Corps de l’article

The social and economic situations of indigenous peoples around the world are undeniably challenging (Gerber, 2014; Kulchyski, 2013; Neu & Therrien, 2004). Unemployment, inequalities, systemic racism, expropriations, poor public health, malnutrition and food insecurity are among the problems that commonly affect indigenous populations, including in developed countries (Dickason & Long, 2011; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). In Canada, the Auditor General recently highlighted an alarming situation: the lack of government leadership in efforts to mitigate disparities in services provided to indigenous populations (Harris, 2016). Nonetheless, indigenous peoples are making major contributions to modern society through their culture, expertise, medicinal traditions and economic development (Newhouse, Voyageur, & Beavon, 2005). Given these situations, indigenous populations increasingly view entrepreneurship as an essential engine of socioeconomic development, which can help them rebuild their nations (Anderson & Giberson, 2004; Peredo & Anderson, 2006).

The subject of indigenous entrepreneurship has attracted growing interest in academia (Dana & Anderson, 2007; Peredo, Anderson, Galbraith, Honig, & Dana, 2004; Baba & Fortin-Lefebvre, 2021). Numerous successful entrepreneurial experiments–both individual and collective–have been documented, from the Inuit of Nunavik (Dana, 2010) to the Maori and Pakeha of New Zealand (Frederick & Henry, 2004). This phenomenon has engendered literature on indigenous entrepreneurship and the specific functioning of this organizational form (Anderson, Dana, & Dana, 2006; Dana & Anderson, 2007; Hindle & Moroz, 2010; Kawharu, Tapsell, & Woods, 2017; Ratten & Dana, 2017). Two dimensions are often used to distinguish indigenous entrepreneurship: the territorial context and objectives. First, indigenous entrepreneurship involves members of indigenous communities on ancestral land, although these entrepreneurs need not reside in their community of origin (Dana & Anderson, 2007; Peredo & Anderson, 2006). Second, as Lindsay (2005) suggests, this entrepreneurial form is distinguished by its objective of emancipation with a holistic orientation for the well-being of the entire community (see also Mika, Warren, Foley, & Palmer, 2017). Objectives tend to be oriented towards collective benefits and typically prevail over individual interests.

This literature is structured around lines of research such as the distinctiveness of indigenous entrepreneurship (Dana & Anderson, 2006; Peredo et al., 2004; Peredo & McLean, 2013), definition-related challenges linked to the concept of indigenous entrepreneurship (Hindle & Moroz, 2010; Peredo et al., 2004), the marginalized nature of indigenous populations (Frederick, 2008; Frederick & Foley, 2006), and the importance of culture in indigenous entrepreneurial processes (Lindsay, 2005; Peredo & Anderson, 2006). These works collectively show how indigenous entrepreneurs struggle to access financing and support programs, legitimize their activities, and establish business relations with actors in the dominant society (The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2017). Further, it is almost impossible for indigenous entrepreneurs to survive economically by targeting the internal market of their community exclusively. Thus, many entrepreneurs must turn to the external society, whose operating modes and fundamental values differ from their own (Proulx, 2012), to procure financing and reach markets (Iankova, 2008; Proulx, 2012). For indigenous peoples, such situations cause difficulties often grounded in historically tense relations with the dominant society. These relations lead to strategic challenges embodied in tensions and even paradoxes (see Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016).

Tensions generally occur when individuals encounter divergent viewpoints (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Mickel & Dallimore, 2009) linked to ideological conflicts or opposing practices or norms (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004). Tensions can be defined as conflicts of ideas, principles or actions that can generate discomfort (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, p. 352). Accordingly, we have chosen the tension perspective as a conceptual framework to explore indigenous entrepreneurship. In a context of historical marginalization of indigenous populations—institutionally, economically, politically and socially—(Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2013; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015), and in geographically isolated communities, this study answers the following interrelated questions: (a) How does the context of marginality influence indigenous entrepreneurs? and (b) what mechanisms do they use to address this problem?

To delve into these questions, we qualitatively analyze indigenous entrepreneurship in Wendake, Québec. We subsequently develop a process model that explains how the indigenous context of marginality generates two forms of anxiety linked to preserving indigenous cultures. These emotions, in turn, create organizational tensions that indigenous entrepreneurs address through four organizational decisions. Our study thus illustrates how the context of marginality influences the strategic responses of indigenous businesses. It is worth mentioning that psychologists disagree on the definition of anxiety (Tuma & Maser, 1985). Here, we define anxiety as “a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease, typically about an imminent event or something with an uncertain outcome.” (Lexico: Oxford dictionaries) This article is structured in four main sections. First, we review the literature on indigenous entrepreneurship and organizational tensions. We then explain our qualitative methodology and justify its relevance to our research. Third, we analyze the case of Wendake by examining how the context of historical marginality generates tensions within indigenous businesses, and how entrepreneurs address these tensions. The paper concludes with implications for research on indigenous entrepreneurship and organizational tensions, practice and policymaking with respect to indigenous entrepreneurship.

Literature Review

The Marginality of Indigenous Entrepreneurs

Actors’ marginality has long been explored in organizational theory (Martì & Mair, 2009), social movement theory (Ghimire, 2002), political studies (Damodaran, 2006), psychology (Frable, 1993), and cultural psychology (Berry, 1970). There is no consensus on what constitutes marginality, but we posit that it broadly manifests in three forms if we consider the literature on organization theory. First, marginality may result from an unfavorable position within the institutional field. Peripheral actors—i.e., those who are remote and excluded from decision centers—are thus marginalized relative to actors who wield power and legitimacy (Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004; Zietsma, Groenewegen, Logue, & Hinings, 2017). The study of rural youth in Brazil, Egypt, and Nepal is indicative of this phenomenon (Ghimire, 2002). Second, marginality may also result from a severe lack of access to resources and low social status (Martì & Mair, 2009). In this vein, Mair and Marti (2009) link extreme poverty in Bangladesh to social exclusion and marginality. Third, marginality may also stem from political and institutional oppression aimed at denying the rights and very existence of individuals and certain communities (Banerjee, 2000; Martí & Fernández, 2013).

These three views may be complementary rather than mutually exclusive, and clarify the historical marginality of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples can be considered historically marginalized actors for three reasons (Bruton, Zahra, & Cai, 2018; Kawharu et al., 2017). First, they occupy an unfavourable position in the institutional field because they are often subject to systemic discrimination (Cassidy, 2005; Dickason & Long, 2011; Kulchyski, 2013; Newhouse et al., 2005). Second, their resources are often limited and controlled by external centers of power (Coon Come, 1995; Gerber, 2014; Kulchyski, 2013; Newhouse et al., 2005). Third, indigenous peoples are underrepresented in decision-making bodies (Harris, 2016), which they may deliberately shun (Hurley & Wherrett, 1996; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). Indigenous peoples have also historically experienced political and institutional oppression and dehumanization (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). Despite the efforts of many countries to improve their situation, indigenous populations generally remain socially, culturally, politically, and economically marginalized (Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2013; Gerber, 2014).

Therefore, starting from the premise that indigenous entrepreneurship involves historically marginalized actors, we argue that this marginality influences their business operations and entrepreneurial activities. Whereas organizational values are largely shaped by the broader social context (Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton, & Corley, 2013; Jack & Lorbiecki, 2007; Kroezen & Heugens, 2012), less is known about how the historically marginalized nature of a community influences the way economic agents operate. Despite the importance of the culture and historic marginality of indigenous communities, the literature does not clarify the effects of these elements on the operation of these businesses and the tensions they may face (Bruton et al., 2018).

The literature identifies three main tension-inducing characteristics inherent in entrepreneurship in the indigenous context: the social objective of entrepreneurship, its collective dimension, and the importance of preserving culture, traditions and ancestral land within an emancipation objective (Hindle & Lansdowne, 2005; Hindle & Moroz, 2010). For example, the advantages of indigenous entrepreneurship largely exceed individual economic benefits; rather, it benefits the entire community (Hindle & Moroz, 2010; Lindsay, 2005). As Peredo et al. (2004, p. 6) maintain, “their goal is not economic development alone, but economic development as part of the larger agenda of rebuilding their communities and nations and reasserting their control over their traditional territories.” Indigenous entrepreneurs tend to execute business strategies that are mainly oriented toward the needs of the community and the valorization of traditional culture (Hindle & Moroz, 2010; Peredo et al., 2004; Proulx, 2012).

Whereas these distinctive characteristics are well understood (Hindle & Moroz, 2010; Mika et al., 2017), less is known about the influence of these characteristics and of the historical marginality of indigenous entrepreneurs on organizational tensions within indigenous businesses.

Organizational Tensions At the Heart of Indigenous Entrepreneurship

In the early 21st century, organization theory began to focus on the concepts of paradox and tensions, along with their scope in organizations. The ensuing plethora of articles in the past two decades has led some authors to refer to the metatheory of tensions and paradoxes (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The literature suggests that social enterprises and hybrid organizations face major tensions inherent in their business model, possibly linked to the fact that these organizations combine several simultaneous objectives, typically economical, social and environmental. Recent studies suggest that tensions are not a singularity; they are intrinsic to all organizations (Berthoin Antal, Debucquet, & Frémeaux, 2016; Smith & Besharov, 2019) and hence normal therein (Michaud, 2011; Schad et al., 2016). Some scholars advocate developing mechanisms to manage these tensions rather than attempting to ignore them (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

Tensions may be latent or salient. In their study of tensions in social enterprises, Smith, Gonin, and Besharov (2013) specify four types of tensions. Performing tensions refer to the challenge of attaining several a priori contradictory objectives to satisfy diverse stakeholders. Organizing tensions are related to the way that businesses manage the plurality of structures, cultures, practices and processes internally. Belonging tensions concern the pluralistic and hybrid identity of organizations, hence the way they define themselves using inherently divergent categories. Lastly, learning tensions are linked to the juxtaposition of multiple time horizons, notably related to short-term growth and long-term viability.

Further, tensions are not static or manifested in generic forms. They vary depending on the individuals and context, and on how individuals interpret the situation (Berthoin Antal et al., 2016; Maignan, Arnaud, & Terrisse, 2017). These tensions may be disruptive for organizations, yet the literature also recognizes important virtues. For instance, organizational tensions can be constructive when managed strategically (Battilana, Lee, Walker, & Dorsey, 2012; Pache & Santos, 2013). Maignan et al. (2017, p. 129) contend that organizational tensions may propel organizations and their actors to evolve and surpass themselves and can reveal new representations and perceptions. Generally, tensions may be managed in three ways (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Besharov, 2019): acceptance (accepting tensions and the resulting paradox without managing them), separation (distinguishing paradoxes resulting from tensions and managing them sporadically in a differentiated manner according to time and space) or integration (managing contradictions and paradoxes arising from tensions through a holistic approach that can rest on structure, culture or identity).

The findings above suggest that the tension perspective represents a pertinent theoretical framework to study indigenous businesses, a fertile empirical context that has been underexplored in the literature. Indigenous entrepreneurship has numerous characteristics that confer a distinctive identity (Hindle & Moroz, 2010; Mika et al., 2017; Uygun & Kasimoglu, 2013); the geographic remoteness of most communities (Proulx, 2012; Dana, Manitok, & Anderson, 2010), the “enclaved” nature of communities (“Indian Reserves” under the Indian Act), racial discrimination, and its inclusive, community-oriented, and ecological nature (Anderson et al., 2006; Mika et al., 2017). Maguirre and Derbez (2018) published one of the rare studies of tensions within indigenous businesses. In their empirical study of three indigenous social enterprises in Mexico, Peru, and Guatemala, the authors argue that tensions are generated by the simultaneous combination of economic and social objectives. These tensions are putatively accentuated by the importance of social value creation in indigenous contexts, owing to “their historical context of social exclusion” (Maguirre & Derbez, 2018, p. 607).

The indigenous context thus represents a unique opportunity to enrich our understanding of organizational tensions. Beyond the metatheoretical relevance of organizational tensions, three particular streams within this literature deserve exploration. First, although many studies have examined the emotions resulting from tensions (Schad et al., 2016; Vince & Voronov, 2012), to our knowledge, emotions have never been conceptualized as antecedents of tensions. For example, Schad et al. (2016) emphasize how tensions may give rise to anxiety, thus “sparking defensiveness” (p. 10) through various organizational mechanisms aiming to “maintain reduced anxiety levels.” (p. 39) The authors thus suggest that various organizational defensive mechanisms can be employed to manage anxiety. Other studies have also associated defense mechanisms with anxiety generated by tensions, conceptualizing anxiety as a consequence of tensions rather than an antecedent (Schneider, 1990; Smith & Lewis, 2011). In this view, we embrace Schad et al.’s (2016, p. 40) recent call that future research could explore the interplay between emotions and paradoxes in greater detail, and how they orient our responses.

Furthermore, tensions have been examined mainly at the organizational level (Battilana, 2018; Smith & Besharov, 2019; Smith et al., 2013), and rarely at the individual level. Consequently, several authors have advocated the study of the micro-foundations of tensions (Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith, & Lewis, 2018; Schad et al., 2016). Lastly, although the cognitive aspect of organizational responses to these tensions (Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Tushman, 2005) has received ample attention, researchers advocate closer investigation of how these emotions affect cognition through strategic decision-making (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Schad et al., 2016). Research could thus explore the interactions between emotions and cognition in paradox management in greater depth (Lewis, 2000). Given these insights, our study aims to deepen our understanding of indigenous entrepreneurship through the lens of organizational tensions, while contributing to these three streams.

Methods

Given the exploratory nature of this research, we adopted a qualitative approach based on a holistic case study representing our unit of analysis: entrepreneurship in Wendake (Yin, 2003). This study exemplifies an interpretive paradigm that considers reality subjective and forged by actors’ perceptions and representations (Gehman et al., 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1994).

We chose to study entrepreneurship in the community of Wendake for two reasons. First, situated 16 km away from Québec City, Wendake is among the most prosperous and dynamic indigenous communities in Québec regarding entrepreneurship (Iankova, 2008). Second, Wendake represents a pertinent case in that, like other indigenous communities across Canada, it has experienced economic and social marginalization (Bherer, Gagnon, & Roberge, 1989) relative to the dominant society, particularly given the history of institutionalized segregation of indigenous peoples of Canada (Coon Come, 1995). Therefore, Wendake is a revelatory case (Yin, 2003) well suited to studying the relationship between marginality and entrepreneurship.

Empirical context Wendake is a community of the Huron-Wendat Nation that hosts approximately 1,500 inhabitants (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2015) and 122 businesses, most of which operate in the retail and manufacturing sectors (FNQLEDC, 2020). The directory of indigenous businesses (FNQLEDC, 2020) indicates three types of organizations (Proulx, 2012): for-profit businesses (individual businesses, self-employed workers, and partnerships), community enterprises (businesses for which the band council is a minority or majority owner), and collective nonprofit enterprises (nonprofit cooperatives and organizations). Wendake is situated in the province of Québec, which comprises 11 indigenous nations (10 First Nations and the Inuit nation). These nations consist of 104,633 people; about 71% of the population lives in 55 communities situated throughout the province, according to the latest data from the provincial institution in charge of indigenous affairs (‘Secrétariat aux Affaires autochthones’).

Data collection and sources Our data were collected in several phases and obtained from diverse sources to allow triangulation (Patton, 2002). These sources are archival documents, semi-structured interviews, and participant observations. The data were gathered over two year, i.e., between October 2014 and June 2016. Table 1 presents the data collected and their use in the analysis.

The first data collection step involves secondary data starting from October 2014 to understand the history of the Huron-Wendat Nation along with indigenous entrepreneurship in Canada and Québec. The first interview took place in June 2015 to request the consent of the Grand Chief of Wendake to conduct a study involving the members of this community. Subsequently, 26 semi-structured interviews were conducted, mostly at the offices of the organizations and businesses in Wendake. Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes and was recorded and transcribed. The interviews were conducted in French, and the relevant verbatims for this article were translated by a professional translator. The authors then made a double-check to ensure the consistency of the verbatims in both languages.

Table 1

Data sources and their use in data analysis[1]

Data sources and their use in data analysis1

-> Voir la liste des tableaux

Respondents who made up the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Wendake were selected according to the snowball sampling method, which is well adapted to studies of small, less accessible populations because it rests on a relationship of trust between the researcher and each respondent to enlist new respondents (Brewerton & Millward, 2011). The semi-structured interviews covered business creation, obstacles and facilitators, motivations for the entrepreneurial project, the indigenous context, and the business strategy.

Data analysis The research was conducted inductively: we allowed theoretical concepts to emerge from the data with no a priori assumptions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Our conceptual framework based on the metatheory of organizational tensions gradually ensued from the data analysis. Specifically, the data analysis unfolded in four iterative steps. Relying on both manual and digital tools of coding consisting of tables, drawings, and figures in Word and PowerPoint, data was coded using a thematic coding approach (Gibbs, 2007). As frequent in qualitative interpretive studies, we have then structured the emerging themes in first-order, second-order, and aggregate concepts (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).

The first step concerned the context of indigenous entrepreneurs’ marginality. We identified four dimensions of marginality (economic, cultural, geographic, and institutional/legal). This analysis suggested a phenomenon of double marginality: 1) between the indigenous community and the dominant society, and 2) between individual entrepreneurs vis-à-vis the Band Council, which mainly sought to promote entrepreneurial projects that create spinoffs for the community. Second, we identified three types of tensions that indigenous entrepreneurs in Wendake face. These tensions are linked to culture (individualism vs. collectivism), the approach (differentiation vs. conformity), and reach (openness vs. isolation). Our analysis highlights that these tensions are induced by anxiety resulting from the threat of erosion of the indigenous identity.

In the third step, we examined how these tensions were managed through the strategic decisions of the businesses studied. Here, the level of analysis shifted from the individual (who felt anxiety) to the entrepreneur (whose organizational decisions are influenced by their emotions). The fourth and last step, intended to link all these conceptual categories, consists of designing a process model that traces a) how organizational tensions emerge in indigenous businesses, b) the role of marginality and emotions in this process, and c) how these tensions are managed in strategic decisions.

Results: Case Study of Indigenous Entrepreneurship

Regarding the way indigenous marginality influences entrepreneurship, our empirical analysis identifies four dynamics: the four dimensions of marginality and the phenomenon of dual marginality (context), anxiety felt by entrepreneurs (individual), organizational tensions generated by this emotion (organizational), and the way indigenous entrepreneurs manage these tensions in their strategic decision process (organizational). As shown in Figure 1, these dynamics are interrelated.

Figure 1

Influence of context of marginality on indigenous entrepreneurship

Influence of context of marginality on indigenous entrepreneurship

-> Voir la liste des figures

Dynamic 1: Four Dimensions of Marginality and the Dual Marginality Phenomenon

Our analysis discerns two forms of marginality: one experienced by individuals toward the external society and the other felt by Wendake entrepreneurs vis-à-vis the local government, also called the band council. External marginality is expressed in four dimensions: cultural and identity, institutional/legal, economic, and territorial.

Cultural and identity dimension

Wendake entrepreneurs are very proud of their history and age-old culture and deeply respect their traditions. This is reflected in the integration of the cultural dimension in most of the products and services that local businesses offer in order to perpetuate and share their culture. Nonetheless, despite their pride in culture and identity, the entrepreneurs interviewed expressed how they are being judged by the dominant society: “inside here [in the community], I feel comfortable, but beyond that, when we cross to the other side, we’re nothing anymore.” (EBNL5) They thus feel a gap concerning their education, proficiency in written and spoken French, level of entrepreneurial and management skills, and experience in the business world, which they often view as insufficient. Indigenous entrepreneurs are consequently reluctant to adopt behaviors that exemplify the entrepreneurial values predominant in the Canadian economic culture, which effectively reinforces their cultural and identity marginality: “Why should I, on my land, have to charge taxes, QST and GST, and give it back to the government? There’s a whole philosophy behind all that and I have to adapt to it […] it’s difficult because as an indigenous person we’re not used to that.” (EBL1)

Institutional/legal dimension

The Indian Act is cited as the main obstacle for entrepreneurs. Whereas the right of possession is a condition to obtain funding from non-indigenous financial institutions, the Indian Act prohibits the use as security of property belonging to an indigenous person residing in a community. Consequently, indigenous peoples living in their community have less access to capital than do non-indigenous businesses, which reinforces the sense of marginality (The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2017). This is notably explained by the fact that financial institutions are not legally permitted to take indigenous property as collateral if those properties are located within indigenous communities. They compensate for these risks by requiring higher outlays of funds. These challenges are compounded by difficulties linked to financial literacy (The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2017). Because the taxation system does not apply to indigenous communities, many entrepreneurs find the Canadian and Québec regulatory framework daunting. This situation maintains and even compounds entrepreneurs’ sense of marginality: “There are constant legal barriers in everything we do […] There are local laws [from the community], and municipal, provincial and federal laws […] it becomes a fairly complex issue in which there are many grey zones that people face on a regular basis. Legal conflicts are one of the challenges that First Nations face regularly” (EBNL4). Institutional marginality is also manifested as suspicion of the legal system and a sense of lack of autonomy. One entrepreneur said that the Indian Act was intended “to assimilateindigenous peoples” (MCB1), and another respondent suggested that “the paternalistic federal mentality affects us all the time. We always feel that we need a dad somewhere to hold our hand if we do something” (OSE2).

Economic dimension

The economic dimension of marginality is translated mainly by the lack of consideration of the particular characteristics of First Nations in provincial and federal economic infrastructures and programs. Other obstacles are linked to control of land and resources, lack of investment in infrastructures, poor support for business growth and the complexity of the government financing program (The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2017). Economic marginality is also observed in the band Council. Under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, the council is not authorized to collect goods and services taxes. Consequently, communities have limited resources, unlike municipalities that can collect taxes as a financing strategy (The National Indigenous Economic Development Board, 2017). The Regional Economic Intervention Fund also exemplifies the sense of marginality. This program does not consider First Nations because it was designed by municipalities in line with the development of regional county municipalities.

Territorial dimension

The last dimension of marginality pertains to territory and its symbolism. The indigenous community is a geographically defined territory, also called an “Indian reserve.” These lands fall under federal jurisdiction; they belong to the Canadian government. First Nations thus occupy territories that do not belong to them. This issue has often been decried by our respondents. To quote one entrepreneur: “Indian reserves are ghettos […] They were created for that, they were created to assimilate indigenous peoples because they are downright harmful!” (EBNL2). The particular status of indigenous communities linked to federal jurisdiction within the province of Québec complicates land management and allocation of commercial and industrial space. The Indian Act imposes a delineation of the territory. This restricts access to natural resources and economic development because the First Nations often consider the territory allotted too small. In Wendake, this situation is manifested by a will to reappropriate ancestral land: “one of our roles is to participate in major development projects [on our ancestral land].” (MCB5)

Phenomenon of dual marginality

The four dimensions described above form the basis of external marginality felt by indigenous entrepreneurs vis-à-vis the dominant society. Our analysis suggests that these entrepreneurs also face another form of marginality, originating in the community. This internal marginality, more counterintuitive, is manifested by competition between collective entrepreneurship in the community (initiated by the band council) and individual entrepreneurship (by autonomous individuals): “The places where the band council takes up too much room in the economy, it crowds out the individual. It’s the private versus community economy” (MCB4). The presence of the band council as an economic actor is thus considered by many indigenous entrepreneurs as problematic and an obstacle to development of individual entrepreneurship. The individual entrepreneurs interviewed thus feel marginalized within their community due to the disproportionate weight of the band council on the economic landscape: “sometimes the council doesn’t help us because it keeps everything, it monopolizes everything. There is a type of discrimination against [individual] indigenous businesses.” (EBNL5)

The band council engages in community entrepreneurship by conducting its own entrepreneurial projects through income-generating activities for the community. These businesses are either owned by the band council or become distinct legal entities. In addition to generating income, this form of economic activity notably creates jobs in the community. The band council uses income generated by its businesses to defray the cost of community services. However, many entrepreneurs feel that funds are mobilized for council projects to their detriment. Feeling that their projects are ignored creates frictions among entrepreneurs who claim to be excluded from the band council network and hence lack support: “It’s almost as if we were in a type of communist regime. On the contrary, I think the population can develop initiatives that the Council does not valorize.” (OSE6)

Overall, the context of indigenous marginality and its four dimensions favour external marginality, whereas the context of the community creates competition among economic actors that engenders internal marginality. Collectively, this phenomenon of dual marginality is central to the way that indigenous entrepreneurs define their identity. This is what then contributes to the formation of indigenous identity, as indicated in the process model.

Dynamic 2: Perceived Risks and the Emergence of Two Forms of Anxiety

Our analysis suggests that this phenomenon of dual marginality generates two forms of anxiety. These emotions are felt at the individual level by indigenous entrepreneurs through risk perception emanating from their identity, which is marked by marginality. This risk perception and the two ensuing forms of anxiety are essential to understand the emergence of organizational tensions. It is worth mentioning that these two types of anxieties – macro and micro – are empirically derived and not embedded in any existing conceptualizations. It is thus a heuristic for distinguishing two types of anxiety experienced by the indigenous entrepreneurs we have met.

The first form of anxiety occurs at the macro level. It is linked to the idea of contributing to the erosion of the culture and of indigenous identity through entrepreneurial activities. Thus, the entrepreneurs interviewed were anxious about the juxtaposition of indigenous and non-indigenous cultures, convinced that this contact could adversely affect the preservation of indigenous culture. Adoption of a non-indigenous way of life and work methods sparks anxiety in the entrepreneurs interviewed because they think this adoption can easily undermine the indigenous culture. For example, some entrepreneurs emphasize the importance of the collaborative and collective nature of their community, a characteristic they consider at risk: “traditionally, families and communities functioned in cooperative mode. Everyone had a role to play for the well-being of the community. Power was shared. It was not only one person who decided everything, like today where people need to survive economically.” (EBNL3) This perspective is shared by another respondent: “in the end [historically] there was no exchange of money... but there was an exchange of services and labour…. In the same way, taking the example of Wendake, here in the fall, the hunting surplus is offered to women living alone and single-parent families.” (OSE5)

Other entrepreneurs emphasize the perverse effects of the pursuit of profit. Considered a non-indigenous value, when practiced in indigenous communities, it can jeopardize their culture: “We sense an evolution in indigenous peoples that favors greater acceptance of the pursuit of profit but I think it’s happening to the detriment of indigenous culture” (EBNL 3). Another entrepreneur agrees, and explicitly associates individual wealth and individualism with Western culture: “We feel more individualism in our communities […] It changed, it wasn’t like this before […] but I think it’s the Western culture that brought this individualism and pursuit of individual wealth.” (EBNL5)

The second form of anxiety is situated at a micro-level. It relates to individuals’ fear of social rejection by other members of the community if their behaviors and practices are considered too far removed from their indigenous culture. Accordingly, one entrepreneur mentioned the importance of maintaining a behavior and personality that closely reflected his indigenous culture, in a context where the notion of “we” is particularly valued: “in the indigenous setting we recognize each other quite quickly, and we also recognize some personality traits and behaviors that do not come from our culture, that we don’t accept and that are looked down on. So, we will recognize quite quickly people who are there for their own interests and those who are there for the common interest.” (EBNL5)

Another entrepreneur emphasizes the importance of being perceived well by the community by adopting collectivistic behaviors: “He hires not only Huron-Wendats but also Innus, with decent schedules and salaries. He treats his employees well and hires people from the place, so he is looked on very well in the community.” (EBL4) This entrepreneur underlines the importance of favorable social judgment toward entrepreneurs who display values that are consistent with indigenous culture traits. Another entrepreneur mentions the risk of rejection if his projects become too individualistic, which he associates with the culture “of the white world”: “[As an entrepreneur], if you want to be accepted by your community, your actions and projects must also come back to the community or you are frowned on, unlike in the white world where you can work for yourself.”

Below we analyze how these two forms of anxiety induced by the context of marginality create three types of organizational tensions. Here, our process model suggests that anxiety experienced at the individual level translates into tensions at the organizational level.

Dynamic 3: Influence of Emotions on the Emergence of Organizational Tensions

Our analysis suggests that the two forms of anxiety generate three types of tensions at an organizational level. They pertain to culture (individualism or collectivism), approach (conformity or differentiation), and scope (openness or isolation).

Culture

The first tension concerns the balance between individualism and collectivism; it is manifested in two forms. First, the entrepreneurs we met affirm the importance of their community of belonging and the history of their Nation as an integral part of their entrepreneurial and personal identity. This phenomenon is consistent with the collectivist nature of indigenous societies (Harper, 2003). These societies foster interdependence between the notion of self and that of the group, translated by individuals’ perceptions of their well-being relative to their own contribution to the community (Peredo & Chrisman, 2006, p. 13). These collectivistic values endure despite the emergence of more individualist values linked to entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, entrepreneurial values are perceived as contradicting the collectivism inherent in indigenous societies: “today we have to survive economically. Before, income that one person would generate would benefit an entire family or community.” (EBL3) Owing to this form of tension, the entrepreneurs interviewed felt obliged to constantly assess the balance between their personal interests and their contributions to the community.

Our analysis also indicates that tension linked to culture signals a quest for autonomy embodied in an emancipation effort (individual project) or self-determination (collective project). Actors strive for these two forms of autonomy in order to mitigate their marginality. By comparison, the emancipation effort targets individual freedom of action, professional development and economic independence of individuals rather than that of Nations: “what is indigenous in indigenous entrepreneurship is the fact that it is a tool of self-affirmation, of emancipation. It counteracts the weight imposed by the status conferred by the Indian Act that gives the band council all the power, not the individuals themselves.” (OSE3) Regarding the self-determination effort, the entrepreneurs we met see entrepreneurship as a means of reappropriating the territory in a quest for the economic, political, social, and cultural autonomy of the Nation: “so I think the destiny or future of indigenous peoples is closely linked to entrepreneurship; for me, it’s clear that self-determination is part of our DNA more than ever.” (OSE1) One band council member mentions that entrepreneurship as an engine of self-determination is mainly a question of sovereignty: “it’s being sovereign about one’s raw materials and territories. Everything is related” (MCB5). Overall, these two visions of the role of entrepreneurship, i.e., emancipation or self-determination, are potentially conflicting and central to culture-related tension.

Approach

The second tension refers to the quest for balance between differentiation and conformity to indigenous practices. Several entrepreneurs describe facing strong pressure to comply with indigenous standards. Some entrepreneurs report that non-indigenous performance evaluation standards are gradually penetrating the Huron-Wendat Nation: “I was never hired in my community because I don’t have a diploma […] We are in a modern world now where it takes CVs and diplomas.” (EBNL2) This pressure to conform is compounded by the debate about the pursuit of profit as the sole business objective. Entrepreneurs argue that profit-seeking clashes with traditional collective values because, in their view, “wealth is a white concept” (MCB4). One entrepreneur eloquently described the pressure he faced to conform to indigenous practices: “It’s quite fine to talk about the social side and dream of culture, but at the end of the day it takes profits. […] We can’t isolate the reserves from the rest of the economic world.” (EBNL2)

Conversely, pressures to conform also foster a desire to differentiate by preserving the indigenous identity: “the big challenge is to rediscover our pride. But we are caught in modernity that leads us to disconnect from traditions” (EBNL2). We have observed that the combination of several objectives is one technique entrepreneurs use to stand out and resist pressures to conform: “Using entrepreneurship to meet social needs can improve the living conditions of community members” (EBNL5). Yet this approach poses a challenge for entrepreneurs. Several entrepreneurs mentioned the dilemma regarding the choice of production materials. Even if they want to valorize the local culture, this choice may imply a heavy financial burden. Indeed, the quest to remain authentically indigenous in minute detail hampers profits. This tension reflects the need to comply with the dominant non-indigenous model that favors efficiency, and the need to depart from this model by integrating cultural dimensions in their business plan despite the financial costs.

Scope

The third and final tension arises from the need to open up to the non-indigenous world or, on the contrary, to opt for cultural isolation. Our research illustrates the presence of protectionist behavior toward the culture that influences both discourse and practices. For example, although government-sponsored economic development and social programs are appreciated by most respondents, they also expressed reluctance to participate in these programs. Tensions linked to scope are manifested in three distinct ways.

First, there is a will toward isolation, particularly as a form of resistance to large development projects, to sharing the land, and to engage with non-indigenous culture. The need for isolation stems from the risk of the loss or weakening of traditions stemming from openness to the non-indigenous world. Indigenous entrepreneurs thus consider both the risks of this openness and the consequences of isolation on their businesses: “openness comes at a cost. I remember 10 years ago I said ‘wait, you will see the effects of the resort.’ But they couldn’t care less; there was no road. [Today] they see it a bit like an invasion. The occupancy of the land is not the same anymore. There’s access roads where before they were alone. People are a bit overwhelmed. In terms of landmarks, they feel lost” (MCB2). Other entrepreneurs’ discourse highlighted an economic need that justifies openness. One entrepreneur stated that his community “should not isolate itself from the rest of the economic world” because “to do business, ideally you have to be open and not just trade with the community” (EBNL3). Lastly, our research suggests a hybrid position consisting of the use of indigenous culture as a development engine, notably for the tourism and craft sectors, allows indigenous communities to seize opportunities in the non-indigenous world while affirming and preserving their values, traditions, and cultures.

In the next section, we discuss how indigenous entrepreneurs manage these three tensions induced by forms of anxiety when making strategic decisions.

Dynamic 4: Managing Tensions in Strategic Decisions

When they engage in strategic decision-making within their businesses, entrepreneurs manage these organizational tensions in different ways. Our empirical analysis suggests that these tensions are managed via four main strategies, depending on the market and product/service offered by the business: 1) cultural differentiation, 2) cultural focus, 3) non-differentiation, 4) territorial focus. Figure 2 summarizes these four strategies.

Figure 2

The four strategies adopted by Indigenous entrepreneurs in response to organizational tensions

The four strategies adopted by Indigenous entrepreneurs in response to organizational tensions

-> Voir la liste des figures

In the cultural differentiation strategy (quadrant 1), businesses target both an indigenous and non-indigenous market by integrating a cultural dimension in one or more components of their business model. Examples include a business specializing in producing crafts, a caterer offering traditional indigenous foods, and a business that preferentially hires indigenous workers. In such businesses, additional decisions are driven by the will to promote the indigenous culture while pursuing a dynamic objective. Linked to the tensions managed by the indigenous context, these decisions reflect an individualist rather than a collectivist perspective. Such entrepreneurs seek to stand out by showcasing the indigenous culture, whereas the scope is one of openness, particularly to the non-indigenous market, rather than isolation. One entrepreneur interviewed extolled the benefits of this strategy while underlining the compromises it implies: “In the value system, you have to earn money but not at any price. I think proud and strong indigenous entrepreneurs will prioritize the hiring of First Nations resources and will probably encourage subcontracting with indigenous suppliers even if it raises its costs by $1, $10, $100 more than a business based in Québec, the US, or China.” (OSE1)

In the cultural focus strategy (quadrant 2), businesses target a mainly indigenous market through a distinctly indigenous product or service. Organizational decisions ensue from the mission of meeting the needs of indigenous peoples who would otherwise have no offer. Examples include producers of traditional costumes, daycare in the community, and production of cedar coffins according to an ancestral method. To manage tensions experienced internally, decisions are largely collectivistic; businesses seek to contribute to the community. The strategy is one of differentiation by favoring the integration of a cultural and traditional dimension in the product and service offer. The scope is one of isolation because the strategy targets an indigenous market. Indigenous entrepreneurs who adopt a cultural focus aim for political and identity affirmation: “[In this choice]there’s an identity side. It’s to protect our culture, affirm it, share it, and reappropriate it.” (OSE1) Similarly, another entrepreneur says: “I live for indigenous culture... That is what I try to live up to. I am indigenous culture. Often that’s what we say in the village, we are the indigenous culture.” (EBL3)

In the non-differentiation strategy (quadrant 3), businesses target both an indigenous and non-indigenous markets but do not include an indigenous dimension in their product or service. Organizational decisions are mainly dictated by an economic objective. Examples include a distributor of industrial machinery parts or a digital entertainment provider. Tensions arising from this context are managed based on individualistic decisions, and the pursuit of economic interest as the main objective. Such tensions would thus be resolved by economic/financial reasoning. The approach indicates conformity with the dominant economic system, given the absence of the indigenous dimension in the product and service offer. Such entrepreneurs also express openness to the non-indigenous market, and view the definition of an indigenous business as important: “Is indigenous entrepreneurship just a more cultural or traditional side? I don’t think so. Indigenous entrepreneurship can be contemporary too. It’s really no difference from Quebec entrepreneurship” (EBL3).

The fourth and last strategy, the territorial focus (quadrant 4), businesses target a mainly indigenous market by offering a product or service with no cultural distinction. Organizational decisions are driven by the objective of seizing a local economic opportunity, targeting an indigenous community or audience. Examples include French copyeditors, a snack bar, and a boat transport service to connect a remote community to the nearest village. The tensions generated by this context of marginality are managed by collective decisions, and the approach is conformist given the few specifically indigenous characteristics of the products and services offered. The scope is largely linked to isolation because the market targeted is primarily indigenous, although this characteristic is less marked than for businesses in quadrant 2. This territorial focus strategy is illustrated by one entrepreneur who spoke about reconciling entrepreneurship and indigenous identity: “It is not necessarily feathers, not necessarily crafts. It’s because we serve the community.” (EBNL2)

Discussion and Conclusion

This study analyzed a case of indigenous entrepreneurship. Four concurrent dynamics central to this process were manifested at different scales: macro (institutions and social structures), micro (emotions linked to individuals), and meso (organizational tensions). These were summarized in a process model (Figure 1) which explains the emergence of organizational tensions within indigenous businesses due to their marginality and the way in which entrepreneurs respond to them in their strategic decisions. Below we discuss the main theoretical implications of this research and conclude with future research avenues.

Theoretical Implications

Contributions Related to Indigenous Entrepreneurship

Our contributions to the emerging literature on indigenous entrepreneurship are threefold. First, our study conceptualized four dimensions that clarify the marginality of indigenous entrepreneurship. This contribution is important because the literature on management, social movements and organization theory has focused on the marginality of “institutional actors” and “social movements” in Western societies (Lawrence, Hardy, & Phillips, 2002; Maguire et al., 2004; Mair & Marti, 2009). This marginality is often described through a one-dimensional variable. Accordingly, an actor is marginalized based on his/her position in the institutional field relative to central actors (Maguire et al., 2004), resources, or social status (Martì & Mair, 2009). In contrast, our research articulates the multifaceted nature of indigenous entrepreneurial marginality: it encompasses the economic, cultural, territorial, and institutional spheres. Entrepreneurs’ marginality is thus transversal; it concerns their position in the field, access to resources, and their social status. Although we presented the dimensions in a compartmentalized form to simplify the presentation of the case, our analysis detected close links between these dimensions. Accordingly, economic development is negatively influenced by history and the lasting effects of the institutionalized segregation of indigenous peoples in Canada (Cassidy, 2005; Coon Come, 1995). It is also positively affected by the geographical proximity of the Wendake community to a large city. In this sense, we underscored the territorial dimension of indigenous marginality. Whereas the literature on organizational theory largely ignores the territory and its dynamics (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005), our study shows that the phenomenon of marginality cannot be conceptualized outside of a territorial lens, particularly because the territory has been contested historically and politically.

Second, we have conceptualized the phenomenon of dual marginality that characterizes the context of indigenous entrepreneurship. We found that indigenous entrepreneurship is marked both by external marginality vis-à-vis the dominant society, and, on the intra-community scale, by opposition between these two ideologies of economic development. To date, marginality has mainly been examined and contrasted with the society outside the community by considering indigenous populations as enclaves within a dominant state (Monture, 2017; Schulte-Tenckhoff, 2009). Our study sheds new light on marginality that can also be understood as a phenomenon at play in social structures within a single community.

The case study illustrates how four dimensions of marginality influence social structures, causing two models of economic development to coexist more or less harmoniously in a given territory. As our empirical analysis suggests, one of the development models is based on self-determination of the community, i.e., its capacity to assert its political, economic, cultural, and social autonomy vis-à-vis the dominant society. Promoted by the band council, which holds political power, this model is very popular in indigenous communities in Québec and across Canada. The second model of economic development targets individual emancipation through entrepreneurship. Although this model has gained popularity in the past two decades, our analysis shows that its legitimacy is being seriously challenged in the marginality context.

As some studies argue, band councils may tend to neglect individual entrepreneurship within their economic development strategy for the community. Additional barriers then arise for these entrepreneurs who, due to a lack of legitimacy, are hindered from accessing resources (Cornell, Jorgensen, Record, & Timeche, 2007). Whereas Barth, Barraket, Luke, and McLaughlin (2015) contend that this form of marginality is often linked to weak legitimacy that community chiefs confer on “small” entrepreneurs, we maintain that internal marginality results from an opposition between several types of entrepreneurship based on access to financial resources, commercial space, and support networks. Our study highlights that the centralization of economic projects and business creation by the band council instill a sense of exclusion in individual entrepreneurs. By positing a dual marginality of indigenous entrepreneurship, we show that indigenous entrepreneurs regularly face tensions between different forms of entrepreneurship within the community, the values these forms convey, and the values legitimized by external society.

Third, our study provides insight into indigenous entrepreneurship by exploring the tensions specific to this type of entrepreneurship. Although the literature on organizational tensions abounds, it has mainly examined Western contexts; little attention has been paid to indigenous contexts that possess distinctive cultural, historical, geographic and institutional characteristics. The literature on indigenous entrepreneurship mentions “challenges” linked to indigenous entrepreneurship, which are underexplored (Dana & Anderson, 2007; Peredo & Anderson, 2006; Peredo et al., 2004). We therefore propose that tensions related to culture (individualism or collectivism), the approach (conformity or differentiation), and reach (openness or isolation) are specific to the context of indigenous marginality. These tensions deepen our understanding of organizational tensions and the interrelation of individuals, culture, and territory. This is particularly important because indigenous cultures are rooted in their land, and indigenous identity is closely linked to their collective culture and, by extension, of their territory. The tensions we conceptualized are crosscutting and thus represent existential challenges for the entrepreneurs affected. These tensions thus transcend the classical debates on this subject, concerning centralization/decentralization (Driver & Streufert, 1969; Mintzberg, 1978), local/global (Fabian, Molina, & Labianca, 2009) and social/economic objectives (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Battilana et al., 2012). This article therefore proposes a more refined and complex reading of tensions by emphasizing the interweaving of individuals, the organization and the broader institutional context.

Contributions regarding organizational tensions

Our study also enriches the literature on organizational tensions. By focusing on an underexplored indigenous empirical context, we have clarified three main grey areas in the literature review. They relate to the role of emotions in the emergence of tensions, the micro-foundations of tensions and the relationship between emotions and cognition in tension management. First, our study calls for a fundamental change in the way that emotions are construed and their role in the literature on tensions. Whereas the literature has examined emotions extensively (e.g., fear, stress, anxiety) as a consequence of tensions (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Vince & Broussine, 1996) we argue instead that emotions can be antecedents of tensions. The indigenous entrepreneurs studied indeed experience organizational tensions stemming from anxiety linked to the risk of furthering the erosion of their identity and indigenous culture. This counterintuitive discovery relative to the literature expands our understanding of the role of emotions in the dynamics linked to organizational tensions (Schad et al., 2016; Vince & Voronov, 2012).

Recent articles have stressed the importance of better understanding the micro-foundations of organizational tensions, be it in daily practice, decision-making, or the individual experience (Lewis, 2000; Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe, 2008). The literature has focused on the organizational dimensions of tensions, notably their antecedents, processes and consequences (Maguirre & Derbez, 2018; Maignan et al., 2017; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; Smith et al., 2013). Our study deepens the understanding at a micro level–i.e., on the individual scale–of the process through which individuals navigate between their emotions and the resulting organizational tensions. This process reveals the presence of two forms of anxiety: macro anxiety, linked to the threat of loss of culture and indigenous identity, and micro anxiety, linked to individuals’ fear of social rejection resulting from their distancing from indigenous cultures. Further, by exploring the link between indigenous identity (macro-level), emotions (individual level) and strategies deployed by indigenous entrepreneurs to manage these tensions in their strategic decisions (organization level), our model highlights the importance of situating the microfoundations of tensions in a broader context. This holistic understanding of the process is particularly relevant because it clarifies the emergence of tensions linked to macro variables such as institutions and the ensuing social structures (Fang, 2012).

Lastly, by closely analyzing indigenous entrepreneurs’ organizational responses to manage tensions, this study deepens our understanding of the relationship between emotion and cognition in tension management (Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Tushman, 2005). We have outlined four strategies that indigenous entrepreneurs employ to manage tensions within their businesses: cultural differentiation, cultural focus, non-differentiation, and territorial focus. Three of these four strategies (the exception is non-differentiation) highlight indigenous culture. They thus counterintuitively demonstrate the paradoxical role of indigenous culture and identity as both creators and resolvers of tensions. Thus, culture triggers the emergence of tensions, together with the response to them. This paradoxical role shows how tensions can lead to the development of innovative strategic responses (Lewis & Smith, 2014). In the context of indigenous businesses, strategic responses incorporate culture in a way that embodies the three types of tensions theorized by Smith et al. (2013): performing (multiple objectives), organizing (practices and strategic orientations), and belonging (identity or knowing who we are).

Research Avenues

This article opens new research avenues. First, given that our design is based on a single case, future research could study several cases in the same institutional and geographical context. Research could also compare cases in different contexts by examining how the four dynamics of our process model take varied forms and influence entrepreneurship in different ways. Lastly, our article highlights the importance of forms of anxiety in the emergence of tensions in indigenous businesses. Given the recent emphasis by researchers on the importance of emotions in entrepreneurial and organizational processes (Toubiana & Zietsma, 2017; Vince & Voronov, 2012), future research could explore other emotions and their influence on entrepreneurship. Smith and Lewis (2011) recommend that tension management begins with accepting tensions, which also implies acceptance of the context that engenders these tensions. Conversely, it is worth exploring how, in contexts of marginality, other types of emotions such as frustration and anger related to the sense of injustice can stimulate innovation (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Schad et al., 2016), and how strategic responses to these emotions can ultimately attenuate marginality.

Implications for Practice and Policymaking

Governments and international institutions around the world are deploying resources to support indigenous populations towards greater autonomy[2]. This is increasingly being accomplished through the strengthening of entrepreneurial skills, insofar indigenous economic development is seen as a vehicle for empowering indigenous peoples (Proulx, 2012). In Québec, for instance, the public, para-public and private organizations designated to help indigenous entrepreneurs in their entrepreneurial projects are numerous. However, indigenous peoples are either not well integrated to the entrepreneurship assistance programs offered to Quebecers for regulatory reasons, or else the characteristics of their entrepreneurship is not taken into consideration by this ecosystem of entrepreneurial support (Fortin-Lefebvre, Baba, 2020). Simultaneously, as research on indigenous entrepreneurship is relatively nascent (Mika et al., 2017; Peredo & Anderson, 2006), our knowledge of the realities, dynamics and challenges of indigenous businesses is still in its infancy. The contextual sensitivity of entrepreneurship being important (Welter, 2011; Zahra, 2007; Baba, Hemissi, & Hafsi, 2021), our empirical analysis enriches our understanding of the reality of indigenous entrepreneurs. This is perhaps where our study is particularly useful. By bringing to light the organizational tensions and strategic challenges faced by indigenous businesses in Wendake, this study has sketched some insights that should be taken into account to properly accompany and support indigenous entrepreneurs in their ventures. The results of this study are thus useful to indigenous businesses themselves, the local governments of indigenous peoples, to the entrepreneurial accompaniment ecosystem as well as to public authorities who want to support indigenous peoples in developing their economic activities.