Performative entrepreneurship: identity, behaviour and place in adventure sports Enterprise

Self-employment has been a growing feature of the UK economy representing a shift from 12% of the workforce in 2001 to 15.1% in 2017 (ONS 2018). Significant features of this shift include an increase in part-time self-employment and a sharper increase in male self-employment (ONS 2018). Findings have also identified lower net incomes from self-employment compared to employment (ONS 2018). Motivators toward self-employment are therefore not always related to higher income potential. A number of authors note the greater sense of satisfaction that comes with self-employment (Lange 2012; Hessels et al. 2017) and the higher levels of personal autonomy which become motivating factors (Kautonen et al. 2015; Kautonen et al. 2017). For the lifestyle entrepreneur, or even enterprising enthusiast, autonomy and personal reward are significant drivers and potentially out-weigh more traditional rational economic motivation for enterprise start-up. ‘Living in the area’, ‘being their own boss’, and ‘doing interesting work’ were identified by Thomas et al. (1997) as variables with much greater significance than economic motivation. These findings are replicated in many international studies into lifestyle entrepreneurial intention (Dewhurst and Horobin 1998; Morrison et al. 1999; Thomas, 2004; Deakins and Freel, 2006). Marchant and Mottiar (2011) in their study of surf tourism highlight Kaplan (2003) in defining lifestyle entrepreneurs as those “who design the entrepreneurial activity around their preferred lifestyle and personal circumstances” (Marchant and Mottiar 2011, p172). From the outset therefore, we may appreciate that the notion of ‘entrepreneurs’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ are broad and contested categories to apply here. For many, entrepreneurship is related to business start-up and organisation creation (Gartner 1988), however wider perspectives recognise the process in terms of opportunity identification and value creation leading to economic activity, which does not necessarily involve starting a firm (Davidsson et al. 2006; Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Attempts have also been made to understand the entrepreneurial process in terms of ‘intention’ and ‘character’, arguing that entrepreneurial action is the result of planned behaviour resulting from intention and from an inclination towards entrepreneurial endeavour (Ajzen 2002, 1985). However, studies have also acknowledged a lack of entrepreneurial intention with subjects exhibiting influences from other factors such as serendipity (Varamaki et al. 2016). Characteristics and trait research can elucidate why and how people become engaged in entrepreneurial behaviour (Bridge et al. 2003; Florin et al. 2007). For example, entrepreneurs are regarded as possessing a number of shared attributes including: a need for achievement, internal locus of control, tolerance of ambiguity and risk, as well as self-confidence and creativity (Marques et al. 2013; Vrdoljak and Dulcic 2011). The traits approach has however been criticised (Cools and Van den Broeck 2007). For example, Thompson (2009) notes that many people who exhibit appropriate entrepreneurial characteristics may never express intent or go on to engage in entrepreneurial activity. However, these accounts of entrepreneurship do not represent for all forms of enterprising and entrepreneurial activity. Social entrepreneurs for example are defined by their focus on generating social outcomes, as opposed to economic and financial objectives (Dees 2004). This in turn affects how social entrepreneurs assess and act upon opportunities as well as their motivations for pursing them, which are related to their social mission or quality of life rather than wealth creation (Kautonen et al. 2017; Hartigan, 2006).

In considering the emerging body of research on sports entrepreneurship within the broader areas of entrepreneurship and sports management, Ratten (2010b) describes a sports entrepreneur as “someone who organizes, operates, and assumes risk for a sports-related business venture” (p.560). Ratten (2012) defines sports entrepreneurship broadly as “any innovative activity that has a sports objective [ …] Sport entrepreneurship involves the processes, practices and decision-making activities that lead to the development of products, services or markets” (p65). Bill (2009) asks whether ‘sports entrepreneurship’ is distinctive enough to distinguish either the entrepreneur or the enterprise from other mainstream entrepreneurial activities before suggesting that they can be described as “an individual who has the tacit industry-specific knowledge (e.g. personal trainer) and/or general business knowledge (e.g. football club owner), innovatory capacity and creative spirit to spot and generate openings within the sport sector in order to realise a market opportunity” (Bill 2009: 23). However, in these accounts sports entrepreneurs are distinguished by the sector and their industry knowledge rather than strategies, behaviours, or personal values - as would seem more appropriate for this study. Several researchers note the social motivation of sports entrepreneurs who may be driven by community or social goals rather than financial gain and profit (Ratten 2011, 2012; Hemme et al. 2017; Ratten and Jones 2018). While there is strong evidence that sports entrepreneurs are socially engaged, nevertheless it has been noted that this focus is related to the specific industry, lifestyle context, or in policy areas where social benefit is a key criterion for accessing public funding (Peterson and Schenker 2017). Furthermore, it has been noted that formal recognition of entrepreneurial identity is often absent in the sector (Brown 1996). Examining entrepreneurship in the field of sports fitness, Brown found that few of the participants perceived themselves as entrepreneurs: “Entrepreneurship was associated with hiring employees and providing a tangible product” (p.V). Furthermore, there is a view that sports entrepreneurs rely heavily on social capital and networks to build stakeholders and enable innovation (Ratten, 2010b, p.559).

Hemme et al. (2017) explore how sports entrepreneurs, particularly in the fitness sector, strategize and pursue competitive advantage in a non-traditional industry. Whilst sharing many similarities with entrepreneurs in other sectors, fitness/sports entrepreneurs are described as affected by a variety of factors associated with non-conventional industries. They identify four key themes that characterise the fitness/sports entrepreneur. First the ‘process’ characteristics of entrepreneurship which involves adjusting to and taking on a variety of roles. ‘Strategic learning’ reflects a propensity for a trial and error approach to enterprise development and as such the entrepreneur may be perceived as responsive to customer needs and sector challenges rather than implementing a formalised and longer-term business strategy. A third characteristic is a ‘controlled dependency’ which emphasises a reliance on a core network of people and communities. This in turn may be used to support and enable the fourth key theme: the entrepreneur and fitness/sports entrepreneurship as a form of social enterprise pursued for social ends rather than financial benefit (p.96). Furthermore, Hemme et al. (2017) note the lack of planning and goal setting that informs fitness/sports entrepreneurship linking it to Effectuation strategies as developed by Sarasvathy (2001) and Dew et al. (2009).

Despite the rise in popularity of adventure sports, both in terms of product sales and as a source of emerging lifestyle entrepreneurship around experience tourism, it has been argued above that more needs to be done to further develop the emotional, symbolic, and environmental dimensions in sports management research. Since this sub-sector is typified by lifestyle entrepreneurs who may be motivated more by the wish to maintain and build a cultural scene, to sustain a preferred lifestyle or, particularly in the case of this study, to preserve an emotional link to landscape and place, it is important to employ approaches which offer the researcher the opportunity to appreciate rich accounts of individual stories and local contexts. Through qualitative means this study aims to help characterise an under-researched area and support future work around adventure sports enterprise. By indicating the importance of the environment and place in the performative identity of such lifestyle entrepreneurs we also seek to valorise the role of wider qualitative approaches in building scholarly understanding.

In familiarising ourselves with the research area prior to data collection, the authors observed that the nature of adventure sports enterprises relating to MTB guiding and training seemed highly informal and embedded in the local social networks related to the sport. The subjects did not seem to be driven by traditional notions of rational planned behaviour. Bruni et al. (2004) explore the intertwined notion of entrepreneurship and identity of ‘self’ (in the context of gender), and it is through the broad application of this lens of performativity that the authors felt there lay a closer theoretical fit:

“enacted as situated practices [...] As well as being an economic phenomenon, entrepreneurship can also be read as a cultural one. Entrepreneurial action is an archetype of social action and, as the institutionalization of values and symbols, it can be related to gender for a cross-reading of how gender and entrepreneurship are culturally produced and reproduced in social practices.” (p406)

What this study draws from Bruni et al. is the notion of an entrepreneurship and lifestyle identity which is entwined, enacted and performed through practice. For adventure sports entrepreneurship, which is so embedded in lifestyle and place as MTB training and guiding, we therefore draw upon performativity (Butler, 1999) of identity as informing, and informed by, the nature of enterprise. As is outlined above, we might expect that in this sector entrepreneurial motivation and intention, process, strategic learning and planning are less formalised and blurred within the notion of enactment and the performance of identity. Traditional entrepreneurship models based upon economic rationality seem limited in this context since here the entrepreneur, their notion of enterprise, and their lifestyle identity are tacit, interwoven and indivisible. Such individuals acknowledge their proactiveness and enterprising nature but are likely to consider this entrepreneurial behaviour as embedded rather than distinct and identity-defining (Brown 1996).

The performative nature of entrepreneurship and identity is an emerging area of entrepreneurship literature (Phillips and Knowles 2012; Garud et al. 2014, 2017; Garud and Gehman, 2016) which considers that these “can never be a settled state of affairs, but instead must be considered as an ongoing journey” (Garud et al. 2017, p502). In this case enterprise and identity are performance acts, which in turn create the very stage for the performance. Bruni et al. (2004) consider identity as “the effect of a network of relations which give material form and stability to an artefact” (p407) and as such are informed by performative identity as offered by Butler (1999) and Bruni and Gherardi (2001). Identity Theory (IT) offered by Stryker and Burke (2000) and Stets and Burke (2000) also notes a reciprocity between identity and behaviour. However, as with more traditional approaches to entrepreneurship research, there is still an implied rationality in the IT process of ‘identification’ and the act of self-categorisation within the entrepreneurial context. Therefore, whilst acknowledging the notion of the continuous and reciprocal journey of identity and behaviour (as being intertwined and reinforcing) it is argued that IT still considers these through a rational lens. Sport entrepreneurship has been explored in the context of lifestyle where the motivation to start a business is driven by a desire to maintain or pursue a particular lifestyle choice related to individual passions, interests, and personal circumstances (Swan and Morgan 2016). Lifestyle entrepreneurs are generally understood to be less motivated by profit and business growth (Morrison 2006), and instead are seen to base decision-making on subjective needs and observations rather than objectives facts related to economic conditions and market opportunity (Dewhurst and Horobin, 1998). Other studies of lifestyle entrepreneurs have identified more complex entrepreneurial identities which recognise that ‘lifestyle’ may indeed be combined with commercially orientated goals (Bredvold and Skålen 2016).

This study adopts critically subjective, qualitative approaches to explore notions of entrepreneurial behaviour, identity and place through the lens of performativity. These involve: 1) semi-structured interviews with ride leaders/guides for whom the activity was either a partial or main source of income. This was based around interviews with six trainers/guides conducted via online forums; and 2) observation gained through participation to consider the space/place through which entrepreneurial behaviour is enacted and identity formed.

Participants were recruited through online cycling forums and discussion groups. Recruitment took place over a period of around 4 months and participants either identified themselves in response to the call or were recommended by others in their network. The participants selected represent a geographic spread and are summarised below in Table 1.

Interviews were undertaken with the participants using an open, semi-structured format but with follow-up questions where appropriate.

Prior to the New Geography of the 1960s, traditional treatment of space was dominated by “providing a narrative account of what happens where.” (Conolly and Lake 2006, 8). This Cartisian perspective was based on the thought of seventeenth Century philosopher and mathematician René Decartes who considered a split between mind and body (mind-body dualism). This led to notion of the ‘subject’ and ‘object’ and, in this sense, the external world was independent of ‘subjective’ reality. Merleau-Ponty (1962) and Bourdieu’s (1984) ‘habitus’ explore spaces as embodied and symbolic. These humanist approaches in geography introduced a multitude of social and phenomenological perceptions of space as media through which we are produced and reproduced. Henri Lefebvre (1991) explored the interactions between physical, mental and social space, considering Bourdieu’s ‘habitus’ as our ‘mode of being’ (1991, 259): “the whole of social space proceeds from the body” (1991, 405). Therefore, the phenomenological appreciation of landscape is important in this study for relating the experiential with the cartographic. In referring to the phenomenology of landscape, it is outlined that “landscape is synergistic and its parts and interconnections make an environment into a whole” (i Font 1993, 163). In contrast to positivist approaches, phenomenology assumes that the researcher cannot be detached from their own assumptions and beliefs (Hammersley, 2000). The focus is on description of the encountered phenomena with meaning extending from the researcher’s direct engagement. Hycner (1999, p. 156) outlines that “the phenomenon dictates the method (not vice-versa) including even the type of participants”. Here purposive sampling is favoured since the researcher is required to look for those who “have had experiences relating to the phenomenon to be researched” (Kruger, 1988 p. 150). In line with the approaches described above, the researcher made observations whilst participating in a group ride and with a second group’s trail building activity.

A group gathers at a popular tourist location in the Peak District and wait whilst the ride leader (P1) checks the bikes over to make sure the riders have suitable equipment and provides a safety briefing. This is done professionally but informally and it is clear that P1 wishes to build a rapport and potentially attract repeat custom. Immediately P1 is keen to underline that they will introduce the group to little known areas of the local landscape, as such they are both demonstrating their value to the group as a guide and reinforcing their own status as an expert. The knowledge they possess is clearly developed over many years from the stories of adventures past that P1 entertains the group with as the ride progresses.

There are many challenging sections to the ride which takes place over a six hour period. This requires P1 to offer advice on technique and build riders’ confidence through coaching methods. P1 describes what is ahead and suggests body positioning to best prepare for the terrain. The views and landscape features that are revealed through the routes chosen by P1 are spectacular and are very much part of the region’s ‘experience’ offer (as described by Gibbs and Holloway 2017). P1 reinforces their own connection to this landscape with stories from childhood. This engenders a sense of privilege amongst the ride participants through exposure to special local knowledge. Cheong and Miller (2000) also note this in their own work on power and tourism:

“Guides are not always able to rely on repeat customers, but they do depend on the tips and word-of-mouth advertising of satisfied tourists. They construct the gaze through their special expertise, esoteric ``local knowledge”, and abilities. Thus, they demonstrate their worth by being able to converse with tourists in their language, by knowing popular trails and interesting fora and fauna, by recounting cultural and architectural histories, by knowing local customs, and so forth.” (p372)

Landscape is both appreciated visually but is also responded to creatively. As an adventure sport, MTB is not just about moving from A to B, it is also about finding exciting and creative ways of moving through sometimes challenging terrain. The local names for parts of trails and obstacles are given by P1 and the riders are encouraged to challenge themselves to negotiate the landscape in a positive and attacking manner. Language such as ‘flow’, ‘continuity’, ‘response’ is used by P1 as the riders traverse the terrain to reinforce the aesthetic and creative choices made by riders in cornering and descents. The focus is very much on the quality of the riding experience, much like a surfer seeking to ride in partnership with nature.

About halfway through the ride, two tourists who have hired bikes ask if they can join the group. They are treated to an immersive experience of the landscape and many aspects of local history are now brought into P1’s guiding narrative since the tourists had travelled from out of the region to be here. Places to eat and stay are recommended by P1 and the tourists comment on the value of local knowledge as they are introduced to places ‘off the beaten track’.

It is clear from this observation that P1 is acting entrepreneurially. This is a significant source of income and they rely on repeat custom and as such must vary the trails, or the manner through which the terrain is ridden, to ensure variety as well as selling the region as a tourism destination. In many ways this lifestyle entrepreneur is selling a performance within an experience of place, more so than simply offering a coaching function. In this sense they are perhaps are more closely aligned to the cultural and creative industries than sports enterprise due to the intrinsic value of creativity and aesthetic experience in their value proposition.

A second observation 2 mo later does not involve the interview participants but instead witnesses illicit trail building at a secret riding location popular with locals in a patch of urban woodland. It is here that we find the direct creative modification of an already popular riding location to reinforce an experience of ‘flow’ and riding transitions. The trail that is cut very much reflects the riding style of the trail builder and especially their imagined riding ‘lines’. These are highly sculptural interventions that introduce a dynamic aesthetic of movement through the densely wooded space, and are reminiscent of the lines a skier might adopt when creatively descending a mountainside. The trails are built by a number of volunteers of varying experience and reinforces the status of the person leading the building process. Trails may be illicitly cut through private woodland to augment and enhance the landscape. These represent the lead trail builder’s creativity and vision, their riding style and personality which are literally embedded and built into the landscape in reciprocating partnership. To those accustomed to ‘reading’ the way the landscape has been shaped, in order to encourage a particular way of moving through it, these creative choices can be like the signatures or ‘tags’ of graffiti artists.

This is a network bonding experience which also reinforces the exclusivity of localised, specialist knowledge since many informal trails (away from official trail centres) are ‘secret spots’ due to their illicit status. It is through these kinds of grassroots activities that the charismatic ‘entrepreneur’ emerges (Gheradi and Nicolini 2005) in this adventure sports contexts and their identity, as embedded in landscape, is reinforced through such performative acts. Landscape therefore is not merely a location where things happen or a backdrop to human activity, nor is it solely an instrumental asset through which capitalism is played out. Landscape is the indivisible combination of environmental, human, and economic spheres (Selman 2012). In this sense, the performance of identity is enacted via behaviours and the human-nature space through which it is performed (i.e. the landscape). Therefore, we extend the identity/behaviour dualism offered by Bruni et al. to inform a reading of performativity and entrepreneurship within the triad of identity/behaviour/place (Fig. 1).

Whilst this area of adventure sports entrepreneurship is represented by a modest training sector, it is important to understand the emerging development of lifestyle enterprise such as this for wider application – both across other adventure sports, but also into fields such as cultural and creative industries where similar notions of community ‘embeddedness’ (Jack and Andersen 2002) may influence artist/entrepreneurial identity.