TEAM ENTREPRENEURIAL PASSION (TEP): ITS EMERGENCE AND INFLUENCE IN NEW VENTURE TEAMS * Melissa S. Cardon Pace University 861 Bedford Road Pleasantville, NY 10570 914-773-3618 mcardon@pace.edu Corinne Post Lehigh University 621 Taylor Street Bethlehem, PA 18015 610-758-5882 corinne.post@lehigh.edu William R. Forster Lehigh University 621 Taylor Street Bethlehem, PA 18015 610-758-3435 forsterw@lehigh.edu Paper accepted by Academy of Management Review, December 21, 2015 Scheduled for publication in the April 2017 issue of AMR—volume 42, issue 2 *The authors thank Chuck Murnieks, Dan Forbes, and Eric Kearney for feedback on earlier drafts, as well as Neal Ashkanasy and three anonymous reviewers for their incredibly constructive and helpful guidance on our model and manuscript. A previous version of this work was presented at the 2012 Academy of Management Meetings. ABSTRACT We introduce the concept of team entrepreneurial passion (TEP), a team-level construct representing the level of shared intense positive feelings for a collective and central team identity for new venture teams (NVTs). Additionally, we develop a dynamic theoretical model of (a) the processes by which TEP can emerge from different combinations of new venture team members’ individual entrepreneurial passions; (b) the influence of TEP on team and individual member outcomes; and (c) the relative importance of TEP emergence and influence processes at different venture stages. Our model has theoretical and practical implications for scholarship concerning affective diversity, shared affect, collective identity, NVTs, and entrepreneurial passion. Keywords: new venture teams, passion, diversity, affect, emotion, entrepreneurship  Affect, identity, and passion exert a powerful influence on individuals, teams, and, ultimately, on organizational outcomes (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000; Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002; Brief & Weiss, 2002). In particular, passion—which involves intense positive emotions and a meaningful identity connection (Perrewé, Hochwarter, Ferris, McAllister, & Harris, 2014; Vallerand et al., 2003)—has garnered considerable scholarly attention as a concept linking affect and identity in organizational life (Boyatzis, McKee, & Goleman, 2002; Chang & Blanchard, 2000; Vallerand & Houlfort, 2003) and is central to the entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship, characterized by interdependent events that are richly affective in nature (Baron, 2008; Morris, Kuratko, Schindehutte, & Spivack, 2012), elicits feelings and emotions that are processed through “the dynamic interplay of cognitive, affective, and physiological elements” (Morris et al., 2012: 12). As an emotion, passion involves feelings that are positive and relatively strong (Baum & Locke, 2004; Gielnik, Spitzmuller, Schmitt, Klemann, & Frese, 2015; Houlfort, Philippe, Vallerand, & Ménard, 2014). Further, entrepreneurial passion is rooted in distinct role identities that can evoke feelings of varying intensity (Cardon, Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009). Fauchart and Gruber recently showed that individual founders’ identities drive “stark differences along several core strategic dimensions of new firm creation” (2011: 950). The scholarly work on passion at an individual level has greatly improved our understanding of entrepreneurs and their ventures; however, the research is relatively silent on entrepreneurial passion in teams (see de Mol & de Jong, 2015; Drnovsek, Cardon, & Murnieks, 2009 for notable exceptions). This is surprising, as teams found and lead the majority of new ventures (Kamm, Shuman, Seeger, & Nurick, 1990; Klotz, Hmieleski, Bradley, & Busenitz, 2014), and entrepreneurship is more of a socially-distributed process than it is the enterprise of a solo, heroic leader (Harper, 2008). We focus on new venture teams and think of a new venture team (NVT) as “the group of individuals that is chiefly responsible for the strategic decision making and ongoing operations of a new venture” (Klotz et al., 2014: 288). Members of the NVT are actively involved in both the development and implementation of the evolving strategies of the firm (Klotz et al., 2014) and are distinct from other groups such as outside funders of the venture or external boards of advisors, who may be involved in fund-raising or strategy development but not in implementation. NVTs do not include every employee of the venture, yet the composition of a NVT is not static and can change across the life of a venture (Boeker & Karichalil, 2002), making NVTs dynamic groups (Choi & Thompson, 2005; Ucbasaran, Wright, & Westhead, 2003). Because individual entrepreneurs can vary greatly in the intensity and foci of their passions (Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt, & Klaukien, 2012; Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens, & Patel, 2013), NVTs may also vary in the extent to which members are similar or different in their individual entrepreneurial passions, and in the extent to which they are able to form a shared team passion for a common identity. For example, at IO, a venture that provides data center services to businesses and governments, members share a passion for many different aspects of their venture: “the founders have such passion for what they’re doing, such passion for what they’re developing and such an encompassing sense of ownership” (ASU, 2014). In contrast, Yahoo! co-founders David Filo and Jerry Yang gradually discovered that their shared passion for developing technology and their shared lack of passion for the development aspects of their business was potentially problematic for their venture’s success (Filo & Yang, 2008). In addition, the growth and shrinkage of a new venture team may affect individual members’ passion in different ways. The Yahoo! co-founders were able to focus again on the object of their true passion only after hiring a new member, Tim Brady, to help them create marketing materials to attract venture capital and a President and CEO, Tim Koogle, to focus on running the business. However, changes in the composition of a NVT can also drain the passion of other NVT members. For example, Bill Gross, Pimco co-founder, felt a depletion in the passion for his investment management firm when his fellow NVT member and chosen successor departed. He said, “It’s been like a near-death experience, an emotional blow.” (Kolhatkar, 2014). As these examples suggest, NVT members are not all equally passionate about their venture, their ideas, and their goals. In addition, team entrepreneurial passion does not appear to increase or decrease in a linear fashion, even though it is clearly influenced by changes in the composition of a NVT and in the passion individual members bring to or remove from the team. More broadly, the process of starting a new firm is quite dynamic, and includes cycles of successes and setbacks (Gielnik et al., 2015; Lichtenstein, Carter, Dooley, & Gartner, 2007). Because passion is multi-dimensional, because there are many ways that NVTs can experience entrepreneurial passion, and because team passion is likely to evolve dynamically over time, we carefully define the concept of team entrepreneurial passion (TEP) and develop a model that conceptualizes how it emerges within NVTs and the influences it has back on those teams and their members, through an iterative cycle. We develop a dynamic model, illustrated in Figure 1, building on the theoretical framework of the emergence and influence of group emotions described by Barsade and Gibson (1998) to include both bottom-up processes (i.e., compositional effects through which individual group members’ emotions shape shared group emotions) and top-down processes (i.e., how shared emotions at the group level impact individual member emotions). Because passion includes not only an affective but also an identity dimension, our framework also draws on identity literature that, likewise, identifies upward and downward processes in collective identity formation and influence (Ashforth, Rogers, & Corley, 2011; Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton, & Corley, 2013). Our dynamic model includes the mechanisms through which the components of passion—intense positive feelings and identity-centrality of the object of those feelings (Cardon et al., 2013, 2009)—emerge at the team level of analysis as shared affect and collective identity, influenced by the diversity of individual passions within the team. We also develop theory concerning how TEP, in turn, influences individual passions within the team, as well as team member entries and exits from the team and team outcomes. We draw from theories of affective transfer processes such as similarity-attraction and emotional contagion (Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Kelly & Barsade, 2001), and theory on identity creation processes such as needs complementarity theory (Schutz, 1958) and identity elasticity (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). For team outcomes, we focus on quality of team processes, including group effectiveness and cohesion, and quality of team output and performance. ----- Insert Figure 1 about here ----- This article contributes to several bodies of work. First, we contribute to the passion and entrepreneurship literatures by introducing a team-level entrepreneurial passion construct, with roots in the intra-individual entrepreneurial passion literature (Cardon et al., 2009; Perrewé et al., 2014; Vallerand et al., 2003). This responds to a call by Chen, Liu, and He (2015: 173), who review passion research at the individual level of analysis and argue that “another meaningful extension is to investigate entrepreneurial passion at some higher organizational levels, such as developing theoretical models of passion climate in teams, departments, and organizations. Including multilevel variables in the model will significantly enrich the current theory of entrepreneurial passion.” We also answer a call for research that examines how individual emotions affect collective, organizational-level outcomes including firm-level processes and performance (Huy, 2012). We provide a theoretically grounded conceptualization of what we mean by TEP and develop a model that explores how team passion emerges and how it, in turn, influences individual team members and team outcomes, thereby reinforcing or disrupting the TEP cycle. We expect that our theoretical model will help scholars to more systematically examine how NVT members’ shared and individual passions evolve over time, to go beyond current explanations of the challenges of sustaining high levels of energy and passion during the emotional roller-coaster of early stages of a new venture (e.g., Arenius & Laitinen, 2008). Given that many firms are founded by teams rather than solo entrepreneurs (Harper, 2008; Kamm et al., 1990; Klotz et al., 2014), understanding the dynamics of NVT affect and identity is critical to understanding effective NVT functioning. In proposing a theory of TEP, we also answer a broader call (e.g., Harper 2008) for theory that moves beyond a conception of entrepreneurship as embodied in a lone hero-founder and, instead, conceives of entrepreneurship as a “socially distributed process that involves joint action possibilities and team entrepreneurship” (Harper, 2008: 614). As a second contribution, we add to NVT research linking NVT characteristics to NVT outcomes, which previously has studied NVT diversity using demographic and human capital inputs such as age, functional skills, experience, or gender (Amason, Shrader, & Tompson, 2006; Foo, Sin, & Yiong, 2006), rather than affective inputs such as entrepreneurial passion. Emotions, particularly positive emotions, are especially influential in an entrepreneurial context (Baron, 2008). Thus, we contribute to the research on NVTs by examining a different and important type of input (identity-focused affect) to the dynamic functioning of the NVT. More specifically, we complement the demographic and functional background diversity approaches to NVT diversity, by providing an affect-based approach for thinking about NVT diversity. Third, we contribute to the literatures on shared emotion and organizational identity (Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Besharov, 2014; Brewer & Pickett, 2014; Gioia, Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010) by theorizing about the dynamic processes through which shared emotion and collective identity interact with one another influence team passion dynamics. We believe we are among the first to think about how the separate affective and identity processes may jointly operate within NVTs to influence a group-level construct, here, TEP. WHAT IS TEAM ENTREPRENEURIAL PASSION? We define TEP as the level of shared intense positive feelings for a collective team identity that is high in identity-centrality for the new venture team. In order to understand TEP, its emergence, and its influence processes, we have to first understand the construct of entrepreneurial passion at the individual level of analysis. We explain the distinctions between entrepreneurial passion (an individual-level construct), TEP (a referent shift construct), and team passion diversity (a dispersion construct) by drawing on Chan’s (1998) work. See Figure 2 for an illustration of these construct models. We conceive of TEP as a “shared” construct and drawing on Kozlowski and Klein (2000), we explain below how it is different from team passion diversity, a “configural” construct. This distinction is essential to our model, because we postulate that TEP, which is a shared construct, emerges based upon the team’s passion composition, which is based on the individual-level passions of team members. ----- Insert Figure 2 about here ----- Individual-level Entrepreneurial Passion Because TEP emerges from individuals within a team, we first highlight three features of individual-level entrepreneurial passion that underpin the team-level construct of TEP and support our theoretical model of TEP’s emergence and influence. First, passion involves both relatively strong positive feelings and identity importance of the object of those feelings. Passion has been defined as love, attachment, and longing for one’s work (Baum & Locke, 2004), meaningfully positive emotions (Gielnik et al., 2015), positive feelings directed at activities specifically relevant to entrepreneurs (Breugst et al., 2012), and a strong inclination toward an activity that we love, in which we invest a significant amount of time and energy, that we find important, and that defines us (Houlfort et al., 2014). Importantly, “the feelings associated with work passion are directed toward specific activities” and “work passion is characteristically self-enhancing, [and] thus becomes a stable feature of one’s identity” (Perrewé et al., 2014: 146). Entrepreneurial passion is therefore a multiplicative combination of 1) the identity-centrality of the activity or object to the individual and 2) the level of intensity of the feelings the individual experiences for that object (Cardon et al., 2013, 2009). Second, feelings of passion within a given work domain can be focused on one or more objects, roles, or sets of activities (Cardon et al., 2009). People can experience passion at a global level for their work (Baum & Locke, 2004), hobbies, personal interests, or profession (Vallerand, 2008), such as entrepreneurship (Gielnik et al., 2015; Murnieks, Mosakowski, & Cardon, 2012). In addition, in any given profession, different focal objects can also evoke passion. In particular, passion for different roles within the overall scope of entrepreneurship can vary (Breugst et al., 2012; Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Cardon et al., 2009) since each role involves distinct activities and expectations based on the varying challenges associated with different parts of the entrepreneurial process (Gundry & Welsch, 2001; Katila & Ahuja, 2002). As such, in conceptualizing TEP, we draw on this more detailed focus of passion, rather than on passion for the broader role of “entrepreneur.” The specific set of domains for which one can be passionate in entrepreneurship has not yet been definitively determined (Breugst et al., 2012; Cardon et al., 2013), and in this article we use Cardon et al.’s (2009) conceptualization for illustrative purposes, since it has been most widely used to date. This perspective focuses on passion for three specific entrepreneurial roles, each of which is separate and independent from the other (Cardon et al., 2013). The inventor role is focused on activities associated with identifying new opportunities or creating new products or services. The founder role is focused on activities associated with birthing the new firm such as setting up the legal entity, nurturing the nascent firm into existence, or being the owner of the firm. The developer role is focused on activities involving growth of the venture such as finding new customers or employees, expanding the market for products or services, and pushing the organization and its members to be better (Cardon et al., 2013, 2009). Third, passion is conceptualized as an intense and positive emotion, typically with productive outcomes, even though in some cases it can have negative effects. The productive potential of passion includes increasing investment of time (Murnieks et al., 2012), persistence (Cardon & Kirk, 2015), and evaluations and investment by important others (Breugst et al., 2012; Ho & Pollack, 2014; Mitteness, Sudek, & Cardon, 2012). However, passion can also be destructive, especially if it is obsessive in nature (Adomdza & Baron, 2013; Ho & Pollack, 2014). Too much passion at the individual level can lead to entrepreneurs ignoring feedback from potential investors (Ho & Pollack, 2014; Mitteness et al., 2012), and persisting with ventures that objectively should be exited (Shepherd, Wiklund, & Haynie, 2009), which can create “permanently failing” organizations (Meyer & Zucker, 1989). Despite the negative potential at extreme levels, passion is predominantly viewed as a positive force (Cardon et al., 2009; Perrewé et al., 2014; Vallerand, 2008), so we therefore focus on its positive nature and influence in our model. Passion can be highly motivating because people are more strongly motivated to enact and validate identities higher in salience (Stryker & Serpe, 1994), and more salient and central identities are more likely to be associated with particularly intense emotions (Stryker, 2004). Team Entrepreneurial Passion (TEP): A Shared Construct We conceive of TEP as a shared construct and, therefore, define it using a referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998) (see panel A of Figure 2). In such a model, the key theoretical construct is the within-group consensus over what the team or organization feels or believes. Team entrepreneurial passion is revealed by asking individual team members what the team, overall, is passionate about and to what extent (Chan, 1998). Here the team, rather than the individual, is the reference point for feelings and identity-centrality (How passionate is the team for inventing, founding, and developing?). Such team entrepreneurial passion encapsulates the collective identity and shared emotions of the team, independently of individual team members’ identities or emotions. Referent shift consensus constructs, which are team-based variables, are conceptually distinct from the individual-level construct in the same domain (Chan, 1998). Individual team members can feel little passion for a particular role, such as inventing, but may recognize that the team, as a whole, can still have strong feelings of passion for that role. For example, the NVT may agree that the team as a whole places little importance on the role of developing the organization, but an individual team member may still view the developer role as central to his or her own personal identity. We are not aware of any academic work that has examined what NVTs, as teams, may be passionate about or how such objects of passion may differ from those of individual entrepreneurs. However, we suggest that entrepreneurial teams can experience passion and that the objects of their passions are important. Furthermore, we propose that the shared identity of TEP can be of two different types: mono-focal or poly-focal. In a NVT with a mono-focal shared team identity, the team has one primary role identity that it focuses upon and is passionate about. As an example, members of an R&D team may refer to their venture as a research incubator (“our NVT is about inventing”). In teams with a mono-focal identity, where members also share positive intense emotions for that identity, the team would be collectively passionate about inventing, and this would be a mono-focal TEP. However, shared identity could also be poly-focal when the team members’ collective identity incorporates multiple and distinct role identities or objects. For example, the Annie’s team passion for “food, people, and the planet we all share” (Annie’s.com, 2015) reflects the multiple foci of the team’s passion. If team members agree that the team has a collective identity and shared intense feelings for multiple different objects, then the team has a poly-focal TEP. Team Passion Diversity: A Configural Construct Distinct from TEP, we define team passion diversity using a dispersion model (panel B of Figure 2), where the theoretical focus is on the within-group variance or dispersion between individual group members rather than the group’s consensus or aggregate level of the variable (Chan, 1998) (“How different are we from each other in terms of how passionate each of us is for inventing, founding, and developing?”). This approach is consistent with the only prior work on team-level entrepreneurial passion we found, where Drnovsek et al. (2009: 193) define “collective passion” as the “combined entrepreneurial passion experienced by members of a team of entrepreneurs, including potential differences in the level and focus of each member’s individual passion.” To be clear, TEP is conceptually distinct from other emotion-related constructs that intertwine group and individual-level affect. For example, group-focused emotion (Huy, 2011) refers to the emotion an individual feels on behalf of a group with which he or she identifies, when that group experiences an affective event that does not personally impact him or her (for example, the joy a CEO experiences when R&D comes up with a radical innovation, because that CEO was previously a member of the R&D team.) In contrast, the construct we advance is a team-level (not individual-level) construct. Because entrepreneurial passion has two dimensions, team passion diversity within a team can vary based on these two dimensions. We define passion focus variety as a measure of how different members of the team are concerning the specific roles or objects for which they feel passion. This definition is consistent with diversity in variety as described by Harrison and Klein (2007). Some teams may have members with a wide variety of objects of their passion, each member being passionate about a different role within the entrepreneurial context (some passionate for inventing, while others are passionate for founding, for example), and such teams would be considered high in passion focus variety. In contrast, some teams may have members who are all passionate about the same entrepreneurial role (such as inventing), and these teams would thus be low in passion focus variety. Teams may also vary in their passion diversity in terms of the extent to which each member feels intense passion. Drawing on Harrison and Klein (2007), we define passion intensity separation as the dispersion in the level of activation of emotion experienced by team members. Separation refers to differences among team members “in their position along a single continuum attribute” (Harrison & Klein, 2007: 1203) such as the extent of their felt passion. As such, passion intensity separation is at its minimum when team members are homogeneous in the levels of their individual entrepreneurial passions (all, individually, experience intense positive emotions) and at its maximum when some team members are highly passionate and others are much less passionate (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Before we develop our model of TEP formation, we note that there are some situations where TEP is unlikely to form. We suggest that TEP is unlikely to form unless there is at least one member of the team with at least a moderate amount of passion, because, as research on affective tone suggests (e.g., Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005), members’ affective states are critical stimuli in the development of a collective affective tone. Our model does not apply to the rare NVT that forms with members who are all dispassionate about the venture or any entrepreneurial activities. Another important boundary condition to our theory is that it applies to teams with moderate levels of turnover and conflict (including variation from low to moderately high). If a team has extremely high levels of turnover or conflict, team members would likely not have the opportunity to share their individual identities and affect with each other, and therefore many of the processes we discuss below would likely not have the opportunity to unfold. EMERGENCE and influence OF Team entrepreneurial Passion We theorize that there is a dynamic cycle at play in which team passion diversity influences affective and identity processes that, together, may create TEP. TEP, in turn, influences individual members’ passions and their willingness to remain part of the NVT, as well as other team processes and outcomes (see Figure 1). By including both the configuration of individual-level passions (team passion diversity) and the team-level passion (TEP, as shared intense positive feelings for a collective and central team identity), our model follows the theory development logic that also guides other multi-level models such as the social network model of justice in teams (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005). While our model is dynamic, we start by explaining the bottom-up emergence processes leading from a team’s passion diversity to TEP because the emergence of TEP is most likely to commence at early stages in the life of a venture, when the team first comes together. From Team Passion Diversity to TEP: Bottom-up Emergence Processes TEP emerges in a NVT when members experience shared intense positive feelings for a shared, collective team identity. We theorize that the variety in and separation among individual passions in a NVT activate group affective and identity processes that can eventually lead the NVT to develop either a mono-focal TEP (members share positive intense feelings for a collective identity with one focus) or a poly-focal TEP (members share positive intense feelings for a collective identity with multiple foci). As we explained above, the configuration of individual emotions and identities (team passion diversity) is distinct from the shared emotions for the collective identity of a team (TEP). While there may be factors that inhibit affective contagion and transfer within teams (such as difficulty in reading other members’ emotions (Ashkanasy, 2003), or variation in members’ ability to perceive various shared emotions within a collective (emotional aperture) (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009), it is quite likely that the NVT’s passion diversity shapes members’ shared sense of the mono- or poly-focal TEP, and, indirectly, team outcomes. Passion convergence processes and mono-focal TEP. We propose that when teams consist of individuals who are more similar than dissimilar in their individual entrepreneurial passions, such that there is low team passion diversity (both low focus variety and low intensity separation), interpersonal processes of similarity-attraction (Barsade & Gibson, 1998), affective transfer (Kelly & Barsade, 2001), and identity imprinting, enactment, and conformity processes (Kroezen & Heugens, 2012) will combine to elicit convergence around a mono-focal NVT passion. First, similarity-attraction processes will help homogenize entrepreneurial passion among already relatively similar NVT members. Affect is a dimension on which people judge their similarity to others (Barsade & Gibson, 1998). Given that perceived affective similarity activates similarity-attraction processes (Barsade & Gibson, 1998; George, 1990), NVT members who share an entrepreneurial passion focus or intensity are likely to feel more comfortable with each other and engage in more interpersonal interactions. We also expect affective transfer processes, such as emotional contagion, vicarious effects, behavioral entrainment, and interaction synchrony (Kelly & Barsade, 2001), to encourage the creation of a mono-focal passion among members of a NVT that initially have low team passion diversity because such effects have been documented to explain the development of group affect (Elfenbein, 2014) or team emotional tone (George, 1996). With such processes, team members’ interactions foster feelings of similarity, which are likely to encourage the development of a mono-focal TEP. Emotional contagion facilitates passion convergence when members find themselves automatically mimicking facial expressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements associated with another member’s passion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Vicarious learning facilitates passion convergence when members of a NVT feel emotionally aroused as they observe other members’ passion reactions so much so that they internalize those passion reactions (Breugst et al., 2012; Cardon, 2008). Finally, members may converge around a common level of intensity or focus of passion when they participate in behavioral entrainment, where they sub-consciously adjust and modify their behaviors to coordinate and synchronize with other team members (for example, when pitching their idea to a bank or to angel investors) and in the processes of synchronizing, develop a stronger sense of shared passion. Explicit affective transfer processes may also facilitate the emergence of a mono-focal TEP, for example, when an individual (e.g., a team leader or influential member) consciously influences the affective state of the team (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Affective contagion on teams is a multi-step, multi-directional process. Team leaders may initiate mood contagion which members then propagate (Sy & Choi, 2013), or, the other way around, leaders may mimic subordinates’ feelings (Hsee, Hatfield, Carlson, & Chemtob, 1990). Mood contagion may also occur as a collective construction (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000) even in the absence of a leader (Barsade, 2002), such as in NVTs without a clear lead entrepreneur. Because of the lack of consensus around who exactly initiates affective contagion in a team, we do not assume a specific origin of the contagion process in a NVT. The emergence of a collective identity is equally crucial in the development of TEP in NVTs. Such emergence occurs in two distinct and central steps. The first step, identity imprinting, consists of team members contributing a set of identities that help build an “identity reservoir” for the new venture (Kroezen & Heugens, 2012). The second step, identity enactment, refers to the process through which members enact identities from the reservoir and start giving sense to themselves (and to others outside the NVT) (Kroezen & Heugens, 2012) about “who we are as an organization” (Gioia et al., 2013). We reason that NVTs with similarly passionate members develop a more shallow identity reservoir because they contribute fewer distinct foci of their entrepreneurial passions in the imprinting stage of team passion development. Convergence to a collective identity is more likely to occur when the ideological values of the founding team become sufficiently routinized (Besharov, 2014). Low focus variety of passion also facilitates the development of a mono-focal TEP because the low variety in identities in the team’s identity reservoir will rapidly routinize identity enactment. We also reason that team members with low to moderate diversity in individual passions may converge to a mono-focal TEP, because social conformity processes lead to identity stabilization among moderately similar peers (McFarland & Pals, 2005). When NVT members perceive their identity to be incongruent with the NVT’s, a control system motivates those members to seek out opportunities to maintain congruence between their identity and how they appear to others (Carter, 2013). Furthermore, if people perceive conflicts in meanings between their identity and those of their teammates, they will work to resolve those conflicts in their own minds and will assimilate some of their teammates’ identities into their own identity configuration. Together these processes of affective convergence around the experience of shared positive and intense feelings, along with collective identity formation around a singular focus for those feelings will lead to a mono-focal team passion for teams with low focus variety and low intensity separation. Proposition 1: New venture teams with team passion diversity that is low in focus variety and low in intensity separation will form mono-focal team entrepreneurial passion. We also suggest that mono-focal TEP is likely to emerge, albeit more slowly, when focus variety is low and intensity separation is high. In NVTs with members who all focus on one particular role identity or object of their emotions, a collective identity focused on that object is likely to emerge, as discussed earlier. Affective contagion in groups appears to depend, in part, on the expressiveness of affective signal senders and the receptiveness of their targets (Tsai, Bowring, Marsella, & Tambe, 2013). This suggests that, unless passionate members put high levels of energy, time, and purpose in communicating their passion to less passionate members, the development of a shared level of passion intensity will take longer in teams with high passion intensity separation. Therefore, less passionate members may experience affective convergence and contagion processes over time, and change their own feelings to be more consistent with other members and with the team itself, which will enhance the development of a mono-focal TEP, even if the convergence process takes more time. Proposition 2: a) New venture teams with team passion diversity that is low in focus variety and high in intensity separation will form mono-focal team entrepreneurial passion, and b) this process of TEP formation will occur more slowly than for new venture teams with team passion diversity that is low in focus variety and low in intensity separation. Passion divergence processes and poly-focal TEP. We propose that when NVTs are low in intensity separation (i.e., when members have a similar level of passion intensity), but high in focus variety (i.e., when members have divergent foci of their individual entrepreneurial passion), the collective passion that emerges involves shared positive intense feelings for multiple foci of passion, that is, poly-focal TEP. This means that team members agree that the team has a shared identity with a focus on more than one role or object that is central to the team and that team members have shared positive intense feelings for the shared identity. We propose that a poly-focal collective passion may emerge when members perceive complementarity among the different passion foci present on the team. NVT members may complement each other if one focus (e.g., inventing) is perceived as balancing another focus (e.g., founding or developing) or when one members’ focus on one aspect of the venture allows other members to maintain their own focal identity. For example, in the early days of Apple, Steve Wozniak was entirely focused on inventing new technologies, while Steve Jobs was more interested in founding and developing a company (Livingston, 2007). While the foci of their individual passions were very different, they were both highly intense in their feelings, and they valued the different focus of the other team member. They were quite successful as a NVT, at least initially, with their poly-focal TEP. Our reasoning for proposing the emergence of poly-focal collective passion when members perceive complementarity among the passion foci present on the team is grounded in needs complementarity theory (Schutz, 1958), which proposes that individuals are attracted to dissimilar others when those differences are complementary and suggests that “individuals […] seek complementary responses from others because they provide familiar and consistent feedback about oneself” (O’Connor & Dyce, 1997: 362). Complementarity seems especially likely to emerge as a process that brings teams together when differences are most extreme and members are least flexible (Gross, 1956). Said differently, among individuals who are less flexible in their personality, it is complementarity (rather than similarity) that elicits positive outcomes, presumably because such individuals rely more on differences than on similarities with others to establish interpersonal self-confirmation in their affect (O’Connor & Dyce, 1997). This suggests that NVTs made up of individuals that are highly passionate with different passion foci (NVTs high in focus variety) will not converge around a singular passion focus as a team, but, instead, will create a poly-focal TEP, since this provides everyone with interpersonal self-confirmation. Poly-focal TEP teams do not strive for conformity among team members in creating a singularly focused TEP, but instead value the feelings for different objects of passion each member brings to the team. When members of a team are sufficiently distinct from each other, they tend to develop the capacity for performing in contradictory or integrative ways (Smith & Tushman, 2005). Similarly, we expect that NVTs high in passion focus variety will create a poly-focal TEP that enables their distinct passion foci to coexist. Proposition 3: New venture teams with team passion diversity that is high in focus variety and low in intensity separation will form poly-focal team entrepreneurial passion. While we theorize above about the processes through which TEP emerges in NVTs with varying configurations of individual passions, there is one configuration of individual passions for which TEP (mono- or poly-focal) is unlikely to emerge: high focus variety and high intensity separation. When members of a team discover that other team members share neither their passion intensity nor their passion focus, they may avoid interacting with those dissimilar others. Similarly, while moderate levels of dissimilarity or similarity with others may lead to identity re-evaluations and adjustments, extreme dissimilarity leads individuals to be more rigid in their self-identification (Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010). The discovery of dissimilarities with members from an in-group may be especially detrimental when members had previously assumed similarity (Chen & Kenrick, 2002). The extreme levels of conflict that may develop in such circumstances would create conditions where emotional contagion and identity convergence were unlikely to form, even if (and perhaps especially when) any individual member consciously attempts to shape other members’ respective entrepreneurial passion. Further, given that groups who experience both positive and negative affect occurring together can be characterized as experiencing ambivalent mood states (Walter, Vogel, & Menges, 2013), NVTs with both high focus variety and high intensity separation may experience ambivalence towards different passion foci and passion intensities, which may hinder the development of TEP. Teams characterized by high passion focus variety and high passion intensity separation may certainly form for instrumental reasons, and members may have mono-focal or complementary backgrounds and skill sets, but they will be highly unlikely to develop TEP since there is no collective identity as a team and no shared emotion among team members. To be clear, members of such a venture may, individually, be passionate; what we posit is that such a configuration will not lead to the emergence of a shared, team-level entrepreneurial passion. Proposition 4: New venture teams with team passion diversity that is high in focus variety and high in intensity separation will not form team entrepreneurial passion. TEP Outcomes and Top-down Influence Processes As shown in Figure 1, and as explained above, NVT passion diversity shapes the emergence of TEP. Here, we examine the remaining relationships depicted in Figure 1 and theorize that 1) TEP, because it is a shared subjective sense of a team’s entrepreneurial passion, has direct affect and identity influences on individual NVT members’ outcomes (including their individual entrepreneurial passion) and that, 2) TEP indirectly shapes individual NVT member’s outcomes through its influence on team outcomes. In this way, TEP, over time, directly and indirectly influences team passion diversity through individual member’s affect, cognitions, and behaviors. TEP and individual outcomes. TEP will influence the configuration of passions among team members because top-down affective and identity influence processes may lead team members to adopt or amplify affective responses that characterize the TEP and to reevaluate the centrality of their individual entrepreneurship-relevant identities as part of their individual identity hierarchies. TEP may also have more radical effects on team passion diversity when it causes members to exit the team; for example, when the incongruence between a NVT member’s entrepreneurial passion and the TEP is irreconcilable. Because the literatures on the influence of collective affective and collective identity are fairly well established (Brewer & Gardner, 1996), we focus only on the most relevant aspects of those literatures to help elucidate how TEP, as a construct comprised of both shared affect and group identity components, might influence individual members, and therefore the team’s passion diversity. TEP, as a central feature of a group’s shared affective context, involves “affectively based group-level forces acting on a group” (Barsade & Gibson, 2012: 121) which tend to amplify individual group members’ emotional responses and shape their emotions (Barsade & Gibson, 1998). For example, Totterdell and colleagues (1998; 2000) show that nurses, accountants, and cricket players’ individual moods are, over time, influenced by the collective mood of their teammates at work. When TEP has formed, it is likely to be associated with a group emotional culture, or a collection of “deep underlying assumptions, values, norms, and artifacts based exclusively on emotional content” (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014: 583), which helps NVT members understand what intensities of passion for the various entrepreneurial roles are encouraged or sanctioned in their particular NVT (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014; Kelly & Barsade, 2001). With this understanding, NVT members will be more likely to enact behaviors and experience emotions consistent with the NVT’s TEP. TEP also shapes individual members through identity processes. Shared collective identities exert strong social demands on individuals, such that members often find themselves performing “identity work” (Snow & Anderson, 1987) and negotiating the extent to which they allow the collective identity to influence their personal identity. For example, a study of priests revealed that they use identity integration tactics and identity differentiation tactics to cope with the strong social identity demands of priesthood and to balance their priesthood identities with their other identities (Kreiner et al., 2006). The goal of such identity work is to find a balance, or equilibrium, between the competing needs that individuals feel for assimilation with and differentiation from others (Leonardelli et al., 2010), which we look at in terms of the group’s affective identity. We suggest that the strength and focus of a team’s entrepreneurial passion (TEP) may lead members to intra-individually re-evaluate and adjust their individual passion focus in their quest for equilibrium between team identification and individual differentiation. The nature and direction of such re-evaluation and re-adjustment obviously depends on individuals’ perceived assimilation with and differentiation from the group identity and on individual differences in needs for inclusion and differentiation (Leonardelli et al., 2010). Because of that, we put forth a general prediction around the influence of TEP in shaping members’ individual entrepreneurial passion, and on the dynamic effect of such intra-individual changes on the NVT’s composition in terms of passion foci and intensities. Proposition 5: Team entrepreneurial passion influences new venture team members’ individual entrepreneurial passion foci and intensities, which then shape team passion diversity. In addition, TEP is likely to influence the team’s passion diversity through individual-level outcomes when top-down affective and identity influence processes lead team members to exit the NVT, such as if the incongruence between their individual entrepreneurial passion and the TEP is irreconcilable. Individual members may sometimes dis-identify and distance themselves from their organization or occupation (Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999) in order to maintain their own self-identity, and this distancing could include exiting the firm. Such top-down influences of affective context on individuals tend to be more conscious and deliberate than bottom-up emergence processes because they involve cognitive emotion sharing mechanisms such as social comparison and social learning (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; Walter & Bruch, 2008). These influences may also lead to attraction-similarity-attrition processes (Schneider, 1987) that could induce members who feel affectively dissimilar to the group to exit the NVT, rendering the remaining members more similar than before. In addition, as ventures develop and mature, new strategic skills are needed, while some previously critical strategic skills can become less important, prompting deliberate entries and exits of NVT members, whether of their own accord or due to firm leadership or investors forcing such turnover. Team size, heterogeneity in team members’ employment background (Chandler, Honig, & Wiklund, 2005), firm age (Ucbasaran et al., 2003), and member disagreements can also impact exit and entry of team members. Although some teams will experience more member exits (Boeker & Karichalil, 2002) and entries (Forbes, Borchert, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Sapienza, 2006) than others, regardless of the cause, NVT member exit and entry can have profound impacts on the team. When members enter or exit the team, the remaining NVT members’ configuration of individual passions may differ from the configuration prior to such turnover. Thus member entries and exits can alter team passion diversity of the remaining NVT members. Proposition 6: Team entrepreneurial passion shapes new venture team members’ exits and entries; and team member exits and entries influence team passion diversity. TEP and team outcomes. In addition to influencing individual outcomes such as exits and entries, TEP is likely to influence team outcomes. For new ventures, the effectiveness of the NVT is especially important, since the NVT, as we defined it, controls most, if not all, of the venture’s activities (Steffens, Terjesen, & Davidsson, 2012). We propose that the primary team outcomes of TEP will be better quality of team processes and better performance of the team. Team processes are of higher quality when teams are better able to work together and learn from one another, to collaborate and exchange information, to make joint decisions, and to experience good relationships among members, and less affective conflict. Shared emotions, such as TEP, help improve the quality of social processes that enhance members’ abilities to work together (Rhee, 2006). Shared positive emotions can also help team members learn from one another and form shared knowledge structures (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994), both of which lead to greater integration and cohesion as a team. For example, in online communities, community members who are more passionate try harder to understand novel perspectives of other community members and to share seeds of ideas that others can expand on and grow (Faraj, Jarvenpaa, & Majchrzak, 2011). Similarly, team identification leads to greater behavioral integration (Carmeli & Shteigman, 2010), which includes the extent to which the group engages in mutual and collaborative interactions, rather than unproductive arguments. Behavioral integration involves more and better information exchange in terms of richness, timeliness, and accuracy, more collaborative behavior, and greater emphasis on joint rather than individual decision making (Carmeli & Halevi, 2009). Perception of a common identity in a team motivates group members to work toward collective goals, reinforces exchanges among members, and promotes cooperation rather than conflict (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Flynn, 2005; Yang, 2013). This is similar to how a team’s shared mindset has positive outcomes such as helping with cooperation and minimizing dysfunctional conflict (Rentsch & Woehr, 2004). However, just as a shared mindset can also get in the way of processes such as the questioning of consensually held views (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993), the productive airing of differences of opinion (Kellermanns, Floyd, Pearson, & Spencer, 2008), or seeking alternate opinions (Davison & Blackman, 2005), greater levels of TEP may also potentially hinder the team’s ability or willingness to engage in constructive conflict. Conflict avoidance for the sake of maintaining team harmony can be problematic (Aldag & Fuller, 1993). Conversely, passion may also lead to individuals being unwilling to compromise, leading to more win-lose resolutions of conflict (Faraj et al., 2011). Despite the potential for such dampening effects, overall, greater shared emotion and stronger team identity have been found to have predominantly productive influences on team processes, as noted above. Thus we argue that as TEP increases the overall quality of team processes will improve. Consistent with this line of thinking, one entrepreneur noted that, “The only thing that keeps co-founder disputes at bay is passion for a mutual cause. Make sure you both want to solve the same problem and have the shared passion to do it" (YEC, 2015). Proposition 7: Team entrepreneurial passion has a positive influence on the quality of new venture team processes. We suggest that TEP will also influence team performance. Positive shared emotions provide signals about how well the team is doing (Fredrickson, 1998, 2013), which serve as inputs into goal setting, motivation, and team productivity processes. Shared passion may fuel the team’s drive to set more challenging goals and to actively pursue those goals, similar to how individual passion can impact goal-setting and persistence (Baum & Locke, 2004; Cardon & Kirk, 2015). Additionally, shared positive team emotions may influence outside constituents in terms of the perceived competence of the NVT (Baron, 2008; Mitteness et al., 2012) since positive affect conveys to others greater capability and persuasiveness (Baron, 2008). Positive shared team identity further influences team performance, since it can lead to greater action readiness of the team (Ellemers, Sleebos, Stam, & de Gilder, 2013). When individuals identify with a social reference group, they view the fate of the group as their own (Yang, 2013) and, therefore, expend more effort in order to help achieve the group’s goals. Such action readiness and effort spurred by the shared identity component of TEP, combined with information on how to direct that action from the shared emotion component of TEP, will lead to more focused and motivated efforts toward achieving organizational goals, and, therefore, to better team and organizational performance. Taken together, this suggests that TEP will help improve team performance. As a corollary, when there is no or low TEP, affective conflict may be high (as discussed above) which may worsen firm performance (Ensley, Pearson, & Amason, 2002), and lower profitability, sales, and growth (Ensley & Pearce, 2001). For example, in examining 113 nonprofit professional theatres, Voss and colleagues (Voss, Cable, & Voss, 2006) found that when theatre leaders disagreed about organizational identity, performance (ticket revenues and net income) decreased significantly. Based on the affective and identity processes explained above, we theorize the following: Proposition 8: Team entrepreneurial passion has a positive influence on new venture team performance. We also theorize that the type of TEP (i.e., mono or poly-focal) will differentially influence team performance, with poly-focal TEP having a stronger positive impact on performance than mono-focal TEP. We expect that poly-focal TEP provides NVTs with more resources and flexibility that can help them navigate challenges and crises requiring shifts in team passion focus and intensity. Poly-focal teams are likely to recognize the emotional importance of different areas of the business or entrepreneurial process, and to develop affective social ties with and elicit positive affective responses from constituents related to a wider range of aspects of the entrepreneurial process. Such relationship development could help the team access instrumental resources that enhance team performance (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Passion conveys enthusiasm, which impacts those evaluating a venture (Baron, 2008; Mitteness et al., 2012). By eliciting positive affective responses from multiple external constituents, and exuding excitement for multiple different foci of the venture, poly-focal teams may gain access to more resources than mono-focal teams. We also expect that a poly-focal TEP, more so than a mono-focal TEP, encourages and engages team members with productive conflict because the affective context of poly-focal TEP allows for the expression of various passion intensities and foci. For example, in a team with a poly-focal TEP, members are more likely to have their passion foci included and represented in the poly-focal TEP. Because inclusiveness fosters feelings of psychological safety (Edmondson & Lei, 2014), the inclusive nature of a team with a poly-focal TEP may allow all members to express ideas associated with their passion focus in team decision making, thus potentially enhancing that NVT’s outcomes. When members feel that their identity is confirmed within a pluralistic organizational identity, their identification with the organization grows (Besharov, 2014) and they may also feel more committed to the organization and engage in more organizational citizenship. In contrast, in a mono-focal team, members with a particular passion focus that is not represented in the shared TEP may be reluctant to express their passion and ideas specific to that focus, thus limiting the scope of a NVT’s passion domains and intensities. They may also withdraw from the venture, for example, by exerting less effort (e.g., Faraj et al., 2011). This reluctance to speak up of group members who are of a minority opinion (Bowen & Blackmon, 2003) in teams with a mono-focal TEP may, therefore, inhibit the NVT’s ability to make optimal decisions. Because the consideration of multiple foci of entrepreneurial activities can help improve a team’s performance by increasing information processing in decision-making (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Mesmer-Magnus & Dechurch, 2009), we expect that poly-focal TEP will be more positively associated with NVT performance, as compared to mono-focal TEP. Further, the influence of poly-focal versus mono-focal TEP may vary with the life cycle stage of the firm. For example, a mono-focal TEP may initially serve a team very well (for example, as it works to develop a prototype for a new product) but hinder the team from successfully founding a firm, or, later, developing it, since a poly-focal TEP is more likely to aid in securing funding from a broader variety of outlets. As we recognized above, such changes in the firm’s needs may lead the NVT to bring on new members, whose individual passion then helps reshape the TEP. Finally, we acknowledge that too much TEP, especially mono-focal TEP, may hinder rather than enhance performance. While entrepreneurial passion has been noted to typically have a productive influence on outcomes, scholars have also noted that in some conditions passion can be problematic (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Cardon et al., 2009), such as when it is obsessive in nature (Ho & Pollack, 2014; Vallerand et al., 2003) or when it blinds entrepreneurs to changing market conditions or disconfirming evidence (e.g., Branzei & Zietsma, 2003). We suggest that this obsessive focus is more likely to be associated with a mono-focal TEP than with a poly-focal TEP, and we argue that teams with a poly-focal TEP will therefore be more likely to adapt to changing conditions that may arise. Proposition 9: Poly-focal team entrepreneurial passion has a stronger positive influence on new venture team performance than mono-focal team entrepreneurial passion. In addition to these effects, we suggest that the quality of NVT processes and team performance are critical mechanisms through which TEP influences a team’s passion diversity, due to their impact on individual-level outcomes. This is because group integration increases affective sharing, which is a conscious social comparison mechanism whereby individuals compare their own feelings with the feelings expressed by others in their social environment (Sullins, 1991) and infer the kinds of feelings they should be experiencing and enacting. In addition, when a group is highly integrated and experiences high-quality team processes, the amount of inter-member communication increases (Levine & Moreland, 1990) along with opportunities for social comparisons and vicarious learning processes through which TEP may influence individual-level emotions, cognitions, and behaviors, including team member individual passion and stay/exit decisions. We also anticipate that team performance will have a direct effect on individual NVT member outcomes, particularly if one considers team performance as a form of affective event, that is, a positive- or negative-emotion-inducing work event that can influence individuals’ affective states. Affective states, in turn, shape affect-driven behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), including team member entry and exit from the NVT (Chandler et al., 2005; Klotz et al., 2014). For example, positive affective events such as gaining a new customer or hitting growth goals may help to reinforce individual members’ passions for their entrepreneurial roles, which in turn reinforces TEP. Similarly, negative affective events such as losing a contract or inability to make payroll due to cash flow problems might alter individual members’ passions for their roles, or may serve to reinforce them since passion can lead to resilience in the face of adversity (Cardon & Kirk, 2015). Such changes in individual passions due to team effort, successes and obstacles impact TEP through the processes described above. Because negative affective events tend “to elicit more physiological, affective, cognitive, and behavioral activity and prompt more cognitive analysis than neutral or positive events” (Taylor, 1991: 67), we expect negative affective events to have a stronger influence than positive ones on individual outcomes, but that both will be significant. These top down influences are part of a dynamic process of TEP emergence and influence, whereby individual-level passions and behaviors not only are shaped by TEP and team performance, but also help contribute to the composition and diversity of the NVT and TEP. Proposition 10: The quality of new venture team processes and team performance will influence individual team members’ behaviors (e.g., entries and exits) and individual entrepreneurial passions, which will, in turn, shape new venture team passion diversity Venture Stage, Bottom-up Emergence Processes and Top-down Influence Processes While our model is dynamic and includes reciprocal effects, we suggest that the importance of TEP emergence and influence processes will vary depending on the life cycle of the venture. This is because affect and identity transfer processes are likely to function differently in different stages of venture development. At earlier stages of a venture (e.g., from start-up to early growth stages), bottom-up emergence processes will be more important as TEP is created through the collective affect and identity formation processes discussed above. Early on, individual identities and emotions are more salient and resilient than their fledgling group-level counterparts, but at later life cycle stages, after TEP has been formed and reinforced (through multiple iterations of our model shown in Figure 1), group-level affect and identity are likely to be more salient and resilient than their individual-level counterparts, and as such, TEP top-down influence processes should become more important. Our reasoning rests on evidence that group-level processes (Churchill & Lewis, 1983; Greiner, 1972; Scott & Bruce, 1987) and learning (Brockman, 2013) become institutionalized and stable as ventures mature, and although identities (both individual and group) change, “in normal circumstances, the change is small and slow” (Burke 2006: 82). Similarly, institutionalized affective norms hold considerable influence on NVT members, their interactions, and even their identities (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). As ventures form, TEP emerges, and therefore bottom-up processes are most important and team identity is at its most malleable stage. Once TEP has been formed (at later stages of the life-cycle) the underlying shared identity is resilient to change - so much so that new members are “conformed” to the team identity much more than they contribute to changing it. This is why we argue that top down processes become much more dominant at later stages of venture life cycles. Proposition 11: The relative importance of team entrepreneurial passion emergence and influence processes in the new venture team passion cycle varies with a venture’s life cycle stage, such that emergence processes are more influential at early venture stages and influence processes are more influential at later venture stages. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS “Everyone has ideas. It’s the courage, passion and tenacity of the founding team that turn ideas into businesses.” – Steve Blank In this article, we introduced a conceptualization of team entrepreneurial passion (TEP) as the level of shared intense positive feelings for a collective team identity that is high in identity-centrality for a new venture team and argued for the uniqueness of this referent-shift construct relative to a configural construct, which we label team passion diversity. In addition, we integrated theory and research on group affect formation and collective identity construction to propose a dynamic, multi-level model of bottom-up emergence processes through which TEP is built, and top-down influence processes through which TEP influences individual and team outcomes, including individual members’ passion, team member entries and exits, the quality of NVT processes and NVT performance. Theoretical Implications Our TEP model carries several theoretical implications. First, we specify the nature of the TEP construct and how entrepreneurial passion changes across levels of analysis. The distinction we make between TEP and the configuration of individual entrepreneurial passions is important because the objects of team-level passion may be different from the objects of individual’s passions, and the shared level of emotion ascribed to the team may be distinct from the level of emotion any individual team member feels. Further, we propose that the nature of TEP may also be quite different in that it may be mono-focal (shared emotion for a singularly focused identity) or poly-focal (shared emotion for a multi-focused identity). The TEP construct and model answer a need to understand how passion, which is a critical construct for individual entrepreneurs, informs and influences NVTs because a large majority of new ventures are founded and led by teams rather than by individuals (Gartner, Shaver, Gatewood, & Katz, 1994; Kamm et al., 1990; West, 2007). Importantly, “while the NVT literature has progressed in understanding collective cognitions, affective emergent stages in NVTs remain understudied” (Klotz et al., 2014: 244). One of the novelties and strengths of our model is that we draw from both affect-based theories (Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Kelly & Barsade, 2001) and from identity-based theories (Besharov, 2014; Brewer & Pickett, 2014; Gioia et al., 2013, 2010) to develop a model of the joint influence of affect and identity in the emergence and influence of TEP. We also suggest that the relative importance of bottom-up and top-down influence processes relates to a venture’s life cycle stage. To our knowledge we are the first to explain emergence and influence processes of TEP and to present a set of propositions concerning inputs to and outcomes from shared team entrepreneurial passion in NVTs. In addition, our model allows for reciprocal influences of individuals on the NVT and vice versa, as we examine both the emergence of TEP from individual members as well as how TEP, in turn, influences team members through a dynamic cycle of influence. At the individual level of analysis, there is evidence that feelings of passion and entrepreneurial behaviors can reciprocally influence each other (Breugst et al., 2012; Cardon & Kirk, 2015; Gielnik et al., 2015; Ho & Pollack, 2014; Murnieks et al., 2012), and our model describes how these processes may operate at the team level of analysis. As a second contribution, our model complements previous work on diversity in founding teams that focuses on demographic and functional dimensions such as education (Foo et al., 2006), functional background (Amason et al., 2006), and gender (Chowdhury, 2005). Our theorizing provides a new, affect-based avenue to explore the relationship between NVT passion diversity and team outcomes to help answer the call for work on team-level and longitudinal processes in new ventures (Steffens et al., 2012). Our model also sheds light on some reasons why NVT members exit their teams and organizations, a phenomena not yet well understood (Chandler et al., 2005; Lim, Busenitz, & Chidambaram, 2013; Ucbasaran et al., 2003). As a third, and broader contribution, our model provides the team diversity literature with a helpful lens for considering how distinct dimensions of identity-based affective diversity may combine to shape group dynamics and outcomes. The mechanisms we model are distinct from previously studied mechanisms linking trait-based affective diversity and team processes e.g., (Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Additionally, because our model focuses on entrepreneurial passion at the new venture level, it is more fine-grained than existing research on how organizational units may be composed of a variety of shared emotions (Huy, 2012). Furthermore, our approach is novel in that we propose an identity-based approach to an affective construct—passion—and show how a team’s diversity along two identity-based affective dimensions (focus and intensity) may combine to influence the emergence of team-level affect. Because of the growing evidence about different potential role identities for entrepreneurs (Fauchart & Gruber, 2011; Mathias & Williams, 2014), and because our model describes entrepreneurial passion in NVTs, we have focused on roles central to entrepreneurial passion at the individual level of analysis (Breugst et al., 2012; Cardon et al., 2013, 2009). We built our model around the idea that within a NVT there could potentially be multiple identities that are the focus of the team’s passion (poly-focal TEP), but that there could also be a single identity that the team is passionate about (mono-focal TEP). We thus provide a model and nomenclature for examining TEP that is broad enough to encompass different types of NVTs, and different dimensions of team passion diversity. Practical Implications Our model has practical implications for entrepreneurs, those who advise them, potential investors, and other NVT constituents. First, since the formation of poly- or mono-focal TEP is important at the team- and venture-level, entrepreneurs may want to think about the passions of those whom they invite to join the NVT. Just as entrepreneurs would be wise to select team members based on their experience, expertise, and abilities, they might also want to pay keen attention to the intensity of prospective team members’ positive feelings towards different entrepreneurial identities or roles. Similarly, if a particular NVT member was inhibiting the formation of TEP, it may be judicious to ask that particular person to leave the team. And, conversely, when asking an individual to leave a NVT, care should be taken to consider the implication of the departure on the team’s passion diversity and, ultimately, its TEP. Second, it also may be beneficial for entrepreneurs to think about the collective affect and identity that they would like to build. They may want to be purposeful in establishing the team’s affective identity in the very early stages of venture formation through activities such as brainstorming what the team members want for the organization, what they are individually most passionate about, and whether they want to pursue a mono- or poly-focal identity. In addition, individual team members may consider leveraging their roles in spurring affective contagion, for example through deliberate affective expression or regulation (Huy & Zott, 2007), to help the team to develop TEP. That said, creating and maintaining alignment “between the passions of the collective and the passions of individual participants over time is a difficult challenge” (Faraj et al., 2011: 1227). Because of this, passions may require deliberate attention, and may also need to be balanced with discipline in order for organizations to manage the exploration-exploitation paradox and to avoid “escalating obsession of individuals and inefficiency for firms” (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009: 706). Third, given that employee perceptions of solo founder’s passion influences employee commitment to the organization (Breugst et al., 2012), it seems likely that employee perceptions of the TEP of the NVT would also be impactful on employee venture commitment. Specifically, ventures with a stronger TEP may experience greater employee commitment because TEP would likely be associated with having a clearer focus and expectations for the venture that are communicated to employees, as well as greater positive emotional contagion. This is similar to how passionate founders are associated with greater positive affect and goal clarity of employees, and thus higher employee commitment, in the Breugst et al. (2012) study. Finally, our model also presents practical implications for investors and other external constituents. For example, it suggests that investors would be well served to assess not just the entrepreneurial passion of an individual NVT member (e.g., Chen, Yao, & Kotha, 2009), but to gauge the team’s entrepreneurial passion. While extant research has found that angel investors do consider an entrepreneur’s passion in their funding decisions, even after controlling for the quality of venture idea and competency of the entrepreneur (Mitteness et al., 2012), to our knowledge such relationships have not been examined for teams of entrepreneurs making pitches to potential investors. In particular, the nature of the TEP (mono- or poly-focal) may be an indicator to investors and other external constituents of a team’s performance potential and of the dynamics that might exist within the team. Future Research Opportunities We see four primary avenues for future research based on our theorizing. First, our model is ripe for empirical testing, as measures for all of the constructs in our model are readily available. For example, the operationalization of TEP as shared intense positive feelings for a collective team identity that is high in identity-centrality can be derived in two steps, as Chan (1998) describes. In the first step, the researcher, beginning with the conceptual definition and operationalization of entrepreneurial passion at the individual level, would derive a new form of the construct at the same (individual) level by shifting the referent of the basic concept (Chan, 1998). Items from an established scale of entrepreneurial passion might be reworded so that the items refer to the NVT and no longer to the individual. For example, “searching for new ideas for products/services to offer is enjoyable to me,” from Cardon et al.’s (2013) scale might become “seaching for new ideas for products/services to offer is enjoyable to our team.” Further, while we have illustrated our theory with Cardon and colleagues’ (2009) model of entrepreneurial passion, researchers may choose among alternate conceptualizations and measures of passion (Murnieks, 2007; Vallerand et al., 2003) to test this model. In a second step, the researcher would aggregate the new form of the construct to the NVT level if justified by within-group consensus. If within-group consensus does not justify aggregation, the research would conclude that TEP has not emerged in the NVT (van Mierlo, Vermunt, & Rutte, 2008). Researchers seeking to develop measures of focus variety and intensity separation can find prescriptions in the team diversity literature (e.g., Harrison & Klein, 2007). Second, while our model explains the dynamic development of TEP in NVTs, we do not speak to the complexity of team configurations that characterize new ventures. While some teams may form from solo founders who assemble a team around their core idea, other teams may form first and then generate the concept for the new business (Harper, 2008), such as was the case with Compaq Computer (Kamm et al., 1990; Kotkin, 1986). In the lead founder case, solo founders may have stronger emotional ties to their new venture than do others who joined the team later (Gimeno, Folta, Cooper, & Woo, 1997), and, as a result of their central role in the organization, may also be imbued with status and power not ascribed to other NVT members. In such a team, the founder may be especially passionate and may have more influence than other NVT members on the development of the shared emotion and collective identity components of TEP. Lead founders may also deliberately attempt to regulate the emotions of other stakeholders such as employees and investors (Huy & Zott, 2007), and their effectiveness in doing so may depend on their emotional aperture, that is, on their ability to perceive the emotional composition of the NVT (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009). However, in NVTs that do not have a dominant founder, such as emergent entrepreneurial teams, which only form through shared cognition and action (Harper, 2008), the influence of any one team member on the development of TEP may not be as apparent. Future research may want to examine the process through which the entrepreneurial team was assembled (Kamm et al., 1990), as well as potential variation in status or power of different NVT members, and how this impacts the emergence and influence cycle of TEP. Third, while we reasoned that the TEP bottom-up emergence processes are most likely to occur during the earlier stages of venture formation (e.g., from start-up to early growth stages), and top-down influence processes may become more important at later NVT life-cycle stages (such as during the growth stages), both venture life cycles and TEP emergence and influence are unlikely to be straightforward sequential processes in all organizations. A longitudinal examination of the timing of these processes and how they might vary between NVTs and more established teams, or based on team size or age, could provide abundant avenues for future research. Such inquiries could also fruitfully examine the stability of both individual passion and team passion based on time, life cycle stage, and team development stage within the venture. Finally, future research could examine specific individual and team outcomes that might be associated with TEP. For example, Hackman (2002) proposes that the learning and well-being of individual members is a critical component of team effectiveness. TEP is quite likely to affect individual NVT members, as entrepreneurial passion is linked with different individual-level dimensions of health and welfare. The intense positive feelings experienced by passionate individuals and their commensurate level of engagement in passion-focused activities appear also to be associated with a darker side (Ho & Pollack, 2014), sometimes leading to potentially destructive behaviors within one’s financial, career, social and family life, or psychic risk-taking (Kuratko, 2007), injury (Rip, Fortin, & Vallerand, 2006), and, in the case of venture failure, intense feelings of shame (Smith & McElwee, 2011) and grief (Shepherd, 2003). Examination of such other outcomes, both positive and negative, from TEP is needed. Concluding Remarks Research on entrepreneurial passion has illuminated intimate relationships between the passion of individual entrepreneurs, their entrepreneurial experience, and venture outcomes. Yet, despite the evidence that entrepreneurship is very often a group endeavor and a group experience, the literature on entrepreneurial passion lacks detailed theorizing about how the phenomena of entrepreneurial passion plays out at the team level. Addressing this void, our dynamic and multi-level model of the emergence and influence of TEP in new venture teams offers a well-grounded framework and a platform for thinking about how this unique affective aspect of entrepreneurship – passion – may emerge within new venture teams and with what impacts. We encourage additional research in this direction. REFERENCES Adomdza, G. K., & Baron, R. A. 2013. The role of affect in commercializing new ideas. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 26(2): 201–217. Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. 2000. Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 13–17. Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. 1993. Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3): 533–552. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. 1973. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Amason, A. C., Shrader, R. C., & Tompson, G. H. 2006. Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1): 125–148. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4): 696–717. Annie’s.com. 2015. About Annie’s. http://www.annies.com/our-mission/about-annies. Arenius, P., & Laitinen, K. 2008. Honeymoon is over! Evidence on the emotional rollercoaster in the early-stages of a new venture. In A. Zacharakis (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. 1993. Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1): 80–115. Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. 1999. How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 413–434. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. 2007. Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 149–174. Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., & Corley, K. G. 2011. Identity in organizations: Exploring cross-level dynamics. Organization Science, 22(5): 1144–1156. Ashkanasy, N. M. 2003. Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in Multi-level issues, vol. 2: 9–54. Emerald Group Publishing. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. 2002. Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1): 76–86. ASU. 2014. At the heart of entrepreneurship. Spirit of Entrepreneurship Awards. http://research.wpcarey.asu.edu/management-entrepreneurship/at-the-heart-of-entrepreneurship/. Baron, R. A. 2008. The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 328–340. Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 644–675. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. D. 1998. Group emotion: A view from top and bottom. In D. Gruenfeld, E. A. Mannix, & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on Managing Groups and Teams: 1: 81–102. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. D. 2012. Group affect: Its influence on individual and group outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2): 119–123. Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. 2014. What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in the long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4): 551–598. Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. R., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 2000. To your heart’s content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 802–836. Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. 2000. The collective construction of work group moods. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2): 197–231. Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. 2004. The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4): 587–598. Besharov, M. 2014. The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1485–1512. Boeker, W., & Karichalil, R. 2002. Entrepreneurial transitions: Factors influencing founder departure. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4): 818–826. Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. 2003. Spirals of silence : The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6): 1393–1417. Boyatzis, R., McKee, A., & Goleman, D. 2002. Reawakening your passion for work. Harvard Business Review, 80: 86–94, 126. Branzei, O., & Zietsma, C. 2003. Entrepreneurial love: The enabling function of positive illusions in venturing. Babson Kauffman Entrepreneurial Research Conference. Wellesley, MA. Breugst, N., Domurath, A., Patzelt, H., & Klaukien, A. 2012. Perceptions of entrepreneurial passion and employees’ commitment to entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(1): 171–192. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1): 83–93. Brewer, M. B., & Pickett, C. L. 2014. The social self and group identification. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal and Intergroup Perspectives: 255–271. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. 2002. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 279–307. Brockman, B. K. 2013. The evolution of organizational learning in new venture development. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(3): 261–275. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues: 221–246. Cardon, M. S. 2008. Is passion contagious? The transference of entrepreneurial passion to employees. Human Resource Management Review, 18(2): 77–86. Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. 2013. Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual foundations and scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3): 373–396. Cardon, M. S., & Kirk, C. P. 2015. Entrepreneurial passion as mediator of the self-efficacy to persistence relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5): 1027–1050. Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. 2009. The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 511–532. Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. 2009. How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadership Quarterly, 20(2): 207–218. Carmeli, A., & Shteigman, A. 2010. Top management team behavioral integration in small-sized firms: A social identity perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(4): 318–331. Carter, M. J. 2013. Advancing identity theory: Examining the relationship between activated identities and behavior in different social contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76(3): 203–223. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 234–246. Chandler, G. N., Honig, B., & Wiklund, J. 2005. Antecedents, moderators, and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5): 705–725. Chang, R., & Blanchard, K. 2000. The Passion Plan: A Step-by-step Guide to Discovering, Developing, and Living your Passion. New York, NY: Jossey Bass. Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 956–974. Chen, F. F., & Kenrick, D. T. 2002. Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1): 111–125. Chen, X., Liu, D., & He, W. 2015. Does passion fuel entrepreneurship and job creativity? A review of passion research. In C. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: 159–175. Oxford University Press. Chen, X., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. 2009. Entrepreneurial passion and preparedness in business plan presentations. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 199–214. Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. 2005. Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2): 121–132. Chowdhury, S. 2005. Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: Is it important? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6): 727–746. Churchill, N. C., & Lewis, V. 1983. The five stages of small business growth. The Harvard Business Review, 62(3): 30–50. Davison, G., & Blackman, D. 2005. The role of mental models in innovative teams. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(4): 409–423. de Mol, E., & de Jong, B. 2015. Heart versus brain: An empirical investigation of passion in entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Conference Proceedings. Vancouver, B.C. Drnovsek, M., Cardon, M. S., & Murnieks, C. Y. 2009. Collective passion in entrepreneurial teams. In A. L. Carsrud & M. Brannback (Eds.), Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind: Opening the Black Box: 191–215. New York: Springer. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. 2014. Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 23–43. Elfenbein, H. A. 2014. The many faces of emotional contagion: An affective process theory of affective linkage. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(4): 326–362. Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., Stam, D., & de Gilder, D. 2013. Feeling included and valued: How perceived respect affects positive team identity and willingness to invest in the team. British Journal of Management, 24(1): 21–37. Ensley, M. D., & Pearce, C. L. C. 2001. Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2): 145–160. Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Amason, A. C. 2002. Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(4): 365–386. Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. 2011. Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organization Science, 22(5): 1224–1239. Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. 2011. Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5): 935–957. Filo, D., & Yang, J. 2008. David Filo & Jerry Yang: The Chief Yahoos. Entrepreneur.com. http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/197564. Flynn, F. J. 2005. Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 737–750. Foo, M. Der, Sin, H. P., & Yiong, L. P. 2006. Effects of team inputs and intrateam processes on perceptions of team viability and member satisfaction in nascent ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4): 389–399. Forbes, D. P., Borchert, P. S., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Sapienza, H. J. 2006. Entrepreneurial team formation: An exploration of new member addition. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(2): 225–248. Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3): 300–319. Fredrickson, B. L. 2013. Positive emotions broaden and build. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47: 1–53. Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., Gatewood, E., & Katz, J. A. 1994. Finding the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 18(3): 5–9. George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2): 107–116. George, J. M. 1996. Team affective tone. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Team Psychology: 77–93. Chichester: Wiley. Gielnik, M., Spitzmuller, M., Schmitt, A., Klemann, D., & Frese, M. 2015. I put in effort, therefore I am passionate: Investigating the path from effort to passion in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4): 1012–1031. Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. 1997. Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 750–783. Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., & Corley, K. G. 2013. Organizational identity formation and change. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 123–193. Gioia, D. A., Price, K. N., Hamilton, A. L., & Thomas, J. B. 2010. Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1): 1–46. Greiner, L. E. 1972. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. The Harvard Business Review, 51(4): 37–46. Gross, E. 1956. Symbiosis and consensus as integrative factors in small groups. American Sociological Review, 21(2): 174–179. Gundry, L. K., & Welsch, H. P. 2001. The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5): 453–470. Hackman, J. R. 2002. Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Harper, D. a. 2008. Towards a theory of entrepreneurial teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6): 613–626. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1199–1228. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5): 1029–1045. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. 1994. Emotional contagion. Emotional Contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ho, V. T., & Pollack, J. M. 2014. Passion isn’t always a good thing: Examining entrepreneurs' network centrality and financial performance with a dualistic model of passion. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3): 433–459. Houlfort, N., Philippe, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., & Ménard, J. 2014. On passion and heavy work investment: Personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(1): 25–45. Hsee, C. K., Hatfield, E., Carlson, J. G., & Chemtob, C. 1990. The effect of power on susceptibility to emotional contagion. Cognition & Emotion, 4(4): 327–340. Huy, Q. N. 2011. How middle managers’ group-focus emotions and social identities influence strategy implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 1387–1410. Huy, Q. N. 2012. Emotions in strategic organization: Opportunities for impactful research. Strategic Organization, 10(3): 240–247. Huy, Q. N., & Zott, C. 2007. How entrepreneurs regulate stakeholders’ emotions to build new organizations. Academy of Management Conference Proceedings. Kamm, J. B., Shuman, J. C., Seeger, J. A., & Nurick, A. J. 1990. Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14(4): 7–24. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1183–1194. Kellermanns, F. W., Floyd, S. W., Pearson, A. W., & Spencer, B. 2008. The contingent effect of constructive confrontation on the relationship between shared mental models and decision quality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1): 119–137. Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 99–130. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. 1994. Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2): 403–437. Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. 2014. New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1): 226–255. Kolhatkar, S. 2014. Pimco’s Bill Gross picks up the pieces. Bloomberg Business. http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-10/pimcos-bill-gross-recovers-after-mohamed-el-erians-departure. Kotkin, J. 1986. The “smart team” at Compaq computer. Inc., 8(2): 48–56. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory research and methods in organizations: Foundations extensions and new directions: 3–90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5): 1031–1057. Kroezen, J. J., & Heugens, P. 2012. Organizational identity formation: Processes of identity imprinting and enactment in the Dutch microbrewing landscape. In M. Schultz, S. Maguire, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Constructing Identity in and around Organizations - Perspectives on Process Organization Studies: 89–127. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kuratko, D. F. 2007. Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4): 1–11. Leonardelli, G., Pickett, C., & Brewer, M. 2010. Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43(10): 63–113. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. 1990. Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 585–634. Lichtenstein, B. B., Carter, N. M., Dooley, K. J., & Gartner, W. B. 2007. Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2): 236–261. Lim, J. Y.-K., Busenitz, L. W., & Chidambaram, L. 2013. New venture teams and the quality of business opportunities identified: Faultlines between subgroups of founders and investors. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1): 47–67. Livingston, J. 2007. Founders at Work. Berkeley, CA: Apress Publishers. Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. 2005. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2): 31–55. Mathias, B. D., & Williams, D. W. 2014. The impact of role identities on entrepreneurs’ evaluation and selection of opportunities. Journal of Management. McFarland, D., & Pals, H. 2005. Motives and contexts of identity change: A case for network effects. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(4): 289–315. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Dechurch, L. A. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2): 535–46. Meyer, M. W., & Zucker, L. G. 1989. Permanently Failing Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Mitteness, C. R., Sudek, R., & Cardon, M. S. 2012. Angel investor characteristics that determine whether perceived passion leads to higher evaluations of funding potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5): 592–606. Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F., Schindehutte, M., & Spivack, A. J. 2012. Framing the entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1): 11–40. Murnieks, C. Y. 2007. Who am I? The quest for an entrepreneurial identity and an investigation of its relationship to entrepreneurial passion and goal-setting. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Murnieks, C. Y., Mosakowski, E. M., & Cardon, M. S. 2012. Pathways of passion: Identity centrality, passion, and behavior among entrepreneurs. Journal of Management, 40(6): 1583–1606. O’Connor, B. P., & Dyce, J. 1997. Interpersonal rigidity, hostility, and complementarity in musical bands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2): 362–372. Perrewé, P. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., McAllister, C. P., & Harris, J. N. 2014. Developing a passion for work passion: Future directions on an emerging construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1): 145–150. Rentsch, J. R., & Woehr, D. J. 2004. Quantifying congruence in cognition: Social relations modeling and team member schema similarity. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors that Drive Process and Performance.: 11–31. Rhee, S.-Y. 2006. Shared emotions and group effectiveness: The role of broadening-and-building interactions. Academy of Management Conference Proceedings. Atlanta, GA. Rip, B., Fortin, S., & Vallerand, R. J. 2006. The relationship between passion and injury in dance students. Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, 10(1): 14–20. Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J. A. 2005. Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams. Academy of Management Review, 30(3): 595–607. Sanchez-Burks, J., & Huy, Q. N. 2009. Emotional aperture and strategic change: The accurate recognition of collective emotions. Organization Science, 20(1): 22–34. Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3): 437–453. Schutz, W. C. 1958. A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Oxford, England: Rinehart. Scott, M., & Bruce, R. 1987. Five stages of growth in small business. Long Range Planning, 20(3): 45–52. Shepherd, D. A. 2003. Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recovery for the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 318–328. Shepherd, D. a., Wiklund, J., & Haynie, J. M. 2009. Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(2): 134–148. Smith, R., & McElwee, G. 2011. After the fall: Developing a conceptual script-based model of shame in narratives of entrepreneurs in crisis! International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31(1/2): 91–109. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522–536. Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. 1987. Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6): 1336–1371. Steffens, P., Terjesen, S., & Davidsson, P. 2012. Birds of a feather get lost together: New venture team composition and performance. Small Business Economics, 39(3): 727–743. Stryker, S. 2004. Integrating emotion into identity theory. Advances in Group Processes, 21: 1–23. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. 1994. Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1): 16–35. Sullins, E. S. 1991. Emotional contagion revisited: Effects of social comparison and expressive style on mood convergence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2): 166–174. Sy, T., & Choi, J. N. 2013. Contagious leaders and followers: Exploring multi-stage mood contagion in a leader activation and member propagation (LAMP) model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2): 127–140. Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2): 295–305. Taylor, S. E. 1991. Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1): 67–85. Totterdell, P. 2000. Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective performance in professional sport teams. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6): 848–859. Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner, R. B. 1998. Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6): 1504–1515. Tsai, J., Bowring, E., Marsella, S., & Tambe, M. 2013. Empirical evaluation of computational fear contagion models in crowd dispersions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 27(2): 200–217. Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. 2003. A longitudinal study of habitual entrepreneurs: Starters and acquirers. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 15(3): 207–228. Vallerand, R. J. 2008. On the psychology of passion: In search of what makes people’s lives most worth living. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(1): 1–13. Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., et al. 2003. Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4): 756–767. Vallerand, R. J., & Houlfort, N. 2003. Passion at work: Toward a new conceptualization. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Values in Organizations: 175–204. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. van Mierlo, H., Vermunt, J. K., & Rutte, C. G. 2008. Composing group-level constructs from individual-level survey data. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2): 368–392. Voss, Z. G., Cable, D. M., & Voss, G. B. 2006. Organizational identity and firm performance: What happens when leaders disagree about “who we are?” Organization Science, 17(6): 741–755. Walter, F., & Bruch, H. 2008. The positive group affect spiral: A dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2): 239–261. Walter, F., Vogel, B., & Menges, J. I. 2013. A theoretical examination of mixed group mood: The construct and its performance consequences. In W. J. Zerbe, N. M. Ashkanasy, & C. E. Hartel (Eds.), Individual Sources, Dynamics, and Expressions of Emotion: 119–151. Bingley: Emerald Insights. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior (18th ed.): 1–74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. West, G. P. 2007. Collective cognition: When entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, make decisions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(1): 77–102. Yang, I. 2013. When team members meet in a new team: An exploration of team development. Human Systems Management, 32(3): 181–197. YEC. 2015. 12 qualities to look for in a co-founder. Startup Collective. http://startupcollective.com/12-qualities-to-look-for-in-a-co-founder/.  FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model of the Team Entrepreneurial Passion Emergence and Influence Cycle Note: Constructs are represented in solid line boxes; theoretical mechanisms are represented in dashed line ovals. NVT Passion Diversity reflects within-group variance between individual group members and their individual passions. Passion Focus Variety is a measure of how different members of the team are concerning the specific roles or objects for which they feel passion. Passion Intensity Separation is the dispersion in the level of activation of emotion experienced by team members. Team Entrepreneurial Passion (TEP) is defined as the shared intensive positive feelings for a collective team identity that is high in identity-centrality for the new venture team. A Mono-focal TEP occurs when the NVT has one primary role identity they are focused upon and passionate about. A Poly-focal TEP occurs when the team has shared positive intense emotions for a collective identity that incorporates and values more than one different foci. FIGURE 2 Composition Models Related to Team Entrepreneurial Passion Note: We do not discuss an additive model (panel C), since this is not directly relevant to our theorizing. We include it here for consistency with Chan (1998). Author Biographies Melissa Cardon (mcardon@pace.edu) is a professor of management at Pace University, and received her PhD from Columbia University. Her research focuses on career transitions within entrepreneurship including entries (motivation, passion) and exits (failure, recovery, and re-entry), and the emotional, relational, and cognitive processes of entrepreneurs that contribute to optimizing their behavior and performance. Corinne Post (corinne.post@lehigh.edu) is an associate professor of management at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. She has a Ph.D. from Rutgers University.  Her research interests include diversity as enabler or impediment to group and organizational performance and mechanisms underlying socio-demographic differences in career outcomes. William R. Forster (forsterw@lehigh.edu) is an assistant professor of management at Lehigh University.  He received his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, and his research interests include entrepreneurial decision making, entrepreneurial action and interaction, and effectuation. 32