Self-determination theory is a macro-level theory that is inspired by the early work of developmental, clinical, and humanistic psychologists. The theory employs a broad humanistic approach to motivation and personality development and offers a broad framework for understanding the factors that promote human motivation and behaviors, particularly the intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2008). Prior studies have used self-determination theory in entrepreneurship research to discuss the relationship between the satisfaction of entrepreneurs’ three basic psychological needs – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – and their well-being (Al-Jubari et al., 2019; Shir et al., 2019; Lanivich et al., 2021). Although research on entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility research is growing (Baron, 2007; Elena et al., 2020), studies on explaining how and why entrepreneurs’ responsibility impacts entrepreneurial performance are still in infancy.

Self-determination theory proposes that individuals are all born with three innate psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. When psychological needs are satisfied, an individual’s autonomous motivation will be promoted. Moreover, self-determination theory also emphasizes the importance of the intrinsic motivation to influence individual’s behavior to achieve high performance. The mechanism can be defined as the “motivation-behavior-performance” pathway (Deci and Ryan, 2008). Moreover, self-determination theory reveals the effect of external rewards on intrinsic motivation, especially in terms of the effect of positive feedback on intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 2017). Although excessive external rewards have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation, appropriate external rewards and positive feedback can strengthen intrinsic motivation. Our theoretical model, which is based on self-determination theory, presents a possible mechanical framework of “motivation-behavior-performance” by highlighting the importance of felt responsibility for constructive change, which is intrinsically motivated, in benefiting entrepreneurial performance through the moderated mediation model of technology action and market orientation.

Felt responsibility for constructive change is considered a psychological state in which an individual feels responsible for the work he or she is doing (Rachman, 1993; Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Prior research identifies both retrospective (reflecting on past behavior) and prospective (foreseeing future behavior) forms of felt responsibility (Cummings and Anton, 1990). Felt responsibility for constructive change is a kind of “assumed responsibility” rather than “assigned responsibility” (Fuller et al., 2006). Compared with “assigned responsibility,” felt responsibility for constructive change focuses on the future development of an organization. Relevant research mainly focuses on how felt responsibility for constructive change influences proactive employee behavior, such as voice behavior (Fuller et al., 2006; Tucker et al., 2008; Liang et al., 2012), extra-role behavior (Pearce and Gregersen, 1991), and organizational citizenship behavior (Choi, 2007). As felt responsibility for change is a proactive psychological state that relates to one’s initiative, individuals who feel personal responsibility for change tend to take ownership of the task process and feel accountable for the resulting outcome; thus, such individuals are more willing to assume risk in pursuing the goals and are more motivated to correct counterproductive procedures (Frese et al., 1997). Felt responsibility for constructive change also reflects the extent to which an individual believes that he or she can do a better job for a business, rather than simply performing the current task according to existing standards (Arain et al., 2019). Therefore, felt responsibility for constructive change is intentional and involves active participation in future achievement that extends beyond collaboration in existing work.

Much research has focused on the social corporate responsibility of entrepreneurs, which is the external aspect of entrepreneurs’ responsibility (Amaeshi et al., 2013; Tiba et al., 2019), but it has rarely focused on entrepreneurs’ internal responsibility, such as felt responsibility for constructive change. From the perspective of self-determination theory, felt responsibility for constructive change reflects the extent to which individuals internalize the value of constructive change (Bindl and Parker, 2011). Felt responsibility for constructive change is consistent with the concept of personal initiative. Accordingly, this type of responsibility involves considering the extent to which proactive action is useful in achieving a long-term orientation for entrepreneurs (Bateman and Crant, 1993; Rooks et al., 2016). Based on self-determination theory, an individual’s intrinsic motivation can affect his or her behavior, thus influencing outcomes (Deci and Ryan, 2008; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). For an entrepreneur, felt responsibility for constructive change reflects an individual’s voluntary commitment to a sense of responsibility and forward-looking motivation that are not imposed by the organization. Entrepreneurs who feel more responsible for constructive change tend to take proactive actions and believe that the overall interests of their organizations are closely related to their own interests, allowing them to pursue long-term goals for firm development (López-Domínguez et al., 2013). Hence, compared to entrepreneurs with low responsibility for constructive change, those with high responsibility for constructive change will tend to act in ways that are more consistent with organizational goals, and they strongly internalize organizations’ long-term development as their assumed obligation, rather than assigned, obligation. In short, entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility for constructive change has an important impact on a venture’s performance.

Technology action can be viewed as a certain kind of proactive action taken by entrepreneurs in high-tech ventures (McMullen and Shepherd, 2006), which involves specific behaviors associated with the usage of art of the technology, attentive search for breakthroughs in technology, and tracking the cutting-edge technology for long-term development (Choi and Williams, 2016). Technology action represents an entrepreneurs’ application of complex technologies in the development of new products (Filatotchev et al., 2009), which can be seen as an entrepreneurs’ initiative to adopt new ideas and propensity to utilize new technologies (Chen et al., 2014). Prior research indicates that technology action allows a firm to control its resources in an innovative and proactive manner and shows its willingness to take risks with such resources (Drummond et al., 2008; Williams and Lee, 2009; Kreiser and Davis, 2010). By adopting new technology, ventures can develop technical capabilities superior to those of their competitors to achieve higher customer value and customer satisfaction, long-term competitive advantage, and enterprise success. As a kind of proactive action, technology action reflects an entrepreneurs’ values and beliefs regarding the alertness to latest technology (Choi and Williams, 2016). Entrepreneurs’ technology action increases entrepreneurial performance by allocating resources needed to develop new capabilities and reinvigorate existing capabilities, thereby fostering an innovative mindset within the ventures. Technology action helps a venture perform better by guiding its utilization of resources in response to environmental signals before competitors (Campbell and Park, 2017; Covin et al., 2020). Therefore, technology action, which integrates sophisticated technology into a venture’s decision-making and organizing process, can significantly improve performance (Al-Henzab et al., 2018).

According to self-determination theory, entrepreneurs need to feel in control of their behaviors and goals (Cnossen et al., 2019). This sense of being able to take proactive action that will result in real change plays a major part in their perception of being self-determined (Wilson et al., 2003). Driven by felt responsibility for constructive change, entrepreneurs in high-tech industries tend to take technology actions to achieve their goals. Such a behavioral pattern affects their understanding and allocation of the internal and external resources or information of their enterprises, thus affecting firm performance. Therefore, entrepreneurs who feel a strong sense of responsibility for constructive change tend to emphasize changing the status quo and taking technology actions. These entrepreneurs are alert to the latest technologies and are willing to reallocate internal and external resources to integrate complex technologies as tools of the product development process (Adams et al., 2019).

Entrepreneurship is a highly contextualized task, and entrepreneurs constantly adjust their intrinsic motivation and entrepreneurial actions based on the achievement of entrepreneurial goals and progress feedback (Frese et al., 1997; Omorede et al., 2015; Gielnik et al., 2020). Entrepreneurs with a market orientation believe that the competitive advantage of a venture mainly comes from the ability to create value for customers (Frank et al., 2016; Laukkanen et al., 2016). According to self-determination theory, extrinsic feedback will affect intrinsic motivation, which in turn influences behavior (Silva et al., 2014; Deci et al., 2017). Market orientation can be seen as a positively extrinsic feedback that can help entrepreneurs to obtain customer and market information to enhance their intrinsic motivation for entrepreneurship. These entrepreneurs pay close attention to changes in the market and meet the growing needs of customers to realize the value of a venture throughout the process. The key point of market orientation is to collect and use such information to create and deliver customer value (Martin et al., 2009; De Luca et al., 2010; Sommer, 2018). As they strengthen their market orientation, entrepreneurs gradually have increasing contact with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders in the external environment and pay increasing attention to changes in competitors’ behavior (Boso et al., 2013). At this point, entrepreneurs monitor the market and technology dynamics in the external environment and search for possible knowledge sources (Morgan and Berthon, 2008). To improve the ability to meet customer needs, entrepreneurs require all staff to listen to the opinions of various groups by communicating with each other across departments and understanding the deficiencies of existing knowledge to meet customer needs and then increase input into external knowledge acquisition (Nouri and Ahmady, 2018). To develop new capabilities to meet future needs and create potential value, market-oriented entrepreneurs learn constantly to acquire knowledge and abilities related to the market, which will improve the performance of their ventures (Ho et al., 2018). When entrepreneurs take technology actions, having a stronger market orientation will strengthen the relationship between technology action and entrepreneurial performance.

The foregoing arguments explain the mediating role of technology action in the effect of felt responsibility for constructive change on entrepreneurial performance. In addition, it has been illustrated that market orientation acts as a moderator of the relationship between technology action and entrepreneurial performance. In combining these two effects, we propose that market orientation intensifies the mediating effect of technology action on the relationship between felt responsibility for constructive change and entrepreneurial performance, which can be represented by a moderated mediation model (Edwards and Lambert, 2007). Entrepreneurs with high market orientation in high-tech ventures are more likely to obtain customer and market information earlier, therefore, promoting entrepreneurial performance through technology action. Accordingly, the indirect effect of felt responsibility for constructive change on entrepreneurial performance could be stronger. We propose the following hypothesis. Figure 1 shows the theoretical model.

The original survey scales used in this paper were all obtained from previous empirical studies. First, we used the translation-back-translation procedure to translate the questionnaire (Reynolds et al., 1993). To tailor the questionnaire to the Chinese cultural context, we appropriately modified the questions via discussions with experts. However, only a few changes to the original survey scales were needed, and some items were removed to make the questionnaire more concise.

Data were collected by a self-report questionnaire, and one questionnaire was completed by the same respondent, raising issues regarding common method variance (CMV). Harman’s one-factor test was thus applied to examine CMV. Four factors were extracted, and the first factor could explain only 28.46% of the variance, indicating that CMV was not a serious problem in our survey.

The descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables examined in our study are presented in Table 1. We also calculated variance inflation factors (VIFs) to examine the multicollinearity of the variables. The VIFs are all below 10 (1.39 for felt responsibility for constructive change, 1.46 for technology action, and 1.23 for market orientation), denoting that no serious multicollinearity existed in the regression model (Hair et al., 2010).

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to validate the measures (see Table 2). The fit indexes suggest a good fit for our hypothesized four-factor model with χ2/df = 2.568, CFI = 0.979, TLI = 0.918, RMSEA = 0.080, and SRMR = 0.025. The observed items significantly load on the expected latent factors. To further test our measures, we compared the hypothesized four-factor model to three alternative models: (1) a three-factor model with felt responsibility for constructive change and market orientation loading on one latent factor and with the other constructs loading on their own respective factors, with χ2/df = 6.648, p < 0.01, indicating a worse fit than the hypothesized model; (2) a three-factor model with felt responsibility for constructive change and technology action loading on one latent factor and other variables loading on their own factors, with χ2/df = 4.530, p < 0.01, indicating a worse fit than the hypothesized model; (3) a three-factor model with market orientation and technology action loading on one latent factor and other variables loading on their own factors, with χ2/df = 4.986, p < 0.01, indicating a worse fit than the hypothesized model; and (4) a two-factor model with felt responsibility for constructive change, technology action and market orientation together loading on one factor, with χ2/df = 7.289, p < 0.01, also indicating a worse fit than the hypothesized two-factor model. The results therefore provide support for the distinctiveness of the four constructs as hypothesized.

Multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. As shown in Table 3, we use SPSS PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017) to test the mediating mechanism. In Model 1, all of the control variables are regressed on technology action, while in Model 3, control variables are regressed on entrepreneurial performance. In Model 4, the control variables and felt responsibility for constructive change are regressed on entrepreneurial performance. The result reveals a significant relationship between entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility for constructive change and entrepreneurial performance (b = 0.51, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 1 is therefore supported. In Model 2, the control variables and independent variable (felt responsibility for constructive change) are regressed on technology action. The result shows that entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility for constructive change is significantly related to technology action (b = 0.49, p < 0.01). In Model 5, felt responsibility for constructive change and technology action are simultaneously regressed on entrepreneurial performance. The result indicates that technology action is significantly related to entrepreneurial performance (b = 0.54, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 2 is thus supported. In Model 5, entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility for constructive change is also significantly related to entrepreneurial performance (b = 0.22, p < 0.01), which indicates that technology action partly mediates the relationship between entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility for constructive change and entrepreneurial performance. Hypothesis 3 is thus supported.

Table 4 presents the result for the mediating effect. The total effect of felt responsibility for constructive change on entrepreneurial performance is significantly positive (b = 0.51, p < 0.01). Table 4 also shows the direct effect of felt responsibility for constructive change on entrepreneurial performance that excludes the indirect effect of the mediator. Furthermore, we adopted bootstrap methods to test the mediating role of technology action, which takes the indirect effect into consideration (Shrout and Bolger, 2002). The mediating effect was tested with the expectation that the indirect effect should not be zero (MacKinnon et al., 1995). The result shows an indirect effect of felt responsibility for constructive change on entrepreneurial performance via technology was of 0.29 (95% CI [0.21, 0.38]).

The interaction between technology action and entrepreneurial performance was tested. The results of Model 6 in Table 3 show the interaction between technology action and market orientation significantly predict entrepreneurial performance (b = 0.15, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported. We also tested the moderating effects of market orientation on the relationship between technology action and entrepreneurial performance. Furthermore, the conditional effect of technology action on entrepreneurial performance for different values of the moderator (−1 SD as Low; +1 SD as High) is shown in Table 5. The indexes of moderated mediation are presented in Table 6. The index for entrepreneurial performance is 0.08, with confidence intervals excluding zero. Thus, Hypothesis 5 is supported. To further show the moderating effect of market orientation, we plotted the effect of technology action on entrepreneurial performance on the basis of a high versus low level of market orientation. The plot (see Figure 2) indicates that technology action has a stronger effect on entrepreneurial performance when the market orientation is strong rather than weak.

The study extends our knowledge of the relationship between entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility for constructive change and entrepreneurial performance, its underlying mechanism, and conditional limits, thereby contributing to entrepreneurship psychology research in notable ways. Previous studies have mainly focused on the employee level, emphasizing the impact of employees’ felt responsibility for constructive change on voice behavior, innovation, and organizational performance (Fuller et al., 2006; Liang et al., 2012). Based on former research, this study extends the research scope of felt responsibility for constructive change to entrepreneurs and explores the influence of this sense of responsibility on entrepreneurial performance by using self-determination theory to build a linkage. For entrepreneurs, the responsibility they feel for constructive change involves a voluntary personal commitment to responsibility and proactive motivation that is not imposed by an organization. Entrepreneurs who feel strong responsibility for constructive change tend to adjust their action mode according to the future development of their organizations.

This study also increases confidence in the explanatory power of self-determination theory in contexts of entrepreneurship, which may expand the scope of the theory, by empirically showing how entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility for constructive change promotes entrepreneurial performance through technology action. This study relies on self-determination theory and proposes that entrepreneurs need to have a sense of control over their behaviors and goals, which plays an important role in choosing behavioral patterns. Entrepreneurs in high-tech industries driven by a sense of responsibility for constructive change are more likely to take technology actions to help achieve their goals, and they emphasize changing the status quo. Since technical competence and knowledge can improve product design and quality, entrepreneurs show greater enthusiasm for and confidence in applying cutting-edge technologies as tools in the product development process, participating in the innovation process, and improving product functions (Autio et al., 2014; Van Minh et al., 2017). Moreover, this study reveals the conditional effect of market orientation as positive external feedback, which could enhance the “motivation-behaviors-performance” path.

In the post-epidemic era, to deal with various challenges, entrepreneurs should develop a sense of responsibility for constructive change to adapt to the dynamic environment. The entrepreneurial performance of high-tech ventures often must be based on the output of innovation. Innovation usually involves an act of positive change, which is defined as “self-initiated, long-term oriented proactive action and persistence in the face of barriers and obstacles that need to be overcome” (Hagedoorn, 1996; Bledow et al., 2009). As Ghitulescu (2013) states, people who actively take proactive actions are relatively unconstrained by environmental forces and instead influence the environment through change behavior as well as bearing the consequences of change. Entrepreneurs need to take proactive actions to actively explore opportunities and persevere in exploiting them to allocate resources while bearing the associated consequences. Entrepreneurial opportunities can be viewed as potentially profitable but hitherto unexplored projects (Casson and Wadeson, 2007). Opportunity identification and resource allocation are proactive processes whereby the entrepreneur abandons the original model and combines information in new ways. In addition to achieving proactive creation during the idea generation phase, entrepreneurs must also take responsibility for the outcome of constructive changes in the implementation of the innovation, especially for high-tech ventures in the post-crisis era.

Driven by felt responsibility for constructive change, entrepreneurs in high-tech industries tend to be alert to the cutting-edge technologies. Such a behavioral pattern affects an entrepreneur’s understanding and allocation of the internal and external resources or information of an enterprise, thus affecting entrepreneurial performance (Saqib et al., 2018). Meanwhile, for entrepreneurs of high-tech industries in China, a market orientation is important in helping them be aware of changes in customer needs rather than blindly focusing on the use of the latest technologies. Entrepreneurs with a market orientation pay close attention to changes in the market and to meeting the growing needs of customers to realize the value of the ventures in the process, thus earning competitive advantages in the market.

This study has several limitations that future research could address. Our study sample includes only high-tech ventures based in the Yangtze River Delta. Although using such a sample can better control the influence of regional and industrial factors, which is conducive to improving the internal validity of the research, it also restricts the external validity of our results to some extent. Whether the relevant conclusions of this study can be extended to ventures in other regions and other industries may need further confirmation based on more studies. Therefore, subsequent studies on a wider range of geographical areas and industries can be conducted to test the findings of this study.

Our survey examined the impact of only individual-level variables on entrepreneurial performance. To enrich theories and knowledge of felt responsibility for constructive change and performance at the team level, future research should adopt a multilevel research design to explore the impact of environmental factors at the team level (such as team innovation climate) on the relationship between entrepreneurs’ felt responsibility for constructive change and the performance of their ventures.