Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração52(2017)330–340
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial
orientation
and
religion:
the
Pastor
as
an
entrepreneur
Orienta¸cão
empreendedora
e
religião:
o
Pastor
como
empreendedor
Orientación
emprendedora
y
religión:
el
pastor
como
emprendedor
Victor
Silva
Corrêa
a,∗,
Gláucia
Maria
Vasconcellos
Vale
a,
Marina
de
Almeida
Cruz
baPontifíciaUniversidadeCatólicadeMinasGerais,BeloHorizonte,MG,Brazil bUniversidadeFederaldeMinasGerais,BeloHorizonte,MG,Brazil
Received19February2016;accepted25October2016 Availableonline15May2017
ScientificEditor:FlávioHourneauxJunior
Abstract
InrecentdecadesBrazilhaswitnessedradicalchangesinitsreligiouscomposition,withrapidexpansionofEvangelicalcommunities.Within thesecommunitiesthereexistvariousreligiousassociationsinwhichpastorsplayakeyrole.UsingthetheoreticalframeworkofEntrepreneurial Orientation,and basedon interviewswith20 Neopentecostalpastors inBelo Horizonte/MinasGerais, this articleshowsthat,in theirwork developingtheirchurches,pastorsexhibitcharacteristicallyentrepreneurialbehavior(innovation,proactivity,competitiveaggressiveness, risk-taking,autonomy).ThisstudyfurtherdemonstratestheimportanceandexplanatorypoweroftheEntrepreneurialOrientationtheoreticalframework andmayopennewresearchperspectivesforsocialmanagers,socialscholarsandpractitionersinrelatedfields.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: Entrepreneurialorientation;Entrepreneurship;Religion;Pastor;IndependentNeopentecostalchurches Resumo
OBrasiltempresenciado,nasúltimasdécadas,transformac¸õesradicaisemsuacomposic¸ãoreligiosa,comrápidaexpansãodascomunidades evangélicas.Nointeriordestascomunidades,proliferamdiferentesagremiac¸õesreligiosas,ondeospastoresexercempapel-chave.Esteartigo,de naturezateórico-empírica,investigaaatuac¸ãode20pastoresneopentecostais,depequenasigrejasindependentes,localizadasnaregião metropoli-tanadeBeloHorizonte,apropriando-sedamaisrecenteliteraturasobreOrientac¸ãoEmpreendedora.Aofazerisso,mostraqueospastores,visandoo desenvolvimentodesuasigrejas,combinam,sobdiferentesmaneiras,atributosinerentesaocomportamentoempreendedor(capacidadedeinovac¸ão, proatividade,agressividadecompetitiva,capacidadedeassumirrisco,autonomia).Aoiniciar,noBrasil,oestudoempíricodoempreendedorismo religioso,oartigoabrenovasperspectivasdereflexõeseinvestigac¸õesnaárea.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave: Orientac¸ãoempreendedora;Empreendedorismo;Religião;Pastor;IgrejasNeopentecostaisIndependentes Resumen
Enlasúltimasdécadas,Brasilhavistocambiosradicalesensucomposiciónreligiosa,conunarápidaexpansióndelascomunidadesevangélicas. Dentrodeestascomunidadesexistenvariasasociacionesreligiosasenlasquelospastoresdesempe˜nanunpapelclave.Enesteestudio,deenfoque
∗Correspondingauthorat:Av.Itaú,525,CEP30535012BeloHorizonte,MG,Brazil.
E-mail:victorsilvacorrea@yahoo.com.br(V.S.Corrêa). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.10.005
teórico-empírico,seanalizalaactuaciónde20pastoresneopentecostales,depeque˜nasiglesiasindependientes,ubicadasenlaregiónmetropolitana deBeloHorizonte,conbaseenlosmásrecientesestudiossobreOrientaciónEmprendedora.Semuestraque,eneltrabajodedesarrollodesus iglesias,lospastoresexhibenuncomportamientotípicamenteemprendedor(capacidaddeinnovación,proactividad,agresividadcompetitiva,toma deriesgos,autonomía).Estetrabajo,aliniciarlosestudiosempíricosdelainiciativaempresarialreligiosaenBrasil,abrenuevasperspectivasde reflexiónyanálisisenelárea.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Orientaciónemprendedora;Iniciativaempresarial;Religión;Pastor;Iglesiasneopentecostalesindependientes
Introduction
InrecentdecadesBrazilhaswitnessedradicalchangesinits religiouscomposition,withrapidexpansionofEvangelical
com-munities.Duringthe1990sthesecommunitiesalmostdoubled,
from13millionmembersin1991,toover26millionin2000
(Pierucci, 2004). Coincident with this period of Evangelical
expansionhasbeennotonlyon-goingcompetitionbetweenthe
EvangelicalandCatholicchurchestorecruitbelievers,butalso
astrongandgrowingrivalrybetweentheEvangelicalchurches
themselves.AsnotedbyEditoraAbril(2012)magazine,
Evan-gelicalchurchesattractbelieverswheretheCatholicChurchhad
notpreparedtocongregateandadaptedthemessagetovarious
audiences.Currently,morethan42millionpeople–22%ofthe
Brazilianpopulation– identify as membersof anevangelical
faith (Pierucci, 2011).The growthof the Brazilian
Evangeli-calcommunityhasbeenespeciallypronouncedwithrespectto
Neopentecostalchurches.Called byonescholarthe true
pro-tagonistoftheadmirableexpansionofProtestantisminBrazil (Pierucci,2011,p. 476), andknown tobeespecially popular amongthepoorestBraziliancommunities(Rivera,2010,p.60), theNeopentecostalmovementisgenerallyrecognizedas‘thehot issue’ofBrazilianreligiosity(Passos,Zorzin,&Rocha,2011, p.709).Pacheco,RibeirodaSilvaandRibeiro(2007,p.55)have evengonesofarastocalltheexpansionofBrazilian Neopen-tecostalismthemostimportanteventwithinChristianityinthe lastcentury.IthasbeennoticedbyPachecoetal.(2007)that, shouldthecurrentgrowthtrendcontinue,withinseveraldecades
–nomorethan30years–BrazilianEvangelicalswillnumber
thesameasBrazilianCatholics.
In Braziltheterm ‘Evangelical’ isageneric one, moreor lesssynonymouswiththeterm‘Protestant’(Pierucci,2000,p. 284).‘Evangelical’thusencompassesallchurchesofhistorical
Protestantism (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists,
Methodists, Adventists, Mennonites, etc.), plus Pentecostal
churches(Pierucci,2011,p.475).BoththeInstitutoBrasileiro
de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE), in its Demographic
Cen-susof2010(http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/,retrievedon16Jan
2014),andthe Fundac¸ão GetúlioVargas, initsMap of
Reli-gions (2010), classify each of these churches and religious
denominationsasEvangelicals,distinguishingthePentecostal
Evangelicals(IgrejaUniversaldoReinodeDeus,Assembleiade Deus,etc.),theEvangelicalsofmission(Lutheran,Presbyterian, Baptist,etc.), andotherEvangelical categories. According to
Pachecoetal.(2007)andRabuske,Santos,Gonc¸alvesandTraub
(2012),especiallysincethelate1970sPentecostalchurcheshave differentiatedintotwobasictypes:theclassicalPentecostals–
includingCongregac¸ãoCristãnoBrasil,AssembleiadeDeus,
EvangelhoQuadrangular,DeuséAmor,OBrasilparaCristo,
etc.andtheNeopentecostals.Pierucci(2000,p.288)has char-acterizedchurchesbelongingtothelattercategoryasdoctrinally
uncomplicated and as offering a very efficient form of
reli-giosityinpractical terms.Neopentecostalchurches basetheir
worship on the specialized offering of magical-religious
ser-vicesof atherapeutic andthaumaturgicalnature, centeredon
promisesofdivineconcessionofmaterialprosperity,on
phys-ical and emotionalhealing, and on solving family, affective,
love,andsociability problems(Rabuskeetal.,2012,p. 264).
WithintheNeopentecostalcategorytherearebothrecognized
institutions–suchasUniversaldoReinodeDeus,Internacional
daGrac¸adeDeus,MundialdoPoderdeDeus,Renascer,and
SaraNossaTerra (Pierucci, 2000, p. 288) – andindependent
churches(Rabuskeetal.,2012),manyofwhicharesmallinsize.
Morethan14millionEvangelicals,about35%ofall
Evangeli-calsinthecountry,attendindependentNeopentecostalchurches,
accordingtoaninferencedrawnfromtheIBGEdemographic
census. It isthis portion of the overall Brazilian Evangelical
population, the independentlyorganizedchurches, that is the
contextofthecurrentstudy.
In this religiously vigorous and competitive environment,
aspecificactor standsout,the Neopentecostal pastor,whois thefocusofthepresentinvestigation.Thispaper,anoveltyin the area,seeks toanalyzetheentrepreneurial behavior of the
Neopentecostal pastorsresponsible for the creationand
man-agementofsmallindependentchurcheslocatedontheperiphery
of BeloHorizonte/MinasGeraisandinthemetropolitanarea.
AsnotedbyMariano(2003,p.120),thesepastorsaremainly
insertedinto‘anautonomousPentecostalism’,andare
respon-sibleforformingsmallandindependentcommunitiesscattered
mainlyon theperiphery of the greaturban centers and
orga-nized,[mostly,]aroundthecharismaticattributesofitsleaders (Pachecoetal., 2007,p. 55).Forthis, we usethe theoretical approachofEntrepreneurialOrientation(EO)(Pearce,Fritz,& Davis,2010;Rauch,Wiklund,Lumpkin,&Frese,2009).Inthis approach,entrepreneurs,whetherreligiousornot,canbe iden-tifiedbytheir abilitytocombineflexibly differentbutrelated
methods,practices,andbehaviorsintheserviceof improving
the performance of their organizations (churches,in the
generallywillingtotakerisks(Lumpkin&Dess,1996;Pearce etal.,2010;Wiklund&Shepherd,2005).
AsnotedbyEngelbert,Fisman,HartzellandParsons(2014, p.3),pastorsare “importantdeterminants ofchurchgrowth.” Manyanalystsviewtheactivestanceoftheseactorsas
contribut-ingtothe growthof theircongregations. ForMariano(2008)
andPierucci(1996,2006a,2008),Neopentecostalpastors dif-ferentiatedtheirchurchesfromotherevangelicalchurcheswhen
they began to act more actively and professionally, seeking
toattractmorebelievers.Demonstratingmorecommitmentto
andmilitancyinspreadingtheirmessage(Mariano,2008),they
redirectedenergiesfromunproductiveprocessesandunpopular
servicestomoreeffectivetacticsandmethods,inthewaythat istypicalof businessrationality (Iannaccone,1995;Mariano, 2008).Itisworthemphasizingthatsuchbehaviorwouldbe typi-calofentrepreneursincompetitiveorganizationalenvironments, insertedintheproductivemarket.
Whileinvestigating therelationshipbetween
entrepreneur-ship and religion has been considered a productive field of
research since Weber’s 1905 Protestant Ethic (Dougherty,
Griebel,Neubert,&Park,2013;Nwankwo,Gbadamosi,&Ojo, 2012;Wiseman&Young,2013),intheviewofmanyresearchers
such relationships have not yet received the scholarly
atten-tiontheydeserve(Audretsch,Boente,&Tamvada,2007,2013;
Griebel,Park,&Neubert,2014;Rietveld&Burg,2013). Stud-iesinvestigatingthesesubjectsareinfact“surprisinglysparse andinconsistent”(Dougherty,Griebel,Neubert,&Park2013, p. 401) inboth international (Dougherty etal., 2013; Finke, 1997;Frigerio,2008;Iannaccone,1995,1997)andnational con-texts(Serafim,Martes,&Rodrigues,2012).Noliteratureonthe subjectof religiousentrepreneurshipcanbefoundinthe Por-taldePeriódicosdaCapes,inspecializedmagazinesinBrazil (RAC,RAE,O&S,RAUSP&BAR,etc.),orintheproceedings
ofrelevantacademicconferences(EnAnpad,Eneo,SemeAd&
Egepe).Atthesametime,ithasbeenobservedthatthesubject ofentrepreneurialorientation“hasbeenneglectedasaresearch topicinnonprofitsectors”(Pearceetal.,2010,p.219),ofwhich thereligioussectorisone(Pearceetal.,2010).Although spo-radicevidencesuggestsitsefficacy,“theroleofentrepreneurial behavior ina religious context isunexplored” (Pearce etal.,
2010, p. 228). On Web of Science, the only paper available
onthe subject of religiousentrepreneurship is thatby Pearce et al.(2010),and thisdeals witha very specific context.As
theseauthors note, “atighter conceptualization and
measure-mentoftheindividualentrepreneurialbehaviorsisnecessary” inthereligiousfield(Pearceetal.,2010,p.238).
Thisstudyisdividedintofourparts.InSection‘Theoretical basis:entrepreneurialorientationandpastorsasentrepreneurs’, thetheoreticalbasisofentrepreneurialorientationispresented.
Section‘Researchmethodology’describesthemethodologyof
thepresentstudy,andSection‘Researchfindings’theresultsof theinvestigation.Finally,inSection‘FinalConsiderations’,we offerfinalconsiderations ofthevalueof thepresentresearch. ThisstudybeginsinBrazilaseriesofempiricalstudiesbased onfieldresearchonreligiousentrepreneurship,atopicthathas beengenerallyoverlookedintheliterature,includingliterature publishedbyorganizationalanalysts.
Theoreticalbasis:entrepreneurialorientationand pastorsasentrepreneurs
As Iyer pointsout (2016,p. 395), approaching the
econ-omy of religion as an established field of knowledge is still
relatively new. Among the many interesting features of this
researchareaisreligiousorganization,andhowbehaviorwithin
and betweenreligious organizations is analogousto business
behavior,includingthephenomenonofcompetition.Assessing
the futureprospectsfor thisnewfield–thestudyof religious economies–Iyerstressestheimportanceoforganizational
the-ory,inparticulartheprinciplesofmarketingandmanagement
inthestudy ofreligion.ForIyer(2016,p. 433),“asreligious
organizations are themselves becoming more professional in
thewaytheyarepresentingandmarketingthemselvesto
popu-lationsglobally,thereseemstobe avery largegapinstudies
that blendtheoriesfromthemarketing andmanagement
liter-ature,toexaminetheirbehaviorandoperationsmoreclosely.”
In thiscontextinwhichreligiousorganizations becomemore
professionalized,thethemeofreligiousentrepreneurshipstands out.
ThestudyofEngelbergetal.(2014)isoneofthefew stud-iesthathavecarriedoutamicroeconomicanalysisofreligions
centeredonthefigureofthe pastor.Theauthorsworkedwith
a sample of Methodist congregationsfrom Oklahoma during
the period 1961–2003, and showed that the pastors greatly
influencedtheperformanceoftheirreligiousorganizations.To
measureperformance,theyused asanindicatorthegrowthin
the numberof congregants. The authors saw astrong causal
relationshipbetweenthepastors’performanceandthegrowth
of theirchurches.Thestudyraisesthequestionof whetheror notitispossibletoevaluatetheentrepreneurialcapacityofthe pastor.Inseekingtoanswerthisquestionwedecidedtoadopt theentrepreneurialorientation(EO)approach.
Recognizedasanimportantconstructofstrategic
manage-ment in recent years (Covin, Green, & Slevin 2006; Rauch et al., 2009) and akey ingredientfor organizational success (Lumpkin&Dess,1996),the EOapproach“provides organi-zationswithabasisfor entrepreneurialdecisionsandactions” (Rauch etal.,2009,p.763).Itcanbeconceptualizedasaset of distinct,butrelated, methods,practices(Lumpkin&Dess, 1996;Wiklund&Shepherd,2005)andbehaviorsthathavethe followingdimensions:(i)capacityforinnovation,(ii) proactiv-ity,(iii)competitiveaggressiveness,(iv)abilitytotakerisks,and (v)autonomy(Pearceetal.,2010).
The ability to innovate“refersto awillingness tosupport
creativity and experimentation in introducing new
prod-ucts/services, andnovelty,technologicalleadership andR&D indevelopingnewprocesses”(Lumpkin&Dess,1996,p.142). Itimpliescreatingnewcombinationsthatimprovetheoperations ofinstitutions,orprovidethemwithanewbasistomeettheneeds of consumers (Lyon, Lumpkin,& Dess, 2000; Pearce et al., 2010; Rauchetal.,2009;Wang,2008;Wiklund&Shepherd, 2005). Schumpeter (1982) was apioneer inemphasizing the roleofinnovationintheentrepreneurialprocess.Incoiningthe
term “creativedestruction,”heemphasizedhowmarket
combinations”ofunprecedentedgoodsandservices.Thesenew
combinationschangetheresourcesofcompanies,forcingthem
togrow (Schumpeter,1982,p. 105).“Littlehasbeendone to address innovation ina not-for-profit context,particularly so amongreligious organizations” (Pearce etal., 2010, p. 239).
Evensmallreligious organizationscanbeinnovativeand
cre-ative(Pearceetal.,2010).
Proactivityistheabilitytoanticipatefutureproblems,needs, orchanges(Hugles&Morgan,2007;Lumpkin&Dess,1996; Lyonetal.,2000;Rauchetal.,2009;Wang,2008;Wiklund& Shepherd,2005). Theproactivity is “forward-looking” (Lyon et al., 2000, p. 1056) and refers to the fact that people are pioneersintheiractions(Lumpkin&Dess,1996;Wiklund& Shepherd, 2005).In amarket context, entrepreneurial
proac-tivityinvolvesintroducingnewproducts or services aheadof
competitors,actinginanticipationof the demandtoformthe
environment(Lumpkin&Dess,2001; Wang,2008).
Accord-ingtoPearceetal.(2010),inreligiouseconomiesproactivityis negativelyassociatedwiththeperformanceofchurches.Thisis becauseinreligiouscontextsproactivebehaviorisinterpretedas disrespectfulandasinsultingto,evendestructiveof,thereligious tradition.“Consequently,proactiveness[sic]bycongregationsis discouragedbyoverarchingreligiousinstitutions”(Pearceetal., 2010,p.226).
Competitiveaggressivenessreflectsthe“intensityofafirm’s effortstooutperformindustryrivals”(Lumpkin&Dess,2001,
p. 431). It refers tobehavior aimedat expanding the market
shareof a giveninstitution (Pearceet al., 2010; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, 2001; Lyon et al., 2000) and how it relates to its competitors (Hugles & Morgan, 2007; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996;Wang,2008).Itentails,throughits“strongoffensive pos-ture”(Lumpkin&Dess,2001,p.433),conflictsandretaliation (Pearceetal.,2010),andrequiresawillingness–inadirectand intensiveway–tochallengetheactionsofopponents(Lumpkin &Dess,1996,2001;Rauchetal.,2009).Severalscholarshave investigatedrivalriesbetweenchurches(see,forexample:Finke, 1997;Finke,Guest,&Stark,1996;Finke&Stark,1992)and concluded“thatwhilethepreferredformofcompetitionranges fromsubtletoovert,alldenominationsstrivetomaintain and
grow their membership through competitive means” (Pearce
etal.,2010,p.227).
Thecapacitytotakerisksmanifestsinthepropensitytoact, underuncertainfutureconditions,outsideacceptedpracticesand norms(Hugles&Morgan,2007;Lumpkin&Dess,1996;Lyon etal.,2000;Nwankwo&Gbadamosi,2013;Pearceetal.,2010; Rauchetal.,2009;Wang,2008).LumpkinandDess(1996,p. 144)emphasizethat“allbusinessendeavorsinvolvesomedegree ofrisk.”Theserisksrangefrom“safe,”suchasdepositingmoney intoabank,to“unsafe,”typicallyboldactionssuchasinvesting inunexploredtechnologiesorintroducingnewproductsintonew markets(Lumpkin&Dess,1996,2001).Inreligiouseconomies, theabilitytotakerisksandnavigateuncertaintiescanbe encour-agedbybeliefindivineglory(Nwankwo&Gbadamosi,2013). Suchbeliefshavethe“potentialtofacilitateexceptionalresults, especiallyinasettingwherepredictablebehavioris character-isticallyhigh,suchasinchurchsettings”(Pearceetal.,2010, p.227).
Finally, autonomy is the ability of an individual or team
(Hugles&Morgan,2007;Lumpkin&Dess,1996,2001;Lyon etal., 2000;Rauchetal., 2009)“totakeindependent action” (Pearceetal.,2010,p.225).Itis“theabilityandwilltobe self-directedinthepursuitofopportunities”(Lumpkin&Dess,1996,
p. 140). In religious context “congregational autonomy may
increaseresponsivenesstoenvironmentalimperatives”(Pearce etal.,2010,p.227).Autonomouspastorsandcongregationsare betterable“toidentify,develop,andinitiatechangesinchurch programsandactivities(Pearceetal.,2010,p.227).
In a quantitative study of entrepreneurial behavior in a
religious context, Pearce et al. (2010) investigated
semi-autonomous congregations affiliated with the Evangelical
LutheranChurch.Theirunitsofanalysiswerethecongregations.
The authors mailed questionnaires to pastors of 493
congre-gations in the United States, from which they obtained 252
usableresponses.They concludedthattheinvestigationof the impact“ofentrepreneurialbehaviorsinreligiouscongregations [...]isavaluableundertaking”and,moreparticularly,thatthe
“innovativenessandautonomyelementsofanEntrepreneurial
Orientation are more strongly associated with the improved
performanceof nonprofitreligious congregationsthan
proac-tiveness,risk-seeking,andcompetitiveaggressiveness”(Pearce etal.,2010,p.240).Thelastthree(proactiveness,risk-seeking,
andcompetitiveaggressiveness),inclusive,wouldnotprovide
contributions.Theirfindingsdid“notsupportproactivenessand riskseekingasindependentbehaviorsassociatedwithimproved organizational performance” (Pearceetal., 2010,p. 239). At
the sametime, “anecdotal evidencereinforces the theoretical
plausibility that religious congregationsdonot value
interde-nominational or intercongregationalcompetitiveness” (Pearce
etal.,2010,p.239).
ThefivedimensionsofEOfocusedonhere(capacityfor inno-vation,proactivity, competitiveaggressiveness,ability totake risks,andautonomy)arerelatedtoentrepreneurshipinsofaras
“theycontributetothedevelopmentandimplementationofnew
resourcecombinationstoimprovecompetitivenessand
facili-tateentryintonewmarkets”(Pearceetal., 2010,p.219).As
such,theyserveasimportantreferencepointswhenanalysing
thebehaviorofthepastors.
Researchmethodology
In2011theeditorsoftheAcademyofManagementJournal
declaredanewageforqualitativeresearch,oneinwhich“theuse ofnontraditionaldatasources”wouldbecomeofprimary impor-tance(2011,p.235).Suchisthecaseofthepresentinvestigation, qualitative(Bauer,2002;Gil,1999;Godoy,1995)and descrip-tive(Eisenhardt,1989;Gil,1999;Godoy,1995,2006;Ridder, Hoon,&McCandless,2009;Soy,1997;Yin,2010).Data
collec-tionwascarriedoutbetweenAprilandAugust2014,involving
20pastorsresponsibleforthecreationandmanagementofsmall
independent Neopentecostal churches that were active at the
timethisresearchwasconducted.Thechurcheswerealllocated inthemetropolitanareaofBeloHorizonte/MinasGerais.Inthis
way,weopted foran“intentionalsample”(Eisenhardt,1989;
basedonthreemaincriteria:(i)thesnowballtechnique(Godoi &Mattos,2006),inwhichpastorsindicatednewinterviewees; (ii) easeof accesstointerviewees, and(iii)ease ofaccess to
interviewees.Thenamesof thepastorswerechangedsoasto
avoididentification.
AlthoughEisenhardt(1989)holds thattheidealnumberof
casesforastudysuchasoursrangesfromfourtoten,thenumber usedforourstudy(20)wasarrivedatbasedon“theoretical sat-urationorredundancy”(Duarte,2002;Gaskell,2002;Godoi& Mattos,2006;Godoy,2006;Hancock,1998;Voss,Tsikriktsis,& Frohlich,2002;Yin,2010).Throughin-depthinterviews, com-posedofsemi-openquestions(Creswell,2007;Gaskell,2002) andguided,fluid,non-rigidconversation(Yin,2010),wesought toidentify pastors’ beliefs,attitudes, values,and motivations (Creswell,2007;Gaskell,2002;Godoy,2006),withwhichwe
hopedtouncoverevidence of entrepreneurial behavior.
Alto-gethermorethan51hofinterviewswererecorded.
Theanalysis,recognizedasoneofthemostdifficultstages ofsuchcasestudies(Yin,2010),comprisedexamination, cate-gorizationandtabulationofevidencetodrawconclusionsbased empirically(Yin,2010,p154).Thestrategyof‘analytical gen-eralization’ (Meyer,2001; Yin,2010) wasused. The specific
inductivetechnique used wasbasedon cross-synthesis ofthe
data(Yin,2010)andincludedcontentanalysis(see,for exam-ple:Bardin,1977;Bauer,2002;Campos,2004;Chizzotti,2006; Mozzato & Grzybovski, 2011).The processof dataanalysis tookplaceatdifferenttimes,including:(i)bylisteningtoeach interview,immediatelyafter its realization,inorderto evalu-ate themes andopportunities still unexplored; (ii) in reading thetranscriptsofinterviews,whenadditionalnotesweremade; (iii)inthecategorizationofinterviewresponses,and(iv)inthe descriptionandfinalanalysisofthedata.
One observation deserves special mention up front. All
the pastors interviewed characterized as negative a certain
entrepreneurialbehaviortheycouldidentifyonlyinthe“other”
pastors(neverinthemselves).Oneofthe interviewees
(Hum-berto)acknowledgedthedifficultyofcapturingresearchinterest constructsinrelationtothepastorsanalyzed.Whentalkingabout
howpastors oftentrytoattract membersof otherEvangelical
churchesbyofferingthemdifferentadvantages(financialor oth-erwise),hestatedthat “noonelikestocommentthatdoes it”
(Humberto).“Ifyou ask,”hepointedout,“youwillfind
pas-torswhospeaklikethis:Idonotdothis,notatall.But,some other pastors...” In effect, all interviewees strove topresent
themselvestotheresearchersas“goodshepherds.”Inthiscase,
behaviorsconsideredbythempossiblyunethicaland
inappro-priate tothe religious contextwere only performed by other
pastors.
Researchfindings
Afteranalysingourdataaccordingtothefivebehavioral cat-egoriesofinterest,wecametorecognizethegreatimportance ofinnovationcapacity.Weobservedthisbehavioroperatingin severalactionsdescribedtousbythepastors,including three highlightedhere.Thefirstisthejoboffer(Humberto).Pastors offerjobstobelieversandpotentialmembersasawaytoattract
them.Somecreateemploymentagenciesforthispurpose.The
secondisassociatedwithadropintithingpercentage.Though littleused,thisstrategy–anoveloneintheEvangelicalcontext –meetsthewishesofthosewhoseektopaylessforreligious services.“Ifyou[...]findoutyoucanpaytithingof9.5%and
receivethesameblessingsfromthosewhopay10%.Lookat
[...]theimplicitcapitalistliberalism.Bestofferforthesame
service” (Humberto). Finally, the third relates to support for entrepreneurs.Inordertoserveentrepreneurs,Gilberto’schurch createdaspecificconsultancyforthem.
Ontheotherhand,thepastors’proactivity,that is,the pio-neering oftheir actions (Lumpkin&Dess,1996;Wiklund& Shepherd, 2005),manifests intheirsearchtoconvert individ-ualstotheirchurch.Inthis,theyemployrecruitmentstrategies
aheadofcompetitors,pursuingemergingopportunitiesthrough
anticipationofpeople’sreligiousdemands(Lumpkin&Dess, 2001;Wang,2008).Thesestrategiesinclude:(i)inviting
non-Evangelicals to worship, wherethey attempt to convert new
arrivals using coercivemethodsor through utilitarianappeals
(Abelardo; Edmundo; Fernando); (ii) evangelizing “door to
door”(Kaio;Osvaldo;Pedro);(iii)helpingCatholics(Damião;
Humberto;Kaio);(iv)promotingcouples’meetings(Edmundo;
Kaio; Marcelo; Osvaldo; Raimundo; Valdomiro; Zulmira);
and(v) creating eventsinpublic squares(Cristiano; Damião;
Edmundo;Itamar;Raimundo;Ulisses);amongothers.
Competitive aggressiveness, or the “intensity of a firm’s
effortstooutperform [...]rivals”(Lumpkin&Dess,2001,p.
431),isevidencedinnearlyallofthepastors’actions.Thestrong
competitive pressures that exist among shepherds encourage
suchbehavior.Cristianopointsoutthatpastors“tendtowatch thechurchofotherpastors,toseeiftherearemanybelievers,if there arefew, ifthe participationisgood ornot” (Cristiano).
There is “competition as if it were supermarket
advertise-ment”(Fernando).Competitiveaggressivenesswasoneofthe
entrepreneurialbehaviorsthatwasmostmanifestintheresearch.
Pastors demonstrate it most often inpursuing two important
goals.
Thefirstofthesegoalsisthegrowthoftheirchurches.This
occursmainlythroughproselytizingmembersofother
congre-gations.Fernandostresseshow“itiseasiertoseekanalready
formed believer thanto get apersonout there totake care.”
Many specific strategies are employed to this end: (i)
visit-ingreligiousleadersofotherchurchesandmanipulatingthem
(Abelardo; Edmundo;Humberto); (ii)deprecating other
min-istries (Cristiano; Edmundo); (iii) inviting Evangelicals from otherministriesandofferingthemincentivestojoin(Fernando); (iv)sendingbelieverstootherchurchestorecruitnewmembers
there (Edmundo); (v) creating ‘revelation campaigns’,
induc-ing members of several churches to move away from there
(Abelardo);amongothers.
The second important goal pastors seek through
competi-tiveaggressivenessisensuringtheloyaltyoftheircongregants,
thus lowering the chance that they will lose congregants to
there,[“feelingbetter”(Humberto)]and“staythere”(Ulisses).
“Nobodywantstoloseamember”(Valdomiro).Inpursuitof
ensuring congregant loyalty, pastors engage in competitively
aggressive behavior. Seven specific behaviors stand out: (i)
requiringmemberstorequestauthorizationtovisitother
min-istries(Abelardo;Fernando;Itamar;Kaio;Marcelo; Osvaldo;
Valdomiro); (ii) prohibiting externalvisitsand publicly
curs-ingthecongregantwhoseekssuchvisits(Damião;Edmundo;
Kaio;Raimundo;Teodoro;Zulmira);(iii)holdingevents
simul-taneouslywiththoseheldbycompetingcongregations(Damião;
Humberto;Osvaldo);(iv)giving leadershiproles tothe more
fortunatebelievers(Edmundo;Humberto);(v)publicly
despis-ingotherpastors(Humberto);(vi)discouragingmembersfrom
openingtheirownministries(Kaio);and(vii)promotingwithin theircongregationtheideathatbelieversarespiritually depend-entuponthepastor,especiallywithregardstocommuningwith
Jesus(Humberto).
Pastorscommonlyevidencedtheirwillingnesstotakerisks.
Oneway inwhichtheydid so was intheir relying upon the
contributionofauxiliarypastors.Forthecommunitieswe stud-ied,auxiliarypastorsfunctionedassomethingofadouble-edged sword:theadditionalaidandservicestheycouldofferboththe incumbentpastorandhiscongregantscouldpotentiallyboostthe rateatwhichthecongregationgrew;yetthepositionof
author-ityauxiliary pastors wereexpected toassume withina given
congregationalsoincreasedthechanceofconflictbetween aux-iliaryandincumbentpastor,whichcouldleadtotheministry’s
closure(Cristiano; Edmundo; Fernando;Humberto;Marcelo;
Raimundo;Teodoro;Zulmira).“Thereisapastorthathis
auxil-iarywentoutandledthewholechurch.Hehadtostarteverything fromscratch”(Zulmira).“Sometimessituationsoccurwherethe
[auxiliary]pastortakes100%ofthechurch”(Raimundo).
Pas-torsthereforefacethepossibilityofbothriskandrewardwhen
takingonan auxiliarypastor,whichmakesadilemma outof
thedecision of whetheror not tohireone: theycandelegate
powerattheriskofdividingtheirchurches;ortheycanretain allpowerforthemselvesandrisknotgrowingtheirchurchata competitiveenoughrate.
Finally,pastors commonlyexhibited autonomy,the ability
tobe independentintheir search for opportunities (Lumpkin
&Dess,1996).In fact,ourcriteriafor selectingpastorswere suchthatourpoolofpastorswasmorelikelythannottoinclude
individualswhodemonstratedthisbehaviortoahighdegree.
Oursisastudyofindependentpastors,manyofwhomhappen
tobetheverypersonresponsibleforthecreationofthe
congre-gationstheycurrentlymanage.Wenote,insummary,howour
poolofNeopentecostalpastorswasgenerallyabletotake advan-tageoftheprincipalabilitiesandbehaviorsassociatedwithan EO,namelyinnovation,proactivity,competitiveaggressiveness,
willingnesstotakerisks,andautonomy.Wefound,moreover,
thatpastorsdemonstratedthesebehaviorsinanumberof partic-ularways.Eightsuchwaysstandout.
Thefirsthastodowiththewaytheydemonstrated innova-tion.AsstressedbyPearceetal.(2010),religiousorganizations, evensmallones,canbeinnovativeandcreative.Neopentecostal churchesclearlydemonstratethis.Theirpastorsroutinely
cre-atednewideasandservices.Examplesof thisfromourstudy
aretheintroductionoftheemploymentagency(Humberto),the
reduction of tithe percentage (Humberto, Kaio), and support
forentrepreneurs(Gilberto).TheseNeopentecostalpastorsare, therefore,innovatorsintheirreligiouscontext.
Second, we found that the way our pastors demonstrated
proactivity runs countertothe expectations set upby Pearce
etal.(2010),whoarguedthatthisattributewouldbenegatively
associated withtheperformanceofchurches.Wedidnot find
thistobethecaseinourstudy, wherethe proactivityof pas-torscontributedtoanincreaseinthenumberofbelieversand toincreasedfundraisingfortheirchurch.Weinterpretthis dis-crepancybetweenourfindingsandthoseofPearceetal.(2010)
asarisingfromthedifferentculturalfocusofourtwostudies. Recallthat,intheirstudyseveralUSreligiousorganizations– all“affiliatedwithalargemainlinedenomination”,namelythe
EvangelicalLutheranChurchofAmerica–Pearceetal.(2010)
hypothesizedthatentrepreneurialproactivityonthepartof pas-torswouldbeinterpretedbycongregantsasdisrespectful,and as an affront to the traditions they hold dear. In secularized Brazil,however,wherede-traditionalizationhasbeen increas-ing(Mariano,2013;Pierucci,2004,2006b),wefoundpastoral proactivitytobenotonlyavaluableentrepreneurial behavior, butevennecessary.Proactivityofthepastorisfundamentalto thegrowthofNeopentecostalchurch,makingitthedutyofevery Neopentecostalpastortoexhibitthisbehavior.Theinterviewee
Damião pointsout that “thekingdom of Godmust be
multi-plied.Ifyouhave50,youmusthave100.Ifyouhave100,you musthave200.Itisourobligationtogeneratesouls.Godbegs children.”
Third, and regarding competitive aggressiveness, Pearce
etal.(2010) noted thatchurches adopt competitively aggres-sivepracticesinordertogrowtheirmembership.Neopentecostal churchesclearlyevidencethiswhentheyadoptthemostinvasive practices.Thisleadstoanimportantobservation.Theliterature onEOclearlylaysouthowcompetitiveaggressivenessisrelated totheeffortsofmarketactorsattemptingtoexpandthemarket foragivenenterprise(Lumpkin&Dess,1996,2001;Lyonetal., 2000;Pearceetal.,2010).Theevidenceobtainedcomplements thisconclusion,inthatitsuggeststhatcompetitive aggressive-nesscanalsomanifestinthediligencesperformedforitsown
maintenance. AlthoughPearceetal.(2010)observedthisin
passing,theydidnotstressitsfullimportance,whichisthat
dis-cussionsofcompetitiveaggressivenessneedtobeexpandedto
incorporatetheconceptnotionsofbehaviorsrelatedtomarket maintenanceofenterprises,whetherreligiousornot.
Fourth,NwankwoandGbadamosi(2013)andPearceetal.
(2010)haveargued that pastors areincentivised toengagein risk-takingbehaviorbytheirbeliefindivineglory.Ourstudy
did not find this. Although pastors take risks, our evidence
suggeststhat thisbehavioris drivenby factorsotherthan an entrepreneurialorientation.Oneofthesefactorsisstrong
inter-congregational competitiveness, whichencourages pastors to
adoptriskypracticesinordertoovercomecompetitors.Another
factor isthe determination theyhaveto grow their churches,
whichinturnencouragessomepastorstoemployhelpinthe
suggestthatwillingnesstotakeriskshaspotentialforinfluences thegrowthofchurches,suchoutcomesdonotseem,asproposed bytheauthorsoftheseotherstudies,tobeenhancedby bene-fits derived from predictable configurations. On the contrary,
the Brazilian Neopentecostal context is highly unpredictable
and plural. Pastors often act in an unexpected way in order
togainadvantages.EvidenceofthisisgivenbyHumberto.In
referringtoproselytizingpractices,hesaidthattheywere some-times“opportunistic,”thatis,unplanned.Sometimes,ifapastor “meetsadissatisfiedbeliever,hesays:ohBrother!Areyou
dis-satisfiedthere?Comehere!Howareyou goingtoserve God
withsorrowinyourheart?”(Humberto).
Fifth, Pearce et al. (2010) argued that autonomy enabled
pastors torespond toenvironmentalimperatives,andallowed
themtoidentify,develop,andinitiatechangesintheirprograms andactivities.Thepastorsappearedtobecapableofthis.Their
autonomyallowedthem,forexample, tobeaggressive inthe
searchforEvangelicalsandintheirresponsestotheactionsof competitors.Atthesametime,itallowedthemtoact
indepen-dently informulating andmodifying strategies that impacted
oncongregationalperformance.Examplesof thiscanbeseen
inthetacticscertainpastorsemployedtogrowtheirchurches.
Raimundo, for example, promoted meetings of couples and
eventsinpublicsquares.Humberto,inturn,claimedthatpastors commerciallyexploitreligiousmiracles,adoptproselytism,and
helpnon-Evangelicals.
Sixth,andinrelationtothreeEObehaviors,namely willing-nesstotakerisks,proactivity,andcompetitiveaggressiveness,
Pearceetal.(2010)foundthatthesedidnotcontributeto bene-fittingchurchperformance.Butourresearchfoundtheopposite tobetrue.Thecombinationofallthreebehaviorsinasingle pas-torappearstogenerateimportantbenefitsfortheperformanceof Neopentecostalchurches.Infact,itisthroughthesebehaviors thatpastorsobtainnewbelieversbyconvertingorseekingthem
fromotherEvangelicalchurches,preventing lossof members
tocompetitors,avoidingashortfallintheresourcesthatmake itpossibletosustaintheirinstitutions,increasing fundraising, andenablingfinancinginvestmentsthatallowthecongregational advance.Thisrelatesdirectlytoourseventhobservation.
WhilePearceetal.(2010)foundthatapastor’scapacitiesfor innovationandautonomyaremoststronglyrelatedtothe perfor-manceofhischurch,thepresentstudysuggeststhatitisrather the combinationofapastor’s proactivity,competitive
aggres-siveness, willingness to take risks, and autonomy that most
contributes tothe performanceof his Neopentecostalchurch.
Ofthesefour, the combinationof competitiveaggressiveness
andautonomyappeared tobe themost powerful. Thisisnot
tosaythatwefoundapastor’s capacityforinnovation capac-itytobeunimportant.Onthecontrary,andaswehavealready
discussed,Neopentecostalchurchesbenefitgreatlyfrom
inno-vative pastors. Our data simply indicates that innovativeness
isproportionatelyless importantthanproactivity, competitive
aggressiveness,willingnesstotakerisks,andautonomy.They
donotallow,however,inferringthebenefitsandrepercussions ofitsgreaterapplication.Sporadicelementspointtothe possi-bilitythatmoreinnovativepastors,forexample,couldachieve betterchurchperformance.
Eighth, and finally, Pearce et al. (2010) found that the
congregationstheystudieddevalued inter-denominationaland
inter-congregational competitiveness. Wedid not find thisin
ourstudy.Onthecontrary,wefoundthatitispreciselybecause ofinter-congregationalcompetitionthatNeopentecostalpastors
employ many of the strategies that promote the growth and
maintenanceoftheirchurches.Inotherwords,Neopentecostal
pastorsvalueinter-congregationalcompetition,andreinforceit. Forthepastors,“achurchthathasanotherplaqueisa competi-tor” (Benedito). Brazilianreligious pluralism and the intense competition resulting from it (Pierucci, 2006a, 2006b, 2008) seemstorequirethissortofapproachonthepartof Neopente-costalpastors.
Table 1 outlines the main theoretical constructs proposed
bypreviousstudiesandsummarizeshow theycomparetothe
findingsofthepresentstudy.
Finalconsiderations
Much as did the study by Engelberg et al. (2014), this
paper also analyses an internal factor of religious
organiza-tions–thepastors’entrepreneurialbehavior–tohelpuncover
someimportantdimensionsofreligiousphenomenoninBrazil.
First of all, the identification of entrepreneurial behavior in
the surveyed pastors is consistentwiththe greatly expanding
NeopentecostalEvangelicalcommunities.TheEntrepreneurial
Orientationapproachthusprovestobeaparticularlyusefultool inanalysingthebehaviorsofthesepastors.If,asnotedbyIyer (2016),Engelbergetal.(2014),andPearceetal.(2010),pastors’
behavior canhelpexplain theperformanceof their churches,
thentheentrepreneurialstanceofNeopentecostalpastorscould
help explain the rapid growthof Evangelical Neopentecostal
churchesinthecountry.
The pastors interviewed managed to increase the
perfor-mance of their churches. Thiscan be seen, for example, (i)
intheir abilitytorecruitnewmembers(byconvertingpeople
orthroughproselytizingpracticesexpressedinthecompetitive disputebythosealreadyconverted);(ii)intheirabilitytoprevent the departureofbelievers;and(iii)intheirabilitytoseekout andobtainresources,financialorotherwise,fundamentaltothe creation,maintenance,reformandexpansionoftheirchurches. Itthereforeseemsclearthatpastorsof amoreentrepreneurial
orientation have certainadvantages over pastors withoutthis
orientation.
Comparingthefindingsofpreviousliterature(Pearceetal., 2010)withtheresultsofthepresentstudy,wefindseveralpoints of disagreement. The first of theseregards the effects of the
pastors’ proactivity ontheperformanceof theirchurches: we
observedapositivecorrelationbetweenproactivityandchurch
performance,whereasPearceetal.(2010)didnot.Thesecond
regardsthe conceptof competitiveaggressiveness,which, we
argue,needstobeexpanded.Whilepreviousstudieshave
Table1
TheoreticalpropositionsbypreviousstudiesaboutEOinreligiouseconomiesascomparedtothefindingsofthepresentstudy.
Propositions|Authorsofinterest Evidence|Empiricalanalyses
Religiousorganizationscanbeinnovativeandcreative (Pearceetal.,2010)
Confirmed Neopentecostalchurches,evensmallones,canbeinnovativeand creative.
Proactivityisnegativelyassociatedwiththeperformanceof churches.Itsmanifestationisinterpretedasdisrespectful tothetraditionofthecongregants.Itisdiscouragedby religiousinstitutions
(Pearceetal.,2010)
Reworked Proactivityispositivelyassociatedwithperformanceofchurches examined.Itsmanifestationisnotinterpretedasdisrespectfulbythe congregants.PastoralproactivityisencouragedbyEvangelical communities.
Competitiveaggressivenessaidsinexpandingthemarket shareofagiveninstitution
(Pearceetal.,2010;Lumpkin&Dess,1996,2001;Lyon etal.,2000;Wang,2008)
Confirmed+ Extended
Competitiveaggressivenessaidsinexpandingandalsomaintenance themarketshareofagiveninstitution.
Churchesadoptcompetitivepracticestomaintainandgrow theirmembership.Thesepracticesrangefromsubtleto overt
(Pearceetal.,2010)
Confirmed Thechurchesexaminedadoptcompetitivepracticestomaintainand growtheirmembership.Thesecanbesubtle,butaremoreoftenovert.
Apastor’sabilitytotakeriskscanbeincreasedbybeliefin divineglory.Risk-takinghasthepotentialforexceptional resultsinsettingswherepredictablebehavioristhenorm, suchasinchurches
(Nwankwo&Gbadamosi,2013;Pearceetal.,2010)
Reworked Thepastorsdemonstratedtheabilitytotakerisks,althoughsuch behaviorhasnotbeenencouragedbytheirbeliefindivineglory.They werecertainlyinfluencedbyotherfactors,however,suchas congregationalcompetitivenessandtheirgoalofchurchgrowth. Althoughrisk-takingbehaviorhaspotentialforeventuallyexceptional outcomes,theseoutcomeswillnotalwaysderivefrompredictable configurations.
Autonomycanincreasetheabilityofchurchestorespondto environmentalimperatives.Itcanmakethemcapableof identifying,developing,andinitiatingchangesintheir programsandactivities
(Pearceetal.,2010)
Confirmed Autonomycanincreasetheabilityofchurchestorespondto environmentalimperatives.Itcanmakethemcapableofidentifying, developing,andinitiatingchangesintheirprogramsandactivities.
Investigatingentrepreneurialbehaviorinthecontextof religiouscongregationsisavaluableinitiative.Churches benefitfromtheentrepreneurialbehaviorsofpastors (Pearceetal.,2010)
Confirmed InvestigatingentrepreneurialbehaviorinthecontextofNeopentecostal churchesisvaluable.Churchesbenefitfromtheentrepreneurial behaviorsofpastors.
Capacityforinnovationandautonomyaremorestrongly relatedtoincreasedperformanceofchurchesthanare proactivity,willingnesstotakerisks,andcompetitive aggressiveness
(Pearceetal.,2010)
Reworked Proactivity,competitiveaggressiveness,willingnesstotakerisks,and autonomyappeartobemorestronglyrelatedtoincreasedperformance ofNeopentecostalchurchesthanisacapacityforinnovation.Ofthese, competitiveaggressivenessandautonomyarethemostsignificant.
Theabilitytotakerisks,proactivity,andcompetitive aggressivenessdonotcontributetotheperformanceof churches
(Pearceetal.,2010)
Reworked Theabilitytotakerisks,proactivity,andcompetitiveaggressivenessdo contributetotheperformanceofNeopentecostalchurches.
Congregationsdonotvalueinter-denominationalor inter-congregationalcompetitiveness
(Pearceetal.,2010)
Reworked Neopentecostalshepherdsvalueinter-denominationalor inter-congregationalcompetitiveness.Theygiveimportancetoit.
market.The third regardsthe pastor’s tendencytotakerisks.
Ourstudysuggeststhatweneedtobroadenourunderstanding
ofwhatmotivatespastorstotakeentrepreneurialriskstoinclude suchfactorsascongregationalcompetitivenessandgrowth.The fourthregardstheimportanceofthecombinationofrisk-taking, proactivity,andcompetitiveaggressivenessinthepersonofthe
pastorforimprovingchurchperformance,whichconfirmswhat
wasproposedbyPearceetal.(2010)onthesubject.Thefifth
regards the role of the combination of proactivity,
competi-tiveaggressiveness,willingnesstotakerisks,andautonomyin churchperformance.Thisresultre-interpretsPearceetal.(2010)
reflectionsthatthiswouldresult,aboveall,fromtheassociation
betweeninnovationcapacity andautonomy.Finally, thesixth
regards whether or not churches value inter-denominational
competitiveness.ThechurchesstudiedbyPearceetal.(2010)
did not, while the churches examined by the present study
did.
Theresultsobtainedallowustoextrapolatethespecific
lit-erature about EO in the elaboration of important additional
propositions. Ashas been noted, the entrepreneurial
orienta-tiontendstomanifestinindividualsdeliberatelyinaplanned orintentionalway(see,forexample:Hugles&Morgan,2007; Lumpkin&Dess,1996;Lyonetal.,2000;Rauchetal.,2009; Wang, 2008; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). EO is therefore theresultofdeliberate,proactivebehavior.LumpkinandDess (1996),forexample,arguethatEOtendstoarisewhenanactor deliberatelysearchesformarketopportunities.Itispreciselythis searchformarketopportunitiesthatwouldconditionthe adop-tionbyindividualsoftheentrepreneurialbehaviorsconsidered
wouldseemtoimplytheintentionalnatureofEO.Capacityfor
innovation,forexample,whichisnothingmorethanthe
“ten-dencytoengageinandsupportnewideas”(Lumpkin&Dess, 1996,p. 142), implies intentionalityon the part of the actor. Proactivity,too,referstotheabilitytoanticipatefuture
prob-lems, needs, or changes, and the willingness to act on these
anticipations. Similarly, autonomy is “the ability and will to be self-directed inthe pursuit of opportunities”(Lumpkin & Dess,1996,p.140).Theresultsofthepresentstudy,however, suggestthatweneedtorethinkthelinkbetweenEOand inten-tionality. Forinstance, our study observed pastors exhibiting entrepreneurialbehaviorsinresponsetoreligiousandeconomic necessity.Totheextentthatsuchbehaviorsarosepassively,the
EOofourpastorscannotbeunderstood astheresultof
plan-ningor deliberate agendasetting ontheir part. Indeed, many
ofthepastorsinourstudywereforcedtoadoptaninnovative orproactivestance,oftenaggressiveand/orhostile,toprevent thediminutionoftheircongregations,whichwouldleadtothe closureoftheirchurches.Inordertoattractnewbelievers,they wereoftenabletoreducethesectarianrigoroftheirchurches. Tosupportthegrowthoftheirchurches,theywereforcedtorely onauxiliarypastors,assumingdifferentrisks.
Wewouldthereforerevise,slightly,theunderstandingofhow
onecancome toadopt anentrepreneurial orientation. Asthe
literature clearly shows (Hugles & Morgan, 2007; Lumpkin
&Dess, 1996; Lyon etal., 2000;Rauch etal., 2009; Wang, 2008;Wiklund&Shepherd,2005,amongothers),anEOcan beadoptedactivelyanddeliberately.Butwesuggestthatitcan alsobeadoptedpassively;thatis,anEOcanemergeinresponse
toenvironmentalimperativesandeconomicneed.
Whilethepresentstudyhasdemonstratedtheentrepreneurial
behaviors common toNeopentecostal pastors of independent
Brazilianchurches,it doesnot followthat pastors fromother kindsofchurches,orchurchesinotherplaces,willalsoexhibit thissamebehavior.Furtherresearchmustbecarriedoutinorder todeterminewhetherornotthisorientationiscommontoother typesofEvangelicaldenominations,includinghistorical Protes-tantandclassicalPentecostalchurches,aswellasestablished andinstitutionalizedNeopentecostalschurchessuchasthe
Uni-versal do Reino de Deus and the Internacional da Grac¸a de
Deus.Nevertheless,theresultsofthepresentstudysuggest sev-eral avenuesfor furtherresearch,particularlywithinthe field of administration,including:(i)comparative investigationsof differenttypesofEvangelicalchurchesor,possibly,ofdifferent typesofchurchesingeneral;(ii)investigationsoftheprofilesof religiousentrepreneurs,consideringaspectssuchassocial sta-tus,motivationsforchurchcreation,evolution,etc.;(iii)research into the professionalizationof churches,including the strate-giessuch churches employtoeffecttheir professionalization, thetypesofservicestheyoffer,marketniches,marketing,etc.; (iv)researchintotheexternaland/orstructuralfactorsthat influ-encetheEOofreligiousagents;(v)investigationsintohowthe
EOof Evangelical pastors compares withthat of otherkinds
ofentrepreneursworkingintheproductivemarket,highlighting divergencesandsimilaritiesbetweenthem.
Researcherswhocarryoutsuchstudiesastheonessuggested hereshouldconsiderthat, althoughreligious institutions may
have certain features in common withother kinds of market
organizations(e.g.theentrepreneurialpostureoftheirleaders, theuseofmarketingmethods,managementstrategies,etc.),they arealsopeculiarinthattheyintersectdirectlywithconceptsnot
commonlyconsideredinstudiesofmarketperformance,namely
faith,morality,andreligioustradition.Asnotedbybothclassic (Weber, 1964) and contemporary authors (McCloskey, 2016; North,1991;Prandi,1991;Scott&Cantarelli,2004),religion
promotes special patterns of conduct that, when internalized,
influencethewaybelieversandpastorsbehaveandinteractwith oneanother.
Inhisclassicessayonreligion,Weber(1964,p.378)points
outhowreligiouscommunitiescanbecharacterizedbya
dual-ismcomprisingtwofundamentalprinciples.First,theycanbe
characterizedbythemoralityofour-groupandtheoutergroup; second,bythemoralityofour-group,simplereciprocity: ‘what-everyoudotome,Iwilldotoyou’(1964).Inarecentstudy,
McCloskey(2016,p.21)discussesreligion asa“social club,
withcostsandbenefits.”McCloskeyemphasisesthat“anyone
whohas actuallybelongedtoasocialclub, ofcourse,knows
thatitsoondevelopsintomoralrituals,customswiththeforce of law andthe weightofsanctity” (McCloskey,2016,p.21).
North(1991)hasemphasizedtheroleofinstitutions,including religions. They canserveas informal archetypes–restricting
behavior through taboos, sanctions, customs, traditions, and
codesofconduct–aswellasprovidingformalrules,expressed
by laws, constitutions, and property rights. North points out
(1991, p. 97)that “throughout history, institutions have been devisedbyhumanbeingstocreateorderandreduceuncertainty.”
ScottandCantarelli(2004),inastudyofyoungEvangelicalsin
Brazil,viewedchurchesasmoralcommunitiesthatencourage
theirparticipantstosharevalues.Thevaluesservetorefertheir lives,makingthemdistinctfromotherswhoparticipateinother religions or beliefs, or who do not participate inany collec-tiveactivity(Scott&Cantarelli,2004,p.377).Suchreflections proves tobeinstigatingfor futureinvestigations,includingin interfacetothethemeofreligiousentrepreneurship.
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
References
Audretsch, D. B., Boente, W., & Tamvada, J. P. (2007). Religion and entrepreneurship.JenaEconomicResearchPapers,75,1–27.
Audretsch,D.B.,Boente,W.,&Tamvada,J.P.(2013).Religion,socialclass, andentrepreneurialchoice.JournalofBusinessVenturing,28,774–789. Bauer,M.(2002).Análisedeconteúdoclássica:Umarevisão.InM.Bauer,&G.
Gaskell(Eds.),PesquisaQualitativacomTexto,ImagemeSom:Ummanual prático(pp.189–219).Petrópolis:Vozes.
Bardin,L.(1977).AnálisedeConteúdo(1aed.,pp.70).Lisboa:Edic¸ões. Campos,C.J.G.(2004).MétododeAnálisedeConteúdo:Ferramentapara
aanálisededadosqualitativosnocampodasaúde.RevistaBrasileirade Enfermagem,57(5),611–614.
Covin,J.G.,Green,K.M.,&Slevin,D.P.(2006).Strategicprocesseffectsonthe entrepreneurialorientation-salesgrowthraterelationship.Entrepreneurship TheoryandPractice,30(1),57–81.
Creswell,J.W.(2007).ProjetodePesquisa:Métodosqualitativo,quantitativo emisto.pp.184–190.PortoAlegre:Artmed.
Dougherty,K.D.,Griebel,J.,Neubert,M.J.,&Park,J.Z.(2013).A Reli-giousProfileofAmericanEntrepreneurs.JournalfortheScientificStudyof Religion,52(2),401–409.
Duarte,R.(2002).Pesquisaqualitativa:Reflexõessobreotrabalhodecampo.
CadernosdePesquisa,115,139–154.
Eisenhardt,K.M.(1989).Buildingtheoriesfromcasestudyresearch.The AcademyofManagementReview,14(4),532–550.
Engelberg,J.,Fisman,R.,Hartzell,G.C.,&Parsons,C.A.(2014).Human cap-italandthesupplyofreligion..Retrievedfrom:http://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/ directory/engelberg/pub/portfolios/PREACHERS.pdf
Finke,R.(1997).Theconsequencesofreligiouscompetition:Supply-side expla-nationsforreligiouschange.InL.A.Young(Ed.),Rationalchoicetheory andreligion(Vol.3)(pp.45–63).Routledge.
Finke,R.,Guest,A.M.,&Stark,R.(1996).Mobilizinglocalreligiousmarkets: Religiouspluralismintheempirestate,1855to1865.AmericanSociological Review,61(1),203–218.
Finke,R.,&Stark,R.(1992).ThechurchingofAmerica:Winnersandlosersin ourreligiouseconomy.NewBrunswick:RutgersUniversityPress. Frigerio,A.(2008).Oparadigmada escolharacional:Mercadoreguladoe
pluralismoreligioso.TempoSocial,RevistadeSociologiadaUSP,20(2), 17–39.
Gaskell,G.(2002).Entrevistasindividuaisegrupais.InM.Bauer,&G.Gaskell (Eds.),Pesquisaqualitativacomtexto,imagemesom:Ummanualprático
(pp.64–83).Petrópolis:Vozes.
Gil,A.C.(1999).Métodosetécnicasdepesquisasocial.SãoPaulo:Atlas. Godoy, A. S. (1995). A pesquisa qualitativa e sua utilizac¸ão em
administrac¸ãodeempresas.Revistadeadministra¸cãodeempresas,35(4), 65–71.
Godoy, A. S. (2006). Estudo de caso qualitativo. In C. K. Godoi, R. Bandeira-de-Mello,&A.Barbosa(Eds.),Pesquisa qualitativaem estu-dosorganizacionais:Paradigmas,estratégiasemétodos(pp.115–146).São Paulo:Saraiva.
Godoi,C.K.,&Mattos,P.L.C.L.(2006).Entrevistaqualitativa:Instrumentode pesquisaeeventodialógico.InC.K.Godoi,R.Bandeira-de-Mello,&A. Bar-bosa(Eds.),Pesquisaqualitativaemestudosorganizacionais:Paradigmas, estratégiasemétodos(pp.301–324).SãoPaulo:Saraiva.
Griebel, J. M., Park, J. Z., & Neubert, M. J. (2014). Faith and work:Anexploratory studyof religiousentrepreneurs. Religions,5(3), 780–800.
Hancock,B.(1998)..pp.1–22.Anintroductiontotheresearchprocess(Vol.1) UniversityofNottingham.
Hugles,M.,&Morgan,R.(2007).Deconstructingtherelationshipbetween entrepreneurialorientationandbusinessperformanceattheembryonicstage offirmgrowth.IndustrialMarketingManagement,36,651–661. Iannaccone, L. (1995). Voodoo economics? Reviewing the rationalchoice
approachtoreligion.JournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion,34(1), 76–88.
Iannaccone,L.(1997).Rationalchoice:Frameworkforthescientificstudyof religion.InL.A.Young(Ed.),Rationalchoicetheoryandreligion(Vol.2) (pp.25–44).Routledge.
Iyer,S.(2016).Theneweconomicsofreligion.JournalofEconomicLiterature,
54(2),395–441.
Lumpkin,G.T.,&Dess,G.G.(1996).Clarifyingtheentrepreneurialorientation constructandlinkingittoperformance.AcademyofManagementReview,
21(1),135–172.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurialorientationtofirmperformance:Themoderating roleof environmentandindustrylifecycle.JournalofBusinessVenturing,16(5), 429–451.
Lyon,D.W.,Lumpkin,G.T.,&Dess,G.G.(2000).Enhancingentrepreneurial orientationresearch:Operationalizingandmeasuringakeystrategicdecision makingprocess.JournalofManagement,26(5),1055–1085.
Mariano,R.(2003).Efeitosdasecularizac¸ãodoEstado,dopluralismoedo mer-cadoreligiosossobreasigrejaspentecostais.Civitas–RevistadeCiências Sociais,3(1),111–125.
Mariano,R.(2008).Usoselimitesdateoriadaescolharacionaldareligião.
TempoSocial,RevistadeSociologiadaUSP,20(2),41–66.
Mariano,R.(2013).AntônioFlávioPierucci:Sociólogomaterialistadareligião.
RevistaBrasileiradeCiênciasSociais,28(81),7–16.
McCloskey,D.N.(2016).MaxUversus Humanomics.Acritiqueof neo-institutionalism.JounalofIntitutionalEconomics,12(1),1–27.
Meyer,C.B.(2001).Acaseincasestudymethodology.FieldMethods,13(4), 329–352.
Mozzato,A.R.,&Grzybovski,D.(2011).Análisedeconteúdocomotécnica deanálisededadosqualitativosnocampodaAdministrac¸ão:Potenciale desafios.RevistadeAdministra¸cãoContemporânea,15(4),731–747. North,D.C.(1991).Institutions.TheJournalofEconomicPerspectives,5
(Win-ter(1)),97–112.
Nwankwo, S., & Gbadamosi, A. (2013). Faith and entrepreneurship amongtheBritishAfrican-Caribbean:Intersectionsbetweenreligiousand entrepreneurialvalue.JournalofSmallBusinessandEnterprise Develop-ment,20(3),618–633.
Nwankwo,S.,Gbadamosi, A.,&Ojo,S.(2012).Religion,spiritualityand entrepreneurship: The church as entrepreneurial space among British Africans.SocietyandBusinessReview,7(2),149–167.
Pacheco,E.T.,RibeirodaSilva,S.,&Ribeiro,R.G.(2007).Eueradomundo: Tranformac¸õesdoauto-conceitonaconversãopentecostal.Psicologia: Teo-riaePesquisa,24(1),53–62.
Passos,M.,Zorzin,P.L.G.,&Rocha,D.(2011).Oque(não)dizemosnúmeros –paraalémdasestatísticassobreo“NovoMapadasReligiõesBrasileiro”.
Horizonte,9(23),690–714.
Pearce,J.A.,Fritz,D.A.,&Davis,P.S.(2010).Entrepreneurialorientationand theperformanceofreligioncongregationsaspredictedbyrationalchoice theory.EntrepreneurshipTheoryandPractice,34(1),219–248.
Pierucci,A.F.(1996).Liberdadedecultosnasociedadedeservic¸os.InA.F. Pierucci,&R.Prandi(Eds.),ArealidadesocialdasreligiõesnoBrasil(Vol. 12)(pp.275–286).SãoPaulo:Hucitec.
Pierucci,A.F.(2000).AsreligiõesnoBrasil.InJ.Gaarder,V.Hellern,&H. Notaker(Eds.),OLivrodasReligiões(pp.281–302).SãoPaulo:Companhia dasLetras.
Pierucci,A.F.(2004).“Byebye,Brasil”–odeclíniodasreligiõestradicionais noCenso2000.EstudosAvan¸cados,18(52),17–28.
Pierucci,A.F.(2006a).Ciênciassociaisereligião:Areligiãocomoruptura. pp.17–34.InF.Teixeira,&R.Menezes(Eds.),AsreligiõesnoBrasil: Continuidadeserupturas(Vol.1)Petrópolis:Vozes.
Pierucci,A.F.(2006b)..pp.111–127.Religiãocomosolvente–umaaula(Vol. 75)NovosEstudos–CEBRAP.
Pierucci,A.F.(2008).Deolhonamodernidadereligiosa.TempoSocial,Revista deSociologiadaUSP,20(2),9–16.
Pierucci,A.F.(2011).ReligiõesnoBrasil.InA.Botelho,&L.M.Schwarcz (Eds.),AgendaBrasileira:Temasdeumasociedadeemmudan¸ca(Vol.41) (pp.470–479).SãoPaulo:CompanhiadasLetras.
Prandi, R. (1991). A religião e a multiplicac¸ão do eu. Revista USP,
9, 133–144. Retrieved from http://www.revistas.usp.br/revusp/article/ view/25561/27305
Rabuske,I.J.,dosSantos,P.L.,Gonc¸alves,H.A.,&Traub,L.(2012). Evangéli-cosbrasileiros:Quemsão,deondevieramenoqueacreditam?Revista Brasileira de História das Religiões, 4(12), 255–267. Retrieved from http://www.journaldatabase.org/articles/evangelicosbrasileirosquemsao onde.html
Rauch,A.,Wiklund,J.,Lumpkin,G.T.,&Frese,M.(2009).Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: Anassessment of past research andsuggestionsforthefuture.EntrepreneurshipTheoryandPractice,33, 761–787.
Ridder,H.,Hoon,C.,&McCandless,A.(2009).Thetheoreticalcontribution ofcasestudyresearchtothefieldofstrategyandmanagement.Research MethodologyinStrategyandManagement,5,137–175.
Rivera,P. B.(2010).PluralismoReligiosoeSecularizac¸ão:Pentecostaisna periferia da cidade de São Bernardo do Campo no Brasil.Revista de Estudos daReligião, 50–76.Retrieved from http://www.pucsp.br/rever/ rv12010/trivera.htm
Schumpeter,J.A.(1982).Ateoriadodesenvolvimentoeconômico:Uma inves-tiga¸cãosobrelucros,capital,crédito,juroseocicloeconômico.SãoPualo: AbrilCultural.
Scott, R. P., & Cantarelli, J. (2004). Jovens, religiosidade e aquisic¸ão de conhecimentos e habilidades entre camadas populares. Caderno CRH, 17(42), 375–388. Retrieved from http://www.cadernocrh.ufba.br/ viewarticle.php?id=26
Serafim,M.C.,Martes,A.C.B.,&Rodriguez,C.L.(2012).“Segurandonamão deDeus”:Organizac¸õesreligiosaseapoioaoempreendedorismo.Revista deAdministra¸cãodeEmpresas,52(2),217–231.
Soy,S. K.(1997).The case study asaresearch method.. Retrievedfrom https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/∼ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm
Thecomingageforqualitativeresearch:Embracingthediversityofqualitative methods.(2011).AcademyofManagementJournal,54(2),233–237.
Voss,C.,Tsikriktsis,N.,&Frohlich,M.(2002).Caseresearchinoperations man-agement.InternationalJournalofOperations&ProductionManagement,
22(2),195–219.
Wang,C.L.(2008).Entrepreneurialorientation,learningorientation,andfirm performance.EntrepreneurshipTheoryandPractice,32(4),635–657. Weber,M.(1964).(Cap.13).pp.371–412.EnsaiosdeSociologiaRiodeJaneiro:
Zahar.
Weber,M.(1996[1905]).AÉticaProtestanteeoespíritodocapitalismo(11a ed.).SãoPaulo:LivrariaPioneiraEditora.
Wiklund, J.,& Shepherd,D.(2005). Entrepreneurialorientationand small businessperformance:Aconfigurationalapproach.JournalofBusiness Ven-turing,20,71–91.
Wiseman,T.,&Young,A.(2013).Religionandentrepreneurialactivityinthe U.S.InJ.C.Hall,&J.Kodl(Eds.),Theannualproceedingsofthewealth andwell-beingofnations,2012–2013(pp.95–114).BeloitCollegePress. Yin,R.K.(2010).EstudodeCaso:Planejamentoemétodos.PortoAlegre:
