Introduction
This article examines the journeys of entrepreneurial philanthropists as recounted in life-history interviews with UK-based entrepreneurs. It examines their giving within the context of their life stories (
Atkinson, 1998;
Denzin, 1989;
Linde, 1993;
McAdams, 1988,
1993), and evaluates the benefits they claim to derive from their philanthropy. Philanthropists’ self-narratives help to publicize the rewards of charitable giving – ‘the donation of money … that benefits others beyond one’s own family’ (
Bekkers and Wiepking, 2011: 925) – to attract new donors to the cause (
Kornberger and Brown, 2007;
Martens et al., 2007). Such narratives shift the focus from the universal – too vast to address in a useful manner – to something more defined to which new donors can relate and potentially make a difference. In this sense, these stories emphasize agency, turning the spotlight on human powers to formulate agential projects (
Archer, 2000;
Emirbayer and Mische, 1998).
In making sense of the philanthropic journey, this article extends theoretical approaches to the study of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy – still at a pre-paradigmatic, embryonic stage – by laying the foundations for a theory of philanthropic identity narratives (
Nicholls, 2010;
Taylor et al., 2014). These are embedded in wider canonical discourses that exhort entrepreneurs to assume particular moralities, and shed light on the construction of desirable past and future selves (
Pratt et al., 2006;
Watson, 2008;
Ybema, 2010). The acquisition of a philanthropic identity is experienced and narrated as a journey, which is primarily a quest for meaning (
Gregg, 2006;
Hytti, 2005;
Karp, 2006). The journey metaphor elucidates processes of identity-building accomplished in the course of entrepreneurial careers. Changes in professional identities accompany changes in organizational life that are often unpredictable, meandering and discontinuous. This casts light on identities as evolving over time through a process of wayfinding in response to role changes, setbacks and turning-points (
Ingold, 2000), as actors ‘make sense of and “enact” their environments’ (
Pratt et al., 2006: 235;
Weick, 1995). We draw on the notion of generativity (
Erikson, 1950;
Giacolone et al., 2008;
McAdams, 1988,
1993), defined as ‘purposeful action for the well-being of future generations, and the emergence of individual purpose and agency’ (
Creed et al., 2014: 113), to make a conceptual contribution to the burgeoning literature on narrative identities. We demonstrate that through giving and narrating their giving, philanthropists generate a legacy of the self, producing ‘generativity scripts’ that propel their capacity for agency in targeted communities while keeping their individual journeys going (
Creed et al., 2014). Generativity scripts constitute ‘outlines for chapters yet to be lived’ that ‘perform something worthy to be remembered’ (
McAdams, 1988: 252). As such, they concern both identity narratives and philanthropic projects, and play a key part in ‘individuals’ self-construction of generative selves’ (
Creed et al., 2014: 113).
The present article is situated in the context of a wider investigation into the nature of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy, located within what
Acs and Phillips (2002: 201) term the ‘entrepreneurship-philanthropy nexus’ (
Anheier and Leat, 2006;
Bishop and Green, 2008;
Dees, 2008; Maclean et al., 2013;
Shaw et al., 2013;
Villadsen, 2007). Following
Harvey et al. (2011: 428), we define entrepreneurial philanthropy as
the pursuit by entrepreneurs on a not-for-profit basis of social objectives through active investment of their economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources. Entrepreneurial philanthropists are characterized by their drive to accumulate personal fortunes, together with a concomitant impulse to employ a share of their wealth in pursuit of philanthropic ventures over which they exercise control (
Bandura, 1997). Hence, their focus is directed towards the (entrepreneurial) creation of wealth and the (philanthropic) redistribution of that wealth to serve specified social objectives (
Acs and Phillips, 2002).
The 21st century has seen a progressive increase in inequality (
Picketty, 2014). The incapacity of the state to meet growing welfare needs has facilitated the emergence of a neo-liberal ‘common sense’, which deems the private sphere more effective than the public in serving the ‘common interest’ (
Swalwell and Apple, 2011: 369). Yet, despite rising interest in charitable giving, entrepreneurial philanthropy remains under-researched and under-theorized (
Taylor et al., 2014). Given the growing discursive space accorded to philanthropy and volunteering in the welfare policies of western governments, this is in need of remedy (
Ball, 2008;
Villadsen, 2007). In particular, little is known about how philanthropists construct their philanthropic journeys, or about the use of narratives in shoring up this process (
Downing, 2005;
Politis, 2005). It is this research gap that the present article aims to address. We pose two key research questions. First, what do philanthropists say characterizes the personal change process or ‘journey’ they undergo in becoming philanthropic? Second, despite common perceptions of there being ‘no implied reciprocity or tangible reward for the donor’ (
Radley and Kennedy, 1995: 688), what are the principal rewards, the
quid pro quo, which they claim to derive from their involvement in philanthropy, and how might these be interpreted?
The article is organized as follows. The next section examines the relationship between narrative identities, storytelling and philanthropy. The following section is methodological, explaining our research process, data sources and analytical methods. In our two empirical sections, we draw on the rich data obtained in life-history interviews with entrepreneurial philanthropists to delineate the philanthropic journey, highlighting generic features that map to corresponding stages in the evolving philanthropic narrative identity. We then propose and evaluate a typology of the principal benefits philanthropists claim to derive from their giving. Finally, we discuss our findings, consider the implications for the theory and practice of entrepreneurial philanthropy, and reflect on the limitations of the study and possibilities for further research.
Storytelling, narrative identity and philanthropy
Scholars of management and organization studies increasingly recognize that narratives and storytelling are critical to ways of organizing (
Boje, 2008;
Brown, 2006,
2014;
Brown and Thompson, 2013;
Brown et al., 2008;
Czarniawska, 1998;
Gabriel, 1995,
2000;
Maclean et al., 2012;
Rhodes and Brown, 2005).
De Certeau (1984: 81) sees clear homologies between ways of storytelling and ways of acting: ‘The story does not express a practice … It
makes it’.
Ricoeur (1981) and
Bruner (1990) suggest that storytelling can alter meanings and therefore actions, meaning-making being pivotal to human action. Considered thus, there is an explicit link between narrating and doing, sensemaking and action-making (
Downing, 2005), and between entrepreneurs as doers and stories that
enact social realities that had not materialized prior to their telling (
Brown, 2006;
Czarniawska, 1998). Stories evolve over time, highlighting ‘the process of storytelling as the never-ending construction of meaning’ (
Czarniawska, 1998: 15). In this way, narration is implicated in the activation of agency, as agents ponder alternatives to their social contexts (
Archer, 2000).
Stories are also
performative (
Brown, 2006;
Goffman, 1959: 40), bringing saying and doing together in a dramatic realization by agential protagonists in the presence of others, through which storytellers fashion themselves as ‘characters’ (
Downing, 2005;
Martens et al., 2007: 1110). Hence, storytelling is bound up with
identity, the way individuals elect to exhibit themselves (
Brown and Jones, 2000;
Goffman, 1959), and
identity work, through which they carve out in discourse their sense of individuality (
Brown, 2014;
Snow and Anderson, 1987;
Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003;
Watson, 2008) and ‘attach themselves to certain issues … to articulate and give meanings for themselves and their actions’ (
Hytti, 2005: 599). Identity work forms a continuous, social process (
Gergen, 1991). According to
Ezzy (1998: 239), ‘a narrative identity provides a subjective sense of self-continuity as it symbolically integrates the events of lived experience in the plot of the story a person tells about his or her life’, often during dialogic encounters with others. Identity narratives are shaped and defined by the individual’s personalized perception of reality (
Karp, 2006;
Ricoeur, 1988). The self is hence fundamentally a ‘figured self – a self which figures itself as this or that’ (
Ricoeur, 1991: 80). Authoring reflexively accomplished self-narratives allows actors to present to others favoured versions of the self, redefining their sense of who they are (
Brown and Jones, 2000:
Goffman, 1959;
Kornberger and Brown, 2007;
Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003). Identity work is essentially twofold, some aspects implicating the personal sphere and others being oriented towards public consumption (
Watson, 2008). As such, identity construction is bound up with ontological issues concerning the individual’s mode of being in society, involving both the public projection of identity and its private lived experience (
Ybema et al., 2009).
The fashioning of narrative identities is a dynamic process constantly open to refiguration, implying transition and variability (
Ezzy, 1998;
Ricoeur, 1991). The authoring of self-narratives helps individuals to ‘reweave their webs of beliefs and their habits of action’ (
Tsoukas and Chia, 2002: 577), inducing improvisations and allowing for the possibility of change in personal trajectories as they adapt to new experiences. In this sense, narrative identities are ‘infinitely revisable, and always provisional, works-in-progress’ (
Brown, 2006: 740–741), never permanently stabilized but in ‘perpetual states of storied becoming’ (
Brown and Thompson, 2013: 1153). Hence, it is possible to spin varied and even inconsistent narratives about our lives (
Ricoeur, 1988). This said, the overriding objective in fashioning self-narratives is to replace fragments of tales that are incoherent or unacceptable with a coherent story indicative of self-constancy (
Linde, 1993), so that narrators can ‘recognize themselves in the stories they tell about themselves’ (
Ricoeur, 1988: 247).
Identities, like narratives, are ‘power effects’ (
Kornberger and Brown, 2007: 500;
Martens et al., 2007). Philanthropic engagement can therefore be conceived both as a form of identity work and as a
route to power and influence in wider society (
Ball, 2008;
Breeze, 2007). For engaged philanthropists, giving goes hand-in-hand with social investment and influence to form a potent giving–investment–influence triad, through which they weave a web of connections (
Bosworth, 2011;
Swalwell and Apple, 2011). The road to influence is facilitated by the acquisition of legitimacy, which in turn depends on narrative construction (
Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001;
Middleton-Stone and Brush, 1996;
Suchman, 1995). To have influence, narrators must be able to present themselves as having lived ‘a reasonable life’ (
Habermas and Bluck, 2000: 751). This entails constructing a positive identity whereby the self is portrayed as virtuous and held in high regard (
Dutton et al., 2010).
McAdams (1988: 260, 269) suggests that the creation of a positive identity that the individual can esteem forms an ‘action script for the future’ through which the individual re-evaluates ‘his or her envisioned contribution to future generations’. Drawing on the work of
Erikson (1950,
1968) and
Becker (1973),
McAdams (1988: 276) presents generativity or caring for future generations as comprising a two-stage process, through which actors first engender a product or project and then offer it to a community that will reap some benefit from it. In this way, ‘the generated extension of the self [is granted] an autonomy of its own such that the product, which becomes a gift, is both
me and
not me’. The identity narratives of entrepreneurial philanthropists, who create products or businesses that they subsequently use to benefit their chosen communities in a targeted fashion, might be expected to articulate and reflect this notion of generativity.
Philanthropists themselves are also subject to influence emanating from the structural contexts and social narratives within which they are located (
Downing, 2005;
Ezzy, 1998). Individual identity is ‘socially constructed’ (
Jenkins, 1996: 20).
Turner et al. (2002) observe that organizational leaders are increasingly expected to present themselves in a moral and ethical light. Quasi-hegemonic societal discourses act on wealthy entrepreneurs, urging them to embrace particular moralities by assuming ‘publicly available “personas” or social-identities’ (
Watson, 2008: 127). They are thereby encouraged to ‘align with … societally prescribed selves’ by becoming philanthropic (
Brown, 2014: 10–11). These discourses concern: the need for
fairness in society, a key cross-party tenet of the 2010 UK election campaign (
Wang et al., 2011); the obligation for the rich
to do their ‘bit’ to help others less fortunate; and the requirement to show solidarity with those who are struggling financially by demonstrating
we are all in this together. These discourses became more strident in the UK in the period of austerity following the financial crisis. The stories of individual philanthropists are thus embedded in wider canonical discourses with which they resonate, according to which their identity claims are calibrated.
Whereas some commentators regard charitable giving as entirely selfless (
Acs and Philips, 2002;
Boulding; 1962;
Radley and Kennedy, 1995),
Bekkers and Wiepking (2011) argue instead that there is a reciprocal element to philanthropic contributions, but that it is indirect and value-oriented rather than overt. This chimes with
Phelps (1975: 2), who views altruism as deferred, self-interested investment – a ‘quid for a more implicit and conjectured quo’. As such, the funds deployed by entrepreneurs turned philanthropists, who as entrepreneurs seek to change society, are intended to make a difference, invested in ventures of their choice over which they exercise control (
Bandura, 1997).
Ibarra and Barbulescu (2010) argue that stories that follow familiar plots are more persuasive than those that disregard cultural rules. The oral tradition of storytelling often features the journey motif, exemplified by Homer’s epic poem of Odysseus’s voyage. This reveals the journey as representing ‘pain and punishment, the expiation of guilt and the desire to return’ while affording the potential for discovery, exploration and personal change (
Gherardi, 2004: 35). Similarly, charitable endeavours may prove to be a route to personal transformation (
Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). Authoring philanthropic self-narratives fuelled by the desire to live a better life while improving future conditions for others stimulates new patterns of meaning (
Creed et al., 2014). Philanthropic stories ‘emplot’ the life stories of entrepreneurial philanthropists by making the chronological appear causal, generating a coherent narrative that makes sense of their lives (
Czarniawska, 1998;
Downing, 2005;
Fiol, 1989;
Martens et al., 2007).
Giddens (1991: 54) observes that a person’s identity lies primarily ‘in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going’. This notion of identity as a narrative to be maintained over time while admitting change chimes with the journey metaphor – a sustained self-narrative proving vital to navigating ‘the jungle of human existence’ (
Erikson, 1968, cited in
Gergen, 1991: 38). Storytelling re-frames entrepreneurial philanthropy by engendering localized meanings that are ‘dynamically enacted in relation to pluralist, shifting landscapes’ (
Tams and Marshall, 2011: 109).
Brown (2014) recently called for other metaphors to be considered alongside identity work to elucidate identity formation. Here, we propose in response
the journey as a metaphor for identity-building and adaptation, life being ‘subjectively structured by a sequence’ (
Habermas and Bluck, 2000: 750). In a situation where entrepreneurial and organizational careers are increasingly non-linear and peripatetic, philanthropy helps to secure a stable professional identity, driving and simultaneously justifying the ongoing journey and narrative (
Hytti, 2005;
Karp, 2006). We aim at the same time to extend theoretical understanding of research into the practice of entrepreneurial philanthropy by laying the foundations for a theory of philanthropic identity narratives (
Creed et al., 2014;
Downing, 2005;
Gregg, 2006;
Taylor et al., 2014).
Research process
Our research is situated within the confines of a larger investigation of individual and business giving, both historically and in the present. For the purposes of this article, life-history interviews were sought with wealthy UK-based entrepreneurial philanthropists who had invested a minimum of £1m in philanthropic projects since 2007. Twenty interviews were conducted by members of the research team as opportunity arose (2008–2012), often after a long period of trust-building and negotiation: nine with super-wealthy individuals whose fortunes exceeded £100m, and the remainder with individuals with a net worth between £10m and £100m (see
Table 1). The interviews took place in cities across the UK according to the philanthropist’s primary location, including Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, London and Newcastle. All interviewees were UK-based: 12 were Scottish, seven were English and one was Welsh. All were white British, with the exception of one Asian British participant. Their ages ranged from 42 to 71, with a mean age of 57; the gender balance was heavily weighted towards men, with just four women interviewees, all of whom practiced philanthropy with their partners. In order to lend additional perspectives, a further 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with wealth advisers (four interviews), policy-makers (three), public intellectuals (three) and philanthropic foundation executives (10).
The notion that philanthropists might have stories to tell from their experience was sparked early in our data collection during an interview with a community foundation CEO (community foundations being collective vehicles for charitable giving focused on particular geographical areas:
Jung et al., 2013;
Pharaoh, 2008). The CEO remarked that sharing stories of philanthropic success had benefited his foundation:
People hear other people’s stories of philanthropy from an invited guest, from somebody we’ve brought in through our contacts and who people can be inspired by their story and think: ‘I could be like that. What could I do?’. (Philanthropy professional)
At interview, we posed a range of questions relating to participants’ family and social background, education, entrepreneurial career, philanthropic career, the motivations underpinning these, their methods, practices and interests, and their peer groups and mentors. We followed a pattern of opening with questions concerning their early life, before probing their entrepreneurial career histories, critical turning-points and the transition to philanthropic engagement, including setbacks and highlights, and concluding with questions regarding what philanthropy had come to mean for them. We did not ask participants to recount stories directly from their life histories, but allowed these to emerge naturally. All interviews, typically lasting between 90 minutes and two hours, were recorded and transcribed, and participants accorded pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality.
A first reading of the transcripts highlighted the philanthropic journey – the process by which individual philanthropists became philanthropic – as central to their stories. As we immersed ourselves more in the data (
Berg, 2009), further readings and reflection highlighted their expression of the motivations behind their philanthropy and the rewards accruing to them in consequence. This led to the inductive emergence from the data of a typology of five conceptual categories expressing the rewards they claimed to derive from philanthropy (
Glaser and Strauss, 1967). These categories are:
giving back – the practical recognition that the society that nourished you needs to be nourished for others to flourish in turn;
making a difference – the aspiration to make a direct, measurable contribution to a particular cause;
absolving the self – freeing the self from guilt caused by possession of inordinate wealth;
joining the club – making common cause with others of similar disposition in philanthropic endeavours while joining the philanthropic elite; and lastly,
personal fulfilment – acquiring a sense of personal achievement stemming from improving the lives of others. Further analysis suggested that these five categories might be collapsed into three second-order categories: firstly,
helping others to help themselves; secondly, the individual’s own desire to
live a better life (
Tams and Marshall, 2011); and thirdly,
generating a legacy of the self from which others might benefit (see
Table 2). These reflected in turn different facets of
generativity – being oriented both towards the self in engendering an ongoing journey and narrative (self-directed generativity) and towards society, spurring their capacity for agency in targeted communities (socially directed generativity). In conjunction, self- and socially directed generativity were instrumental in generating a legacy of the self (
Creed et al., 2014;
McAdams, 1988,
1993).
To ensure reliability, coding was carried out by two of the researchers, with differences discussed. Within the overarching life-story narratives, individual extemporaneous stories pertaining to the five conceptual categories were searched for and identified, to which story names were ascribed. We put our conceptual categories to the test by hosting, in March 2013, a symposium on ‘Contemporary philanthropy: Learning from research and practice’, attended by 17 philanthropists, 39 philanthropy professionals and 11 researchers. The extensive discussion that ensued prompted us to reconsider our analytical categories. We had tentatively envisaged our categories as hierarchically graded, proceeding step-by-step from giving back as the most fundamental to personal fulfilment as the peak of benefits philanthropists claimed to derive. Our audience confirmed that these categories ‘rang true’ for them, based on their first-hand experience. However, attendees provided valuable feedback by suggesting we reconfigure these rewards as a typology rather than a hierarchy. After further consideration, we reconceived our analytical categories as a typology of first- and second-order categories to reflect their expressed reality, according to which we recoded our data.
We have sought in the course of this research to remain explicitly reflexive about our own position. Our research into entrepreneurial philanthropy was originally inspired by our work on elites and elite power (
Maclean et al., 2006,
2010,
2014), through which arose a fundamental but compelling question that refused to be suppressed, namely:
what do they do with all the money? This question became more pressing as the recession deepened. Gaining access to elite actors can be tricky (
Pettigrew, 1992). However, our longstanding interest in elites facilitated access to philanthropists, achieved at times through existing contacts, enabling us to secure interviews with some who did not normally grant them. This may also have encouraged participants to be more forthcoming with their life stories, thus influencing our results.
We were naturally conscious of the power asymmetries that obtained between ourselves as researchers and the wealthy individuals we interviewed. We were aware of our role in providing an audience for whom philanthropists could ‘perform’ and from whom they could seek validation for their identity claims (
Brown, 2006;
Ibarra and Barbulescu, 2010). Legitimacy is arguably located less in philanthropic giving than in ‘a
relationship with an audience’ (
Suchman, 1995: 594). The construction of self-narratives is an ‘integrally political and power-laden process’ (
Ezzy, 1998: 250;
Goffman, 1959), even if actors seek to disguise this. Viewed in this light, the accounts authored by participants can be understood as self-serving, political acts, through which they sought to safeguard their narrative identities (
Brown et al., 2008). We see ours as a story of stories, part of a broader societal narrative that is both an effect of power and the product of specific representational strategies – which must appear disinterested, ‘on the hither side of calculation’ (
Bourdieu, 1977: 214), to succeed – through which participants affirmed their dedication to philanthropic engagement. In what follows, we synthesize our findings on the philanthropic journey and examine our five integrative categories, illustrating these with stories told at interview.
Discussion and conclusion
Entrepreneurial philanthropists are embedded in wider canonical discourses that influence how they narrate their identities to express solidarity with deprived communities and those ‘at the lowest reaches’ of society (
Johnstone and Lionais, 2004;
Snow and Anderson, 1987: 1336). Hence, philanthropic self-narratives shed light on the fashioning of positive identities in response to broader societal discourses that act on entrepreneurs to become philanthropic (
Gregg, 2006;
Kornberger and Brown, 2007;
Martens et al., 2007). Philanthropic engagement enables entrepreneurs to progress towards a desirable self by performing something worth remembering, through which they seek to absolve themselves from guilt caused by wealth accumulation (
Dutton et al., 2010;
McAdams, 1988). Their identity narratives are therefore imbued with generativity and nuanced with undertones of redemption-seeking (
Creed et al., 2014;
McAdams, 1993).
Entrepreneurs’ personal trajectories are expressed by them (and constructed by us) as
journeys to a new reconstructed self-identity, through which they create new meaning (
Brown, 2014;
Gregg, 2006;
Grey, 1994;
Watson, 2008). A breakthrough occurs when actors alight upon (or conceive) the object of their quest in the form of projects targeting specific social objectives that give focus to their emergent self-identities (
Dees, 1998;
Fiol, 1989;
Zahra et al., 2009). Finding what they have been searching for does not signify the end of the quest, but rather the start of a new phase typified by targeted giving and the assumption of donor control (
Bandura, 1997). Social agency entails ‘unfolding, ongoing processes’ whereby actors encounter unfamiliar obstacles
en route and learn to traverse these (
Emirbayer, 1997: 289). The exercise of agency combines with the unfolding journey – a marriage of willpower and ‘waypower’ (
Luthans et al., 2004: 47) – to produce change. The process of becoming philanthropic thus effects a ‘reconstitution of the political at the level of the self’, fostering a new socially generative self-identity (
Cruikshank, 1999: 88).
The low level of charitable giving in the UK, where those earning above £200K annually give just £2 for each £1000 they earn (
Philanthropy Review, 2011), highlights the need for philanthropists to broadcast their stories to exhort other rich actors to follow suit. These stories are skilfully narrated, but they are also carefully targeted. This is helpful because social change tends to be instigated in the semi-organized field (
Ahrne, 1990). Given the extent of unmet social needs, focusing on bespoke projects tailored to specific objectives makes sense; as Cathy suggests, ‘do something smaller and, actually, have something that works’. This recalls Candide’s insight from
Voltaire’s (1759/1997) satire of the same name, which concludes with the ‘hero’ returning from his quest to declare ‘we must cultivate our garden’ as a practical response to intractable issues.
We make several contributions to extant literatures. First, in the pre-paradigmatic field where entrepreneurship intersects with philanthropy (
Nicholls, 2006;
Taylor et al., 2014), our article develops theoretical and empirical understanding of the involvement of wealthy entrepreneurs in socially transformative projects by offering a foundational theory of philanthropic identity narratives (
Dees, 1998;
Dees and Anderson, 2006;
Taylor et al., 2014). Most importantly, we show that these identity narratives are structured according to the metaphorical framework of
the journey, through which actors envision and make sense of personal transformation over time (
Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). As
Habermas and Bluck (2000: 751) suggest, ‘One way to explicitly thematically integrate a life narrative is by reference to a central metaphor’. We respond to
Brown’s (2014) call for fresh identity tropes to supplement that of identity work by proposing the journey as a valuable metaphor for conceptualizing and ordering narrative identities in entrepreneurial and organizational careers as individuals navigate different kinds of terrain (
Ahrne, 1990). The social landscape is labyrinthine and ‘Everybody is an explorer of his own everyday world’ (
Ahrne, 1990: 75). Individual careers are increasingly itinerant, and the stages on which they play out are not static but evolving. The journey provides a helpful diachronic narrative template that knits together individual role and career transitions to bridge past and present, whose changing contours and contexts are given explanatory coherence by an overarching life story (
Habermas and Bluck, 2000).
Second, we add to the expanding literature on narrative identities by making a contribution to literature concerned with harnessing agentic self-narratives for societal change (
Creed et al., 2014;
Downing, 2005;
Gregg, 2006;
McAdams, 1988,
1993). By accentuating individual agency and sense of life purpose, such narratives empower actors to generate a legacy of the self that we demonstrate to be both self- and socially oriented. Ontological questions concerning how to live a good life loom large for those who ostensibly ‘have it all’ (
Giacalone et al., 2008). What matters most is
keeping the narrative and journey going by authoring new self- and socially generative chapters (
Giddens, 1991). Ultimately, it is only by making the self available to others in what
McAdams (1993: 332) calls a ‘generative synthesis of agency and communion’ that a life-validating legacy of the self can be fashioned (
Ahrne, 1990;
McAdams, 1988:
Ricoeur, 1995). We show this legacy to be both narrative and material in nature, forged through identity storytelling and future-directed socially generative projects.
The journey motif casts light on the protracted, arduous nature of entrepreneurial philanthropic engagement as an ongoing accomplishment, but also hints that it may culminate in and be crowned by rewards. We make an empirical contribution by proposing a typology of the rewards philanthropists claim to derive from their giving, as gleaned from their individual accounts. We discern these as fivefold: giving back, making a difference, absolving the self, joining the club and personal fulfilment. These stem, in turn, from twin logics of helping others to help themselves, and the individual’s desire to lead – and
be seen to lead – a more meaningful life by shaping a better future identity (
Bruner, 1990). Both logics are informed by generativity, propelled by the desire to produce ‘meaningful and long-lasting life products’ (
McAdams, 1988: 277) as part of an ongoing narrative and journey.
Finally, our study has implications for actual and prospective philanthropists, through which we make a contribution to practice. We suggest there is an ordered logic to the philanthropic journey that might inform the practice of emergent philanthropists and philanthropy professionals (
Gherardi, 2004). Giving back and making a difference to communities of origin are powerful motivators for entrepreneurial philanthropists (
Peredo and Chrisman, 2006). The role of a ‘guide’ may ease the transition from entrepreneur to philanthropist; in this regard, training for would-be guides may be beneficial (
Ragins et al., 2000). As with business ventures, entrepreneurial philanthropists should invest only in what they can grasp at first hand; only by understanding their chosen area of intervention can they hope to have impact (
King, 2004). Inspirational self-narratives help philanthropists to boost resources for philanthropy, marking a trail for others to follow; hence, philanthropists themselves make the best
advocates for philanthropy (
Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001;
Martens et al., 2007). Having access to wider philanthropic circles, and sharing experiences, is helpful in refining practices and increasing engagement (
Eikenberry, 2006;
Ostrower, 2002). Finally, becoming an active philanthropist puts the individual (or couple or family unit) in the driving seat in terms of exercising control over social investments (
Bandura, 1997;
Ostrander, 2007).
The limitations of the present study include the fact that only British-based entrepreneurial philanthropists participated in this research. To address this, we intend our future work to assume an international focus. To illuminate entrepreneurial philanthropy further, a comparison set of entrepreneurs who were not philanthropists would have been welcome. This might examine why wealth propels some entrepreneurs into philanthropy but not others; it is entirely possible that wealthy entrepreneurs who do not practice philanthropy believe they are helping others by providing work as ‘job-creators’. Accessing such a sample may be problematic, because the wealthy prefer to be seen in a favourable light, and to admit they did not give would leave a negative impression (
Brown and Jones, 2000;
Schervish et al., 2005). An alternative comparison set might be provided by social entrepreneurs engaging in the non-profit pursuit of social objectives, who might be expected to exhibit strong charitable dispositions but a reduced interest in personal wealth creation (
Dees, 2008). Such comparison might elucidate what separates social entrepreneurs from entrepreneurial philanthropists, other than their financial resources, and how their life narratives diverge (
Dees and Anderson, 2006). This forms an agenda for future research.
We have demonstrated here that storytelling and action are closely aligned (
De Certeau, 1984;
Downing, 2005;
Ricoeur, 1981). The journey metaphor we employ emphasizes the ‘“waypower” dimension of hope’ (
Luthans et al., 2004: 47), which enables actors to feel that they are making progress in their life stories (
Carlsen and Pitsis, 2009;
Dutton et al., 2010). The re-storying of philanthropy underlines the role agentic self-narratives can play in social change more broadly (
Downing, 2005). The stories philanthropists tell are not just bound up with the project of the self or with self-legitimation (
Grey, 1994;
Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001); they are also concerned with regenerating communities by targeting specific social objectives (
Dees, 1998;
Dees and Anderson, 2006), through which actors generate a legacy of the self (
Creed et al., 2014;
McAdams, 1988,
1993). In shifting the focus from the universal to the feasible, philanthropic identity narratives demonstrate the potential of human agency to ‘react back powerfully and particularistically’ (
Archer, 2000: 318) to create new loci of responsibility in a profoundly unequal society.