Entrepreneurs gain positive evaluations when their stakeholders are convinced that a new venture is simultaneously legitimate and distinct. Prior research highlights that analogies are a powerful device for constructing such legitimate distinctiveness. We extend this work by providing a more comprehensive typology of arguments that, besides analogies, contains five additional arguments that entrepreneurs can use to gain legitimacy and support for their ventures. We use this rhetorical typology in turn to consider how the nature of the business concept associated with a new venture constrains the choice, and effects, of certain arguments. Our typology provides a base for future research on the micro-discursive processes through which entrepreneurs claim, and in turn achieve, legitimate distinctiveness for their ventures.

For entrepreneurial narratives to be effective, they need to be judged as plausible and have to resonate with an audience. Prior research has, however, not examined or explained how entrepreneurs try to meet these criteria. In this article, we addressed this question by analysing the micro-level arguments underpinning the pitch narratives of entrepreneurs who joined a business incubator. We discerned four previously unidentified rhetorical strategies that these entrepreneurs used to achieve narrative plausibility and resonance. Our findings further suggest that temporality and product development status may shape how entrepreneurs use these strategies. By outlining these aspects of entrepreneurial rhetoric, we contribute to opening up the black box of narrative resonance and plausibility and advance work on the role of rhetoric in entrepreneurship.

Following social identity theory, the way in which individuals appraise stressful encounters and cope with them is influenced by their membership of social groups, which presumes self-categorization as a group member. To date, the impact of self-categorization on stress has mainly been studied for low-status groups. This article uses an interview study among management consultants to explore how self-categorization in terms of occupational identity impacts work stress in a high-status occupation. Adding to previous research, we find that not only low-status but also high-status groups benefit from self-categorization when coping with stressful situations. In line with prevailing theoretical assumptions, we even empirically find an ‘upward spiral’. We illustrate how consultants’ social identity as high-performing professionals helps them cope with stress, which in turn creates a feeling of social inclusion. However, we also find a ‘downward spiral’, where social identity provokes work stress among management consultants who cannot meet the high occupational standards. They cope less effectively and fear social exclusion from the group. These new findings relate to the specifics of our research context, including high status and increased stress. We thus argue for a research agenda that includes such context characteristics when further developing self-categorization models of stress.

Professional service firms in Western Europe have a reputation for putting huge pressures on their junior employees, resulting in very long work hours, and as a consequence health risks. This study explores moral leadership as a possible response to the stigma of such dirty leadership. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 consultant managers and with each one of their juniors, and found that managers put several pressures on their juniors; these pressures bring high levels of stress, lowered wellbeing and burnout. Society considers such a pressuring leadership style morally dirty. To counteract the experience of being seen as morally dirty, we found that consultant managers were normalizing such criticisms as commonly assumed in dirty work literature. However, they also employed several moral leadership tactics to counteract the negative consequences criticized in society. However, in addition to the well-known individual-level tactics, consultant managers and their juniors also reported moral leadership support at the organizational level, like institutionalized performance talks after every project, trainings, specific criteria for hiring juniors, and policies to recognize and compliment high performance. Still, we cannot conclude these moral leadership approaches are moral by definition. They can be used in an instrumental way as well, to further push performance.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the paradoxical image of consultants as “experts without expertise.” It examines the extent to which different stakeholders’ perceptions of consultants’ expertise are aligned, and why. Design/methodology/approach – This research applies a creative approach to survey methodology by asking different stakeholder groups to react to consultancy expertise cartoons. This is followed by a rhetorical interpretation of the perceptions of consultants’ expertise using pathos. Findings – This survey revealed that employees are the most critical of consultants, while clients and consultants retain positive impressions of consultants’ expertise. Unexpectedly, relative to other stakeholder groups, academics occupy a moderately critical position like outsiders. Given that consultants and clients value the same indicators of expertise, this explains the latter stakeholder group’s positive valuation. Research limitations/implications – Since this study focusses on the expert image of consultants more generally, the authors cannot differentiate the conclusions for perceptions related to different types of consultants based on discipline or the image of their specific role (e.g. expert vs coach or change agent). Practical implications – Consultants and academics need pathos that is stakeholder dependent, for getting their expertise better accepted. Originality/value – This paper helps explain why managers, despite the many criticisms of the services consultants provide, continue to hire consultants for their expertise. Furthermore, it sheds light into why managers prefer the services of consultants vs those provided by academics. It also nuances the assumption that academics are the main critics of consultants. Instead, this paper identifies that the majority of consultant critiques come from employees in client organizations.