I study the non-monetary benefits of entrepreneurship, and how entrepreneurs can maintain high productivity and performance through well-being, health, and motivation.

• What do we know? In 2018 I conducted a systematic review to take stock of "what we know" about entrepreneurs' mental health and well-being, including stressors, drivers, and consequences of entrepreneur mental well-being. I outlined a research agenda and called for research to take the specifics of the entrepreneurial context seriously (Stephan, 2018 AMP).

• Will entrepreneurship make you happy? In a global meta-study (Stephan, Rauch & Hatak, 2023 meta-analysis), we synthesize 40 years of research across 82 countries to offer a rigorous, evidence-based, and generalizable answer to the question 'Will you be happier working for yourself than working for someone else?'. We find that entrepreneurs tend to be happier than employees - so, happiness is being your own boss. Yet, there is also great stress involved in being your own boss. Thus entrepreneurship can enhance both well-being and ill-being, especially in constraining country contexts. In related research, we analyze objective health indicators and physician-diagnosed mental health in a representative sample of entrepreneurs and employees in Germany  (Stephan & Roesler, 2010, JOOP); unpick how entrepreneurs' stress, mental and physical health change in the first four years after starting their business in a longitudinal study of a representative sample of entrepreneurs and employees in the UK (Stephan, Li & Qu, 2020) and document the importance of meaningful work (alongside autonomy) and the eudaimonic well-being benefits of entrepreneurship compared to employees studying representative samples of entrepreneur and employees in 16 European countries (Stephan, Tavares, Carvalho, Ramalho, Santos & van Veldenhoven, 2020, JBV),  

• What can be done about it? How can we support entrepreneurs to deal with the intense stresses of their work and protect their well-being and health? In an editorial, we overview validated recovery strategies that are actionable for entrepreneurs and call for research to move to alleviating entrepreneurs' ill-being through co-creating and testing recovery interventions (Williamson, Gish & Stephan, 2021, ETP). Together with a global consortium of scholars, we studied over 7,000 entrepreneurs in 30 countries during the Covid-pandemic to understand how entrepreneurs can safeguard their health and well-being in times of adversity through acting with agility (for first analyses see Stephan et al., 2021 global report, Stephan, Zbierowski et al., 2023 ETP). In research that follows entrepreneurs daily over two weeks, we chart their day-to-day stressors and recovery dynamics including sleep that can boost entrepreneurs' creativity (Weinberger et al., 2018, JBV) and well-being (Wach et al., 2020). 

• And will working in a founder-led, entrepreneurial firm make you happy? Working for an 'entrepreneurial' founder, i.e. those with a proactive personality, is a double-edged sword for employee job satisfaction and mental health (Stephan, Strauss, Gorgievski & Wach, 2024, JBR). It often comes with more autonomy (you have more say over your work) and social support which boost well-being but also higher workload demands which undermine employee well-being. In times of firm instability (both growth and decline) the negative effects on employee well-being via demands outweigh the positive effects of autonomy and social support. 

I generally work to advance research on 'the psychology of entrepreneurship' - an area which includes personality approaches, but also career psychology, thriving at work, gender differences, cognitive and emotion-based approaches to entrepreneurial thinking and action (as outlined in our review of this field, Gorgievski & Stephan, 2016, Applied Psychology, for an updated perspective see Waldmann, Stephan, Song, Erez & Siegel 2024, Personnel Psychology). Beyond well-being, an example illustrating the value of integrating psychological approaches to entrepreneurship is a two-study paper that leverages ecological rationality to enhance the understanding of effectuation and entrepreneurial decision making (Koller, Stephan & Ahmetoglu, 2022, JBV). This is based on earlier work studying how entrepreneurial teams blend causal and effectual decision-making logics to navigate uncertainty, adversity, resource- and stakeholder pressurs over time (Reymen et al., 2015, SEJ).

Research on the entrepreneurial motivation of mainstream entrepreneurs reveals significant heterogeneity (Stephan, Hart & Drews, 2015; Stephan, Hart,Drews, Mickiewicz & IFF, 2015). Many entrepreneurs emphasize community impact alongside sustainable economic performance, challenge, and personal well-being (Wach, Stephan & Gorgievski, 2016, ISBJ; Wach et al., 2020, Gorgievski,Ascalon & Stephan, 2011, JSBM). We find evidence for a surprisingly high rate of philanthropy in a representative sample of mainstream small- and medium-sized businesses (SMEs). Interestingly, more entrepreneurial SMEs are especially likely to engage in philanthropy (Mickiewicz, Sauka & Stephan, 2016, ISBJ). 

Why do some people but not others start social enterprises? I have established the importance of both contextual and individual explanations for this question. In cross-national multi-level research, I investigate the institutional and cultural predictors of individual's engagement in social entrepreneurship (Estrin, Mickiewicz & Stephan, 2013, ETP,2016, JBV; Stephan, Uhlaner & Stride, 2015, JIBS). In a systematic review we take stock of the 'social entrepreneurial personality' (Stephan & Drencheva, 2017), in experimental work we establish the causal influence of prosocial motivation and traits on related behavior (Andersson et al., 2016 &  2017), and qualitative work unpicks how social entrepreneurs identities and psychological distance to the social cause they address impacts how they navigate their entrepreneurial journey (Drencheva, Stephan, Patterson & Topakas, 2021, JBV) . 

How can organizations generate wider societal change? And how should they be managed to achieve such social impact? These questions are at the heart of social entrepreneurship and related areas such as Corporate Social Responsibility and Base-of-the-Pyramid. In an interdisciplinary evidence review, we map the mechanisms and practices that organizations mobilize to create social impact and identify deep- and surface-level social change strategies as well as three levers of change (Stephan, Patterson, Kelly & Mair, 2016, JOM, more about the project here). Distinctively 'inclusive' organizational practices were used by organizations to create deep-level social impact and these practices appear to be a particularly 'crisis-resilient' way of organizing (Stephan & Huysentruyt, 2016). 

Building on this work on inclusive organizing for social change, we find in experimental work that prosocially motivated individuals thrive in aligned prosocial  organizational cultures and collective/team incentive schemes (Andersson, Huysentruyt, Miettinen & Stephan, 2017, Management Science). At the firm-level, mainstream organizations pursuing social goals are particularly effective in mobilizing collaborative open innovation practices translating into more commercially successful innovations (Stephan, Andries & Daou, 2019, JPIM). While individual social entrepreneurs use a variety of feedback strategies to mobilize resources for launching their organizations (Drencheva, Stephan & Patterson, 2022).

Inclusive Growth? Through the EU-funded SELUSI and SEFORIS projects (www.seforis.eu) and work for the UK Government on how to measure social enterprises (DCMS & BEIS: Social Enterprise: Market Trends 2017), I have been at the forefront of generating robust data on social enterprises.  These data suggest that social enterprise can be a significant driver of inclusive economic growth and establish the economic and social impacts of social enterprises across countries - from providing employment, creating revenues, and being a major source of radical innovation to helping beneficiaries and facilitating access to labor markets (Huysentruyt & Stephan, 2017;Huysentruyt, Mair & Stephan, 2016). 

The importance of context for venture creation is often overlooked in favor of a focus on 'heroic' entrepreneurs who succeed seemingly against all odds. Adopting a comparative entrepreneurship perspective, I explore why and how entrepreneurial processes differ across countries and regions. My recent review paper gives an overview of what we know and don't know about how culture relates to innovation and entrepreneurship (Stephan, 2022 AROPOB). 

I integrate psychology and cultural theory with economic and sociological institutional theory to advance a deeper understanding of how informal and formal institutions shape entrepreneurship (Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010, JIBS; Stephan, Uhlaner & Stride, 2015 JIBS, also Estrin et al., 2013, ETP; Bergmann & Stephan, 2013, SBE; Stephan & Pathak, 2016, JBV) and the individual-factors through which culture influences individual entrepreneurship  (Gorgievski et al., 2017, Moriano et al., 2012; Iakovleva, Kolvereid & Stephan, 2011) and innovation (Lukes & Stephan, 2017). Differences in context affect the entrepreneurial ambitions of diverse individuals in varying ways (e.g., women, those with high human capital etc., Estrin et al., 2016, JBV; Hopp & Stephan, 2012, ERD): Certain contexts are more inclusive and empower individuals who would not normally engage in entrepreneurship to start a venture. 

My research has advanced the understanding of informal institutions (culture and social capital) and their impact on entrepreneurship, highlighting the  importance of differentiating cultural norms (also called cultural practices) from cultural values (e.g., Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010, JIBS, also Stephan, 2022). Contrary to the popular belief that individualistic cultures drive entrepreneurship, I find that 'socially supportive' cultures facilitate entrepreneurship. They reflect weak-tie social capital and enable entrepreneurs to access important resources and support. The influence of individualistic and performance-based cultures on entrepreneurship appears to be more indirect and related to the strength of formal institutions. By contrast, the beneficial effects of socially supportive cultures may be universal, i.e. they hold for different types of commercial entrepreneurship (independence-motivated and innovative start-ups, Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010,JIBS) and social entrepreneurship (Stephan et al., 2015, JIBS). My research also highlights equivalent community cultures (Hopp & Stephan, 2012, ERD).