The relevance of recovery in the context of entrepreneurship

von Luise Penseler (1. Semester Master Psychologie – Human Performance in Sociotechnical Systems, Technische Universität Dresden)

Entrepreneurial activity can be seen as a double-edged sword (Prottas & Thompson, 2006, p.366). On the one hand, entrepreneurs report that they are extremely happy and satisfied (Benz & Frey, 2004; Stephan and Roesler, 2010; Wach, Doan, et al., 2020), on the other hand they experience high levels of stress (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011; Stephan, 2018). This extreme nature of entrepreneurial work can lead to high levels of stress. Particularly in times of crises and economic uncertainty, entrepreneurial well-being is at stake. Therefore, insights into how entrepreneurs can protect their well-being are particularly important in the current times. One way to cope with stress is recovery. Manuel Wesch, founder of Just Rocket said in the online magazine Start-up Germany about his recovery experience as an entrepreneur: ‘(…) switching off is not quite easy, because your head is somehow always with the company.’ (Hüsing, 2019). This shows how difficult it can be, especially for entrepreneurs, to gain this experience of recovery.

Introduction

Compared to employees entrepreneurs are characterized by certain qualities among people. According to Fritsch (2019), these can be alertness for recognizing of business opportunities, initiative and a creative will for the introduction of new ideas. Moreover, the pursuit of selffulfillment, autonomy, the ability and will to achieve success are distinctive characteristics (Shir et al., 2019; Stephan et al., 2020, 2022). For many employees, daily work consists of fixed structures, such as a regular salary, regulated working hours or a constrained scope of duties. In contrast, people working on a self-employed basis can be defined as entrepreneurs. These can be people who decide to realize creative, innovative ideas and create a start- up, with the intention of launching an internationally growing company. On the other hand they could run the handcraft business next door. What entrepreneurs have in common, however, is that in contrast to employees, they experience more autonomy and flexibility in their work arrangements as they act on their own responsibility. Personal identification, a sense of purpose, a high degree of autonomy and over-commitment can thereby blur the boundaries between work and private life (Willamson et al., 2022). This in fact can have impact on their personal health and well- being. It can be assumed that entrepreneurs can be in a tension between self-determination and self-responsibility which demonstrates that entrepreneurs are required to have a high level of awareness of their own resources in order to recognize stressors and strains themselves and to act preventively for their own health and well-being. To promote well-being, recovery can be seen as an important process. According to Willamson et al., (2022), recovery contributes hereby to the restoration of resources that are important for goal-directed action. These resources are relevant for coping with the demands imposed by the workplace (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Furthermore, the effects of stress can have a cumulative effect that can be detrimental to the entrepreneurs’ health over time (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Therefore, the following paragraph outlines the relevance of psychological detachments on well-being in the frame of the stressor detachment model (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015).

What’s the relevance for entrepreneurs?

Entrepreneurs show a high level of motivation, life satisfaction and identification with their professional activity (Willamson et al., 2022). Beside these positive aspects and possibilities, entrepreneurs are also dependent on several external agents such as customers and suppliers (Davidsson et al., 2020). Therefore, they are more vulnerable to the impact of unpredictable events and their potential economic consequences (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). This can lead to massive stress, whereby recovery is an important process to reduce physical and psychological consequences of stress in order to promote well-being. In general, well-being is defined in the literature as a state resulting from the perception of satisfaction or happiness (Ryan & Deci, 2001) and is closely related to mental health (World Health Organization, 2004). In terms of entrepreneurial well- being, it can be considered as the experience of satisfaction, positive affect, infrequent negative affect and psychological functioning related to the development, creation, growth, and operation of an entrepreneurial venture (Pech et al.,2010).

Acendents of Recovery

Although recovery from work has been defined in different ways (Demerouti et al., 2009) the definitions agree that recovery occurs when work demands or stressors are no longer present. According to Sonnentag & Fritz (2007), although individuals use different strategies to recover, the underlying processes are similar. As a result of the recovery process, the person’s functional system returns to a baseline level of stress (Meijman & Mulder, 1998; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). This process often manifests itself in a restoration of impaired mood and action preconditions and in a decrease of physiological stress indicators (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Sonnentag & Fritz (2007) identified four critical strategies for improving recovery in their classification of strategies for regulating unpleasant mood states: control over non-work time (control over what, when, and how one spends one’s leisure time), mastery experience (feeling self-efficacy, e.g., through social engagement or learning a new language), relaxation (a state of low activation and heightened positive affect, e.g., through meditation exercises, listening to music, or taking a light walk), and the process of psychological detachment (the physical and mental absence from the work situation). Psychological detachment has been found to be a particularly powerful driver of recovery in previous studies (Bennett et al., 2018; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007, 2015a) and was found to be strongly associated with health and well-being outcomes (Steed et al., 2019)

Psychological Detachment

The concept of detachment was first introduced by Etzion et al. (1998) as ‘the individual’s sense of being detached from the work situation.’ (p.579). Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) described it as physically and mentally staying away from work and work-related activities as e.g. physically leaving the workplace or not answering work-related calls at home. However, if a person succeeds in detaching from work, the work stressors are no longer present in the psychophysiological system and recovery can occur (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).

Classification Job-Stressors

Starting, growing, or running an entrepreneurial business for many years encompasses both growth-oriented and ‘everyday’ forms of self-employment (Welter et al., 2017). However, this work can in turn be characterized by high levels of stress and work intensity (Stephan, 2018). According to Sonnentag (2018), a recovery paradox can occur when demanding work suppresses the ability to recover precisely when it is needed most. Sonnentag and Fritz (2012) underlined the influence of specific work stressors in the Stressor-Detachment-Model (SDM) as an integrative framework. They point out that stressors can be considered as factors that can cause reactions in the work environment such as negative arousal, physical symptoms or psychological distress (Kahn and Byosiere, 1992) (Figure 1, 3). In accordance with Sonnentag and Frese (2012), the following classification of stressors can be made: physical stressors, task-related stressors, role stressors, social stressors, workplace-related stressors, traumatic events and stressful change processes. Prior research has paid particular attention to task-related stressors (e.g. time pressure and work overload, work complexity), role stressors (e.g. role conflict and role ambiguity) and social stressors (e.g. violence, bullying). Most types of stressors can occur as one-time events (i.e. acute stressors, but may also appear over longer periods of time (i.e. chronic stressors). And the extent to which these stressors have a negative impact depends on an individual’s assessment and coping strategies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Stressor-Detachment-model as integrative framework of recovery from stress

Thus, job stressors can prevent psychological detachment from work during non-work time. This in turn can have an impact on well-being (Figure 1, 1,2 mediator effect). In terms of SDM, work stress in particular predicts low levels of psychological detachment. In contrast, psychological detachment can also function as a coping strategy (e.g. due boundary management, physical activity, mindfulness techniques or social support) to attenuate the negative consequences between work stressors and well-being (Figure 1, 4 moderator effect).This connection between job stress, psychological detachment, and personal wellbeing is important as entrepreneurs are often exposed to high levels of stress (Cardon & Patel, 2013) and therefore have a greater need for rest (de Croon et al., 2004). Occurring work stressors can affect individual resources, which in turn can translate into increased stress levels and decreased well-being. High levels of stress, for example, make it difficult to detach from work and can thus increase negative activation and hinder recovery processes. This can lead to more thinking about perceived stressors or engaging in work- related content during non-work time. Moreover, Sonnentag and Fritz extended the SDM (2015) by adopting the attention and resource components from Lazarus and Folkmann’s (1984) transactional stress theory. They assume that the negative effects of stressors can be reduced by the attention given to the importance of the stressor and the resources available. Primary and secondary appraisal processes are thereby crucial in this process (Figure 1, 5). Primary appraisal assesses the extent to which an event is perceived as a potential threat or impairment. Secondary appraisal refers to what can be done to cope with a perceived stressor (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Accordingly, stressors should become relevant when attention is focused on them. This is relevant in relation to entrepreneurship, as entrepreneurs are often characterized by high levels of professional commitment and identification with their business. Psychological detachment can lead to distance from workrelated thoughts and mental representations of the stressors. This allows recovery from stresses and thereby promotes the rebuilding of resources. Thus, stress is reduced, which can have a positive effect on well-being (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015; Wendsche & Lohmann- Haislah, 2017). Moreover, regarding to Sonnentag and Fritz (2015) the content of one’s jobrelated thoughts may also moderate the effect of detachment on strain and well-being outcomes (Figure 1, 2), as positive associations can also have a promoting effect on wellbeing. A metaanalysis by Karabinski et al. (2021) investigated the effectiveness of psychological detachment regarding primary and secondary appraisal on an employee level. It was found that interventions addressing primary and secondary appraisal processes could be classified as being effective. However, interventions that address the primary assessment, i.e. the assessment of a stressor, showed a higher effectiveness.

Summary

To conclude, entrepreneurship can be seen as double-edged. On the one hand, it offers a high degree of autonomy and flexibility in everyday work, which can be associated with high satisfaction and motivation for one’s own company. On the other hand, the aforementioned job stressors can lead to enormous stress, especially in self-employment. Entrepreneurs have more flexibility in designing a healthy working day, but they also need to be aware of the stressors and coping mechanisms to avoid negative effects on their health. Psychological detachment has been identified as a powerful recovery experience. In line with SDM, psychological detachment can act as a mediator and moderator in the relationship between job stressors and well-being. Sonnentag and Fritz (2012) extended the stressor-detachment model by adopting the attentional and resource components from Lazarus and Folkmann’s (1984) transactional stress theory as well as the aspect of the content of job related thoughts. Conducted intervention studies indicated that detachment strategies during and after work can positively impact employee well-being (Headrick et al., 2022b; Karabinski et al., 2021; Wendsche & Lohmann-Haislah, 2017). Based on the findings of the employee studies, I propose to develop specific intervention programmes to increase entrepreneurs‘ detachment. For example, strategies that address the primary appraisal of a stressor, such as emotion regulation or mindfulness strategies, may have positive effects on psychological detachment in this context (Karabinski et al., 2021). According to Williamson et al. (2022), contextspecific and entrepreneur-friendly interventions are promising for both growth-oriented and ‚everyday‘ entrepreneurs. With regard to emotion regulation strategies, exercises focusing on positive perceptions of the day could be used (Binnewies et al., 2009; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005). Mindfulness exercises could include breathing exercises or muscle relaxation exercises (Querstret et al., 2017). As boundary management is a helpful strategy to promote psychological distance (Karabinski et al., 2021), this could also be applied to entrepreneurs. For example, entrepreneurs could be made aware of transition rituals, such as writing a to-do list for the coming workday (Ashforth et al., 2000) or setting rules for the use of work-related information/communication technologies (Barber & Jenkins, 2014).

---

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a Day’S Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3363315

Barber, L., & Jenkins, J. (2014). Creating Technological Boundaries to Protect Bedtime: Examining Work-Home Boundary Management, Psychological Detachment and Sleep. Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2536

Bennett, A. A., Bakker, A. B., & Field, J. G. (2018). Recovery from work-related effort: A metaanalysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2217

Benz, M., & Frey, B. (2004). Being Independent Raises Happiness at Work. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 11.

Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2009). Daily performance at work: Feeling recovered in the morning as a predictor of day-level job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.541

Cardon, M., & Patel, P. (2013). Is Stress Worth it? Stress-Related Health and Wealth Trade-Offs for Entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology, 64. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12021

Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2020). External Enablement of New Venture Creation: A Framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(3), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0163

de Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Blonk, R. W. B., Broersen, J. P. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2004). Stressful Work, Psychological Job Strain, and Turnover: A 2-Year Prospective Cohort Study of Truck Drivers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 442–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.442

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Geurts, S. A. E., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Daily recovery from workrelated effort during non-work time. In S. Sonnentag, P. L. Perrewé, & D. C. Ganster (Hrsg.), Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being (Bd. 7, S. 85–123). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000007006

Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 577–585.

Fritsch, M. (2019). Entrepreneurship Theorie, Empirie, Politik. Springer eBook Collection. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34637-9

Headrick, L., Newman, D. A., Park, Y. A., & Liang, Y. (2022). Recovery Experiences for Work and Health Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis and Recovery-Engagement-Exhaustion Model. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09821-3

Hüsing, A. (2019, August 21). “Abschalten ist nicht so leicht, da man mit dem Kopf immer beim Unternehmen ist”. https://www.deutsche-startups.de/2019/08/21/manuel-weschgruenderalltag/

Karabinski, T., Haun, V. C., Nübold, A., Wendsche, J., & Wegge, J. (2021). Interventions for improving psychological detachment from work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(3), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000280

Lazarus, R., & Folkmann, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Negative emotions of an entrepreneurial career: Selfemployment and regulatory coping behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2), 226–238.

Pech, E., Rose, U., & Freude, G. (2010). Zum Verständnis mentaler Gesundheit—Eine erweiterte Perspektive. Zentralblatt für Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitsschutz und Ergonomie, 60(7), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03344289

Prottas, D. J., & Thompson, C. A. (2006). Stress, satisfaction, and the work-family interface: A comparison of self-employed business owners, independents, and organizational employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076- 8998.11.4.366

Querstret, D., Cropley, M., & Fife-Schaw, C. (2017). Internet-based instructor-led mindfulness for work-related rumination, fatigue, and sleep: Assessing facets of mindfulness as mechanisms of change. A randomized waitlist control trial. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000028

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611

Shir, N., Nikolaev, B. N., & Wincent, J. (2019). Entrepreneurship and well-being: The role of psychological autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(5), 105875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.05.002

Sonnentag, S. (2018a). The recovery paradox: Portraying the complex interplay between job stressors, lack of recovery, and poor well-being. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.002

Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2012). Stress in Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212021

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor‐detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of organizational behavior, 36(S1), S72-S103.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204

Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U.-V. (2005). Switching Off Mentally: Predictors and Consequences of Psychological Detachment From Work During Off-Job Time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.393

Steed, L., Swider, B., Keem, S., & Liu, J. (2019). Leaving Work at Work: A Meta-Analysis on Employee Recovery From Work. Journal of Management, 47, 014920631986415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319864153

Stephan, U., Rauch, A., & Hatak, I. (2022). Happy Entrepreneurs? Everywhere? A Meta-Analysis of Entrepreneurship and Wellbeing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 104225872110727. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211072799

Stephan, U., Tavares, S. M., Carvalho, H., Ramalho, J. J. S., Santos, S. C., & van Veldhoven, M. (2020). Self-employment and eudaimonic well-being: Energized by meaning, enabled by societal legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), 106047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106047

Stephan, U., & Roesler, U. (2010). Health of Entrepreneurs versus Employees in a National Representative Sample. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 717– 738. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X472067

Stephan, U. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ Mental Health and Well-Being: A Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(3), 290–322. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0001

Wach, D., Doan, D., Herhold, E. S., & Frenzel, B. (2020). Herausforderungen und Folgen der COVID-19- Pandemie für Solo-Selbstständige und KMU in Deutschland. 39.

Wendsche, J., & Lohmann-Haislah, A. (2016). Psychische Gesundheit in der Arbeitswelt: Pausen. https://doi.org/10.21934/BAUA:BERICHT20160713/3B

Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday Entrepreneurship—A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12258

Williamson, A. J., Gish, J. J., & Stephan, U. (2021). Let’s focus on solutions to entrepreneurial ill-being! Recovery interventions to enhance entrepreneurial well-being. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 45(6), 1307-1338.

World Health Organization. (2004). Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence, practice: Summary report. World Health Organization.