Are bricoleurs more satisfied? How bricolage affects entrepreneur job satisfaction among experienced versus novice entrepreneurs

ABSTRACT

When creating and scaling an entrepreneurial venture, founders often face high entrepreneurial demands, straining their well-being. Drawing on job demands-resources theory, we propose that entrepreneurs can apply bricolage as a promising resourceful behavior to face such demands to achieve work–life balance and, in turn, increase their job satisfaction. Moreover, we introduce entrepreneurial experience as a moderator influencing these relationships. Data from 675 founders of German entrepreneurial ventures indicate that bricolage positively impacts job satisfaction for both experienced and novice entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the mediating effect of work–life balance between bricolage and job satisfaction was only significant for experienced entrepreneurs, who can deploy this mechanism to further increase their job satisfaction. We confirmed the robustness of our results with additional data from 283 self-employed individuals from the U.S. This paper contributes to our understanding of the consequences and effectiveness of bricolage on entrepreneur well-being.

Video Abstract

Read the transcript

Watch the video on Vimeo

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

KEYWORDS:

• Bricolage
• job satisfaction
• work–life balance
• entrepreneurial experience
• well-being
• job demands-resources theory

Introduction

For years, research on entrepreneurial success has almost exclusively focused on firm performance (Shepherd et al., 2019). However, there is now growing interest in and recognition that entrepreneurs seek more than financial benefits from creating firms (Dodd et al., 2021; Wiklund et al., 2019), including measures of individual success (Wach et al., 2016). One such measure is job satisfaction, an important proxy for entrepreneur well-being (Shir et al., 2019). While research indicates that “happy entrepreneurs are more likely to persist and perform better” (Stephan, 2018: p. 291), practice has recognized individual well-being as a critical driver of global progress (Durand, 2015). Despite this, we know remarkably little about individual well-being of entrepreneurs (Wiklund et al., 2017). For entrepreneurs, founding and scaling a new venture can be highly rewarding yet challenging (Uy et al., 2013). Entrepreneurial activities are demanding due to high workloads, uncertainties, and risks (Neck et al., 2013). These entrepreneurial demands can affect how entrepreneurs feel about their work, specifically how satisfied they are with being an entrepreneur and how they balance their work and private life (De Clercq et al., 2021).

While some entrepreneurs can meet such demands, others cannot (McDowell et al., 2019). One way entrepreneurs manage these challenges is by applying resourceful behaviors, enabling them to persist despite daunting entrepreneurial demands (Powell & Baker, 2011). For example, Hmieleski and Corbett (2008) have shown that engaging in resourceful improvisation can help entrepreneurs increase their work satisfaction. Nevertheless, entrepreneurship literature has largely neglected the effects of other resourceful behaviors, such as bootstrapping (Bhidé, 1992), effectuation and causation (Sarasvathy, 2001), and bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005) on entrepreneur well-being (Michaelis et al., 2020). In this paper, we focus on bricolage as a promising resourceful behavior that affects entrepreneurs’ well-being through “making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities” when founding and scaling a venture (Baker & Nelson, 2005: p. 353). Prior studies have shown that bricolage is a valuable behavioral response to organizational challenges, such as resource constraints, for achieving superior firm performance (An et al., 2020; Senyard et al., 2014). We are among the first to posit that bricolage can also help entrepreneurs face individual constraints in the form of entrepreneurial demands to enhance their well-being (Rahman et al., 2020). We argue that bricoleurs (that is, individuals who engage in bricolage behavior) can better use their available resources, enabling them to conquer entrepreneurial demands (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016). We further propose that work–life balance – a crucial driver for gaining individual well-being (De Clercq et al., 2021) – can better explain the relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction.

Drawing on job demands-resources (JDR) theory (Demerouti et al., 2001), we posit that resourceful bricolage behavior can help founders handle entrepreneurial demands and thus increases their job satisfaction. Based on prior findings that highlight the impact of work–life balance on entrepreneur job satisfaction (for example, De Clercq et al., 2021; McDowell et al., 2019; Schjoedt, 2020), we also suggest that work–life balance mediates the relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction. We extend this work by theorizing that these relationships are affected by prior entrepreneurial experience. We argue that experienced entrepreneurs can increase job satisfaction directly and indirectly via better work–life balance because they have advantages over novices in leveraging the benefits of bricolage behavior (Welter et al., 2016). Therefore, we introduce entrepreneurial experience as a moderator of both direct and indirect relationships. To empirically test the theorized relationships, we used two independent samples. First, we used data from 675 founders of entrepreneurial ventures from Germany for our main analysis. Second, we conducted post hoc analyses using data of 283 self-employed individuals from the U.S. to enhance the robustness of our main findings.

Our study provides three main contributions to the entrepreneurship literature. First, it is among the first studies to test the consequences of bricolage on entrepreneur job satisfaction, which is one of the most important indicators of entrepreneur well-being (Shir et al., 2019). We also examine the mediating role of entrepreneur work–life balance as an important mechanism to explain the relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction in more detail. In doing so, we gain a deeper understanding of the role that work–life balance plays in entrepreneurs’ enjoyment of the entrepreneurial journey (Leung et al., 2020; Schjoedt, 2009). Second, following calls within the literature to “compare the well-being of different types of entrepreneurs” (Wiklund et al., 2019: p. 584), we provide important implications for the effectiveness of resourceful behavior on entrepreneur well-being among experienced versus novice entrepreneurs (Furlotti et al., 2019; Jiao et al., 2021). Specifically, we illustrate how the effect of bricolage on entrepreneur job satisfaction – directly or indirectly via work–life balance – differs for experienced and novice entrepreneurs due to their experience from founding at least one prior venture (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Türk et al., 2020). Third, our study applies JDR theory to the entrepreneurship domain (Hartmann et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2020) as a new theoretical lens to explain why resourceful behaviors can help entrepreneurs face high entrepreneurial demands. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of differences in personal resources, specifically entrepreneurial experience in entrepreneur well-being, thereby contributing to scarce research on the heterogeneity of entrepreneurs’ coping responses and well-being (Lauto et al., 2020; Williamson et al., 2022).

Theoretical background

Job demands-resources theory

JDR theory, originally grounded in the occupational psychology literature, suggests that individuals’ work-related strain and well-being are a response to how well they can use job resources to deal with job demands (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands are physical, psychological, social, and organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job resources are physical, psychological, social, and organizational aspects of the job (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017). Subsequent theorizing expanded job resource categories to include personal resources (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Job resources enable individuals to achieve work-related goals, reducing job demands and the related physical and/or psychological costs, stimulating personal growth and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2017). Accordingly, a high ratio of job demands to job resources can lead to higher levels of work-related strain. Vice versa, increasing job resources relative to job demands can positively influence work engagement and individual well-being (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Within JDR theory, the focus is on the rewards and values derived from deploying resources to work demands rather than the resource inputs per se.

In recent years, entrepreneurship researchers have started using JDR theory to explain how entrepreneurs can gain feelings of success (McDowell et al., 2019). They show that job demands and resources differ from those of salaried workers (Dijkhuizen et al., 2014). Typical entrepreneurial job demands comprise time demands, uncertainties, and risks (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016), which can lead to high levels of strain (Lerman et al., 2020). Therefore, it is not surprising that entrepreneurs typically have high levels of stress overall (Wincent & Örtqvist, 2009). Thus, within JDR theorizing, entrepreneurs must apply their resources to demands to enhance individual well-being (Miao et al., 2020). We consider bricolage as a promising resourceful behavior to make the best use of the available entrepreneurial resources to deal with the typically high entrepreneurial demands when founding and scaling an entrepreneurial venture.

Resourceful bricolage behavior

Resourceful bricolage behavior – whereby actors make creative use of the resources at hand rather than acquiring new resources – is an important means for entrepreneurs to take on the broad challenges and opportunities related to the founding and scaling of a venture (Baker & Nelson, 2005). Bricoleurs enact resourceful decisions by applying a bias for action through experimentation and hustle with available resources to successfully maneuver their entrepreneurial ventures through challenging and uncertain waters (Baker et al., 2013). In contrast to other resourceful techniques, bricolage theory focuses on behaviors that illustrate how entrepreneurs use resources and deal with new challenges day-to-day. In comparison, improvisation is typically described in organizational settings (Miner et al., 2001), and effectuation or causation are decision-making logics focused on uncertain market opportunities (Baker et al., 2003; Fisher, 2012). Thus, we argue that bricolage is a promising resourceful behavior for entrepreneurs to make do with existing resources and create novel solutions, enabling them to better face diverse entrepreneurial demands.

According to Baker and Nelson (2005), bricolage consists of three elements: making do, the combination of resources for new purposes, and the resources at hand. First, making do implies that bricoleurs creatively engage with problems and opportunities rather than dwelling upon how to create the perfect resources or solutions (Gundry et al., 2011). As a result, instead of abandoning their projects due to constraints, bricoleurs remain persistent and create value by using existing resources (Powell & Baker, 2014). Thus, they are more likely to attain a sense of achievement during their projects; an outcome described within JDR theorizing (Bakker, 2008). Second, combining resources for new purposes indicates that bricoleurs reuse resources through tinkering and experimentation (Baker et al., 2013). This creative recombination process enables bricoleurs to increase autonomy; another important outcome described within JDR theory (Bakker, 2015). Third, using the resources at hand describes the use of readily available resources and those that are accessible very cheaply or for free because others consider them inferior or unusable (Garud & Karnøe, 2003). These resources include materials as well as ideational and human inputs (Senyard et al., 2014), such as existing personal knowledge (Banerjee & Campbell, 2009), capabilities (Halme et al., 2012), and social support, for example, via network bricolage (Baker et al., 2003). In this vein, the process of (re)combining the resources at hand can promote “a concrete activity of experiential resource learning” (An et al., 2018: p. 52), which is also an important outcome described within JDR theorizing of the application of resources to demands (Taris & Feij, 2004). Taken together, using a JDR lens, we propose that bricolage allows entrepreneurs to enact resource solutions to meet their demands and consequently impacts their well-being. More specifically, we expect that bricolage improves work–life balance and, in turn, job satisfaction.

Moreover, we believe that entrepreneurial experience shapes the valuation, combinations, and solutions of resources, further enhancing confidence when individuals engage in entrepreneurial activities and enabling them to cope proactively with difficult situations (Searle & Lee, 2015). Therefore, we introduce entrepreneurial experience as a moderator in the relationships between bricolage, work–life balance, and job satisfaction. Figure 1 depicts our research model.

Figure 1. Research model: the moderating role of entrepreneurial experience on the relationships between bricolage, work–life balance, and job satisfaction.

Hypotheses development

Bricolage and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is an important topic within the entrepreneurship literature that describes individual entrepreneurial success (Schjoedt, 2009) and is a proxy for entrepreneur well-being (Shir et al., 2019). Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience” (p. 1300). In this regard, job satisfaction is an attitude or feeling individuals have about their job and its various aspects (Carree & Verheul, 2012). For entrepreneurs, job satisfaction gives concrete insights into whether founders enjoy the process of establishing, running, and sustaining an entrepreneurial venture (Schjoedt, 2009) despite typical entrepreneurial demands, such as high levels of uncertainty and risks, job insecurity, role ambiguity, and intense time pressure (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016). In this study, we propose that bricolage is a promising behavior to handle these entrepreneurial demands to improve entrepreneur job satisfaction in several important ways.

First, experimental learning can occur during the bricolage process, specifically the generation and accumulation of new knowledge of existing elements and their potential use for new purposes through acts of novel resource recombination (Andersen, 2008). Objects not designed as solutions are reimagined, restructured, and recombined based on what is available (Baker, 2007). This trial-and-error exploration and experimentation with the resources at hand provide an opportunity to engage in experiential learning so that a deeper understanding of the available resources and the ways they combine with other resources occurs (Hendry & Harborne, 2011). Consequently, these practices shape how resources are valued and combined (Duymedjian & Rüling, 2010). Engaging in bricolage activities enables entrepreneurs to tinker with resources, tools, and ideas, enabling learning opportunities (An et al., 2018).

Second, bricoleurs enjoy a sense of achievement because they typically find new ways to make things work by any means or in any timeframe instead of giving up and worrying too much about having the right tools, resources, or capabilities (Senyard et al., 2014). The final solutions are often generated through acts of creativity and do not fit standard responses, thereby highlighting acts of ingenuity and novelty (Welter & Xheneti, 2013). Even when the bricolage solution is imperfect or incomplete, individuals may still feel a sense of achievement in the bricolage process (Lanzara, 1999). Bricolage behaviors that focus on experimenting, combining, blending, testing, and exploring resources may create a state of complete immersion in the task at hand so that entrepreneurs engaging in bricolage experience a sense of being in the flow (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Nakamura & Csíkszentmihályi, 2014). When in the flow, bricoleurs work in the moment, are fully engaged in their work, do not feel fear or discomfort, and are often unaware of time so that their business is “enormous fun” rather than work (Kauanui et al., 2010: p. 56). Based on these arguments, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1.

Bricolage has a positive effect on entrepreneur job satisfaction.

Bricolage and work–life balance

Founders’ work–life balance is a crucial factor in achieving sustained well-being (Haar et al., 2014). Consistent with prior theory, work–life balance can be defined “as the extent to which an individual can adequately manage the multiple roles in their life, including work, family and other major responsibilities” (Haar, 2013: p. 3308). This definition acknowledges how work–life balance is perceived and understood as unique to each individual, depending on individual life values, priorities, and goals (Ferguson et al., 2012). For entrepreneurs, combining work and private responsibilities is often difficult because time is a limited resource, and the additional focus in one domain often reduces time in another (Lanivich, 2015). In particular, entrepreneurial demands, such as high workloads, long work hours, and stress, can reduce the amount of time entrepreneurs can allocate to private life (Aryee et al., 2005). Similarly, time spent in the private domain can be seen as a necessary resource that should be spent on the venture (McDowell et al., 2019). These aspects can trigger work–life conflicts, negatively affecting entrepreneur well-being (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). In the present study, we argue that bricoleurs can better shift between their work and private roles to improve their work–life balance based on the following theorizing.

First, engaging in bricolage behavior is characterized by making creative, flexible use of limited available resources, which allows high degrees of autonomy (Garud et al., 2010). Entrepreneurs’ creative resource assessment empowers them to make a wide range of resource choices and decisions when creating bricolage solutions, through greater “freedom of action” (Senyard et al., 2014: p. 214). Prior literature highlights that undertaking activities with more autonomy can make balancing work–life commitments easier because individuals have a clear choice of where they should spend their time next – within the task or away from work (Valcour, 2007). Second, entrepreneurial bricoleurs can engage supportive family members, friends, and employees in challenging situations so the founder can meet entrepreneurial demands while simultaneously attending to private tasks (Baker, 2007). Bricoleurs work with “kinship ties and family mentors in order to access support” (Di Domenico et al., 2010: p. 684) through network bricolage to make better use of their existing personal and professional contacts (Baker et al., 2003). Prior research indicates that this support enables access to resources that help balance work and private tasks, leading to heightened job satisfaction (Leung et al., 2020). According to the arguments above, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2.

Bricolage has a positive effect on entrepreneur work–life balance.

Bricolage, work–life balance, and job satisfaction

Prior research suggests that entrepreneurs’ work–life balance is an important precursor to their job satisfaction (Schjoedt, 2020). For instance, Carlson et al. (2009) identified that a good balance between work and private roles significantly increased job satisfaction. Similarly, scholars have noted in the entrepreneurial context (De Clercq et al., 2021) that work–life imbalances can reduce job satisfaction because entrepreneurial tasks and difficulties can negatively affect private life (Aryee et al., 2005). Therefore, we could expect that high entrepreneurial demands limit an entrepreneur’s ability to balance work and private life, which would lead to a negative evaluation of creating and developing their entrepreneurial venture (Schjoedt, 2009). This (often partial) mediating role of work–life balance in the relationship between professional or private characteristics (for example, commitment to work or family) and psychological outcomes (for example, satisfaction or stress) has been extensively demonstrated in prior empirical studies (Ferguson et al., 2012; Haar, 2013). In line with this reasoning, we propose that, in addition to an expected direct relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction, work–life balance is a partial mediator that helps to better explain the relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3.

The relationship between bricolage and entrepreneur job satisfaction is partially mediated by entrepreneur work–life balance; that is, in addition to directly leading to higher job satisfaction, bricolage increases work–life balance, which, in turn, increases job satisfaction.

The moderating role of entrepreneurial experience

When founding and developing an entrepreneurial venture, the entrepreneur’s human capital is one of the most important resources (Dimov, 2010). Entrepreneurial experience plays a crucial role in accumulating entrepreneurship-specific knowledge and capabilities (Ucbasaran et al., 2008). Learning from prior entrepreneurial experiences can improve the perception, evaluation, and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Ucbasaran et al., 2009). Furthermore, such lessons can help individuals better deal with the common problems and challenges in entrepreneurial ventures, such as unpredictable business environments (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009), uncertainties, and ambiguity (Morris et al., 2012). Because of these individual differences resulting from entrepreneurial experiences, we theorize that bricolage has a differential effect on the job satisfaction and work–life balance of experienced versus novice entrepreneurs. Accordingly, and as illustrated in Figure 1, we propose that entrepreneurial experience affects both the direct relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction (solid line) and the indirect relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction through work–life balance (dotted line).

The moderating role of entrepreneurial experience on bricolage and job satisfaction

In the direct relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction, we suggest that experienced entrepreneurs have developed a degree of confidence and feel more comfortable engaging in resourceful entrepreneurial behavior through the knowledge and capabilities they obtained during venture creation in the past (Hmieleski & Corbett, 2008). In comparison, novices are less confident in their entrepreneurial actions, often engaging in repetitive thoughts about possible negative scenarios (Digan et al., 2019). In addition, experienced entrepreneurs can usually benefit from prior knowledge of markets and business environments, leading to a better evaluation of market opportunities and, as a result, engagement in more and/or different challenges than their novice counterparts (Baron & Ensley, 2006). Thus, experienced entrepreneurs are more realistic than novices and often have unwavering confidence regarding their entrepreneurial actions and future scenarios for the venture. Therefore, they are more likely to meet their own expectations, resulting in higher levels of job satisfaction (Cooper & Artz, 1995).

In addition, previous entrepreneurial experiences may influence entrepreneurs’ perspectives such that experienced entrepreneurs perceive the tasks, challenges, and mental burdens of the entrepreneurial role as a normal part of their workday (Kollmann et al., 2019). Bricolage is associated with resolving uncertainties within unknown contexts (Townsend et al., 2018). During the bricolage process, it is not always obvious if and when a solution can be found using and combining the available resources (Senyard et al., 2010). Experienced entrepreneurs are better able than novices at dealing with new situations because they often have a higher tolerance for stress and ambiguity (Dimov, 2010). In addition, entrepreneurs who have founded at least one venture in the past have a better impression of what it means to be an entrepreneur and what others expect from them than novices (Farmer et al., 2011). As a result, bricoleurs with entrepreneurial experience are more satisfied with their job than novices. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4.

Entrepreneurial experience has a positive moderating effect on the direct relationship between bricolage and entrepreneur job satisfaction, such that experienced entrepreneurs perceive higher job satisfaction than novice entrepreneurs.

The moderating role of entrepreneurial experience on bricolage and work–life balance

We also posit that individual differences, in terms of entrepreneurial experience, strengthen the indirect relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction through work–life balance. Experienced entrepreneurs can draw upon a broader pool of resources, valuable information, and knowledge than novices can (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009), helping them to make better use of the available resources (Banerjee & Campbell, 2009). Novice entrepreneurs who are inexperienced with the process and outcomes of bricolage may tend to engage in resourceful behavior across multiple activities, leading to ineffective and repeated tinkering (Senyard et al., 2014), which can lead to an enormous expenditure of time (Baker & Nelson, 2005). Experienced entrepreneurs apply capabilities learned from previous venture creation to organize a new venture and its processes (Shepherd et al., 2000). They focus on promising workable solutions instead of wasting personal resources on projects they deem likely to fail based on their experience with similar projects in the past (Delmar & Shane, 2006). Consequently, the combination of experienced entrepreneurs’ vast resource trove and their ability to focus on the most promising projects reduces entrepreneurial challenges. It increases the time that entrepreneurs can use for their private life.

Moreover, experienced entrepreneurs, compared with novices, have developed specific heuristics, simple rules (Busch & Barkema, 2021), and mechanisms to help them cope with difficulties (Kollmann et al., 2019). As Hmieleski and Corbett (2008) argue, inadequate engagement in resourceful behavior may cause stress, particularly when dealing with typical entrepreneurial challenges in the new venture development process. Therefore, information gained from prior experiences can be compressed and used as a “coping schema” to apply to such stressful situations in order to efficiently overcome problems and challenges (Peacock et al., 1993: p. 68). Consequently, experienced entrepreneurs consciously dissociate themselves from work and actively take time off to recover or focus on private life (Uy et al., 2013). Hence, we suggest that entrepreneurial experience enhances the positive effect of bricolage behavior not only on entrepreneurs’ job satisfaction, but also their work–life balance. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 5.

Entrepreneurial experience has a positive moderating effect on the indirect relationship between bricolage and entrepreneur job satisfaction as mediated by work–life balance, such that experienced entrepreneurs perceive higher work–life balance than novice entrepreneurs do, which consequently leads to increased job satisfaction.

Methods

Sample and data collection

We used data from the German Startup Monitor (GSM) 2018, an annual large-scale survey of German startups (Kollmann et al., 2018). The online survey was conducted by the German Startup Association and the consulting company KPMG in May and June 2018. The GSM provides comprehensive data and information on founders and their start-ups and is considered one of the most important start-up studies of the German start-up ecosystem. The GSM questionnaire changes annually and has a different scientific focus each time. For instance, a data set from an earlier version of the GSM 2017 has already been used in previous entrepreneurship studies, supporting the value of this survey for academia (Kollmann et al., 2021). Unlike in other years, the 2018 data included the bricolage scale. As a result, the data used within this study are novel and qualitatively different from the data sets of prior years.

Bricolage has often been studied in response to scarce resources (Garud & Karnøe, 2003). However, more recent work is beginning to extend the usefulness of bricolage beyond the context of resource scarcity (An et al., 2018) and test its effects in Western countries, such as in the European Union and the U.S. (Kollmann et al., 2022). One of the main reasons for this development is that resourceful bricolage behavior can be a promising approach for entrepreneurs to take on new challenges and persist by using their existing resources in creative ways – a characteristic that can be useful in all challenging organizational contexts, regardless of the resource endowment of the national environment (Williams et al., 2021). In this study, we focus on Germany because it represents one of the most important start-up ecosystems in Europe (Kollmann et al., 2016). As high-growth intentions and ambitions are frequently seen in German start-ups, we expect that entrepreneurial demands are very high and must be met by entrepreneurs to achieve well-being (Block & Koellinger, 2009).

The GSM follows the most widely used definition of entrepreneurial ventures (Carland et al., 1984), that is, they are younger than 10 years, growth-oriented in terms of sales and/or employees, and/or innovative in terms of products/services, business models, and/or technologies. The online questionnaire was entered by 3,716 individuals from different start-ups all over Germany. After the exclusion of all firms that did not match the entrepreneurial venture definition or had invalid data for the model-implied variables, the final sample consisted of 675 entrepreneurs who provided information about themselves and their venture, corresponding to a completion rate of 18.16% (Kviz, 1977), which is in line with prior studies (Kollmann et al., 2021). On average, the ventures were 29.34 months old (SD = 24.99), were founded by 2.35 founders (SD = 1.20), and had 9.39 employees (SD = 52.43). More than half of the ventures received external capital (53.19%). While 55.11% cooperated with other ventures, more than two thirds cooperated with established firms (68.74%). The entrepreneurs were 35.47 years old, on average (SD = 8.37), and mostly male (81.33%). Among the entrepreneurs, 78.37% were in a steady relationship, and 41.78% had one or more children. On average, the entrepreneurs worked 55.07 hours per week, and 13.77% of this time was worked on weekends. The sample was well balanced, consisting of 309 founders with prior entrepreneurial experience and 366 novices without such experience.

Measures

Bricolage

To measure bricolage, we used the eight-item bricolage scale introduced by Senyard et al. (2014) and validated by Davidsson et al. (2017). This scale is theoretically grounded in Baker and Nelson’s (2005) seminal study about resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. A sample item is as follows: “We combine resources to accomplish new challenges that the resources were not originally intended to accomplish.” All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5) to reflect the behavioral nature of bricolage (Davidsson et al., 2017; Senyard et al., 2014). The Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale was .81, indicating good internal scale reliability (Nunnally, 1978). An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA, respectively) showed that all items loaded on one factor, confirming the unidimensional nature of the scale (Davidsson et al., 2017).

Work–life balance

Entrepreneur work–life balance was measured with the validated three-item scale developed by Haar (2013). This measurement has been validated with seven samples across six countries (Haar et al., 2014, 2019); see De Clercq et al. (2021) for a recent application in entrepreneurship research. The scale defines work–life balance as “the extent to which an individual is able to adequately manage the multiple roles in their life, including work, family and other major responsibilities” (Haar, 2013: p. 3311). A sample item is as follows: “I manage to balance the demands of my work and personal/family life well.” The entrepreneurs rated their work–life balance on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items differ from cross-domain constructs to avoid directional influence from one domain (for example, work) to another (for example, life) and capture the entrepreneurs’ individual perceptions (Valcour, 2007). Cronbach’s alpha was .82; the EFA and CFA confirmed that all items loaded on one factor.

Job satisfaction

The entrepreneurs were asked to assess their job satisfaction (“How satisfied are you with your job, in general?”) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not satisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (5). We followed the recommendation to use a single-item measurement (Wanous et al., 1997). This allowed us to capture job satisfaction more inclusively than by summing up specific facets of job-related satisfaction (Scarpello & Campbell, 1983). Although the one-item measurement has been used in prior studies (Carree & Verheul, 2012; Lange, 2012), we further validated our short scale by analyzing a second independent sample of N = 283 self-employed individuals from the U.S. The participants completed the multi-item job satisfaction scale by Spector (1997), which has been previously applied to measure job satisfaction among entrepreneurs (Hmieleski & Corbett, 2008). A high correlation between the short and long scale (r = .58, p < .001) was similar to the results of Wanous et al. (1997), who have confirmed the suitability of a one-item scale to measure job satisfaction. Moreover, the long scale was used to replicate our predicted mediation model to confirm the relationships of our main study (compare, post hoc analyses). Overall, we can confirm the reliability of our measurement.

Entrepreneurial experience

We investigated whether an entrepreneur had previously founded another venture. In line with numerous prior studies, we measured entrepreneurial experience with a dichotomous item (yes or no) because the knowledge and capabilities accumulated in an initial entrepreneurial venture experience are probably higher than the impact of subsequent foundations (Kollmann et al., 2019). Even though the dichotomous variable is widely established in the literature (Davidsson & Honig, 2003), we completed additional tests with the total number of ventures previously started by the entrepreneur, yielding comparable findings.

Control variables

Our study examines how the resourceful behavior of bricolage in entrepreneurial ventures affects the well-being of entrepreneurs. For this reason, we followed approaches from prior research and empirical findings. We built two control variable categories to ensure that the examined effects were attributable to our variables of interest and not to other correlated variables. The first category aimed to capture the entrepreneurial ventures’ characteristics and resource endowment to ensure that any effects attributed to bricolage are not effects of resources correlated with bricolage (Senyard et al., 2014). In doing so, we controlled for firm size (number of founders and employees) and firm age (months since founding) (Stenholm & Renko, 2016). Moreover, these controls included capital resources (log received external capital), cooperation with start-ups (yes or no), and cooperation with established firms (yes or no). The second category sought to capture entrepreneurs’ individual differences because these might affect entrepreneurial well-being (Kollmann et al., 2019). We added demographics (age in years and gender), private life (partnership, yes or no; children, yes or no; life satisfaction, from very dissatisfied to very satisfied), and work-related criteria (employee experience in years, work hours per week, share of work hours Monday to Friday in relation to total work hours per week).

Method validation

In line with general methodological recommendations, we applied both procedural ex ante and statistical ex post techniques (for example, Podsakoff et al., 2003; Tepper & Tepper, 1993). First, we implemented different Likert scale response anchors and distributed the study variables across the questionnaire ex ante (Chang et al., 2010). Moreover, we assured the participants that all their answers would remain anonymous (Podsakoff et al., 2003). These procedural techniques mitigate the risk of common method variance inherent to self-reported and cross-sectional data (Rindfleisch et al., 2009).

Second, we examined statistical quality criteria to confirm the reliability and validity of our measures ex post. All constructs exceed the suggested Cronbach’s alpha of .70, indicating sufficient internal reliability (Cronbach, 1951; Nunnally, 1978). Both EFA and CFA confirmed convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2019). The correlations of the items with the respective factor yielded EFA loadings ranging from .56 to .75 for bricolage and from .83 to .90 for work–life balance (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = .81, p < .001, cutoff point .50) (Kaiser, 1974). The CFA loadings showed similar loadings, ranging from .51 to .73 for bricolage and from .70 to .91 for work–life balance, with a good model fit (chi-squared [χ²] = 43.624, χ²/degrees of freedom [df] = 1.212, p < .001; comparative fit index = .996; root mean square error of approximation = .018; standardized root mean square residual = .027). The applied techniques confirm the validity and reliability of our measures.

Third, ex post, we used techniques to minimize the potential threat of common method variance, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). We applied the latent method factor technique, already used in entrepreneurship studies (for example, Hughes et al., 2014). Following Podsakoff et al. (2012), we constructed a model that comprised the items of the latent constructs of our study and added a single latent factor. Subsequently, all items were loaded on this single latent factor. We then conducted a model comparison between our hypothesized multiple factor measurement model and the constructed single latent factor model. The χ²-difference test (Δχ² test) shows the inferiority of the single latent factor model to the superior hypothesized multiple factor model (Δχ² = 741.144; df = 1; p < .001). We also applied the marker variable technique (Lindell & Whitney, 2001) to confirm that a theoretically unrelated variable (that is, marker variable) is not significantly correlated to any focal variable of our study because of method variance. We chose the marker variable broadband expansion, capturing how founders evaluate the importance of internet speed (ranging from very unimportant = 1 to very important = 6) when choosing the location of their entrepreneurial venture. As expected, this marker variable showed no significant correlations with our focal study variables. After partialling out the smallest correlation coefficient of the marker variable, all correlations between our focal variables retained their significance.

Fourth, we hypothesized a moderated mediation model with interaction effects among the study variables. Statistical models with interaction effects are rather complex and thus less likely to suffer from common method variance because respondents do not usually make particular assumptions regarding potential moderating relationships among the variables (Aiken et al., 1991; Harrison et al., 1996).

Fifth, we addressed the concern that our model variables were measured simultaneously. In doing so, we replicated the mediation analysis with a second independent sample using data of N = 283 self-employed individuals from the U.S. The results confirm the findings of the main model (compare, post hoc analyses). Although these were, again, cross-sectional data, we believe that the replication of our hypothesized mediation analysis with a second independent sample further supports the direction of the proposed relationships. Overall, these techniques ensure that the risk of common method variance in our study is low. Table 1 summarizes all descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha values, and correlations among the study variables.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations.

	Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1	Bricolage	4.14	0.52	(.81)
2	Work–life balance	3.60	0.91	.10*	(.82)
3	Job satisfaction	3.89	0.84	.21***	.32***	(−)
4	Entr. experience^a	.46	0.50	.07	.04	.08*	(−)
5	Number of founders	2.35	1.20	.12**	−.01	.02	−.01	(−)
6	Number of employees	9.39	52.43	.04	.02	.06	.10**	.04	(−)
7	Firm age^b	29.34	24.99	−.02	.04	−.05	.08*	−.02	.22***	(−)
8	External capital^c	2.81	2.73	.05	−.06	.03	.03	.25***	.17***	.17***	(−)
9	Coop. with startup^d	.55	.50	.07	.03	.03	.02	.08*	−.04	.11**	.07	(−)
10	Coop. with est. firm^e	.69	.46	.05	.02	.03	−.03	.14***	−.06	.04	.14***	.24***	(−)
11	Age of founder^f	35.47	8.37	.03	.05	.00	.23***	−.12**	.04	.20***	−.04	−.05	.02	(−)
12	Gender^g	1.19	0.39	.01	.03	.00	−.20***	−.22***	−.06	−.13***	−.08*	.00	−.07	.05	(−)
13	Partnership^h	.78	.41	.04	.06	.04	.00	−.01	.04	.08*	−.01	.04	.05	.18***	−.06	(−)
14	Children^i	.42	.49	−.01	.04	.03	.11**	−.09*	.10**	.22***	.01	.02	.03	.55***	−.01	.29***	(−)
15	Empl. experience^j	8.13	7.80	.03	.04	.01	.12**	−.16***	−.04	−.09*	−.13***	−.07	.04	.73***	.12**	.14***	.38***	(−)
16	Work hours^k	55.07	14.74	.08*	−.22***	.07	.18***	.16***	.06	.00	.16***	.05	.09*	−.01	−.16***	−.09*	−.08*	−.03	(−)
17	Work share per week^l	86.23	9.13	−.04	.18***	.06	.05	.12**	.09*	.19***	.16***	.11**	.12**	.15***	−.06	.10*	.12**	.03	.06	(−)
18	Life satisfaction	3.38	0.76	.08*	.26***	.21***	−.02	.03	.04	.03	.01	.03	.00	−.01	.01	.02	−.02	−.01	−.05	.05

N = 675. SD = standard deviation. Cronbach’s alpha values for scale reliability in parentheses. ^aFor entrepreneurial experience: 1 = “yes,” 0 = “no.” ^bFor firm age: measured in months. ^cFor external capital: logarithm. ^dFor cooperation with start-up: 1 = “yes,” 0 = “no.” ^eFor cooperation with established firm: 1 = “yes,” 0 = “no.” ^fFor age of founders: measured in years. ^gFor gender: 1 = “male,” 2 = “female.” ^hFor partnership: 1 = “yes,” 0 = “no.” ⁱFor children: 1 = yes, 0 = no. ^jFor employee experience: measured in years. ^kFor work hours: total amount of work hours. ^lFor work share per week: share of work hours per work week (Monday to Friday) in relation to total work hours per week (including weekends).

Two-tailed significance.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Analyses and results

Analytical approach

To test our hypotheses, we used Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2017). We chose this tool because it builds on ordinary least squares regression and allows the application of bootstrapping techniques, which are the recommended methods to examine moderated mediation models (Hayes, 2012; Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Williams & MacKinnon, 2008). It is a common state-of-the-art technique in entrepreneurship and well-being research (for example, Breugst et al., 2012; Kollmann et al., 2019). The PROCESS macro enables the concurrent testing of the hypothesized direct and indirect effects (Hypotheses 1–3), as well as the moderator effect (conditional direct effect; Hypothesis 4) and the moderated mediation effect (conditional indirect effect; Hypothesis 5) (Akgün et al., 2005; Hayes & Preacher, 2010; Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Zhao et al., 2010). As Hayes (2017) recommended, we used unstandardized but mean-centered variables to prevent issues related to multicollinearity associated with moderated relationships (Aiken et al., 1991; Cohen et al., 2013). To rule out multicollinearity, we also calculated the variance inflation factor and found the highest value to be 1.15, which is significantly below the common cutoff value of 10 (Hair et al., 2019; Neter et al., 1996). Table 2 shows the results of the simple mediation analysis. Table 3 presents the results of the moderated mediation analysis.

Table 2. Results of the simple mediation analysis (PROCESS, Model 4).

			Bootstrapped CI [95%]
	Coeff.	SE	LL	UL	p	R^2
Step 1: Mediator variable model	Dependent variable: Work–life balance
						.16
Number of founders	−0.00	0.03	−0.06	0.06	.973
Number of employees	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	.690
Firm age	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	.909
External capital	−0.02	0.01	−0.05	0.00	.102
Cooperation with startup	0.02	0.07	−0.12	0.16	.774
Cooperation with established firm	0.03	0.07	−0.11	0.18	.640
Age founder	0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.02	.687
Gender	0.01	0.09	−0.16	0.18	.903
Partnership	0.04	0.08	−0.13	0.20	.669
Children	−0.04	0.08	−0.20	0.12	.645
Employee experience	0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.01	.950
Work hours	−0.01	0.00	−0.02	−0.01	< .001
Work share per week	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.03	< .001
Life satisfaction	0.28	0.04	0.19	0.36	< .001
Bricolage	0.18	0.06	0.05	0.31	.006
Step 2: Outcome variable model	Dependent variable: Job satisfaction
						.17
Number of founders	−0.02	0.03	−0.08	0.03	.374
Number of employees	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	.185
Firm age	−0.00	0.00	−0.01	−0.00	.022
External capital	0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.03	.483
Cooperation with startup	0.01	0.06	−0.11	0.14	.830
Cooperation with established firm	0.02	0.07	−0.11	0.15	.758
Age founder	−0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.01	.639
Gender	−0.00	0.08	−0.16	0.16	.992
Partnership	0.04	0.08	−0.11	0.19	.599
Children	0.09	0.08	−0.05	0.24	.213
Employee experience	−0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.01	.885
Work hours	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.01	.001
Work share per week	0.00	0.00	−0.01	0.01	.904
Life satisfaction	0.14	0.04	0.06	0.22	< .001
Bricolage	0.25	0.06	0.14	0.37	< .001
Work−life balance	0.27	0.04	0.20	0.34	< .001
Indirect effect of bricolage on job satisfaction	0.05	0.02	0.01	0.09

N = 675. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. LL = lower limit. UL = upper limit. CI = confidence interval.

Two-tailed significance.

Table 3. Results of the moderated mediation analysis (PROCESS, Model 8).

			Bootstrapped CI [95%]
	Coeff.	SE	LL	UL	p	R^2
Step 1: Mediator variable model	Dependent variable: Work–life balance
						.17
Number of founders	0.00	0.03	−0.06	0.06	.960
Number of employees	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	.825
Firm age	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	.986
External capital	−0.02	0.01	−0.05	0.00	.085
Cooperation with startup	0.02	0.07	−0.12	0.15	.777
Cooperation with established firm	0.05	0.07	−0.10	0.19	.521
Age founder	0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.01	.921
Gender	0.05	0.09	−0.13	0.23	.568
Partnership	0.05	0.08	−0.12	0.21	.558
Children	−0.03	0.08	−0.19	0.13	.735
Employee experience	0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.01	.928
Work hours	−0.01	0.00	−0.02	−0.01	< .001
Work share per week	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.03	< .001
Life satisfaction	0.28	0.04	0.20	0.37	< .001
Bricolage	0.18	0.06	0.05	0.31	.006
Entrepreneurial experience	0.14	0.07	−0.00	0.27	.055
Bricolage × Entrepreneurial experience	0.28	0.13	0.02	0.53	.031
Step 2: Outcome variable model	Dependent variable: Job satisfaction
						.17
Number of founders	−0.02	0.03	−0.08	0.03	.412
Number of employees	0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	.217
Firm age	−0.00	0.00	−0.01	−0.00	.024
External capital	0.01	0.01	−0.02	0.03	.493
Cooperation with startup	0.01	0.06	−0.11	0.13	.867
Cooperation with established firm	0.03	0.07	−0.11	0.16	.695
Age founder	−0.00	0.01	−0.02	0.01	.501
Gender	0.02	0.08	−0.14	0.18	.812
Partnership	0.04	0.08	−0.11	0.19	.558
Children	0.10	0.08	−0.05	0.24	.207
Employee experience	−0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.01	.918
Work hours	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.01	.002
Work share per week	0.00	0.00	−0.01	0.01	.898
Life satisfaction	0.14	0.04	0.06	0.22	< .001
Bricolage	0.25	0.06	0.13	0.37	< .001
Work–life balance	0.27	0.04	0.20	0.34	< .001
Entrepreneurial experience	0.08	0.06	−0.05	0.20	.227
Bricolage × Entrepreneurial experience	0.01	0.12	−0.22	0.25	.915

N = 675. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. LL = lower limit. UL = upper limit. CI = confidence interval.

Two-tailed significance.

Tests of hypotheses

First, as shown in Table 2, we used a simple mediation analysis to test the direct effect of bricolage on entrepreneur job satisfaction and its indirect effect through entrepreneur work–life balance. We found a significant positive effect of bricolage on job satisfaction (B = 0.25, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Likewise, we found a positive and significant effect of bricolage on work–life balance, as stated by Hypothesis 2 (B = 0.18, p = .01). The results also reveal a significant indirect effect of bricolage on job satisfaction through work–life balance (effect = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01; 0.09). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported. More specifically, the link between bricolage and entrepreneur job satisfaction is partially mediated by the entrepreneur work–life balance because the direct effect of bricolage on job satisfaction remains significant after introducing the mediator (effect = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.14; 0.37). Second, as displayed in Table 3, we used the moderated mediation analysis to test the theorized differential effects of bricolage on entrepreneur job satisfaction among experienced versus novice entrepreneurs. Contrary to Hypothesis 4, we found no significant moderating effect of entrepreneurial experience on the direct relationship between bricolage and entrepreneur job satisfaction (B = 0.01, p = .91). Regarding the indirect relationship between bricolage and entrepreneur job satisfaction via work–life balance, our results show a significant positive interaction effect of bricolage with entrepreneurial experience (B  = 0.28, p = .03) in predicting work–life balance, lending support to Hypothesis 5.

To further interpret that result, we followed the approach recommended by Cohen et al. (2013) and plotted the interaction effect for high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) levels of bricolage. The interaction plot, displayed in Figure 2, demonstrates that with more frequent bricolage behavior (that is, higher bricolage values), entrepreneurs’ work–life balance increases and that this effect is enhanced by entrepreneurial experience. We continued to further test Hypothesis 5 by examining the conditional direct and conditional indirect effects in the moderated mediation analysis. As shown in Table 4, the conditional direct effect of bricolage on entrepreneur job satisfaction was significant for both experienced (effect = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.08; 0.44) and novice (effect = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.09; 0.40) entrepreneurs. However, the conditional indirect effect via work–life balance was positive and significant for experienced entrepreneurs (effect = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.03; 0.15), but insignificant for novices (effect = 0.01; 95% CI: −0.04; 0.06). This result indicates that work–life balance plays a mediating role in the relationship between bricolage and job satisfaction only for experienced entrepreneurs. In addition, we examined the index of moderated mediation, which provides a test for the significance of moderated mediation hypotheses (Hayes, 2015). The index of moderated mediation was significant, as the CI excluded zero (index = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01; 0.15). These results allow us to confirm Hypothesis 5.

Figure 2. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of entrepreneurial experience on the relationship between bricolage and work–life balance.

Table 4. Moderated mediation; conditional direct and indirect effects (PROCESS, Model 8).

	Dependent variable: Job satisfaction
	Bootstrapped CI [95%]
	Coeff.	SE	LL	UL
Conditional direct effect of bricolage
Novice entrepreneurs	0.25	0.08	0.09	0.40
Experienced entrepreneurs	0.26	0.09	0.08	0.44
Conditional indirect effect of bricolage (via work–life balance)
Novice entrepreneurs	0.01	0.02	−0.04	0.06
Experienced entrepreneurs	0.09	0.03	0.03	0.15
	Index	SE	LL	UL
Index of moderated mediation	0.07	0.04	0.01	0.15

N = 675. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. LL = lower limit. UL = upper limit. CI = confidence interval.

Two-tailed significance.

Finally, to gain a holistic picture of the differential effects of how bricolage enhances job satisfaction for experienced versus novice entrepreneurs, we calculated the total effect (the sum of the conditional direct and indirect effects) for both groups (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Hayes, 2017). The results show that the total effect of bricolage on job satisfaction is higher for experienced entrepreneurs (total effect = 0.35) than for novices (total effect = 0.26), indicating that both groups benefit from bricolage behavior, but the magnitude is higher for experienced entrepreneurs.

Post hoc analyses

To enhance the credibility and generalizability of our results, we conducted post hoc analyses. To do so, we used additional data of 283 self-employed individuals from the U.S. surveyed via an online panel in April and May 2022. The participants of the online panel differ from the participants of the GSM mainly in terms of the focus of their business. While the GSM addresses entrepreneurial ventures that are young, growth-oriented, and/or innovative (Carland et al., 1984), the panel data includes self-employees from young businesses in general which are not necessarily growth-oriented and/or innovative. To address the concerns of measuring job satisfaction with a single item (compare, measures section) and of our cross-sectional data (compare, method validation section), we replicated our simple mediation model based on the panel data introduced above with both the short and long job satisfaction scale. In both cases, we confirm a significant positive effect of bricolage on job satisfaction (short scale: B = 0.34, p < .001; long scale: B = 0.29, p < .001) and of bricolage on work–life balance (short and long scale: B = 0.28, p < .001). Furthermore, we identified a partial mediation due to a significant indirect effect of bricolage through work–life balance on job satisfaction (short scale: effect = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.03; 0.15; long scale: effect = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01; 0.08) as well as a significant direct effect of bricolage on job satisfaction after the introduction of the mediator (short scale: effect = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.17; 0.51; long scale: effect = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.18; 0.41). Taken together, our post hoc analyses confirm the results of our main study, strengthening their relevance not only for founders of German start-ups, but also for self-employees of new businesses from other countries, here the U.S.

Discussion

The findings of this study illustrate that bricolage positively affects entrepreneur job satisfaction. In addition to the direct relationship, the empirical results of the simple mediation support our theorizing that bricolage also enhances work–life balance, which, in turn, increases entrepreneur job satisfaction (partial mediation). However, the findings of the moderated mediation analysis indicate that the impact of bricolage on entrepreneur job satisfaction differs between experienced and novice entrepreneurs. While engaging in bricolage behavior can increase job satisfaction for both groups, only experienced entrepreneurs – in contrast to novices – can enhance their work–life balance, which, in turn, enables them to further increase their job satisfaction.

Theoretical implications for the individual consequences of resourceful behavior

This study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by combining two emerging and important research streams, namely resourceful behavior (Williams et al., 2021) and entrepreneur well-being (Wiklund et al., 2019). To the best of our knowledge, this study is among the first to uncover the consequences of bricolage on individual-level outcomes, that is, its “effect on the personal wellbeing of the entrepreneur” (Stephan et al., 2022: p. 26).

First, the findings provide a new understanding of the role that the resourceful behavior of bricolage plays in entrepreneur job satisfaction as a meaningful proxy for entrepreneur well-being (Shir et al., 2019). We investigated a largely neglected topic in the entrepreneurship literature, addressed by only a few scholars so far (for example, Hmieleski & Corbett, 2008). However, we can deepen our understanding of resourcefulness through grassroots entrepreneurial response tactics (Bendickson, 2021) and resilience of both organizations and individuals (Hartmann et al., 2022). Our results reveal that bricoleurs can better meet entrepreneurial demands, leading to higher job satisfaction. In particular, entrepreneurs enjoy engaging in bricolage behaviors through experimental learning with the resources at hand and find a sense of achievement from getting things done through creative problem-solving (Andersen, 2008; Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011). These insights are meaningful because known coping strategies often contradict firm and personal success (for example, Hundera et al., 2020), but bricolage behaviors offer advantages for organizations and individuals.

Second, our study offers a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms in the relationship between resourceful behaviors and entrepreneur well-being. Following calls to investigate further this relationship (Stephan et al., 2022), we identify the balance between working and private lives as a mediator in the link between bricolage and entrepreneur job satisfaction. In particular, we argue that bricolage is a promising resourceful behavior to enable entrepreneurs to better shift between work and private domains and handle demand spillovers to gain work–life balance, which is an important aspect in the achievement of sustainable well-being among entrepreneurs (Haar et al., 2014). In turn, such a balance between work and private life can help (experienced) founders be more satisfied with their job as entrepreneurs (McDowell et al., 2019). We attribute this result to bricoleurs’ high autonomy and flexibility when using their limited resources (Hmieleski & Corbett, 2006) and their ability to obtain high social support via network bricolage (Baker et al., 2003).

Theoretical implications of experience for the effectiveness of resourceful behavior

Prior research in entrepreneurship suggests that entrepreneurs differ regarding their resource use for coping with demands and their responses to stressors (Williamson et al., 2022). Our study extends this literature by providing important implications for the effectiveness of resourceful behavior among experienced versus novice entrepreneurs (Furlotti et al., 2019; Schjoedt, 2020). While engaging in bricolage behavior can increase job satisfaction for both groups, only experienced entrepreneurs, in contrast to novices, can improve their work–life balance, which, in turn, further increases their job satisfaction. This insight is important because most entrepreneurial coping strategies apply an either – or logic to work and private life (Hundera et al., 2020). Experienced entrepreneurs can draw upon broader personal resources and know better how to leverage them than novices (Ozgen & Baron, 2007). As a result, experienced entrepreneurs engaging in bricolage focus on promising projects instead of wasting their limited time on irrelevant ones (Delmar & Shane, 2006). Having more time for the private domain helps bricoleurs with entrepreneurial experience to actively distance themselves from entrepreneurial tasks to have time for their private life (Kollmann et al., 2019). This positive effect of proactive coping is emphasized when we consider the positive stance of bricoleurs who are confident in their “ability to find workable solutions” to take on entrepreneurial demands (Davidsson et al., 2017: p. 119). Consequently, even novice bricoleurs can increase job satisfaction through, but not via work–life balance.

Thus, our study contributes to the scarce literature investigating the heterogeneity of well-being and coping responses among entrepreneurs (Bradley & Roberts, 2004). We identify work–life balance as one mechanism experienced bricoleurs can apply to further increase their job satisfaction. Although the mediating role of work–life balance in the context of individual well-being has been investigated in established firms (for example, Ferguson et al., 2012; Haar, 2013), the underlying mechanisms that explain why and how some entrepreneurs are more satisfied than others have largely been neglected in the literature (Lauto et al., 2020). Our study particularly provides new insights into the differences between experienced and novice entrepreneurs when engaging in bricolage behavior, explaining why and how – even among resourceful entrepreneurs – some can enjoy their entrepreneurial journey more than others.

Theoretical implications for job demands-resources theory in entrepreneurship research

Lastly, our study answers the recent call by Hartmann et al. (2022) to apply JDR theory to the entrepreneurship context and provide a novel theoretical perspective for understanding the consequences of resourceful behaviors for the individual entrepreneur. Few entrepreneurship studies have transferred and evaluated job demands and resources from salaried workers to founders (for example, McDowell et al., 2019; Neck et al., 2013). Dijkhuizen et al. (2016), for example, indicated that increasing entrepreneurial resources could help entrepreneurs to face high entrepreneurial demands so they can achieve feelings of satisfaction. Our study extends this work by introducing bricolage behavior that enables entrepreneurs to act resourcefully to face high entrepreneurial demands. Specifically, engaging in bricolage behavior can promote experimental learning (Andersen, 2008), strengthen social support through networks (Baker et al., 2003), and trigger a sense of achievement and autonomy (Garud et al., 2010; Stinchfield et al., 2013). Neck et al. (2013) suggest that these entrepreneurial resources may lead to more focused engagement in tasks that enable entrepreneurial venture creation and growth. In turn, feeling well-equipped for the entrepreneurial role can buffer the negative effects of the enormous entrepreneurial demands (Williamson et al., 2022). Thus, it can mitigate an entrepreneur’s exhaustion (de Mol et al., 2018) and ultimately lead to a feeling of satisfaction with being an entrepreneur (McDowell et al., 2019). In addition, personal resources are integral to JDR theory (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Applying this insight to the entrepreneurship literature, we show that entrepreneurial experience is an important personal resource that helps explain differences in the effectiveness of entrepreneurs’ bricolage behaviors (Williamson et al., 2022). Prior experience enhances individuals’ confidence in entrepreneurial actions and helps them to cope with difficult situations, thereby reducing work–life conflict. Thus, JDR theory provides a theoretical explanation for our finding that experienced bricoleurs can increase their job satisfaction both directly and indirectly through an improved work–life balance.

Practical implications

Beyond theoretical implications, insights into how bricolage behavior affects entrepreneur job satisfaction and how this mechanism differs between experienced and novice entrepreneurs have practical implications. First, entrepreneurs should view bricolage as a resourceful behavior that may assist them in meeting entrepreneurial demands, and as a result, enable increased job satisfaction. Although entrepreneurs often face psychological and physical entrepreneurial demands when founding and scaling an entrepreneurial venture (Dijkhuizen et al., 2016; Neck et al., 2013), bricolage behavior is a valuable way to better take on these challenges. Beyond a focus on creating a solution, acts within bricolage, namely creative experimentation and tinkering, can provide valuable opportunities to understand resources and entrepreneurial processes better. We recommend that entrepreneurs enact a realistic, intentional, and focused bias for action via bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005) instead of abandoning ideas through fear of resource constraints or other barriers (Kollmann et al., 2017). More specifically, entrepreneurs should frequently explore and evaluate the resources they have at hand, including objects that may not fit the existing industry recipe (Baker et al., 2013) and those that are very cheap or given to them for free (Baker, 2007). The “brilliant unforeseen results” (Lévi Strauss, 1966: p. 17) arising from bricolage activities may surprise them in terms of the wide range of problems and new challenges they find they are indeed able to take on, which leads to a sense of achievement (Davis et al., 2013). Furthermore, they should try to learn as much as possible within a given timeframe by finding solutions with the resources at hand (Andersen, 2008; Boxenbaum & Rouleau, 2011). This approach can lead to entrepreneurs’ higher job satisfaction due to psychological benefits in the form of achievement and workplace learning, which can often be more satisfying than financial rewards (Rowden & Conine, 2005).

Second, founders should recognize the shifts between their working and private lives as a critical mechanism to increase their job satisfaction. Although our findings indicate differential effects of bricolage on job satisfaction among experienced versus novice entrepreneurs, the results could be valuable for both groups. Entrepreneurs should view bricolage as a promising resourceful behavior to make better use of the resources at hand (Baker & Nelson, 2005). We recommend that entrepreneurs try to use their limited resources flexibly, making it easier to reconcile work and private issues (Nikolaev et al., 2020). Likewise, entrepreneurs should leverage their personal resources and relationships (Powell & Baker, 2014) as means of professional (for example, quick resource access, means for new challenges) and individual (for example, emotional support, substitution when one is absent at work) help to master entrepreneurial challenges. With a deeper understanding of contexts (Welter & Smallbone, 2011), entrepreneurs can also interpret market niches and potentials more realistically to make better decisions in task selection and prioritization. Doing so enables bricoleurs to confidently and proactively plan time off, which helps them better manage their work and private lives, leading to higher job satisfaction.

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations of this research that could be addressed by further research. First, although we used a broad sample of German entrepreneurial ventures and validated the results with panel data from the U.S., the generalizability of our results beyond these contexts is still limited. Besides comparative cross-border studies to test generalizability as well as institutional and cultural boundary conditions (for example, Elster & Gelfand, 2021; Welter et al., 2018), further studies might investigate deeper-level cultural or institutional factors to understand how the embeddedness of entrepreneurs in cultural milieus and entrepreneurial ecosystems shapes resource meanings and coping mechanisms (for example, Pidduck & Tucker, 2022). In a post hoc analysis of our German sample, we found first evidence in this direction. The indirect effect of bricolage on job satisfaction through work–life balance was indeed stronger (effect = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.02; 0.13) for startup hotspots¹ than in the overall sample, indicating differences between metropolitan and rural areas. Thus, it would be interesting to understand how hotspots allow or even call for different styles of work–life balancing or blending and what role sociocultural factors as well as ecosystem support play in this regard (for example, how bricoleurs are embedded in and engage with their local community and environment).

Second, we used self-reported individual survey data, which may be subject to common method and common source bias. To alleviate these potential biases, we used different ex ante techniques, such as the distribution of variables across the questionnaire, and statistical ex post techniques, like the latent method factor or marker variable technique, that are common in high-ranked academic journals (Doluca et al., 2018; Kollmann et al., 2020). Although we replicated our study with self-employed individuals from the U.S., studies could validate our findings with more objective data (for example, evaluations by others, such as entrepreneurs’ close friends and family members). Following up on current research, investigating the effects of bricolage in established firms (Halme et al., 2012) and teams (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011), future research may also alter the level of analysis from individuals to teams and deliver interesting insights into, for example, the impact of certain work roles, duties, or team designs and dynamics on well-being.

Third, our cross-sectional approach, although not rare in either bricolage (for example, An et al., 2018) or well-being (for example, Amorós et al., 2021) research, prohibits the investigation of causal relationships. To minimize concerns of reversed causality or any bi- or opposite-directional relationships, we developed our research model based on the established JDR model, which supports the effects of certain behaviors on individual well-being (Tims et al., 2013). In addition, we switched the research model’s independent and dependent variables to rule out any concerns that entrepreneur job satisfaction might influence bricolage mediated by work–life balance and moderated by entrepreneurial experience, a procedure already done in prior research (Kollmann et al., 2020). The reversed model did not show any significant mediation and moderation effects. However, longitudinal research designs could further support and extend the theorized relationships and examine dynamic changes between the study variables over time. This might be particularly interesting because prior studies on entrepreneurs’ job satisfaction found decreases in satisfaction with greater job tenure (Georgellis & Yusuf, 2016; Lee et al., 2020). Bricolage might be useful to counteract these effects.

Future research agenda

In addition to addressing the limitations, our study also offers fruitful starting points for future studies to apply the JDR theory beyond our focal variables. First, several opportunities exist to conduct further research that develops a more nuanced picture of other resourceful entrepreneurial behaviors (or combinations of such behaviors) and how they help entrepreneurs cope with entrepreneurial demands. For instance, Miao et al. (2017) have called for further research on the link between bootstrapping and nonfinancial performance measures. Scholars could also investigate how the common and distinctive features of entrepreneurial behaviors and decision-making logics, such as bricolage, improvisation, and effectuation/causation (compare, Fisher, 2012), alone or jointly affect individual-level outcomes for entrepreneurs. In addition, future research could analyze the impact of entrepreneurial characteristics, such as entrepreneurial orientation, self-efficacy, self-control, and self-esteem, on founders’ ability to cope with high entrepreneurial demands (Kattenbach & Fietze, 2018).

Second, future studies could consider additional personal and/or market-related variables that may influence or explain the mechanisms whereby entrepreneurial behaviors or characteristics lead to individual outcomes. For example, such variables could include personal attitudes, entrepreneurial aspirations (for example, Hessels et al., 2008; Shane et al., 2003), intentions (Bird, 1988), creativity (Perry-Smith & Coff, 2011), alertness (Lanivich et al., 2022), and imaginativeness (Kier & McMullen, 2018). Individual and team demographics as well as various types of personal experiences, such as intercultural experience (Pidduck et al., 2022; Pidduck, 2022), might also be helpful to consider as resource aids under JDR theory (Jansen & Searle, 2020). Moreover, market-related variables, such as market competition, access to external capital, and ecosystem support, could influence how founders perceive and deal with entrepreneurial demands (Kollmann et al., 2022).

Third, in addition to investigating alternative proxies of well-being, future research could examine potential negative individual-level consequences for entrepreneurs. For example, scholars could also explore how entrepreneurs react when they do not have an appropriate way to cope with high entrepreneurial demands. Consequences might include exhaustion (Bakker et al., 2008), insomnia (Kollmann et al., 2019), or burnout (Alarcon, 2011). This opens up avenues for more objective measurements of not only mental but also physical health impacts (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2015). In conclusion, JDR theory offers a strong basis for future entrepreneurship studies to understand how entrepreneurs deal with the diverse entrepreneurial demands and challenges when founding and scaling a venture and how this might impact their psychological and physical health.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ For this sub-sample analysis (N = 323), we followed the established “hotspot” categorization of the German Startup Monitor. Hotspots are areas with a high density of entrepreneurial ventures and a well-established entrepreneurial ecosystem. They include the larger cities and regions of Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Stuttgart/Karlsruhe, and the Rhine-Ruhr area (Kollmann et al., 2018).