Scullin-Baccarella 1

Madeline Scullin-Baccarella

Ms. Malaka Friedman

ENG 101 Section 074

9 Mar 2019

Rhetorical Analysis

There is an important relationship between mental health and entrepreneurship that a lot

of people do not know about. If someone in the entrepreneurial field suffers from poor mental

health, it can negatively affect their job performance. Although this relationship is significant,

there is still a large gap in this research. Published through the ​Academy of Management

Perspectives in 2018, the article, “Depression and Entrepreneurial Exit”, written by Jolanda

Hessels, Cornelius A. Rietveld, A. Roy Thurik, and Peter Van Zwan, focuses on the lack of

research that has been accomplished in this field. The article is a call to action in the way it is

trying to persuade the reader that there needs to be an emphasis on research about the

relationship between mental health and entrepreneurship. Hessels et al. defend their argument by

illustrating the important link between the two components by focusing specifically on the

relationship between depression and entrepreneurial exit, which is when the founder of an

organization leaves that organization. Another section of this article discusses a collection of data

performed by the Household, Income, and Labor Dynamics in Australia (HILDA). They used a

survey to explore the connection between depression and entrepreneurial exit and the role of

self-efficacy, which concluded in results that support the authors’ argument. By highlighting the

possible advantages of additional research on this topic, Hessels et al. try to propose future

directions for the research. Their goal is to convince the audience, which are those who are
 Scullin-Baccarella 2

involved in the entrepreneurial field or other unique jobs that are in highly unpredictable

environments, to bring more attention to the relationship between mental health and

entrepreneurship. Overall, the article successfully conveys the authors’ goal because they use

certain aspects such as purpose, audience, diction, ethos, logos, data, and organization to

strengthen their argument.

The need for future research is not only mentioned in this article, but in another titled

“The Sleep Trap: Do Sleep Problems Prompt Entrepreneurial Motives But Undermine

Entrepreneurial Means?” as well. Gunia mentions that “since entrepreneurship research has only

begun to examine the role of mental health, [more] research [is] urgently needed” (Gunia par.

38). Gunia’s statement about the lack of and need for future research on the relationship between

mental health and entrepreneurship strengthens Hessels et al.’s call to action for additional

research. This is because if Hessels et al. were some of the only authors to state the need for

research, then their claims might not seem relevant. Since other articles mention the importance

and lack of research, it shows that the point they are bringing up is valid and relevant to other

people in the entrepreneurial field. Another article that brings up the need for research is “Mental

Disorders in the Entrepreneurship Context: When Being Different Can Be An Advantage” when

Wiklund et al. says “our intention with this paper is to propose that researchers explore the role

of mental disorders in entrepreneurship to develop novel insights and theories in

entrepreneurship” (Wiklund et al. par. 7). Wiklund et al. mentioning how exploring the role of

mental health in entrepreneurship can be beneficial by developing novel insights supports

Hessels et al.’s claim that research on this topic is important and can offer useful observations. It

follows a purpose and argument similar to Hessels et al.’s article, as it discusses the benefits of
 Scullin-Baccarella 3

exploring the relationship between entrepreneurship and mental health and that more research

needs to be done. The discussion of the importance of the research by the other articles is similar

to how Hessels et al. discusses it, but Hessels et al. puts more focus on the actual relationship

between entrepreneurship and mental health instead of the lack of research on the relationship.

Although discussing their relationship is important and instrumental in convincing the audience

of the importance of the research, they should have given more specific reasons why specifically

the research was urgent and important.

The audience the authors are aiming to reach with this article are people in unique,

high-level job positions, like entrepreneurs, who work in environments that are vastly fluctuating

and require being able to handle multiple challenges and stressors while attempting to achieve

their objectives. The text appeals to the audience because it focuses on specific challenges that

people with this issue have to face and an explanation of how mental health relates to them.

Some of the challenges and characteristics of this type of job are that “[entrepreneurs] need to

gather [resources] to start or grow their business, conduct strategic and financial business

planning, and undertake efforts to promote the sales of their products or services” (Hessels et al.

par. 10). By mentioning these challenges, Hessels et al. exemplifies the complexity of

entrepreneurship, which aids in their discussion on the relationship between entrepreneurship and

mental health because a complex job with various tasks can cause mental health problems. In

another article, “Introduction to the special issue on Workplace Mental Health,” Kelloway

mentions that “there is little clear evidence that changing or reducing organizational stressors is

an effective means of improving individual well-being [because there] are more consistent

evaluative data for intervention programs focused on employees who are experiencing mental
 Scullin-Baccarella 4

health difficulties” (Kelloway par. 7). Kelloway’s claim helps support Hessels et al.’s

descriptions of the specific aspects of working in the entrepreneurial field because it mentions

organizational stressors, which are similar to the job tasks listed by Hessels et al. Discussing how

mental health relates to these aspects of the job can encourage hope for an improvement in the

readers’ mental health if the topic is further researched, which will in turn cause more

progression towards the correction of this research gap. This discussion can convince the readers

of the importance of this research on the grounds that they can understand and personally relate

their experiences to the issues being discussed in the article.

By using formal diction, Hessels et al. emphasizes their credibility and promote a serious

tone. Moreover, the article does not use technical or field-specific jargon, so it is easy to

understand without having prior experience within this field. This decision helps Hessels et al.’s

rhetorical purpose because readers are not discouraged by confusing words or field-specific

writing styles, and can easily gain an understanding of the argument the authors are trying to

convey. This easy-to-read text can be exemplified in the argument stated in the concluding

paragraph, which reads as follows: “in this study, we highlight the importance of good mental

health for functioning well in entrepreneurship” (Hessels et al. par. 35). Because of the topic of

this article, the audience is assumed to be at a sufficient enough age in which the words used in

the above statement are simple and commonplace. Since the article uses commonly known

words, and general terms like “good mental health” (Hessels et al. par. 2), readers are not

discouraged by confusing language or diction, and can easily understand the argument being

conveyed throughout the text.

 Scullin-Baccarella 5

Another useful rhetorical device that Hessels et al. use is ethos, which emphasizes the

authors’ credibility and character. The authors do a sufficient job of incorporating this device in

the article when they explain their reasons for writing the article and explain how they organized

their thoughts. This layout helps gain trust from the reader and shows confidence in delivery as

well as credibility because they have explained their purpose and how they are going to defend

it. An example of the use of ethos in this article is when the authors state: “this article provides

[evidence] on the relation between depression and entrepreneurial exit using [survey] data.

Analyzing the connection between [them provides an] example of the interplay between mental

health and entrepreneurship. Moreover, this article proposes five avenues for future research on

this topic” (Hessels et al. par. 8). By laying out their purpose and strategy for conveying it, the

authors are presented as more credible. The reason why this strategy makes them seem more

credible to the audience is due to it causing them to sound confident in the organization and

layout of their argument. Another section in the article that exemplifies this is when the authors

state “we review research that offers insight into the role of health in the entrepreneurial context.

First, we illustrate that entrepreneurs are generally healthier than wage workers and provide

possible [evidence] for this. Then, we highlight the literature on the role of health in the

performance of entrepreneurs...” (Hessels et al. par. 9). Here Hessels et al. are giving the readers

an explanation of their writing process, which again demonstrates the authors’ confidence in

their organization and argument, which then assists in their level of credibility.

Another rhetorical tool used in the article is logos, which the authors use to provide logic

and proof to support their argument. It includes using references, comparisons, metaphors, etc. It

employs the use of reasoning to convince the audience of the author’s argument. Throughout the
 Scullin-Baccarella 6

entire article, the authors cite a variety of sources to help support their claims. Hessels et al. cite

Baron when introducing their argument by saying “entrepreneurs frequently work in highly

unpredictable environments and are involved in a wide variety of tasks for which they are not

always well prepared” (Hessels et al. par. 2). This shows that the assertions the authors are

making are supported by evidence and that they are credible because there is proof in other

articles that the claims they are discussing are true.

As mentioned earlier, Hessels et al. discuss the results of a large-scale survey done by

HILDA. The survey resulted in data that supports the idea that “depression is significantly and

positively related to the probability of exiting entrepreneurship” (Hessels et al. par. 28). This

correlation is shown to be especially strong when discussing an exit into wage work,

unemployment, or a position outside the labor force instead of a new self-employed position.

There is also data that explains that “a one-unit increase in depression (measured between 0 and

10) increases the probability of entrepreneurial exit by 1.1 [percent, a] considerable change given

that the probability of [exit] is only 17%” (Hessels et al. par. 28). By discussing this data, it

helps validate their argument that there is a relationship between entrepreneurship and mental

health. By proving this connection, the idea of further research seems useful and significant,

which helps strengthen the authors’ claim. Similar to the Hessels et al., Foo, author of the article

“Emotions and Entrepreneurial Opportunity Evaluation”, discusses a study that had similar

results to the survey done by HILDA: “The results of [the study indicate] that emotions do

indeed play a significant role in opportunity evaluation as represented by risk perceptions

and risk preferences [in entrepreneurship]” (Foo par. 37). This study is similar to the HILDA

survey in that it mentions that mental health plays a role in job performance within the
 Scullin-Baccarella 7

entrepreneurial field. Because the studies have similar results, both help increase the validity of

Hessels et al.’s argument.

Organization can play a key role in the effectiveness of an article’s argument. Hessels et

al. decided to organize it beginning with an unlabeled abstract at the start of the article, followed

by an unlabeled introduction, then a series of headers and subheaders about specific topics,

illustrative analysis, directions for future research with subheadings, and concluding remarks.

Overall, the organization is very neat and mostly easy to understand. But since all of the other

sections are labeled, the abstract and introduction should be labeled as well. It is somewhat

unclear where the introduction begins and ends, which can make the argument less effective in

that the reader could be confused about what the main idea of the article is. The authors’ choice

to break the article into sections by topic was a smart decision, though, because it helps the

reader see the organization and progression that brings upon the argument Hessels et al. are

trying to make. The order of the sections are “Health and Entrepreneurship”, “Entrepreneurial

Exit”, “Depression and Entrepreneurial Exit”, and “The Role of Personality” which gives a

layout of how the argument is developed. The topics having headers makes it easy to see where

the discussion of each topic ends and begins, and within each header there are also subheaders,

which separates the topics into subtopics. This is effective in getting the argument across because

it breaks down each part of the argument into detail, and covers all supporting evidence and

information in an organized way, which makes it easier to understand. After the discussion of

each topic, the article then has an illustrative analysis that breaks down the research the authors

conducted through a survey. It explains their process as well as their results. Next, the article has

a section labeled “Directions for Future Research” which explains how further research needs to
 Scullin-Baccarella 8

be done on the relationship between entrepreneurial exit and depression. In this section, the

authors “propose five research directions to advance our knowledge of this topic.” (Hessels et al.

par. 29). Next is the section labeled “Concluding Remarks” which restates their argument and

purpose for writing the article. Overall, this organization makes the argument easy to follow.

Overall, Hessels et al. do an effective job of supporting their argument, by using purpose,

audience, diction, ethos, logos, data, and organization. By stating their purpose, it made the

argument clear and prepared the audience for what the article would be about. By making points

that appealed to the audience, Hessels et al. made their argument more convincing. Using clear

and simple diction also made the article more appealing to read. The use of ethos helped

strengthen the authors’ credibility in that it revealed their confidence and certainty in their

claims. Their use of logos also helped support their claims because they had facts to back them

up. Using data also strengthened the argument considering that data cannot be made up, it is facts

and numbers that gave clear evidence of the relationship between entrepreneurship and mental

health. The authors’ overall organization caused the article to be easier to read and understand,

which can assist in convincing the audience of the argument. In the end, Hessels et al. does a

successful job of getting their point across and convincing the audience of their purpose.
 Scullin-Baccarella 9

Works Cited

Foo, Maw-Der. “Emotions and Entrepreneurial Opportunity Evaluation.” Vol. 35. Baylor

University, 2009.

Gunia, Brian C. “The Sleep Trap: Do Sleep Problems Prompt Entrepreneurial Motives But

Undermine Entrepreneurial Means?” Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 32, no.

2, May 2018, pp. 228–242.

Hessels, Jolanda, et al. “Depression and Entrepreneurial Exit.” Academy of Management

Perspectives, vol. 32, no. 3, Aug. 2018, pp. 323–339.

Kelloway, E. Kevin. “Introduction to the special issue on Workplace Mental Health” Vol. 35.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 2018.

Wiklund, Johan, et al. “Mental Disorders in the Entrepreneurship Context: When Being

Different Can Be An Advantage.” Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 32,

no. 2, May 2018, pp. 182–206.