1
Why do entrepreneurs engage in networking; an empirical investigation of
incubated ventures
Author: Bart Sinnige Student number: 10965475
Supervisor: Dr. Y. Engel Word count: 13,051
University of Amsterdam Faculty of Economics and Business Master of Science thesis Business Administration
2
Statement of originality
This document is written by Bart Sinnige who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Table of contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Literature review 9
2.1 Entrepreneurial networking 9
2.2 Motivations for networking 10
2.3 Networking along the venture life cycle 13
2.4 Network change 15 3. Methodology 16 3.1 Research design 16 3.2 Sampling method 18 3.3 Data collection 20 3.4 Data analysis 21 4. Results 23 5. Discussion 38 6. Conclusion 44 References 45 Appendices 50
4 Abstract
Existing literature relay on a set of largely untested assumptions about the motivations that drive entrepreneurial networking. As such, entrepreneurial networking – the ways in which entrepreneurs form new ties and maintain existing ones– is portrayed as an instrumental activity designed to attract venture resources or confer other benefits that satisfy primarily self-interested entrepreneurs’ (Batson, 1990; Hindle & Klyver, 2011; Ruskin, Seymour, & Webster, 2016). This exploratory case study research relaxes these assumptions and thus aims to offer for a deeper, and empirically grounded, understanding of the motivations that drive entrepreneurial networking, as well how they might change over time following the venture life cycle. We draw conclusions on the investigation of ten incubated entrepreneurs that have been interviewed and surveyed. The findings suggest three broad streams of motivations that drive entrepreneurial networking: social motivations, commercial motivations, and a mix of social and commercial motivations. Additionally, this study provides initial evidence that these complex drivers of entrepreneurial networking also change in accordance with the venture life cycle.
5
1. Introduction
Both conventional wisdom and research suggest that networking is key for entrepreneurial performance (Birley, 1985; Johannisson, 1988; Brüderl & Preisendörfer, 1998; Jack & Anderson, 2002; Butler & Hansen, 1991). Networks refer to the interpersonal relationships among individuals (Reingen, Foster, Brown & Seidman, 1984; Jack, Moult, Anderson, & Dodd, 2010). However, there are two types of networks: professional networks and social networks. While these types of networks may overlap with each other, social networks refer to relationships between individuals in private settings and professional networks refers to relationships between individuals in a professional setting (Porter & Woo, 2015). Networking in literature often links to maintaining existing ties and forming new ties in a professional in a professional setting (Galkina, 2013; Porter & Woo, 2015). Yet, networking in professional settings is only a piece of all networking activity, ignoring social settings. Therefore in this research networking refers to the set of activities taken to maintain existing network ties and form new ones, whether among professional networks or in social networks.
While research has revealed that entrepreneurs differ in their use and style of
networking (e.g., Vissa, 2012), little is known about the motivations that drive the networking behavior of entrepreneurs (Porter & Woo, 2015). In network literature motivation is rarely addressed. When discussing network literature scholars do refer to networking motivation, yet they do not measure it (Casciaro, Barsade, Edmondson, Gibson, Krackhardt, & Labianca; 2015). Casciaro et al. (2015) emphasize the necessity for a better understanding of
motivations for practicing networking and state in their research:
‘’Much remains to uncover about the role of motivation in networks, and how networks characteristics may, in turn, affect motivation.’’
Researchers do assume that entrepreneurs hold different motivations to practice networking in a professional setting, such as networking for career management or networking for job
6 search (Porter & Woo, 2015). However, these assumptions have yet to be tested directly. They are byproducts of other tested variables and need further testing themselves in order to fully understand the psychological motivations of entrepreneurs to practice networking.
Additionally, the discussed motivations solely focus on networking in a professional setting and ignore networking in social settings.
Motivations to practice networking link to motivations in general. Motivation is being referred to as an energizing stream that leads to individuals undertaking action (Casciaro et al., 2015; Grant, 2008). This action component in motivation implies change over time and this change over time suggests that activities also change over time. Vissa and Bhagavatula (2012) put emphasis on this. They argue that entrepreneurial networks change over time due to practicing networking. Hite and Hesterly (2001) argue in their synthesis of entrepreneurial networking literature that especially in the start-up stage and emerging growth stage of ventures entrepreneurial networks are changing due to a changing need for resources. Experiencing changing networks due to different stages in venture development imply that also motivations for networking, maintaining existing ties and forming new ties, change over time. Casciaro et al. (2015), and their acknowledgement of the necessity for testing
networking motivations, encouraged us to pose the following research question: Why do entrepreneurs engage in networking and how do their networking motivations vary across the venture’s life cycle?
In this research we have conducted a multiple case study in the controlled environment of an incubator program, in which each entrepreneur has the same access to resources and information. The cases consist of ten entrepreneurs and their ventures. Each of the ten
entrepreneurs was interviewed and was asked to fill out a survey regarding his or her venture. Prior to the analysis of the data we divided the ten entrepreneurs in two groups that each represented the start-up stage or the emerging growth stage, referring to the venture life cycle
7 (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Our results uncover a variety of distinctive motivations that drive the practice of networking, some of which are already mentioned in literature and some that are new. Additionally, this research suggests that motivations to practice networking do change over time following the venture life cycle. Our results show that certain motivations for networking appear during the start-up stage of a venture, while other motivations for networking seem to be typically representative for either the start-up stage or the emerging growth stage. Other motivations appeared to be general motivations for practicing networking and were found in both life cycle stages.
This research makes two contributions. First, we provide insight in the rarely addressed area of networking motivations (Casciaro et al., 2015). Literature already made assumptions about motivations for networking (Porter & Woo, 2015), yet it was limited to professional settings. Our research provides empirical evidence for motivations that lead to practicing networking and includes the entire spectrum of settings, including social settings. Second, we provide evidence for the change of motivations for networking over time, following the venture life cycle. Scholars such as Hite and Hesterly (2001) and Sullivan and Ford (2013) already argued that networks of entrepreneurs change following the evolvement of their ventures. However, their research is focused on the development of networks, while this research focuses on networking, actively maintaining existing ties or adding new ties to an individual’s network, and how the motivations for this networking behavior change over time following the development of a venture.
This study is structured in the following way. At first the literature review will give a better understanding of our topic by discussing existing literature in entrepreneurial
networking, motivations for networking, networking along the venture life cycle, and network change. Second, the methodology for this study will be discussed, including the research design, sampling method, data collection, and data analysis. In the third section the results
8 will be extensively discussed. In here the different parts of the research question will be
answered. The discussion will follow as fourth, which will combine the results of this study with existing literature, including limitations and future research, and will ultimately result in the fifth conclusion section.
9
2. Literature review
In this section constructs critical for this study will be defined and explained. The following topics will be discussed: entrepreneurial networking, motivations for networking, networking along the venture life cycle, and network change.
2.1 Entrepreneurial networking
As discussed before networking is a construct that closely relates to network. A network is the set of interpersonal relations between individuals (Reingen et al., 1984), while networking in literature is often referred to as building and maintaining professional relationships (Porter & Woo, 2015; Vissa, 2012). Networking has become a more important phenomena in literature when it comes to the determination of success and leadership. Whereas intelligence and training used to be important determinants for success and leadership, now the networks of individuals and the embeddedness of these networks have become important indicators for effective leadership (Casciaro et al., 2015).
Porter and Woo (2015) made a synthesis of literature related to networking in professional settings and based on that suggested that networking is based upon four motivational aspects: (i) networking for work performance, (ii) networking for career
management, (iii) networking for job search, and (iv) networking as behavior. Networking for work performance relates to individuals practicing networking in order to get access to
resources or information that allows them to perform better at their job. Networking for career management relates to practicing networking in order to gain access to resources (e.g.
information or influence) that facilitate future career movement. Networking for job search relates to development and usage of network contacts to be provided with information regarding new employment opportunities. Networking as behavior relates to practicing networking as an instrumental activity conducted in a professional environment. Social
10 environments have not been taken into consideration in entrepreneurial networking literature. The suggested four motivations are concluded from drawing conclusions upon existing literature. Thorough research into these motivations has not been conducted. Porter and Woo (2015) suggest further research into the motivations of individuals to practice networking in order to understand whether there are more motivations that lead to practicing networking. Additionally, the research of Porter and Woo (2015) does not specifically focus on the entrepreneur as the unit of analysis.
Before shifting from networking towards entrepreneurial networking entrepreneurship as a concept requires discussion. Entrepreneurship relates to entrepreneur, a difficult construct to define. Gartner (1990) concludes that it is impossible to determine one clear definition for entrepreneurship or entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs are being referred to in a variety of ways, for example through shareholder, director, or owner of a business (Hébert & Link, 1989; Gilmore, Carson, & O’Donnell, 2004).
For the purpose of this research the definitions of both networking and entrepreneur will be customized. For entrepreneurship the following definition will be used in this research: an individual who started and is currently running a new venture. As discussed before is
networking often being limited to professional environments (Porter & Woo, 2015; Vissa, 2001). However, for this research we will also include social environments in the networking concept. Entrepreneurial networking will therefore be defined as networking, maintaining existing ties and forming new ones, activities taken by individuals who started and are currently running a new venture.
2.2 Motivations for networking
Networking behavior varies between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, yet little is known about the drivers or motivations behind this networking behavior (Porter & Woo, 2015). Grant
11 (2008) describes motivation as the reasons for which individuals undertake actions. Grant‘s synthesis of motivation literature distinguishes three types of motivations: intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, and prosocial motivation. Intrinsic motivation relates to personal interest and gaining satisfaction from the work itself. Extrinsic motivation is driven by external outcome, such as rewards or recognition, to complete tasks. Prosocial motivation is related to gaining satisfaction from helping others, which is closely related to empathy and helpfulness. Ruskin et al. (2016) state that motivation is formed by, among others, emotions, intentions, and past experience.
Hindle and Klyver (2011) discuss networking behavior and argue that networking behavior is driven by some sort of goal. They state that networking is about gaining access to resources of others by investing resources of yourself and with that is goal-directed. Bensaou, Galunic, and Jonczyk-Sédès (2013) and Porter and Woo (2015) discuss networking strategies and motivations that drive those strategies. Bensaou et al. (2013) argue that so called devoted players enjoy practicing networking. However, there are no motivational aspects uncovered in literature that show a relationship between networking and non-goal driven motivational aspects. Jack et al. (2010) argue that networking might also be driven by social factors, such as social learning and sharing experiences. Hindle and Klyver (2011) do suggest to also incorporate social elements in the research in networking behavior. This social side is often ignored in literature discussing motivations for networking. In another field, the domain of sociology, scholars are already trying to combine the economic and social streams.
Traditionally sociology relates to pure social intentions without any self-interest. The opposing view of economics relates to pure rational and self-interested intentions (Fehr & Gintis, 2007). Fehr and Gintis (2007) in their research argue that there is more than pure commercial views and pure social views and state that the two can co-exist. This may as well apply for motivations to practice networking. Ruskin et al. (2016) argue that a distinction can
12 be made in motivational literature between self-oriented motivation and other-oriented
motivation, which links to the suggestion of Hindle and Klyver (2011). Self-oriented motivation suggests that people act in their own interest (Batson, 1990; Ruskin et al., 2011) and with that relates to the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation categories of Grant (2008). These self-oriented motivations relate back to the earliest research done by Maslow (1943) in human motivation. Other-oriented motivation describes that people act primarily to benefit other people and in which personal rewards are secondary (Van de Ven, Sapienza, & Villanueva, 2007). Other-oriented motivation literature is relatively new and not extensively researched. Other-oriented motivation links to prosocial motivation as described by Grant (2008). Prosocial motivation can be distinguished in egoistic prosocial motivation and collectivist prosocial motivation (Ruskin et al., 2011). Egoistic prosocial motivation links to a willingness to help others and with that gain personal satisfaction. Collectivist prosocial motivation link to a more genuine focus on the needs of others (Van de Ven et al., 2007). Ruskin et al. (2011) argue that over time entrepreneurs encounter a variety of self-oriented motivations and other-oriented motivations.
Although human motivation has been researched extensively, motivations for networking seem to be ignored by scholars. This may be a result of the expected
straightforwardness of the motivations for networking. Research done by scholars such as Vissa (2012) and Ebbers (2013) suggest that there may be underlying motivations for
entrepreneurs to engage in networking and although they ignore motivations themselves they do suggest research into the field of motivations for networking. This is further emphasized by Casciaro et al. (2015). In their research they conclude that studies in the field of
networking do refer to networking motivations, but these motivations have never been tested. Hindle and Klyver (2011) argue that all existing literature on motivations for interpersonal contact rely on gaining access to the other party’s resources and therefore require a form of
13 reward: gaining access to resources of others, such as relationships or capital, by investing your own resources, such as time and energy. Human motivation literature hints that networking motivations may also be touched upon by other, more social, oriented motivations.
2.3 Networking along the venture life cycle
Ruskin et al. (2011) argue that over time entrepreneurs experience a mix of self-oriented motivations and other-oriented motivations. This idea also relates to the development of the entrepreneur and the development of the entrepreneurial venture. Venture development has been extensively discussed in existing literature.
Venture life cycle
Venture development relates to the typical development of a venture over time. This typical development is referred to as the venture life cycle. Over time various models have been introduced regarding the venture life cycle. The different models varied in among others the number of stages (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Miller and Friesen (1984) introduced a venture life cycle of five stages. They discussed the birth of a venture, the growth of the venture, the maturation stage of the venture, the revival of the venture, and the decline of the venture. Most other models discuss several of the stages mentioned by Miller and Friesen (1984). Smith, Mitchell, and Summer (1984) distinguished three stages, including inception, high-growth, and maturity. Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) discuss four stages and separate start-up stage, emerging growth stage, mature stage, and decline stage.
Although the names of the stages differ somewhat across literature, all life cycles demonstrate similar characteristics. The start-up stage of Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) covers the phase in which the development and implementation of a business plan occurs.
14 Crucial in this stage are receiving funds, cash flow, and customer acceptance. In this stage entrepreneurs actively reach out to investors and customers and proceed in a risk-seeking-strategy. Entrepreneurs in the start-up stage focus mainly on satisfying their primary stakeholders, which typically include investors and customers (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Smith et al. (1984) in their inception stage describe that ventures typically have no formal structure, proceed in subjective approaches, often lack in their planning, demonstrate low adherence, and are small and young. Miller and Friesen (1984) add to this, in their called birth phase, that ventures are dominated by owner-managers and that they proceed in niche strategies. Following the start-up stage comes the emerging growth stage. In this stage ventures have coped with the basic need for survival and are in search for expansion, employees, new investment, and more customers. This stage is characterized by having problems with the reliability of the offered products or services, maintaining cash flow, and the organizational structure of the venture (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Smith et al. (1984) add that ventures in their called high-growth stage proceed in becoming more formal,
demonstrate high adherence, become more professional and analytical, and are larger and older. Miller and Friesen (1984) add that ventures in their growth phase broaden their market scope and search for opportunities in related areas. The third stage in the organizational life cycle is the mature stage. Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) describe the mature stage as a flat period in which a venture typically has overconfidence for success and is in search for new directions. Growth rates decline in this stage and stakeholders are often accommodated in a proactive way. Ventures in this maturity stage have formal structures, are very objective, and have formal communication protocols (Smith et al., 1984). Miller and Friesen (1984) add that ventures become bureaucratic and seek for efficiency in the maturity stage. After the maturity stage follows the last stage of the venture life cycle. This stage is the decline or transition stage. In the decline stage the demand for a ventures products or services drops and managers
15 are forced to make decisions about the strategy and operations. Customers and investors will be given proactive attention in order to gain both insights for new products or services and additional funding that can drive stock prices. Ventures in the decline stage demonstrate similar characteristics as ventures in the start-up phase. They are forced to solely pay attention to economic performance and economic stakeholders (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001).
Ventures in this stage are very homogeneous to their competitors and bureaucratic. The innovation level of companies in the decline stage is low and ventures act conservative with a risk averse attitude (Miller & Friesen, 1984). In this study the venture life cycle refers to the four stages as identified by Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001).
2.4 Network change
The notion that networks change over time has been extensively discussed in literature (Hite & Hesterly, 2001; Jack, Dodd, & Anderson, 2008; Jack et al., 2010). Jack et al. (2010) state that ventures require changing contacts and changing resources over time. Additionally, depending on this need at a certain moment in time networks can be activated. Hite and Hesterly (2001) argue that interpersonal networks evolve over time. Entrepreneurs in their foundation stage have more path-dependent networks, related to exploitation of existing contacts in order to survive, towards a more calculative network in the early growth stage, related to exploratory networks to search for new resources and opportunities. Vanacker, Manigart, and Meuleman (2013) emphasize this by arguing that entrepreneurs in the start-up stage have a limited access to investors, due to which their choices are limited and with that have more path-dependent networks. Hite and Hesterly (2001) and Sullivan and Ford (2013) state that networks of entrepreneurs change with the evolvement of the ventures of these entrepreneurs. Particularly in the start-up stage and emerging growth phase entrepreneurs seek to develop their networks in order to cope with the changing need for resources.
16
3. Methodology
We set out to investigate what the motivations are that drive the practice of networking and how these motivations change over time following the venture life cycle. This section explains the used methodology in order to answer the set research question.
3.1 Research design
Eisenhardt (1989) argues that the case study methodology is the ideal methodology for research in new areas or in insufficiently researched areas. Additionally, case study research can be complementary to theory building of existing phenomena (Eisenhardt, 1989). Since literature does not hold evidence for the motivation of entrepreneurs to practice networking a case study research will be conducted. This qualitative approach is justified by the identified gap in literature and allows to explore the topic more thoroughly (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Neergard, Shaw, and Carter (2005) emphasize that in studying processes, such as the development of motivations over time, qualitative research is best suited. There is extensive literature into motivation, such as Grant (2008) and Ruskin et al. (2016) and also into networking behavior (e.g. Porter & Woo, 2015; Vissa, 2012). We build upon this existing literature by conducting exploratory case study research (Thomas, 2011).
By researching multiple cases it will be possible to compare the individual cases and draw conclusions from the comparison. The research aims at identifying motivations that lead to entrepreneurial networking and how these motivations differ over time, therefore the unit of analysis will be the entrepreneur with a focus on entrepreneurs in different stages of the venture life cycle (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001).
In order to being able to research the entrepreneur as the unit of analysis it is necessary to further define the type of entrepreneur for this study. Elfring and Hulsink (2007) for their research separated start-up ventures into three categories: independent startups, spin-offs and
17 incubatees. Incubatees link to incubator, which refers to a categorization of an environment in which the growth of businesses (incubatees) is encouraged and facilitated (Chan & Lau, 2005). Within incubator programs all attached businesses have the same support and access from the program (Bøllingtoft & Ulhøi, 2005). Eisenhardt (1989) argues to choose a
homogenous research field in order to minimize external variation. Since incubator programs provide in similar access to resources for all attached businesses and with that secure a limited variety in contextual differences the incubator is chosen to be researched. Incubator programs typically house ventures in a variety of ages. This variety in age will allow the study of entrepreneurs in different stages of the venture life cycle (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). Therefore it can also be tested whether motivations for networking differ over time, following Hite and Hesterly’s (2001) argument.
For the research we approached the Erasmus Centre of Entrepreneurship (ECE) incubator program. Approaching such a program will grant access to a variety of
entrepreneurs and with that shed light on the motivations to practice networking. An interview was conducted with one of the staff members of ECE to gather more insight in the incubator program. ECE houses approximately 45 innovative companies that vary in their size and age (approx. 1 month – 5 years) and are active in a variety of fields, including health care and financial technology start-ups. The incubator program was founded in 2013 as an initiative of the Rotterdam School of Management and the Erasmus School of Economics, both part of the Erasmus University. ECE is driven by the pillars network, community, and education. The focus of the program is on scalable business opportunities and with that does not actively approach consultancy or freelance ventures or individuals. For case studies Eisenhardt (1989) suggests that saturation will typically be reached if a study focuses on 4 to 10 cases. For this research the aim is to include cases in a variety of ages, relating to the venture life cycle.
18 3.2 Sampling method
The main goal of the research is to build theory, rather than testing theory. Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) discuss that case study research allows selection of cases that are particularly suitable and not necessarily representative for the population. Yin (2011) discusses this
selection of suitable cases based upon their expected relevance as purposive sampling. A different technique in finding suitable cases for the case study research is snowball sampling. Yin (2011) refers to snowball sampling as the selection of a new case through a referral of a previous researched case. In this research cases are selected both through purposive sampling and snowball sampling. For the research a variety of cases was required along the venture life cycle. Linking literature (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001) and the interview with the ECE staff member suggested that within ECE only cases of ventures in the start-up stage and the
emerging growth stage could be found. Most case were selected in a purposive manner. Yet, some cases were referred to during or after the conducted interviews by already selected cases and resulted in snowball sampling. For a detailed description of the entire sample please see table 1. During the selection of the cases all ventures were weighted and classified as a venture in either the start-up stage or the emerging growth stage. For the determination of a particular stage for a venture we used the characteristics of these stages as discussed in literature (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Smith et al., 1984; Miller & Friesen, 1984). Appendix 1 shows the process of determination of the stage for each individual case. Each venture in appendix 1, as referred to as mentioned in table 1, has demonstrated certain characteristics that align with typical venture life cycle characteristics (Jawahar &
McLaughlin, 2001; Smith et al., 1984; Miller & Friesen, 1984) and are therefore determined to be part of either the start-up stage or the emerging growth stage.
19 Table 1. Sample description
Name Gender
Year of
birth Country of birth
Highest education Ever founded company? If yes, how
many? Industry Age company Life cycle stage
Size company (personnel) Number of owners Owner majority shares Alpha Male 1989 The Netherlands University Yes 2 Management consulting 12-24 months Emerging growth 3-5 2 Yes Beta Male 1980 The Netherlands College Yes 2 Events 12-24 months Start-up 1-2 1 Yes Gamma Male 1989 The Netherlands College Yes 4 Furniture solutions 12-24 months Start-up 3-5 3 Yes Delta Male 1971 The Netherlands College Yes 2 IT consultancy 3-4 years Emerging growth 3-5 2 Yes Epsilon Male 1989 The Netherlands College Yes 1 Finance 6-12 months Start-up 1-2 2 Yes Zeta Male 1989 The Netherlands College Yes 1 Translations 12-24 months Emerging growth 1-2 1 Yes Eta Male 1985 Italy University Yes 1 Financial technology 2-3 years Emerging growth 6-10 3 Yes Theta Female 1992 The Netherlands College Yes 1 Events 0-6 months Start-up 3-5 2 No Kappa Male 1973 The Netherlands University Yes 2 Space consultancy 2-3 years Start-up 1-2 1 Yes Lambda Male 1988 The Netherlands University No 0 Self-defense 12-24 months Emerging growth 3-5 1 Yes
20 One might argue that some ventures are better suited for a different stage, for example Beta and Gamma for the emerging growth stage. However, based upon on all characteristics demonstrated during the interviews the given determinations are deemed suitable. For example in the case of Beta and Gamma the emerging growth stage has been considered, yet the fact that they are thinking of becoming more structured and are not yet well structured at the moment justifies the start-up stage classification.
3.3 Data collection
The main data collection method was conducting semi structured interviews. By interviewing insights into the motivations that drive entrepreneurial networking could be gathered and interviewing techniques gave the freedom to search outside of assumed motivations for networking (Porter & Woo, 2015). All conducted interviews lasted between approximately 40 minutes and 90 minutes. Additionally, triangulation (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010; Yin, 2003) was applied in the research. Triangulation typically increases the validity of research results and refers to the use of different research techniques to research several perspectives of a phenomena (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010). In this research triangulation was applied by verifying the comments made by the entrepreneur during the interview with their answers given in a survey regarding the same topic. Each interviewee was asked to fill out a short survey regarding typical entrepreneur characteristics. For an example of the interviewee survey see appendix 2. Additionally, the incubator program staff was asked to fill in a short survey about the interviewed ventures.
Combining semi structured interviewing and additional surveying is an often used methodology by scholars conducting qualitative research (Baker, Miner, & Eesley, 2003; Elfring & Hulsink, 2007). The initial goal of the research was to reach out to 6-8 ventures, divided in
21 ventures in the start-up stage (sample of 3-4 ventures) and ventures in the emerging growth stage (sample of 3-4 ventures). During the data collection a total of ten cases was included in the research, divided with initial classification of five ventures in the start-up stage and five ventures in the emerging growth stage.
While interviewing the interviewees were asked to sign a letter of consent to ensure their voluntary participation. This letter of consent also emphasized that all provided information is treated confidential and that no identifying information will be revealed during or after the research process. Additionally, this letter of consent also made sure that permission to record the interview was received. See appendix 3 for a copy of the letter of consent.
From a practical perspective it turned out that it was not able to conduct all interviews in English, since The Netherlands is a non-English speaking country. Therefore translation from Dutch to English sometimes was necessary to compare the different interviews.
During the study most gathered data concerned primary data. However, secondary data was also collected to gain more knowledge. Most secondary data was gathered previous to
conducting interviews, with the goal to be well prepared and knowledgeable about the
interviewee and the venture that he or she represented. Data sources for this secondary data were mostly company websites and social media, such as LinkedIn.
3.4 Data analysis
As a result of the data collection there were three streams of data: the interviews, surveys of interviewees, and surveys of the incubator staff. The interviews were transcribed using Microsoft Office and yielded a total of 173 pages for all interviews. Both surveys were documented in Microsoft Excel in order to have all surveys in one file with a clear overview of all the data.
22 After documenting all data the analyzing part started. The primary focus was on the important parts for answering the research question and thus was on motivations for networking and whether these motivations for networking change over time following the venture life cycle. The analysis regarding the motivations for networking was aimed at motivational triggers to practice networking and gathering evidence to accept or reject the assumptions made about motivations for networking made in literature (e.g. Porter & Woo, 2015). For the change in these motivations over time the venture life cycle was used (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001). The venture life cycle (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001) consists of four stages and in each stage the venture and entrepreneur focus on particular topics, such as seeking investment or formalizing the venture. During the interview interviewees were asked about what people have been involved in the venture and what types of people would desirably be involved in the network of the
entrepreneur in the future. Through these types of people linkages were being sought in the development of networking behavior over time.
23
4. Results
In this section the results of the data analysis will be discussed. Each case was set up with the same research tools and was therefore available for comparison. The data analysis revealed the following results.
Definition of networking
Literature makes a clear distinction between networks and networking. Networks refer to the interpersonal relationships among individuals (Reingen et al., 1984; Jack et al., 2010; Galkina, 2013). Networking often referred to as building and maintaining professional relationships and refers to a dynamic process (Galkina, 2013; Porter & Woo, 2015).
During the interviews each interviewee was asked to define networking in their own terms. Responses to this question differed in a wide variety and demonstrated two broad streams. One stream was closely related to the definition in literature. Several people emphasized that for them networking is about building a relationship with a new actor. However, for them,
contradicting literature, networking is not about maintaining existing relationships: ‘’for me networking is about getting in contact with new people. Maintaining relationships is more related to working together. Networking is really the beginning stage of getting to know someone and about expanding your network’’ (Gamma). Another interviewee added to that that
networking is about learning and identifying opportunities. The second stream of responses was related to learning and gathering information. Someone described it as ‘’an activity to socialize with people that are in the same business and to get information from what is going on in that business’’ (Kappa). Another interviewee added: ‘’It’s about interacting with people and possibly
24 having business results and at the same time you’re open and receptive, letting it happen and letting other people inspire you’’ (Zeta).
One interviewee argued that networks exist of everybody that knows you and you know. Additionally, this interviewee argued that some relationships may be positive, while others are negative. However, each relationship is part of the network and a result of practicing networking.
The responses on the question to define networking demonstrate the difficulty of the networking phenomena. Although in literature a consensus seemed to be reached regarding what to include when discussing networking, entrepreneurs actively practicing the phenomena seem to find it hard to determine a comprehensive definition. This means that the results of this study may not cover networking to the same extent as do other literature in the networking field and with that limit the comparability of this study with other studies.
Networking approach
The networking phenomena is a dynamic process in which individuals maintain their existing ties and form new ones (Galkina, 2013; Porter & Woo, 2015). Therefore networking partially implies getting in contact with new actors in order to make them part of the existing network. Vissa (2012) in his research identified two ways for approaching new actors for professional networks: seeking out strangers and being systematic and disciplined in meeting new people.
In order to understand the behavior of entrepreneurs while approaching new actors for their network the question ‘’how do you approach new people for your network?’’ was part of the interview. Through probing interviewees were pushed into the direction of seeking out strangers, referred to as a “shotgun approach”, or being systematic and disciplined in meeting new people, referred to as the “systematic approach”. Ultimately it appeared that entrepreneurs
25 also engage in a mix of shotgun and systematic approaches, depending on the occasion. Table 2 displays how often a certain approach has been identified in both ventures representing the start-up stage and ventures representing the emerging growth stage. Additionally the table provides example quotes of each given response.
Table 2 reveals three main patterns regarding the linkage between venture life cycle stages and networking approaches. One is that solely using the shotgun approach as a way of approaching new people was only used by entrepreneurs in the start-up stage. This finding follows the argument of Hite and Hesterly (2001) which suggests that entrepreneurial networks evolve from path-dependent networks towards calculative networks. The notion that
entrepreneurs actively seek strangers for expansion of their network can be interpreted as a quest to reach a more calculative network. Second is that a pure systematic approach as a networking approach was only identified at entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage. This as well follows Hite and Hesterly’s (2001) argument that entrepreneurs whom have more experience, which relates to the emerging growth stage, are more calculative and selective in their networking behavior. Third is that the results of this study revealed a new mixed approach. Literature (Vissa, 2012) suggests that there are two ways of networking approaches, seeking out strangers and a systematic approach. Entrepreneurs in this study demonstrated that they use a mix of approaches, depending on the occasion. This mixed approach was identified for both entrepreneurs in the start-up stage as entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage. Having identified such a mixed approach could indicate that entrepreneurs can be selective in their networking behavior. Additionally, the quote of the emerging growth stage for the mixed approach already hints that networking motivation may also change over time, relating to the research question of the study.
26
Table 2. Networking approach
Approach style Start-up stage Emerging growth stage
Frequency Example quote Frequency Example quote
Shotgun approach 4 ‘’I go to basically expose myself, look I’m here, I work in this industry, I do a number of, I work with a number of people. So I could say that is a shotgun approach, of exposing yourself to the network.’’ (Kappa)
0 Not applicable
Systematic approach
0 Not applicable 2 ‘’We prepared ourselves well. We knew who we wanted to talk to. We did extensive research in advance and tried to identify if it would be likely that those people would have a need for our solution. So we created a list of targets.’’ (Delta) Mixed approach 1 ‘’I typically ask for a guest
list of the event, so I know in advance which persons and companies will be attending. At those events I then target those people systematically.… Even if I then have no idea about which companies to approach, it is still worthwhile going there’’ (Gamma)
3 ‘’We started off quite randomly. Over time we have learned that you need to approach them more prepared.’’ (Alpha)
Motivations for networking
Literature into networking behavior has had only limited attention for motivations that drive networking behavior. Scholars such as Porter and Woo (2015) and Engel, Kaandorp, and Elfring
27 (2016) made syntheses of existing literature in order to gain better understanding of motivations for networking. However, the found motivations rely on assumptions made by scholars and have not yet been tested directly (Porter & Woo, 2015; Engel et al., 2016).
During the interviews interviewees were asked in a variety of ways why they practice networking. Due to the amount of quotes and classification issues the quotes are displayed following the Gioia method (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013). This method is constructed to ensure higher rigor in qualitative research and the presentation of it (Gioia et al., 2013). First open coding was applied to identify different motivations across all transcripts. After the open coding the primary codes were classified in more general and abstract codes using axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). These general and abstract codes were given to the quotes in order to capture the meaning of the entire sentence in a few words. The third and last step resulted in overarching dimensions to capture all motivations. The choice for the clusters was driven by the research of Porter and Woo (2015), since the collected data revealed similar motivations. Table 3 shows the process of the Gioia method.
Responses to the motivational aspects for networking were first captured by a variety of motivations, including a fun motivation, a willingness to learn, to gain knowledge, to make money, to receive feedback, and mixes between the before mentioned. There is a distinction made between learning, gaining knowledge, and receiving feedback. During the interviews the interviewees that demonstrated a motivation for learning, gaining knowledge, and receiving feedback made clear to pursue different goals with their actions. Focusing on gaining knowledge or learning is seen as a social activity versus receiving feedback for a product to directly
28 distinguished in the intended goal. Gaining knowledge is driven by gaining access in the
broadest sense. Learning is driven by a willingness to pick up ideas.
Table 3. Motivations for networking from sample
Respondents reported motivation (illustrative evidence)
First order categories (motivation)
Overarching dimension ‘’The idea of being part of a group. Also fun and
getting other insights are valuable in working with other people.’’ (Gamma)
Fun
‘’Well the prime reason for networking for me is to get the insights in what is going on in the space from the people themselves’’ (Kappa)
Gain knowledge
Social networking motivation
‘’To mirror your ideas with other people who maybe are more knowledgeable than you are or are maybe more experienced.’’ (Lambda)
Learning
‘’An old wise man told me once that everything is related to sex and money. So networking is not related to sex, but to money. In the end it will always lead to money or more business.’’ (Alpha)
Money
Commercial networking motivation
‘’To gain new insights regarding our product.
Everybody has a different opinion and I think they are willing to share that with you, but you need to reach out to them to get it. That is why I network.’’ (Gamma)
Feedback
‘’Fun is important. But in the end, when it is more business related, when you are more eager, you go for that.’’ (Delta)
Fun and business
‘’People who are committed to the same purpose I think can be very inspiring. That is something I miss. And then the second thing is efficiency. So if I will hire other translators, I do that to boost my revenue.’’ (Zeta)
Inspiring and business Social and commercial networking motivations
29 As discussed before existing literature of Porter and Woo (2015) was used to cluster these
motivations into overarching dimensions. Ultimately this resulted in three overarching
dimensions: Social networking motivations, commercial networking motivations, and a mix of social and commercial networking motivations. The last category was used since during the interviews a variety of pursued goals became apparent. Few entrepreneurs were solely motivated by having fun and doing good, others were purely motivated by making money and growing the business, and there were also entrepreneurs whom were actively motivated by a mix of these motivations.
The conducted surveys with the interviewees were to a certain extent supportive for the results of the interviews. Entrepreneurs that demonstrated a motivation for networking driven by social factors in the interviews also agreed to the statement ‘’I network because it is fun’’ in the survey, while entrepreneurs who did not mention social motivations during the interviews did also not indicate that they network because it is fun.
Regarding the statement ‘’I network because it is useful for me professionally’’
entrepreneurs that gave pure business motivations during the interviews all indicated a high level of agreeability, which can be seen as support for their statements during their interviews.
Although the found motivations show similarities with the motivations researched by Porter and Woo (2015), this research provides empirical evidence for the found motivation with collected data, as where Porter and Woo’s (2015) findings were based upon assumptions from other research.
More insight into the different quotes and different types of motivations is given in the tables in the next part of this section.
30 Change in motivation for networking
Hite and Hesterly (2001) in their research argue that networks evolve over time. They state that entrepreneurs in the start-up stage have more path-dependent networks towards a more
calculative network in the emerging growth stage. These start-up stage and emerging growth stage refer to the venture life cycle (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001).
During the interview interviewees were asked about actors that had been influential in their entrepreneurial success, which actors are currently in their network, and what type of actors they would desirably add to his or her network. Interviewees were also asked whether the reason for contacting people changed over time. In order to research whether networking motivations change across the venture life cycle the motivations as identified in table 3 will each individually be discussed to see how these motivations vary across the start-up stage and the emerging growth stage.
Fun motivation
Literature defines fun as an activity of individuals done for the intrinsic pleasure of the activity (Miller, 1973). Entrepreneurs in this study revealed motivations for networking that are related to this intrinsic pleasure. Table 4 displays quotations, linked to particular entrepreneurs, which relate to fun as a motivation for networking.
Evaluating the fun motivation it can be concluded that fun is particularly a motivation for networking for entrepreneurs in the start-up stage. Theta, Gamma, and Beta demonstrated fun motivations during the interviews. Although emerging growth entrepreneur Delta also showed a fun motivation for networking, we consider this as a special case.
31 The entrepreneur of Delta has rich working experience and is more seasoned, because of this he demonstrated that he is particularly looking for fun in his work. We argue this is because of his previous experience and does not necessarily relate to the typical life cycle stages.
Gain knowledge motivation
Motivation of gaining knowledge for practicing networking is regarded as a social activity that focuses on getting a broader understanding of a phenomena. In this research only entrepreneurs in the start-up stage demonstrated this type of motivation. Table 5 gives more insight into the given responses for the gaining knowledge motivation.
Table 4. Fun motivation appearance across stages
Evidence from start-up stage
Theta ‘’Networking events are fun and I can butterfly around.’’
Gamma ‘’The idea of being part of a group. Also fun and getting other insights are valuable in working with other people.’’
Beta ‘’It is fun to talk to people, to help them, to coach them, but that is just because I like it.’’
Evidence from emerging growth stage
Delta ‘’We deliberately focus on small and medium sized companies. Without the corporate companies it is more fun we think.’’
Table 5. Gaining knowledge motivation appearance across stages
Evidence from start-up stage
Kappa ‘’Well the prime reason for networking for me is to get the insights in what is going on in the space from the people themselves.’’
Gamma ‘’You have to respect the knowledge that you receive.’’ Evidence from emerging growth stage
32 Entrepreneurs Kappa and Gamma demonstrated the quest for knowledge motivation. This relates to the fact that entrepreneurs in the start-up stage show low adherence with their original
business concept (Smith et al., 1984) and that they seek to gather more knowledge in this stage. Entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage did not show a motivation for gaining knowledge to practice networking. This hints that the gaining knowledge motivation is only apparent in the start-up stage and that over time it changes and is no longer an issue in the emerging growth stage.
Learning motivation
The learning motivation for practicing networking relates, just as the gaining knowledge motivation, to a social activity. Learning differentiates itself from gaining knowledge by the intended goal. Learning is about a willingness to pick up ideas. Table 6 shows the quotations given for the learning motivation.
Learning as a motivation for networking is only given by entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage. This corresponds with venture life cycle literature that ventures in their emerging growth stage have a desire to broaden their market scope (Miller & Friesen, 1984). The results of this
Table 6. Learning motivation appearance across stages
Evidence from start-up stage None
Evidence from emerging growth stage
Lambda ‘’To mirror your ideas with other people who maybe are more knowledgeable than you are or are maybe more experienced.’’ Delta ‘’We do have a start-up coming over from time to time and have a
discussion or give some advice. That is a lot of fun and I learn from it myself.’’
33 study suggest that the learning motivation is not apparent in the start-up stage, over time
changes, and becomes emergent in the emerging growth stage.
Money motivation
The money motivation refers to the desire of making money out of the business. In this study entrepreneurs in both the start-up stage and the emerging growth stage gave money as a motivation for practicing networking. Table 7 shows the different quotations across the interviews regarding the money motivation.
The given responses do not uncover a change over time regarding the applicability of the money motivation. This can be traced back to one of the major motivations for becoming an
entrepreneur in general: making money (Henderson & Robertson, 2000). Making money as a general motivation for becoming an entrepreneur does also not suggest a change over time in this motivation.
Table 7. Money motivation appearance across stages
Evidence from start-up stage
Theta ‘’I network because you can make money out of other people.’’
Gamma ‘’Everything that you do is with the goal to make money. It might not be biggest driver, but it will always be a major driver.’’
Evidence from emerging growth stage
Alpha ‘’An old wise man told me once that everything is related to sex and money. So networking is not related to sex, but to money. In the end it will always lead to money or more business.’’
34 Feedback motivation
The feedback motivation relates to receiving feedback for a product or service to directly monetize this feedback in a commercial manner. This feedback motivation as a motivation for practicing networking is identified in both the start-up stage and the emerging growth stage. Table 8 provides more insight into the given motivations.
The given explanations for the feedback motivation do not indicate that one particular stage of the venture life cycle copes with this motivation. In a way this feedback motivation links to the desire of making money, a desire for monetizing the given feedback. The making money motivation also showed no difference over time and in that respect the feedback motivation behaves consistent with the money motivation.
Fun and business motivation
The fun and business motivation relates to a mix of the before covered motivations of fun and making money. Several entrepreneurs indicated that they pursue both fun and business
Table 8. Feedback motivation appearance across stages
Evidence from start-up stage
Gamma ‘’To gain new insights regarding our product. Everybody has a different opinion and I think they are willing to share that with you, but you need to reach out to them to get it. That is why I network.’’
Evidence from emerging growth stage
Eta ‘’The main reason we decide to network and talk to people is to get feedback on what we do.’’
Lambda ‘’And we were standing there with a banner, talking to people to experts to get feedback on our product on our ideas.’’
35 motivations for practicing networking. Table 9 shows which entrepreneurs responded in what way to show their mixed fun and business motivation for practicing networking.
Entrepreneurs in both the start-up stage and the emerging growth stage talked about being motivated for networking based upon fun and business. The responses do not hint towards a change over time between the two stages of the venture life cycle and with that seem to provide a broader picture of motivations for networking in general.
Inspiring and business motivation
Similar to the fun and business motivation is the inspiring and business motivation. The inspiring and business motivation combines the desire to be inspired with the need to make money out of networking. Table 10 shows the given responses that deal with the inspiring and business motivation.
Table 9. Fun and business motivation appearance across stages Evidence from start-up stage
Epsilon ‘’I love talking to people and sharing experiences with each other. That is based upon a social driver and a commercial driver. By being enthusiastic about what I do I try to trigger people to become my client.’’
Evidence from emerging growth stage
Delta ‘’Fun is important. But in the end, when it is more business related, when you are more eager, you go for that.’’
Lambda ‘’I network because you can’t do everything by yourself. And people are nice. So the hardest part for me was being by myself without a team, but also working back at home.’’
36 The given responses do not suggest that the inspiring and business motivation for networking changes over time between the two stages of the venture life cycle. This seems to suggest that the inspiring and business motivation might add to existing motivations for networking in general.
Adding contacts
Interviewees were also asked about what types of people they would like to add to their network. The given types of contacts are shown in table 5. Entrepreneurs in both venture life cycle stages have a strong desire for adding ambassadors / sales agents to their network. This implies having a long term focus and reaching out to more customers through these ambassadors. Customers were also directly mentioned as people that would desirably be part of the network of entrepreneurs, yet only by entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage. This corresponds with literature (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001) that entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage actively try to increase sales. Also management help, for structuring and formalizing the venture, and
manufacturers, for having a broader product scope, were mentioned as additions for existing networks. These desirable new contacts of entrepreneurs in the start-up stage correspond with the venture life cycle and the involvement of professionals in the start-up stage (Jawahar &
McLaughlin, 2001).
Table 10. Inspiring and business motivation appearance across stages Evidence from start-up stage
Theta ‘’It’s really motivating, inspiring and it gets you thinking. And thinking is good. Thinking about life and about work.’’
Evidence from emerging growth stage
Zeta ‘’People who are committed to the same purpose I think can be very
inspiring. That is something I miss. And then the second thing is efficiency. So if I will hire other translators, I do that to boost my revenue.’’
37 The desire for addition of mentors to the existing networks of entrepreneurs is a new
phenomenon, visible in both venture life cycle stages. Although this can be regarded as a desire for structuring and formalizing a venture it was demonstrated as a desire for guidance in general. This adds to existing literature. Responses to this question provide an additional part of evidence that motivations for networking do change following the venture life cycle.
Table 11. Add contacts to network
Type of contact Start-up stage Emerging growth stage
Frequency Frequency
Ambassadors / sales agents 2 (Gamma, Kappa) 2 (Lambda, Delta)
Customers 0 2 (Zeta, Alpha)
Management help 1 (Beta) 0
Manufacturers 1 (Gamma) 0
38
5. Discussion
This study was conducted in order to understand why entrepreneurs practice networking and whether these motivations differ over time following the venture life cycle. The results of the study contribute to existing literature in different ways.
Existing literature has extensively researched the networking phenomena and has reached a form of consensus about the definition. Networking in literature is often defined as building and maintaining professional relationships and refers to a dynamic process (Galkina, 2013; Porter & Woo, 2015). Results of this study revealed that perceptions of networking behavior may be both positive and negative and entrepreneurs seem to experience difficulties when defining networking. Vissa (2012) already made a clear distinction between network broadening and network deepening, related to both expanding a network and maintaining a network. In his research Vissa (2012) concluded that network preserving is part of networking and included also negative forms in his research. Yet, the research of Vissa (2012) was conducted in a different geographical area, India, and the selected entrepreneurs were gathered from a provided list. This research extrapolates Vissa’s (2012) findings to The Netherlands and does so in the more
controlled environment of an incubator program. Regarding defining networking it is clear that no entrepreneur was able to define networking as defined in literature. All entrepreneurs agreed that expanding networks was covered by networking, yet maintaining networks was not
consistently perceived as being part of networking. This means that the results of this study may not cover networking to the same extent as do other literature in the networking field and with that limit the comparability of this study with other studies. Therefore the results of this study hint that the stage of defining networking in literature should be revisited in order to fully understand the applicability of this research.
39 This study also suggests that networking approaches vary among entrepreneurs. Vissa (2012) in his research concluded two different approaches, randomly seeking out strangers and being systematic in meeting new people. The results of this study confirm the two approaches and add a mixture approach between the two types of approaches. Additionally, this study makes a distinction between networking approaches of entrepreneurs in the start-up stage and
entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage. The networking approach ‘’randomly seeking out strangers’’ in only used by entrepreneurs in the start-up stage, while the ‘’being systematic in meeting new people’’ approach is only used by entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage. The earlier mentioned mixed approach is used by both types of entrepreneurs. These results suggest that entrepreneurs typically use different networking approaches, however, if they pursue a single approach they tend to be entrepreneurs in a certain life cycle stage. This contributes to the
findings of Vissa (2012) and adds a further classification is his found networking approaches. One of the main goals of this study was getting a better understanding of the motivations that drive the practice of networking. The results of this study show seven distinctive motivations that drive entrepreneurial networking and can be categorized in social motivations, commercial motivations, and a mixture of social and commercial motivations. Jack et al. (2010) and Hindle and Klyver (2011) argued that networking might also be driven by social factors, such as social learning, while Porter and Woo (2015) discussed that the practice of networking came from economic and social motivations. However, the findings of Porter and Woo (2015) were drawn upon conclusions of other literature, lacked evidence, and were only focused on professional settings. The results of this study can be regarded as evidence for the findings of Porter and Woo (2015) and can be extended by motivations from social settings as suggested by scholars such as Jack et al. (2010) and Hindle and Klyver (2011). Additionally, the results can be interpreted in a
40 broader context. The collected data demonstrated, besides pure social and pure commercial motivations, also a mixture of social and commercial motivations. This result is not yet part of existing literature in motivations for networking. However, in the domain of sociology scholars are trying to combine the opposite streams. Traditionally the sociology domain followed the concept of homo sociologicus, which relates to pure social intentions without any self-interest. Opposite of this traditional sociological concept is the traditional economic concept homo economicus, which relates to pure rational and self-interested intention (Fehr & Gintis, 2007). Fehr and Gintis (2007) in their research argue that there is more than pure commercial views and pure social views and state that the two can co-exist. Depending on the opportunity individuals can determine whether to proceed in a more social or a more economical manner. For networking motivations the same construct may apply. Literature presents two extreme cases regarding motivations for networking, either social or economic. The results of this study contribute to existing literature with the suggestion of a third combined stream in motivations for networking of both social and economic motivations.
Last main goal of the study was researching whether motivations of entrepreneurs to practice networking differ over time, following the venture life cycle. This study indicates that motivations for networking do, to a certain extent, change over time following the first stages of venture development. The different uncovered motivations that drive entrepreneurial networking were each analyzed on a venture stage level. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of the different motivations and whether they change over time. Earlier uncovered social motivations draw the attention while analyzing the results, these are typically representative for either entrepreneurs in the start-up stage, fun and gaining knowledge, or entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage, learning.
41 Figure 1: Conceptual framework identified motivations development over time
These different motivations during certain life cycle stages correspond with literature. The other identified motivations were both identified in the start-up stage as in the emerging growth stage. These results can be seen as primarily evidence for the notion that motivations for networking do change over time following the venture life cycle. Scholars such as Hite and Hesterly (2001) and Sullivan and Ford (2013) already argued that networks evolve over time. Their arguments can now be extended by motivations for networking, actively maintaining existing ties and adding new ties, and are not limited to the static network construct.
Additionally, entrepreneurs in the emerging growth stage indicated that there is an ongoing change in the people that surround them in executing their business activities. They indicated that following the development of their venture they constantly are forced to adapt to the changing environment and with that need to reach out to new people. This finding suggests that entrepreneurs are primarily forced to focus on their own behavior and development and with that have a high level of self-interest, following agency theory (Bosse & Phillips, 2014). Agency
Identified motivations: - Fun - Gaining knowledge - Learning - Money - Feedback
- Fun and business - Inspiring and business
Changing motivations over time:
- Fun
- Gaining knowledge - Learning
- Inspiring and business
Consistent motivations over time:
- Money - Feedback
- Fun and business - Inspiring and business
42 theory is built on the assumption that actors are self-interested and are rationally bounded (Bosse & Philips, 2014). However, Bosse and Phillips (2014) introduce the concept of bounded self-interest. This concept argues that individuals act in their own interest up to a certain level of norms reciprocity and fairness. In this study motivations for networking have been identified in a wide variety. As discussed can these motivations be categorized in social, commercial, and mixed motivations. If we apply Bosse and Phillips’s (2014) concept of bounded self-interest to our results it may be concluded that the investigated entrepreneurs display a certain degree of bounded self-interest. This statement can be defended by the fact that more than half of the motivations are direct or partially indirect, through the mixed motivations, linked to commercial motivations, which relates to financial success and with that to self-interest. Besides that all entrepreneurs agreed to participate in this study and with that demonstrate a certain notion of helpfulness that may link to the norms reciprocity part of bounded self-interest. Overall this study hints towards the fact that entrepreneurs may be bounded self-interested when it comes to networking.
Limitations and future research
This study has been conducted to gather understanding in the motivations that drive the practice of networking and how these motivations change over time. Although several pieces of evidence have been collected in the types of motivations and that these motivations change over time it is recommended to further research the matter. This study was exploratory in getting an
understanding in a very specific environment. It may be that the collected results in this study are fairly unique and are not representative for all entrepreneurs in incubator programs or even entrepreneurs in general. Therefore it is suggested to repeat this study in different settings, such
43 as different incubator programs or in specific industries. Another suggestion for future research is in the field of bounded self-interest. This study hints that entrepreneurs are motivated to practice networking on a level of bounded self-interest. Future research may explore the relationship between entrepreneurial networking and bounded self-interest. Besides this the collected
evidence in this study is not scientifically significant, due to the small sample size. Verifying the motivation results of this study could be done by conducting quantitative research. A suggestion for a target population would be other incubator programs or specific industries, through which contextual differences will be limited. For future research in identifying changes in motivations of entrepreneurs following the venture life cycle it is recommended to conduct a longitudinal study. In such a study entrepreneurs can be closely researched in a more comprehensive manner, for example through also incorporating observations, and with that provide richer data to
