development in the CofE did indeed take a long time; according to two experts I interviewed prior to data collection, discussions about decline – which generally triggers entrepreneurial initiatives (Kreiser et al., 2020) – intensified as early as in 1980. Historical case studies are also suitable when researchers intend to observe systems of meaning reflected in specific situations (Hargadon & Douglas, 2001), which fits my aim of analyzing a specific religious organization to understand how religion and entrepreneurship are combined.
The historical data I collected are qualitative, making them suitable for unraveling the processes that lead to organization-level entrepreneurial behaviors (Randerson, 2016; Wales, 2016). The CofE archives were my main data source. I collected documents prepared for, and discussed during, all General Synod (GS) meetings that took place between 1980 and 2020, as well as the minutes of those meetings. GS “considers and approves legislation affecting the whole of the Church of England (…) and approves the annual budget for the work of the Church” (Church of England, 2022b). Hence, my study focuses on a central decision-making body. This is in line with prior research, which situates the responsibility for making EO-related decisions at the top of the organizational hierarchy (Wales et al., 2020).
Following common practice in historical case studies (e.g., Augustine & Piazza, 2022; Boutinot & Delacour, 2022), I triangulated my data. I used Nexis UK to retrieve newspaper articles that covered any of the documents or meetings I collected in the CofE archives. As Nexis UK mostly contains secular newspapers, I also searched the archives of the Church Times, seen as “the main newspaper of the Church of England” (Interviewee #3). Furthermore, I conducted interviews with church planters. Church planting, “the establishment of new Christian congregations” (Foppen et al., 2017: 26), is generally seen as one of the main entrepreneurial activities deployed within the CofE. These interviews provided yet another perspective on EO development in religious organizations. Table 2 in Appendix 1 explains how these data sources were used in the analysis.
3.3 Data analysis Footnote 2
3.3.1 Identifying entrepreneurial initiatives
I began my analysis by creating an overview of the entrepreneurial initiatives discussed during GS meetings. I looked for proposals that were seen as risky, innovative, and proactive – widely regarded as the three main dimensions of EO (Wales et al., 2013). As a religious organization, the CofE was likely to have a different understanding of these dimensions than for-profit businesses (see Pearce et al., 2010). Therefore, instead of predefining each EO dimension, I inductively coded them based on the tone of the GS debates, e.g., I only labeled a proposal as risky when it was regarded as such by those involved. To further ensure that I would not overlook any entrepreneurial initiatives, I drew on recent studies suggesting that EO can manifest itself as top management rhetoric, new entry initiatives, and changes to organizational configuration (Wales et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021). I identified five entrepreneurial initiatives (see Table 3 in Appendix 1).
3.3.2 Analyzing competing views of entrepreneurial initiatives
As previous research (e.g., Yue et al., 2019) suggests, developing entrepreneurial initiatives can be contentious in religious organizations. To capture such controversy, I adopted an idea-centric perspective, which allows researchers “to pay attention to a variety of ideas – not only to those that eventually become dominant” (Hehenberger et al., 2019: 1676). I examined the ideas underlying opposing perceptions of each entrepreneurial proposal. Looking for opposites enabled me to expose perceptions of entrepreneurship within the CofE that would otherwise have been easy to overlook, such as those that faded away over time or never gained popularity (cf. Hehenberger et al., 2019). Table 1 gives an overview of the main opposites I found (Table 4 in Appendix 1 provides a complete set of quotes illustrating each idea).
3.3.3 Examining the development of views on entrepreneurial initiatives
Existing literature shows that an organization’s entrepreneurial orientation can change over time (Boling et al., 2016; Grühn et al., 2017). To identify shifts in the way entrepreneurial ideas were regarded within the CofE, I followed prior historical case studies (Augustine & Piazza, 2022; Boutinot & Delacour, 2022) and constructed a timeline that included the main changes that occurred during the period of study. I identified four distinct phases, which differed in terms of the type and number of entrepreneurial initiatives launched as well as the ideas that prevailedFootnote 3 (Table 5 in Appendix 1 summarizes these differences).
3.3.4 Uncovering the mechanisms driving change
The transitions shown in Table 5 (Appendix 1) were not uncontroversial; as Hehenberger et al. (2019) show, changes to the ideas and principles upon which organizations are based are likely to lead to conflict. Following these authors’ approach to exploring why certain ideas gain dominance despite being contested, I identified all instances of report authors or Synod members arguing why certain ideas were superior or, conversely, inferior to others. I grouped similar arguments together. Table 6 (Appendix 1) shows the two main argument clusters I found. The first covers all instances of someone labeling an entrepreneurial proposal overly restrictive (narrow) or unnecessarily ambiguous (broad). I named this cluster “polysemy dynamics” because the Church’s understanding of entrepreneurship repeatedly narrowed and broadened. The second cluster contains four variations of CofE members supporting the case for entrepreneurial change by leveraging prior debates, for instance, by referring to a consensus reached previously or addressing critique expressed in the past. Such use of past debates suggests that ideas do not disappear once they have been discussed but settle as material that can be used in future debates. I therefore refer to this cluster as “idea sedimentation.”
4 Findings
My analysis reveals how ideas about entrepreneurship within the CofE have changed over time. The change imperative became more widely shared; the decline was not only acknowledged but even made way for discussions about growth. The ecclesiological perspective shifted as well, in that making new disciples became an important part of the CofE’s mission and its governance became increasingly evidence-based. The decision-making prerogative gradually moved from God and local churches to the central church. These ideas manifested themselves in debates sparked when entrepreneurial initiatives were proposed. I will now elaborate on these changes. Thereafter, I will discuss the two mechanisms – polysemy dynamics and idea sedimentation – that drove the process of EO development.
4.1 First phase (1980–1991)
The main entrepreneurial initiative announced by the CofE in the 1980s was The Decade of Evangelism: an open-ended call to action, asking parishes to commit to evangelism “in their own way and at their own pace” (GS884, 1989: 1). The central church did not take any action beyond making that call (Pike, 1990). Yet, The Decade was entrepreneurial by the CofE’s standards. Evangelism was regarded as proactive – “Christians should not be passive (…) we should seek to bring our Gospel insights upon [our culture]” (GS proceedings 1991: 599) – as well as innovative and risky (see Appendix 1, Table 3). Verbally endorsing it, therefore, constitutes a form of EO rhetoric (cf. Watson et al., 2019).
It took the CofE almost the entire first phase to agree on using EO rhetoric. This was in part due to conflicting ideas about the change imperative. While some reports mentioned “a decline in numbers” (GS514, 1981: 34) as a motivation for evangelistic change, others downplayed the decline, for instance, by highlighting “the opportunities for the Church” created by a “hunger for spiritual experience” (GS780A, 1987: 29) among young people. The CofE’s adoption of EO rhetoric was also delayed by ecclesiological critiques. Opponents of The Decade perceived evangelism as “a rather disturbing and impolite business” (Reid, 1991) and feared that focusing on it would compromise the Church’s social mission: “for those who (…) desire to call every possible person to repentance and faith, (…) works of social amelioration can seem a distraction” (GS780A, 1987: 53).
Eventually, ecclesiological concerns were addressed. Evangelism and social amelioration were no longer understood as binary opposites: “Evangelism and concern for social justice go hand in hand” (GS proceedings 1987: 668). This position was reached after GS members reminded the central church of its track record of failing to act on change imperatives. One member shared an anecdote about their diocese’s response to a report in which the CofE’s international partners urged the Church to change: “[people] said: (…) ‘We have heard it all before’. That’s the point. We may have heard it all before, but have we listened to it?” (GS proceedings 1982a: 71). Such experiences were used to stress that the binary “either/or concept of mission” (GS proceedings 1980: 808) should be abandoned to prevent new, change-delaying “civil warfare to break out in the Church” (GS proceedings 1991: 612).
During this first phase, Synod members also proposed changing the CofE’s organizational configuration: “The parish system (…) in my view [is] ripe for change” (GS proceedings 1982a: 66). Such proposals were not accepted. Ecclesiologically, the parish structure was “sacrosanct” (GS proceedings 1982b: 959) because it represented the CofE’s “concern for all without exception” (GS proceedings 1989: 640). The central church changing parish boundaries was also seen as an infringement on local churches’ decision-making prerogative: “The fundamental importance of the local congregation remains the key to any decade” (Ibid.: 623). Yet, as the following sections will illustrate, this proposal was only buried temporarily and would eventually resurface.
4.2 Second phase (1992–2003)
In the second phase, the main manifestation of EO within the CofE was church planting. Church planting can be seen as a new entry initiative (cf. Kindermann et al., 2023) because it involves establishing new congregations. It was seen as innovative, proactive (see Appendix 1, Table 3) and risky; church planters needed “courage to take chances, to overcome inertia and the inevitable opposition (GS proceedings 1994: 240). Once “one or two parishes started church planting,” the central church began “to see that possibly here is a method for everybody” (GS Misc 456, 1995: 22) and started providing guidance through reports like “Breaking New Ground” (GS1099, 1994).
In focusing on church planting, the CofE adopted a much narrower understanding of entrepreneurship than it did during the Decade of Evangelism. In fact, the open-endedness of The Decade was one of the reasons for narrowing it down. During The Decade, evangelism was described “as all things to all men” (Longley, 1992). This created “an overwhelming perplexity as to how to set about it” (GS Misc 392, 1992: 22). Therefore, not much actual evangelism took place: “We have not had a decade of evangelism. We have had a decade of preparing for evangelism” (GS proceedings 1999: 141). Disappointment about this lack of commitment triggered reminders of the change imperative: “We expect action: action to put evangelism at the top of every agenda” (GS proceedings 1996: 210).
In addition to the open-endedness of the Decade of Evangelism, previous ecclesiological debates – specifically the newly established consensus that “evangelism and social action (…) are both sides of the same coin” (GS proceedings 1999: 144) – contributed to the decision to promote church planting. Church planting could now be presented as more than “simply (…) a method of evangelism” (GS proceedings 1994: 232); it ought to be seen as “a strategy for mission” (Ibid.) because “authentic evangelism is related to the whole scope of God’s mission to the world” (GS proceedings 1999: 148).
Like in the first phase, there were calls for changing the CofE’s organizational configuration. GS members, for instance, wondered whether “our inherited parochial system allow[s] for creative mission strategies” (GS proceedings 1994: 231). Such changes, however, continued to be controversial. Ecclesiologically, adapting the parish system contradicted “tacit Anglican assumptions about parochial boundaries” (GS1099, 1994: 29). Central church involvement would also have violated local churches’ decision-making prerogative: “The higher the degree of local autonomy and the lower the level of central control, the larger the number of plants” (GS proceedings 1994: 241).
4.3 Third phase (2004–2012)
In the mid-2000s, Synod approved the “Bishops’ Mission Order” (BMO). BMOs removed the “right of a minister to exclude further Anglican churches” (GS1523, 2004: 142). Bishops, “for the protection of new churches” (interviewee #3), could now overrule vicars who were opposed to new forms of church in their parish. As BMOs thus impacted the parish structure, they are an example of a change to the CofE’s organizational configuration (cf. Wales et al., 2020). This was seen as risky, as it could theoretically allow bishops to approve “women celebrating communion (…) in a parish where the parish church does not accept women priests” (Hollingshurst, 2008 – see Table 3 in Appendix 1 for more evidence).
The introduction of BMOs was enabled by the central church dismissing the term “church planting.” It was “no longer adequate” (GS1523, 2004: xi) and replaced by the more encompassing “Fresh Expressions.” The latter not only included church plants but also captured existing parishes’ “attempts to make a transition into a more missionary form of church” (Ibid.: xii) – even seemingly unentrepreneurial attempts: “We all know of the parent-and-toddler group that has been rebranded a Fresh Expression” (Cottrell, 2010). Broadening the definition of evangelism helped ease concerns about violations of local churches’ decision-making prerogative. Evangelists could now argue that BMOs were “not about (…) overriding or undermining a parish” (Church Times, 2007) but enabled a “mixed economy”: “the flourishing of Fresh Expressions alongside and within traditional parishes” (GS1648, 2007: 1).
The reports introducing BMOs also responded to earlier ecclesiological critiques by claiming that new, non-parish churches were as Anglican as the parish system: “It was never the case that all priests were parish priests” (GS Misc 810, 2006: 53). They also pointed out that Fresh Expressions, albeit in a different way, contributed to realizing the CofE’s social mission: “These expressions of church (…) interpret their ‘cure of souls’ in terms of their current members plus [their] existing and potential contacts” (GS1523, 2004: 65).
While BMOs, after an “increasing number of calls for review of the diocesan structures in the Church of England” (GS1528, 2004: 6) were approved, the CofE’s funding systems remained unchanged despite requests for using “some of the historic resources to fund fresh forms of being Church” (GS1529, 2004: 5, emphasis added) and introducing “a system of accountability” (GS proceedings 2004b: 199). These proposals contradicted dominant ideas about God’s authority – “Only God can make his church grow (GS1835A, 2011: 2)” – as well as the decision-making prerogative of local churches; centrally funded initiatives could end up “destabilizing effective existing local initiatives” (GS proceedings 2004b: 201).
4.4 Fourth phase (2013–2019)
While, for most of its history, the CofE “deliberately did not disturb (…) ways of distributing national funding to dioceses” (GS1978, 2015: 2), in 2015, it launched an initiative called “Renewal and Reform” to change this part of its organizational configuration (cf. Wales et al., 2020). “Renewal and Reform” allowed the central church to dip “into its £6.1 billion endowment (…) to help pay for an aggressive new expansion strategy” (Bingham, 2015). Although local churches were officially still allowed to discover “a way of doing evangelism that works for us” (GS proceedings 2017: 158), the Church’s “pro-active investment in new growth opportunities” (GS1978: 1)Footnote 4 suggests that its understanding of evangelism had narrowed and now primarily focused on initiatives with growth potential.
Making financial commitments to growth triggered ecclesiological questions about the demographics Fresh Expressions seemed to attract: “Evangelical churches (…) look very white, very middle class, very young. What does that say if you're black, poor or an immigrant?” (interviewee #8). Furthermore, Renewal and Reform’s emphasis on targets and accountability was seen as “sorcery with statistics” (Sherwood, 2016) associated with “an overly secular management style approach” (GS Proceedings 2016: 146). These concerns were countered by referring to prior ecclesiological debates. “Renewal and Reform” would only fund evangelistic initiatives that kept “together spiritual and numerical growth” (GS1978, 2015: 2) and involved social action through “a strong bias to the poor” (GS proceedings 2015: 126). In other words, Renewal and Reform’s “managerial” policies were “not the final aim of the Church” (GS proceedings 2015: 19); they were only a means to support “mission in the poorest communities” (GS1978, 2015: 5).
“Renewal and Reform” was also justified by reminding stakeholders that “in the past, (…) there may have been greater levels of confidence (…) that growth could be achieved without fundamental change” (Handley, 2015). Such inaction could be ended by “treating [Fresh Expressions] as mainstream rather than novel or marginal activities” (GS1895, 2013: 4). Hence, by setting up various task forces and working groups, the archbishops increased the pressure to act on the change imperative: “The Task Group is committed to provoking, stimulating and enabling every local church to renew their commitment to evangelism” (GS2015, 2016: 10).
4.5 Mechanisms driving EO development
Thus far, I have discussed how the CofE’s entrepreneurial orientation changed. Early, somewhat cautious initiatives primarily revolved around EO rhetoric (the Decade of Evangelism). These were later supplemented by new entry initiatives (church planting, Fresh Expressions). Toward the end of the period of study, the Church also adapted its organizational configuration (through BMOs and “Renewal and Reform”). Each of these manifestations of EO was considered risky, innovative, and proactive (see Table 3, Appendix 1). In fact, most of them were initially regarded as too entrepreneurial. Hence, the CofE’s understanding of what it means to innovate, take risks, and be proactive – the core dimensions of EO (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) – changed along with the entrepreneurial initiatives it launched. My analysis of the arguments provided in favor of and against entrepreneurship suggests that polysemy dynamics and idea sedimentation played a critical role in these developments.
4.5.1 Polysemy dynamics
Polysemy refers to “concepts, words, artifacts, or images that support multiple meanings” (Gümüsay et al., 2020: 144). My findings show that polysemy levels can fluctuate over time. The way “evangelism” was operationalized within the CofE was particularly variable. In the first phase, when the Decade of Evangelism was announced, it was unclear what the central church expected local churches to do. This resulted in drastically different interpretations, with some parishes focusing on prayer and others starting new forms of church. The report “Breaking New Ground,” published during the second phase, promoted a much narrower understanding of evangelism by equating it with church planting. The term “church planting” was replaced by “Fresh Expressions” in the third phase. Because the latter included new forms of church other than plants, it increased local churches’ freedom to decide which evangelistic initiatives to launch. Yet, this did not constitute a return to the breadth of the first phase; Fresh Expressions were supposed to involve changing the style of worship, so prayer alone would no longer be sufficient. During the fourth phase, the central church primarily funded Fresh Expressions with growth potential. This suggests that the CofE’s understanding of evangelism narrowed once again in that growth now seemed to be an important element.
The broadening and narrowing of the meaning assigned to concepts like “evangelism” had a dual impact on EO development in the CofE. First, it delayed the process. Change was contested whenever the central church was believed to be imposing an overly narrow understanding of evangelism on local churches. For instance, when the central church operationalized evangelism as church planting, proposals to change the parish system through BMOs were resisted. BMOs were only approved once evangelism was defined more broadly as “starting a Fresh Expression.” Second, and despite the delays they caused, polysemy dynamics kept EO development going. Whereas narrow definitions were regarded as overly prescriptive, broad understandings of evangelism were criticized for being too ambiguous. For example, entrepreneurial local churches complained that the (highly open-ended) Decade of Evangelism did not provide the guidance they needed. Narrowing the definition of evangelism in response to such critique, e.g., explaining that church planting was a legitimate form of evangelism, sparked action.
Because both meaning narrowing and meaning broadening triggered debate, the CofE only implemented one change initiative at a time. Polysemy dynamics, therefore, contributed to setting a pace of change that fitted the CofE – an organization in which, throughout history, “every major change proposed has been refused” (GS Misc 456, 1995: 18, emphasis in original). In other words, broadening or narrowing the meanings associated with key terms seems to have been appropriate for “an English Church moulded by history and culture to be like the English: in favour of slow evolutionary change” (GS1523, 2004: 131–132). Yet, the process was not just slow; it was “incremental and sustained” (GS Misc 1054, 2012: 7, emphasis added), in that it always continued, to the extent that evangelism was regarded as a movement of a “threatening and predatory nature” (GS proceedings 2004a: 140).
4.5.2 Idea sedimentation
Throughout the period of study, authors of reports as well as GS members referred to ideas discussed previously to support their arguments. In the first phase, proponents of the Decade of Evangelism reminded the Synod that previous debates about evangelism never actually led to any evangelistic action, claiming that this time, the Church should act on the change imperative. Church planting was promoted during the second phase by leveraging the ecclesiological consensus Synod established the first phase, i.e., by stressing that evangelistic initiatives like church plants contribute to the Church’s social mission. In the third phase, the CofE published reports explaining why BMOs were ecclesiologically sound, thereby addressing earlier critiques from GS members opposed to changing the parish system. Finally, the central church used evidence of the success of Fresh Expressions, an initiative Synod previously agreed to promote, to change the decision-making prerogative, i.e., assign itself the authority to reallocate Church funds (see Table 6, Appendix 1 for illustrations).
Hence, debates held, arguments advanced, or commitments made during any phase of the EO development process did not only impact that particular phase but also frequently spilled over into the next. In other words, entrepreneurial proposals discussed in General Synod settled as idea sediment: residue left behind by an ongoing stream of debate and meetings. Idea sediment served as a resource for advocates of entrepreneurial change, who used it to form arguments in support of their proposals. Interestingly, it did not seem to matter whether the sediment was made up of ideas that had previously been rejected or accepted. On the one hand, evangelists reminded Synod of the proposals it accepted in the past, warning them not to fall “into the danger that we always seem to do, of acknowledging that change (…) needs to take place, but hoping that it will not make any difference to us at all” (GS proceedings 2004b: 208). On the other hand, they convinced their colleagues that the reasons for which they rejected initiatives in the past no longer applied.
Idea sedimentation, through providing material that could be used to support entrepreneurial proposals, positively impacted the process of EO development within the CofE in two ways. First, it provided advocates of entrepreneurial change with the chance to respond to ecclesiological critique or concerns about the decision-making prerogative. The “Resourcing Mission Group,” for instance, reinterpreted past criticism of its proposals as an opportunity to reflect on its own arguments: “…reaction to the [last] document was mixed (…) [yet, it] raised some important questions (…) further work should be undertaken to address them” (GS Misc 810, 2006: 1). Second, idea sedimentation increased the amount of material available for advocating entrepreneurial change. As time progressed and more debates had been held, the amount of supportive idea sediment grew. This helped make a more compelling case for further evangelistic action. BMO legislation, for example, was introduced because it “derived from (…) Mission-shaped Church, which the Synod debated in 2004” (Church Times, 2007).
5 Discussion
5.1 Contributions
This study makes two contributions to research on the connections between religion and entrepreneurship. First, I shed new light on this relationship. Previous research primarily discusses the macro-level and individual-level effects of religion on entrepreneurship (Rietveld & Hoogendoorn, 2022). Organization-level studies, while comparatively scarce, also conclude that religion shapes entrepreneurship (Eze et al., 2021; Sabah et al., 2014). The relationship between religion and entrepreneurship is thus portrayed as linear and religion is treated as the driving force. My analysis of a forty-year-long debate about evangelism in the Church of England indeed indicates that religious principles shaped the nature of the entrepreneurial initiatives the CofE launched. Yet, those initiatives, in turn, triggered a reinterpretation of ecclesiological beliefs about the mission of the Church and the principles underpinning its governance (see Table 4 in Appendix 1). Hence, my findings show that entrepreneurship and religion can have a recursive relationship.
My second contribution to the literature on entrepreneurship and religion is providing more detailed insight into how the two are combined. Prior studies suggest that the combination works because entrepreneurship can serve as a vehicle for honoring God, creating a working environment in which religious beliefs can be incorporated, or sharing religion with others (Griebel et al., 2014; Neubert et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2019). This line of work, therefore, largely focuses on situations where there are no tensions between entrepreneurial and religious values. Gümüsay et al.’s (2020) study of an Islamic bank is a rare exception; these authors found that entrepreneurs resolved tensions through polysemy, i.e., by deliberately using words that enable multiple interpretations. I nuance their findings by showing that polysemy does not always resolve tensions. Within the CofE, combining entrepreneurship and religion required polysemy dynamics, i.e., successive waves of meaning broadening and narrowing because ambiguous terminology alone frustrated people who needed entrepreneurial guidance. In addition, I identified a second novel mechanism: idea sedimentation. As time passed, the number of ways of combining entrepreneurship and religion debated by the CofE’s General Synod increased. Advocates of entrepreneurial change leveraged those debates to strengthen their case; they encouraged their colleagues to act on prior consensus or improved the arguments underpinning previously rejected proposals. Hence, idea sedimentation made combining entrepreneurship and religion easier.
This study also contributes to research on entrepreneurial orientation. My analysis of debates about entrepreneurial initiatives in the Church of England was informed by this literature and confirms some of its recent insights (see Tables 3 and 5 in Appendix 1). Like in other nonprofit organizations, entrepreneurship within the CofE was more socially oriented than it would typically be in for-profit businesses (Morris et al., 2011). EO manifested itself as rhetoric, as new entry initiatives, and as changes to the Church’s organizational configuration (cf. Kindermann et al., 2023). Finally, the CofE’s understanding of EO’s core dimensions shifted over time (per Wales, 2016). Existing EO research, however, does not explain how and why those changes occur (Miller, 2011; Randerson, 2016). By outlining how the CofE’s EO developed, I take a first step in that direction. Specifically, I show that the CofE went through four lengthy phases, during which levels of entrepreneurial activity fluctuated, and even EO rhetoric – the least substantive manifestation of EO (Wang et al., 2021) – was contested. This suggests that EO does not instantly emerge in a religious setting, even when the right conditions, e.g., a hostile environment, are in place. I also introduce two mechanisms (polysemy dynamics and idea sedimentation) that can fuel EO development.
5.2 Limitations and future research
Although this paper sheds light on an underexplored phenomenon, it has some limitations that future research can address. For example, while my case study provides rich insights into the process of EO development within the CofE, certain original details are bound to remain invisible in historical data (Hargadon & Douglas, 2001). In my case, it was difficult to retrieve what motivated people to support or resist a new initiative. I was also unable to see whether decisions made by the General Synod pervaded across the organizational hierarchy (see Wales et al., 2011), i.e., were adopted by local churches, or were, in fact, even made outside of GS meetings. An ethnographic study that tracks how entrepreneurial initiatives are discussed across hierarchy levels in religious organizations could capture these details.
Another limitation of this study relates to the research setting. Selecting the Church of England as the focus of my analysis allowed me to trace how a religious organization became increasingly entrepreneurially oriented. However, since CofE membership continuously declined during my period of study, it is unclear whether the two mechanisms – polysemy dynamics and idea sedimentation – that drive EO development ultimately help religious organizations realize the benefits normally associated with EO. Arguably, they may have only been this prominent because of the ongoing decline.Footnote 5 Future research could examine the interconnections between performance and these mechanisms. It may also be worthwhile exploring to what extent polysemy dynamics and idea sedimentation play a role in the EO development processes that unfold in non-religious organizations, where the idea of entrepreneurship may be less controversial.
6 Appendix 1
Please see Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
7 Appendix 2: Bibliography of archival material
Church of England documents
Church of England (2022a). Leadership and governance. https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance
Church of England (2022b). The national assembly of the Church of England: General Synod. https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/about-general-synod
Diocese of Worcester (2022). About us. https://www.cofe-worcester.org.uk/about-us/
General Synod proceedings (1980). Volume XI, No. 3, pp. 801–828. Debate on ‘What is the church for? A report by the Board for Mission and Unity on the Church in mission’.
General Synod proceedings (1982a). Volume XIII, No. 1, pp. 49–83. Debate on ‘The Church of England’s Partners in Mission consultation 1981: A report by the standing committee’.
General Synod proceedings (1982b). Volume XIII, No. 1, pp. 954–988. Debate on ‘The national Partners in Mission consultation: Follow up report by the standing committee’.
General Synod proceedings (1987). Volume XVIII, No. 2, pp. 660–690. Debate on ‘The measure of mission’.
General Synod proceedings (1989). Volume XX, No. 2, pp. 620–656. Debate on ‘The Decade of Evangelism: Report by the Board for Mission and Unity’.
General Synod proceedings (1991). Volume XXI, No. No. 2, pp. 596–617. Debate on ‘Good news in our times: Report by the Mission Theological Advisory Group’.
General Synod proceedings (1994). Volume XXV, No. 2, pp. 229–247. Debate on ‘Breaking new ground: Church planting in the Church of England’.
General Synod proceedings (1996). Volume XXVII, No. 1, pp. 195–216. Debate on ‘Signs of life: How goes the Decade of Evangelism’.
General Synod proceedings (1997). Volume XXVIII, No. 1, pp. 185–209. Debate on ‘The search for faith and the witness of the church: An exploration by the Mission Theological Advisory Group’.
General Synod proceedings (1999). Volume XXX, No. 2, pp. 141–162. Debate on ‘Setting the agenda: The report of the 1999 CoE conference on evangelism, ACE ‘99’.
General Synod proceedings (2004a). Volume XXXV, No. 1, pp. 128–158. Debate on ‘Mission shaped church: Church planting and fresh expressions of church in a changing context’.
General Synod proceedings (2004b). Volume XXXV, No. 1, pp. 195–220. Debate on ‘Future use of the Church Commissioners’ funds: Report by the Spending Review Working Group of the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners’.
General Synod proceedings (2007). Volume XXXVIII, No. 1, pp. 186–196. Debate on ‘Fresh Expressions’.
General Synod proceedings (2015). Volume XXXXVI, No. 1, pp. 117–139. Debate on ‘Report of the Task Force on Resourcing the Future of the Church of England’.
General Synod proceedings (2016). Volume XXXXVII, No. 2, pp. 144–159. Debate on ‘A vision and narrative for renewal and reform’.
General Synod proceedings (2017). Volume XXXXVIII, No. 2, pp. 150–171. Debate on ‘National support for local churches: Report from the Archbishops’ Council’.
General Synod proceedings (2019). Volume L, No. 2, pp. 322–328. Debate on ‘Mission Shaped Church 15 years on’.
GS514 (1981). The Partners in Mission consultation 1981: First report by the standing committee.
GS780A (1987). The measure of mission: Report of the Mission Theological Advisory Group of BMU and PWM.
GS884 (1989). Decade of Evangelism: A report by the Board for Mission & Unity
GS1099 (1994). Breaking new ground: Church planting in the Church of England.
GS1523 (2004). Mission Shaped church: Church planting and fresh expressions of church in a changing context.
GS1528 (2004). A measure for measures: In mission and ministry.
GS1529 (2004). Future use of the Church Commissioners’ funds: Report by the Spending Review Working Group of the Archbishops’ Council and the Church Commissioners
GS1648 (2007). Fresh expressions: Presentation to the general synod.
GS1684 (2008). Mission initiatives: Code of practice
GS1835A (2011). Private members’ motion: Mission action planning in the Church of England.
GS1895 (2013). Challenges for the quinquennium: Progress report from the Archbishops’ Council and the House of Bishops.
GS1978 (2015). Report of the task force on resourcing the future of the Church of England
GS2015 (2016). Report from the archbishops’ evangelism task group
GS Misc 392 (1992). Where is the decade? Report by BoM.
GS Misc 456 (1995). Into missionary mode: Report of the third consultation between synodical and voluntary bodies in the Church of England.
GS Misc 810 (2006). Resourcing mission for the twenty-first century: Final report of the resourcing mission group established by the archbishops.
GS Misc 854 (2007). The mission and ministry of the whole Church.
GS Misc 1054 (2012). Making new disciples: The growth of the Church of England.
Strategic Investment Board (2019). Annual report 2019.
Newspaper articles
Bingham, J. (2015). Vicars face end to job ‘for life’ culture as Church of England fights extinction. The Telegraph, January 16.
Church Times (2007). No messing with mission, 1 March.
Cottrell, S. (2010). The baby and the parochial bathwater, Church Times, 23 November
Handley, J. (2015). The Archbishops’ council’s finance chair, John Spence, explains the thinking behind the reports, Church Times, 16 January
Hollingshurst, S. (2008). Steve Hollingshurst wonders whether new proposals for supervising fresh expressions of church will be effective, Church Times, 30 January
Longley, C. (1992). Clifford Longley Column, The Times, January 19
Pike, A. (1990). Once-a-year Christians ready for the ritual. Financial Times, December 24.
Reid, G. (1991). Faith and reason: A place to appeal to the nervous, The Independent, March 9.
Sheppard, D. (1991). Look, listen and only then evangelise with a good heart. The Times, May 6.
Sherwood, H. (2016). Top cleric says Church of England risks becoming a ‘suburban sect’; plans to reverse decline in congregations may alienate even more people, says Oxford dean, The Observer, August 13.
Notes
Appendix 2 provides the bibliographical details of all archival material referred to in the paper or the appendices.
While my analysis was iterative, I present it sequentially in the interest of clarity.
These were mostly changes in emphasis; none of the perspectives disappeared completely, but some of them moved to the background while others gained prominence.
See Table 3 in Appendix 1 for further evidence of how “Renewal and Reform” aligns with the dimensions underlying EO.
I would like to thank an anonymous review for making this suggestion.
References
Abdelgawad, S. G., & Zahra, S. A. (2020). Family firms’ religious identity and strategic renewal. Journal of Business Ethics, 163, 775–787.
Al-Tabbaa, O., Ciulli, C., & Kolk, A. (2022). Nonprofit entrepreneurial orientation in the context of cross-sector collaboration. British Journal of Management, 33(2), 1024–2053.
Anderson, B. S., Schueler, J., Baum, M., Wales, W. J., & Gupta, V. K. (2022). The chicken or the egg? Causal inference in entrepreneurial orientation–performance research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 46(6), 1569–1596.
Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Tamvada, J. P. (2013). Religion, social class, and entrepreneurial choice. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 774–789.
Augustine, G., & Piazza, A. (2022). Category evolution under conditions of stigma: The segregation of abortion provision into specialist clinics in the United States. Organization Science, 33(2), 624–649.
Balasubramanian, S., Yang, Y., & Tello, S. (2020). Does university entrepreneurial orientation matter? Evidence from university performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14, 661–682.
Boling, J. R., Pieper, T. M., & Covin, J. G. (2016). CEO tenure and entrepreneurial orientation within family & nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4), 891–913.
Boutinot, A., & Delacour, H. (2022). How the malleability of material artefacts contributes to institutional maintenance: The Guimard metropolitan railway entrances, 1914–2000. Organization Studies, 43(12), 1967–1989.
Calabrò, A., Santulli, R., Torchia, M., & Gallucci, C. (2021). Entrepreneurial orientation and family firm performance: The moderating role of TMT identity-based and knowledge-based faultlines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(4), 838–866.
Choi, H. (2010). Religious institutions and ethnic entrepreneurship: The Korean ethnic church as a small business incubator. Economic Development Quarterly, 24(4), 372–383.
Drakopoulou-Dodd, S., & Seaman, P. T. (1998). Religion and enterprise: An introductory exploration. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1), 71–86.
Essers, C., & Benschop, Y. (2009). Muslim businesswomen doing boundary work: The negotiation of Islam, gender and ethnicity within entrepreneurial contexts. Human Relations, 62(3), 403–423.
Eze, N. L., Nordqvist, M., Samara, G., & Parada, M. J. (2021). Different strokes for different folks: The roles of religion and tradition for transgenerational entrepreneurship in family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(4), 792–837.
Foppen, A., Paas, S., & Van Saane, J. (2017). Personality traits of church planters in Europe. Journal of Empirical Theology, 31(2), 288–308.
Fritz, D. A., & Ibrahim, N. A. (2010). The impact of leadership longevity on innovation in a religious organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 223–231.
Griebel, J. M., Park, J. Z., & Neubert, M. J. (2014). Faith and work: An exploratory study of religious entrepreneurs. Religions, 5(3), 780–800.
Grühn, B., Strese, S., Flatten, T. C., Jaeger, N. A., & Brettel, M. (2017). Temporal change patterns of entrepreneurial orientation: A longitudinal investigation of CEO successions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(4), 591–619.
Gümüsay, A. A. (2015). Entrepreneurship from an Islamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics., 130(1), 199–208.
Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2020). “God at work”: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 124–154.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.
Hehenberger, L., Mair, J., & Metz, A. (2019). The assembly of a field ideology: An idea-centric perspective on systemic power in impact investing. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1672–1704.
Henley, A. (2017). Does religion influence entrepreneurial behaviour? International Small Business Journal, 35(5), 597–617.
Kindermann, B., Schmidt, C. V. H., Pulm, J., & Strese, S. (2023). The double-edged sword of entrepreneurial orientation: A configurational perspective on failure in newly public firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(5), 1816–1842.
Kreiser, P. M., Anderson, B. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Marino, L. D. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation and environmental hostility: A threat rigidity perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(6), 1174–1198.
Liu, Z., Xu, Z., Zhou, Z., & Li, Y. (2019). Buddhist entrepreneurs and new venture performance: The mediating role of entrepreneurial risk-taking. Small Business Economics, 52(3), 713–727.
Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stöckmann, C., Marino, L. D., & Dickson, P. H. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation: The dimensions’ shared effects in explaining firm performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 973–998.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 429–451.
McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Payne, G. T., & Moss, T. W. (2018). Strategic entrepreneurial orientation: Configurations, performance, and the effects of industry and time. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12, 504–521.
Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873–894.
Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., & Franklin, R. J. (2011). Understanding the manifestation of entrepreneurial orientation in the nonprofit context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 947–971.
Neubert, M. J., Dougherty, K. D., Park, J. Z., & Griebel, J. (2014). Beliefs about faith and work: Development and validation of honoring God and prosperity gospel scales. Review of Religious Research, 56(1), 129–146.
Parboteeah, K. P., Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2015). When does Christian religion matter for entrepreneurial activity? The contingent effect of a country’s investments into knowledge. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 447–465.
Pearce, J. A., II., Fritz, D. A., & Davis, P. S. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and the performance of religious congregations as predicted by rational choice theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 219–248.
Pieper, T. M., Williams, R. I., Jr., Manley, S. C., & Matthews, L. M. (2020). What time may tell: An exploratory study of the relationship between religiosity, temporal orientation, and goals in family business. Journal of Business Ethics, 163, 759–773.
Putniņš, T. J., & Sauka, A. (2020). Why does entrepreneurial orientation affect company performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 711–735.
Randerson, K. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation: Do we actually know as much as we think we do? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(7–8), 580–600.
Rietveld, C. A., & Hoogendoorn, B. (2022). The mediating role of values in the relationship between religion and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 58, 1309–1335.
Sabah, S., Carsrud, A. L., & Kocak, A. (2014). The Impact of cultural openness, religion, and nationalism on entrepreneurial intensity: Six prototypical cases of Turkish family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 306–324.
Smith, B. R., Conger, M. J., McMullen, J. S., & Neubert, M. J. (2019). Why believe? The promise of research on the role of religion in entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 11, e00119.
Smith, B. R., McMullen, J. S., & Cardon, M. S. (2021). Toward a theological turn in entrepreneurship: How religion could enable transformative research in our field. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(5), 106139.
Spear, R. (2010). Religion and social entrepreneurship. In K. Hockerts, J. Mair, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Values and opportunities in social entrepreneurship (pp. 31–51). Palgrave Macmillan.
Tracey, P. (2012). Religion and organization: A critical review of current trends and future directions. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 87–134.
Wales, W. J. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation: A review and synthesis of promising research directions. International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 3–15.
Wales, W. J., Monsen, E., & McKelvie, A. (2011). The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 895–923.
Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F.-T. (2013). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 357–383.
Wales, W. J., Covin, J. G., & Monsen, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel conceptualization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 639–660.
Wang, T., Malik, S., & Wales, W. J. (2021). When entrepreneurial rhetoric meets strict regulations: Implications for the valuation of health science firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(2), 209–230.
Watson, A., Dada, O., Wright, O., & Perrigot, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation rhetoric in franchise organizations: The impact of national culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(4), 751–772.
Wiklund, J., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Building an integrative model of small business growth. Small Business Economics, 32(4), 351–374.
Xu, Z., Liu, Z., & Wu, J. (2022). Buddhist entrepreneurs, charitable behaviors, and social entrepreneurship: Evidence from China. Small Business Economics, 59, 1197–1217.
Yue, L. Q., Wang, J., & Yang, B. (2019). Contesting commercialization: Political influence, responsive authoritarianism, and cultural resistance. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 64(2), 435–365.
Zelekha, Y., Avnimelech, G., & Sharabi, E. (2014). Religious institutions and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 747–767.
Zigan, K., & Le Grys, A. (2018). Towards an understanding of social responsibility within the Church of England. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 535–560.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Marcus Dejardin, the other special issue editors, and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to Daniel Fisher for introducing me to this research topic and to Andrew Baughen for all conversations we have had about the Church of England.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
van Werven, R. Entrepreneurship in religious organizations: How the Church of England developed an entrepreneurial orientation. Small Bus Econ 62, 1361–1382 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00841-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00841-8