Networking strategies for entrepreneurs: balancing cohesion and diversity

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore how cohesive/diverse networks affect entrepreneurial activities. In particular, an interest is shown in how cohesion and diversity may affect entrepreneurial outcomes like survival, profitability, innovation and efficiency. Design/methodology/approach -The paper organizes the literature and presents conclusions about the effects of cohesion and diversity using three stages of entrepreneurial activity: opportunity development, technology and organizational creation, and exchange. Findings -At the opportunity stage, strong ties with entrepreneurs increase the likelihood of becoming one, but are associated with lower levels of innovation. Diverse ties increase self-efficacy and innovation. At the technology and organizational creation stage, most entrepreneurial teams are homogeneous whereas team diversity is associated with better organizational outcomes. Using strong ties to recruit potential employees provides price and commitment advantages, but may interfere with efficiency. At the exchange stage, entrepreneurs must strike a balance between weak (market based) and stronger (embedded) ties to gain preferential access to resources and customers, while maintaining diverse sources for information and market opportunities. Overall, cohesion through strong ties provides entrepreneurs with hard to find resources very early in the development of new ventures, but those resources are limited in scope and have a high cost. By contrast, diversity is more common and more important later in a venture's life cycle. Originality/value -Guidelines are suggested regarding the best networking strategies at the different stages and in different instrumental areas, offering an overall evaluation of the evidence in the cohesion v. diversity debate. Directions for future research on the effects of networks on entrepreneurial outcomes are also provided.

Bourdieu’s non-material forms of capital: Implications for start-up policy

“…Much prior research demonstrates the importance of the social capital that underlies successful entrepreneurship (Anderson and Jack, 2002;Anderson and Miller, 2003;Anderson et al, 2007;Cooke et al, 2005;Davidsson and Honig, 2003;Martinez and Aldrich, 2011;Stam et al, 2014;Westlund and Bolton, 2003). However, the relevance and nature of cultural and symbolic capitals in the entrepreneurial process have received little dedicated empirical research (Drakopoulou Dodd, 2014;Karatas-Ozkan, 2011;Lee, 2011;Light and Dana, 2013;Scott, 2012;Shaw et al, 2013;Vershinina et al, 2011).…”

“…Bourdieu (1986) considered social capital as the total of all actual and potential resources which can be acquired via a network of durable relationships. Definitions of social capital have been much contested with debates considering whether social capital can be possessed by an individual or a collective (Burt, 1992;Coleman, 1988;Coradini, 2010;Kwon and Adler, 2014;Lin, 1999;Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;Putnam, 2000;Woolcock and Narayan, 2000) and whether bonding or bridging networks are most relevant for entrepreneurship (Anderson and Jack, 2002;Cooke et al, 2005;Davidsson and Honig, 2003;Lee and Jones, 2008;Martinez and Aldrich, 2011;Mosey and Wright, 2007;Murphy et al, 2015;Stam et al, 2014). The final form of capital, symbolic or reputational, refers to others' recognition that the economic, cultural and social capitals possessed by an actor are legitimate and credible (Bourdieu, 1986(Bourdieu, , 1990a(Bourdieu, , 1990b(Bourdieu, , 1998.…”

A Framework for Career-Education Hybrid Recommender System using a Selective Path Delta-SimRank Algorithm

“…The random generated graphs were based on three random graph models: Eppstein's Power Law model [16], Erdos-Renyi model [17] and [18], and Barabasi -Albert model [19]. Those models are types of small world random graph [3] and [20]. A custom simulator 1 is developed using Java Ateji PX 2 and JUNG3 libraries.…”

Model polaryzacyjno-dyfuzyjny w przemianach polityki spójności – konsekwencje dla ukierunkowania polityki rozwoju

“…Rozwój nowej teorii wzrostu i nowej geografii ekonomicznej wynika ze zmiany w podejściu do czynników rozwoju (przyjęcia ich endogenicznego charakteru), w tym czynnika innowacji (warunkowanego w dużym stopniu jakością kapitału ludzkiego i społecznego oraz takimi procesami, jak uczenie się przez działanie i knowledge spillovers) (Hudson 1999, Tödtling, Trippl 2005, Doloreux, Shearmur 2011, Farole i in. 2011, Zoltan, Sanders 2011, szerokiego ujęcia kapitału (odchodzącego od determinującej pozycji kapitału materialnego) (Coleman 1988, Hilpert 2006, Martinez, Aldrich 2011 oraz pojawienia się w przestrzeni ekonomicznej nowych form organizacji działalności gospodarczej, takich jak np. grona (clusters) rozwoju, centra innowacji czy sieci gospodarcze (Porter 1990, Stiglitz 2004 Strzelecki 2011, Szlachta 2011, Strategia Rozwoju Kraju 2020, został nazwany w Polsce modelem polaryzacyjno-absorbcyjnym, co ma akcentować, obok wsparcia obszarów silnych ekonomicznie, dbałość rządu o obszary słabsze gospodarczo, których rozwój nie może się odbywać bez wsparcia pomocy zewnętrznej, w tym przyjmowania efektów rozwojowych z biegunów wzrostu, co wymaga kształtowania ich możliwości absorpcyjnych.…”