WHY AND HOW DO ENTREPRENEURS ENGAGE IN NETWORKING?
Master Thesis
Nathan Kizilirmak
11149728
University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Prof. Y. Engel
Amsterdam, August 2016
Acknowledgements
Various people have energized and motivated me throughout the sometimes lonesome process of writing my thesis. A special thanks to my thesis supervisor Professor Yuval Engel who has always been readily available with insightful feedback when I got stuck and who has been a great mentor throughout the process. In addition, I want to thank Arno, Bob, Maarten, Maxim, Robin and other friends and university mates for being great sparring partners during numerous pleasurable coffee- and lunch breaks. Last but definitely not least, I am deeply grateful to my parents and brother for their never-ending support and encouragement as well as to God that helped me persevere.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Nathan Kizilirmak 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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 5
THEORETICAL OVERIVEW ... 7
Entrepreneurial Networking: From Actions to Styles and Strategies ... 7
Networking Motivation: Why do entrepreneurs network? ... 12
EMPIRICAL SETTING AND METHODS ... 16
Rationale ... 16 Sample ... 16 Sources of data ... 18 Data management ... 19 Data analysis ... 19 FINDINGS ... 23 Networking Action ... 23 Networking Motivation ... 24
Instrumental Networking Motivations: What’s in it for me? ... 24
Reciprocal Networking Motivations: “If you’ll help me I’ll help you” ... 25
Prosocial Networking Motivations: “How can I help?” ... 27
Intrinsic Networking Motivation: “Just for the fun of it” ... 29
Explaining the collective existence of networking motivation and networking action ... 30
DISCUSSION ... 32
Propositions ... 32
Toward a model of entrepreneurs’ networking motivation ... 33
Theoretical Contributions and Implications ... 33
Limitations ... 35
Future research directions ... 35
CONCLUSION ... 36
REFERENCES ... 37
APPENDIX ... 42
Appendix I: Interview protocol form ... 42
Appendix II: Survey for interviewees ... 44
ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurial Networking – the set of actions and strategies entrepreneurs use in creating and shaping network ties – is an important antecedent of venture outcomes. Yet, surprisingly little is known about why entrepreneurs engage in networking and how such networking motivation may shape their networking actions. I investigate this question using an inductive study with a sample of 10 entrepreneurs operating within a single incubator. The findings suggest that entrepreneurs can be driven by four different networking motivations – intrinsic, instrumental, reciprocal, and prosocial. A cross-case analysis that zooms-in on the relationship between these motivations and a range of networking actions depicts three clusters of entrepreneurs. It further shows how entrepreneurs operating with primarily instrumental networking motives perform networking activities that are distinct from entrepreneurs emphasizing prosocial- or intrinsic networking motivation. This work therefore provides empirical substance for studies of entrepreneurial networking in which motivation is often assumed rather than observed and highlights the importance of looking at motivations beyond solely those of personal gain or advancing venture goals. Based on these findings, I detail several contributions to theory and practice as well as suggestions for future research.
INTRODUCTION
Both conventional wisdom and considerable research suggest that entrepreneurs’ interpersonal networks are an important driver of entrepreneurial success (Aldrich, Rosen & Woodward, 1987; Brüderl & Preisendörfer, 1998; Dubini & Aldrich, 2002). The core idea is that better connected entrepreneurs empower their ventures with valuable information and resources (Aldrich & Reese, 1994; Freeman, 1999; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; McEvily & Zaheer, 1999; Shane & Stuart, 2002) and that these may translate into performance advantages (Bhagavatula, Elfring, Van Tilburg & Van De Bunt, 2010; Birley 1985; Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Elfring & Hulsink, 2003; Stam, Arzlanian & Elfring, 2014; Vissa & Chacar, 2009). The origin of such network structures and the questions of whether and how entrepreneurs may be able to build and modify them, have only been addressed more recently with studies examining the concept of networking – the set of actions and strategies entrepreneurs use in creating and shaping network ties (Bensaou, Galunic & Jonczyk-Sédès, 2014; Engel, Kaandop & Elfring, 2015; Hallen, 2008; Porter and Woo, 2015; Vissa, 2012). However, while research on entrepreneurial networking has uncovered several networking actions and styles and showed that entrepreneurs vary in their use (Bensaou et al., 2014; Vissa, 2012), less is known about the reasons for this variation (Porter & Woo, 2015). Put simply, why and when do entrepreneurs employ different types of networking actions?
The latest insights into such questions come from the integration of psychological- and network perspectives, with studies highlighting the potential role of fundamental psychological phenomena such as personality, cognition, affect and motivation (Casciaro, Barsade, Edmondson, Gibson, Krackhardt & Labianca, 2015). Yet, unlike individual differences in personality, affect or cognition, which started to receive some attention in network studies, theories of motivation are still largely absent from this type of inquiry
(Casciaro et al., 2015). Consequently, we know surprisingly little about why entrepreneurs engage in networking and how does networking motivation shape their networking actions?
At first, questioning the reasons for which entrepreneurs engage in networking might seem at odds with the statement that networking is beneficial for venture outcomes. It is only common sense that at least some entrepreneurs, some of the time, engage in networking activities with the sole purpose of bettering their network structure and with it their ventures’ performance. To date, practically all studies dealing with entrepreneurial networking have uniformly adopted the assumption that entrepreneurs are goal-driven and instrumental in their attempts to efficiently target and maintain valuable network ties (see Engel et al., 2015 for a review). However, this assumption has yet to be empirically tested and there are good reasons to predict that entrepreneurs may be driven by a wider range of motivational forces (Engel et al., 2015; Folger & Salvador, 2008; Haynes, Josefy & Hitt, 2015; Jensen, 1994; Van de Ven, Sapienza & Villanueva, 2007; Ruskin, Seymour & Webster, 2016). Indeed, the fact that research findings indicate networking as a predictor of positive entrepreneurial outcomes does not mean that practicing entrepreneurs are even aware of such findings (Martin, 1979; Mohrman & Lawler, 2011; Roth, Mavin & Dekker, 2014; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006). In short, there is a clear need to understand:
Why do entrepreneurs engage in networking and how networking motivation shapes networking actions?
This study investigates these questions by taking an inductive case study approach with 10 entrepreneurs residing in an incubator in the Netherlands. This empirical setting enables to examine variation in networking actions and motivations among ventures that were exposed to similar resource constrains. The primary finding is that entrepreneurs’ networking motivation is not only goal-driven, self-oriented, or instrumental in nature but can also be pro-social or even altruistic. Building on this finding I induct a model showing that variations
among entrepreneurs’ networking motivation, ranging between intrinsic, instrumental, reciprocal and prosocial, leads to distinctly different compositions of networking actions. Even as my data was restricted to only 10 entrepreneurs that are all housed in the same building, my results indicate a variety of motivations and thus open up important questions about the relationships between why and how entrepreneurs engage in networking.
This work makes an important contribution to the burgeoning literature on entrepreneurial networking by filling the gap between understanding networking motivations of entrepreneurs and their networking actions. While some papers have described networking motivation to be only goal-driven (Hallen, 2008; Vissa, 2012; Zott & Huy, 2007), others have instead argued that entrepreneurs can be driven by other motivations as well (Engel et al., 2015; Porter & Woo, 2015). My empirical findings and theoretical development accommodates the latter position and expands it by explaining which networking actions are related to each of these different networking motivations. In addition, my findings contribute to networking motivation literature as it establishes that entrepreneurs are not solely motivated by self-interest, but can also be motivated by other-interest.
THEORETICAL OVERIVEW
This is an inductive study to explore the networking motivations of entrepreneurs. Hence, I developed a model using an iterative process between data and pertinent literature. Here, however, I begin with an overview of the literature around ‘entrepreneurial networking’, ‘networking actions’ and ‘networking motivation’ that I consulted either before or during the course of the study, and which then informed my emerging findings (Suddaby, 2006).
Entrepreneurial Networking: From Actions to Styles and Strategies
Entrepreneurial networking generally refers to what entrepreneurs do in creating and shaping network ties (Engel et al., 2015). For the purpose of this study, entrepreneurs are
people who engage in behavior to discover, evaluate, and exploit opportunities and who take on the risk and tasks of the venture (Morris & Kaplan, 2014; Shane, 2000). In addition, for this study, the entrepreneur is a founder of an identified venture and responsible for it (Begley & Boyd, 1987; Busenitz & Barney, 1997; Cooper, Woo & Dunkelberg, 1988; Miner, Smith & Bracker, 1989).
Scholars who study what entrepreneurs do when networking captured their behaviors in a variety of models referring to actions, styles, behaviors, and strategies (Bensaou et al., 2014; Ebbers, 2014; Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012; Vissa, 2012; Zott & Huy, 2007). For instance, Vissa (2012) conceptualized the effects of entrepreneurs’ interpersonal networking style on the initiation of interorganizational exchange ties. He distinguishes between interpersonal networking actions aimed at adding new contacts (network-broadening actions) versus managing existing contacts (network-deepening actions). With these two styles, he describes how they are used by Indian software entrepreneurs to develop valuable relationships with business contacts. In reflection, Vissa remarks that he neglects the study of motivation behind the different actions and calls for a study that looks if the networking actions are learned behaviors (i.e. spontaneous behavior; see also Vissa, 2011) or driven by a forward-looking planned logic. Similarly, Hallen and Eisenhardt (2012) discuss four catalyzing strategies that advantageously shape opportunities leading to enhanced network outcomes and firm performance. Thus, in their efforts to target desired ties, entrepreneurs use “casual dating” to informally meet with a few potential partners and go on to use several other networking actions aimed at establishing trust, signaling legitimacy, and checking the authenticity of their contact’s interest (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012, p. 42). Additional studies such as Ebbers (2014), Zott & Huy (2007) and Bensaou et al. (2014) go on to discuss other types of networking actions from several theoretical perspectives and several different methodologies (see Table I for an overview).
Table I: Networking Actions
Networking Theme
Individual Actions
Definition Per Action Source
Explorative Actions • Exploration • Individual networking orientation • Reaching out to new alters
• Activities aimed at maximizing the number of new relationships, seeking to broaden the network, “exploring possibilities”
• Individual’s propensity to actively try to meet other people from whom one hopes and/or expects to benefit in the future
• The extent to which the entrepreneur takes steps to meet new people to promote his or her venture
Bensaou et al. (2014) Ebbers (2014) Vissa (2012) Embedding Actions • Leverage • Casual dating • Relational embedding • Establishing interpersonal knowledge of new alters
• Activities aimed at intensifying selected relationships, striving for depth to extract value
• Executive’s informal but deliberate, repeated meeting with a few potential partners prior to attempting to form a formal tie
• The extent to which the entrepreneur seeks to combine social and business relations with existing contacts • The extent to which the entrepreneur finds out more
about the new people he meets
Bensaou et al. (2014) Hallen & Eisenhardt (2012) Vissa (2012) Nurturing Actions • Scrutinizing interest • Crafting alternatives • Network preserving
• Taking actions to discern potential partners’ actual interest in a tie
• Developing multiple routes to end the tie formation process
• The extent to which the entrepreneur acts to preserve all network ties Hallen & Eisenhardt (2012) Vissa (2012) Helping Actions • Tertius iungens orientation
• Tendency to facilitate tie formation among
(disconnected) individuals in their network when they think these other individuals might benefit from one another Ebbers (2014) Timed Actions • Timing around proof points • Time-based interaction pacing
• A positive signal of substantial venture accomplishment of a critical milestone that is confirmed by key external (not internal) actors
• The extent to which the entrepreneur paces his relationship with contacts based on temporal markers
Hallen & Eisenhardt (2012) Vissa (2012) Symbolic Actions • Symbolic achievement • Symbolic credibility • Symbolic organizing quality • Symbolic relationship quality
• Emphasizing preliminary and interim achievements • Displaying personal capability and personal commitment • Displaying and drawing the attention of potential
investors and employees to the professional nature of their company’s structures and processes
• Drawing on associates’ prestige to acquire resources and giving personal attention to potential stakeholders
Zott & Huy (2007)
It is evident from this brief review of networking actions that studies define and assess networking behaviors, actions, and strategies differently. To provide an explicit structure to disjoint networking strategies across different studies, I focus instead on the level of individual networking actions. By looking across the studies in Table I and focusing on the level of individual networking actions, it is possible to discern six groups of actions that have common grounds. I termed these (1) Explorative Actions, (2) Embedding Actions, (3) Nurturing Actions, (4) Helping Actions, (5) Timed Actions and (6) Symbolic Actions. These individual networking actions characterize a common theme, which will be elaborated on in the remaining of this section.
Perspective 1: Explorative Actions
The individual networking actions ‘exploration’ (Bensaou et al., 2014), ‘individual networking orientation’ (Ebbers, 2014) and ‘reaching out to new alters’ (Vissa, 2012) share the notion that the entrepreneur actively tries to meet new people of which it can benefit personally. This type of networking action is labeled as ‘Explorative Action’. Explorative actions characterize the action to meet new people and expand the network.
Perspective 2: Embedding Actions
The networking actions ‘leverage’ (Bensaou et al., 2014), ‘casual dating’ (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012), ‘establishing interpersonal knowledge of new alters’ and ‘relational embedding’ (Vissa, 2012) each describe a networking action that aims to strengthen relationships with people. These four networking actions are labeled as ‘Embedding Actions’. This networking action distinguishes itself from explorative action as it puts emphasis on quality of relationships over quantity of relationships. Embedding action characterizes the action to strengthen relationships with people.
Perspective 3: Nurturing Actions
‘Scrutinizing interest’ (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012) and ‘network preserving’ (Vissa, 2012) each show a networking action of consolidating the current network. These combined are labeled as ‘Nurturing Actions’. It is different from explorative- and embedding action as the action is focused on the current network of the entrepreneur and as the emphasis is less on building new network ties, but rather maintaining the existing ties. Nurturing actions is defined as an action to consolidate relationships.
Perspective 4: Helping Actions
‘Tertius Iungens Orientation’ (Ebbers, 2014) depicts a networking action of an entrepreneur helping others without the entrepreneur necessarily benefiting personally. This is labeled as ‘Helping Actions’ as the action is focused on benefitting other individuals, which is a different stance than the previous themes. Helping action describes the extent to which the entrepreneur helps others.
Perspective 5: Timed Actions
‘Timing around proof points’ (Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012) and ‘time-based interaction pacing’ (Vissa, 2012) both describe an action that revolves around metaphorical stages gates that, when attained or marked, leads to a next phase. It is unique as the action goes into effect by an external factor i.e. milestone or external actors. This action is “Timed Actions” as the action is dependent on a moment in time.
Perspective 6: Symbolic Actions
‘Symbolic Achievement,’ ‘Symbolic Credibility,’ ‘Symbolic Organizing Quality’ and ‘Symbolic Relationship Quality’ (Zott & Huy, 2007) is labeled as ‘Symbolic Actions’. These actions originate from a study by Zott & Huy, which helps defining the term in line with theirs as “actions in which the [entrepreneur] displays or tries to draw other people’s
attention to the meaning of an object or action that goes beyond the object’s or action’s intrinsic content or functional use” (Zott & Huy, 2007, p. 4).
Networking Motivation: Why do entrepreneurs network?
The actions illustrated above hint to, but fail to address, the motivation aspect behind networking. A review by Porter and Woo (2015) addresses the motivation aspect of networking more generally and breaks it down in four distinct yet interrelated disciplinary perspectives. The four distinct perspectives are: networking for (managerial or leader) work performance; networking as a career management strategy; networking as a job search strategy; and, networking as behaviors intended to develop and use professional networks. The latter is remarkable, since as they explain, this type of networking “distinguishes itself from the former three in that it conceptualizes networking as sets of behaviors that describe what people actually do when networking without specifying a specific work-related goal” (p. 1480). This suggests that networking is not only goal related, but also a conceptualization of what people do when networking. The reason for this multifaceted definition seems elaborate, but as Porter and Woo acknowledge themselves, their efforts still fail to cover an all-encompassing meaning of the networking construct. For instance, they do not address the possibility of ‘serendipitous networking’ (Shipilov, Labianca, Kalnysh & Kalnysh, 2014), “the inadvertent initiation of network relationships without an explicit goal to do so” (Porter and Woo, 2015, p. 1495). More importantly, the unit of analysis for Porter and Woo’s (2015) review is not the entrepreneur, but rather any person in business. This misaligns with the unit of analysis for this paper. Finally, the four motivations introduced by Porter and Woo (2015) appear to suggest a one-sided view of networking motivation as primarily self-oriented, a narrow idea that does not fit with findings from the much broader stream of studies on basic human motivation.
In basic theories of motivation that largely developed within psychology (Bandura, 1994; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kanfer, 1990; Kleinginna Jr, & Kleinginna, 1981; Locke, & Latham, 2002; Matejko & Landy, 1985; Mayo, 1933; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Taylor, 1914) the literature makes a distinction between self- and other-oriented motivation. Self-oriented motivation includes how personal needs lead people to seek safety, freedom, love, and success for themselves (Batson, 1990; Herzberg, 1965; Forbes, 2011). For example, Maslow’s (1943, 1954) hierarchy of needs framework proposes that people meet their most basic physiological needs first, such as food and shelter, before moving up the hierarchy to satisfy higher order needs, such as belongingness, and culminating with self-actualization. For entrepreneurs, this self-oriented motivation tends to focus on venture performance and personal benefits – financially and non-financially (Renko, 2013). In contrast, other-oriented motivation is defined as such if the primary intention is to benefit another individual or group of people and personal rewards for the behavior are secondary (Van de Ven et al., 2007). Although academic research addressing other-oriented motivation is relatively limited (Batson, 1990), recent research considers the interplay between prosocial motivation and both job design (Grant, 2007) and creativity (Grant & Berry, 2011). The concept of ‘self’ extends to seeking benefits for the entrepreneur’s family (Buttner & Moore, 1997; Kuratko, Hornsby & Naffziger, 1997) or extends to the entrepreneur having aspirations to benefit nonfamily members of their community (Peterson, 1995) or nonfamily employees of a family firm (Zellweger, Nason, Nordqvist, & Brush, 2013). Both prosocial motivation and altruism refer to the voluntary, intentional desire to help others (Bar-Tal 1985; Grant 2008). Ruskin and his colleagues conceptualize these motives for the social entrepreneur in a general model (Ruskin et al., 2016). They also distinguish between egoistic prosocial motivation and collectivist- or other prosocial motivation. Here the former suggests that people help others to gain personal
satisfaction, whereas the latter focuses more genuinely on the needs of others (Cialdini, Schaller, Houlihan, Arps, Fultz, & Beaman, 1987; Van de Ven et al, 2007).
Ruskin and her colleagues borrow the collectivist wording from Van de Ven and his colleagues (2007). In their study, self-interest is similarly classified to previous literature, though other interest is converted to ‘collective interest’. They define this as “the nature that drives entrepreneurs to bond with others, to form and maintain enduring interpersonal relationships, to be a part of a collective endeavor that is larger than themselves, and to cooperate and collaborate with others in achieving these collective interests to the point of personal vulnerability” (Van de Ven et al., 2007, p. 353). Here they distinguish between two types of collective interests. (1) “Individuals may seek to satisfy the needs of groups of specific others, whom they know, favor, love, or have a special interest in.” (2) “Individuals may be interested in the general welfare of the community or society at large – what may be termed the greater good” (p. 355). Their study does not link the types of interests with networking. With that being said, there is some recognition of the role emotional antecedents play in forming entrepreneurial motivation, but the influence of particular emotions on self- and other-oriented entrepreneurial networking motivation is unclear.
Additional theories discussed by multiple scholars as relevant to networking (Engel et al., 2015; Porter & Woo, 2015) are Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976) and Relational Models Theory (RMT) (Fiske, 1991, 1992). SET revolves around the notion that “a series of interactions that generate obligations … are usually interdependent and contingent on the actions of another person” (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, p. 874). More specifically, it is those relationships in which individuals exchange ideas and resources with no prespecified quid pro quo or obligations, in contrast to economic exchanges with specified values and obligations often codified in contracts (Blau, 1964, Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Meeker, 1971; Saxton, Wesley, & Saxton, 2016). What this suggest is that
when person A does something beneficial for person B, person B immediately reciprocates the gesture by doing something beneficial in return for person A. Adler and Kwon (2002) expand this view to not only necessarily reciprocating the benefit to the same person, but passing it through down the road to another person that desires help. This combination creates the idea that people can potentially act in an altruistic manner.
RMT by Fiske (1991, 1992) holds that people in all cultures use just four relational models to generate most kinds of social interaction, evaluation and affect. Further developing on RMT is a recent study by Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016) that examines how individual stakeholders’ contributions to joint value creation are shaped by stakeholders’ mental representations of their relationship with the other participants in value creation, and how these mental representations are affected by the perceived behavior of the firm. This study is appealing since it seems to suggest that people that engage in networking activities are driven by different motivations. Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016, p. 238) distinguish between four personas. The first is a person “seeking to maximize its absolute payoffs, regardless of others’ payoffs.” The second is a person “seeking to maximize the difference between their payoffs and those of others.” The third is a person “seeking to maximize the joined payoffs for oneself and others, as long as others are perceived to be cooperative and fair.” The fourth is a person “seeking to maximize the payoffs for others, regardless of their own payoffs.” These distinctions stand in stark contrast with the conventional notion that an entrepreneur can only be driven by a single (e.g., instrumental) motivation. It is not clear, however, to what extent these personas can also be distinguished in the search for networking motivation of entrepreneurs.
Overall, these studies provide some direction but fail to directly address the question that we ask here: Why do entrepreneurs engage in networking and how networking motivation shapes networking actions?
EMPIRICAL SETTING AND METHODS Rationale
Given limited theory and evidence of why entrepreneurs engage in networking and how it shapes their actions, I used a qualitative grounded theory building approach with embedded multiple cases (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Yin, 2013). In particular, this inductive design incorporates cross-case analysis and triangulation of data from multiple sources to address potential informant bias and build more robust generalizable and parsimonious theory than single case may provide (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Lewis, Thornhill, & Saunders, 2007). At the outset, my objective was to identify networking motivations and -actions of entrepreneurs by comparing data from my cases to the extant literature on networking motivation and networking action.
I collected data from a sample of entrepreneurs. In this way, I was able to hear the story of the venture from pre-founding through establishment and all the way leading to the current situation. Entrepreneurs were the unit of analysis and networking was the phenomenon-driven case under investigation (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). As outlined above, I define an entrepreneur as a person who has engaged in behavior to discover, evaluate, and exploit opportunities and who takes on the risk and tasks involved in establishing a new venture (Morris & Kaplan, 2014; Shane, 2000). Networking is defined as a set of actions and strategies entrepreneurs use in creating and shaping network ties (Bensaou et al., 2014; Engel et al, 2015; Hallen, 2008; Porter and Woo, 2015; Vissa, 2012).
Sample
A study by Marshall and his colleagues suggested that there was little to no rigor for justifying sample size for qualitative research (Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, & Fontenot, 2013). I attempted to decide on the right sample size by setting the following goals and boundaries: (1) the sample size had to be feasible to carry out within the limited amount of time available
for the thesis (2) the sample size had not be too small to come in danger of creating a tunnel or one-sided view (3) the sample size had to be enough to create data saturation (Miles & Huberman, 1984) (4) the venture must have been launched within the past 36 months and not have more than 10 employees, so that there was an increased likelihood that the venture was still in an emergence or early growth stage and thereby not too dispersed in terms of size (Hite & Hesterly, 2001) (5) the sample had to cover a broad range of industries so that the generalizability of the findings was enhanced (Eisenhardt, 1989). The fifth goal was realized by employing a maximum variation sampling method (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). This type of purposive sampling involves cases covering a spectrum of industries to the phenomenon one is studying (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I employed these goals and boundaries because it matched my research aims, which was to document and explain why entrepreneurs engage in networking.
The setting for my research was the Erasmus Centre for Entrepreneurship (ECE) – an incubator where multiple entrepreneurial ventures are established. This setting was appropriate for several reasons. First, studying a single incubator enabled more valid comparison of ventures, since each venture had to go through the same application checklist, in this case, set out by ECE where one of the criteria was whether the venture is for-profit. This helped in specifying the unit of analysis, since inferences that were made could only address founders that found for-profit enterprises, rather than social-enterprises as well. Second, the ventures were exposed to similar resources, which increased the degree of comparability (Hansen, Chesbrough, Nohria, & Sull, 2000; McAdam & McAdam, 2006).
ECE had a pool of +50 ventures. As a result, of the five goals and boundaries set, I concluded a suitable sample size to be 10 entrepreneurs. Table II presents the profiles of the sampled entrepreneurs.
Table II: Sample Overview Case Founder
Gender Founder Age Ventures # Found Current Venture Founding Year # of Founders (total) #
Employees Industry Description
R1 Male 1989 2 2015 2 3 – 5 Service Management Consulting
R2 Male 1980 2 2015 1 1 – 2 Service Event Management
R3 Male 1989 4 2015 3 3 – 5 Product Hardware for Leisure
R4 Male 1971 2 2013 2 3 – 5 Service IT Consulting
R5 Male 1989 1 2015 2 1 – 2 Service Real Estate
R6 Male 1989 1 2015 1 1 – 2 Service Translation
R7 Male 1985 1 2013 3 6 – 10 Service Fin Tech
R8 Female 1992 1 2015 2 3 – 5 Service Food
R9 Male 1973 2 2013 1 1 – 2 Service Space
R10 Male 1988 1 2015 1 3 – 5 Product Self-Defense
Sources of data
To collect data, I used multiple sources of evidence, with semi-structured interviews being the primary source, supplemented by follow up surveys and archives, including media and web-based material on the venture (Lewis et al., 2007). Each interview was taped, transcribed verbatim and lasted 60 minutes on average. In all, the study resulted in 194 pages of transcribed text.
The focus of the semi-structured interviews matched the evolving phases of the research. The interview questions were inspired by existing literature and interview questions from Burt, 1992; Elfring & Hulsink, 2007; Grant, 2008; Grant & Berry, 2011; Ruskin et al., 2016; Vissa, 2012; Zott & Amit, 2007. The interview questions were constructed by having a primary questions and follow-up questions to generate extensive answers (see Appendix I: Interview protocol form).
Initially, the questioning was broad, covering the story of the venture and business model, to gain understanding in the practices of the startup. Subsequently, the focus shifted in gaining an understanding in the networking structure of the entrepreneur – thereby letting the entrepreneur reflect on its network. Once this was clear, the interview shifted to questions
regarding networking actions, since behaviors can be observed and therefore seemed more easy to highlight. Following the questions around networking actions, were questions related to the more abstract phenomenon around networking motivation. Finally, the interview ended with clarification questions such as: ‘in your own terms, how do you define networking?’ this helped understand to what extent there was consensus among the interviewees their interpretation of the networking phenomenon. Subsequent to the interview, a survey was sent out to collect additional information, which helped putting entrepreneurs and their venture in perspective of each other.
Data management
I followed the 24-hour rule (Eisenhardt, 1989), writing up full case notes within 24 hours of each interview. I then filed the notes alongside the collected survey, audio records, and interview transcripts to form individual case files (Yin, 2013)
Data analysis
Data analysis started with the process of generating the networking elements. Interview transcripts were coded in Atlas Ti and involved coding and classifying data (Neuendorf, 2002) by examining statements referring to networking in its widest sense.
The coding process is two-sided and different for actions and motivations respectively. First, for coding networking actions, I applied closed coding. Indeed, since extant literature is sufficiently rich in capturing what entrepreneurs do when they engage in networking, I could make use of coding schemes developed in prior research about networking actions (e.g., Bensaou et al., 2014; Ebbers, 2014; Hallen & Eisenhardt, 2012; Vissa, 2012). I therefore identified networking actions in my data and coded them in accordance with existing networking concepts (see table I). For example, actions to meet new people were coded as “explorative actions” while actions to add a social element to a business contact were labeled as “embedding actions.”
After coding the networking actions, I analyzed per case the degree of emphasis respondents showed towards a networking action. This data is converted to a table (see Table VII) where each cell is provided with a black, grey or a white color. Essentially, these colors act as a scale that shows the degree of a networking action being present in a particular case. A cell that is white means that the presence of that particular networking action is trivial in a particular case. A cell that is grey means that the presence of that particular networking action is moderate in a particular case. A cell that is black means that that particular networking action is predominantly present in a particular case. The degree of emphasis will be underpinned with quotations drawn from the data in the finding section.
Second, for coding networking motivations, I analyzed the data in three steps based on the techniques explained by Pratt (2008). The data analysis for networking motivation is illustrated in Figure I: Data structure (motivation). Specifically, following Miles and Huberman (1994), I used constant data comparison and iteration to create constructs of networking motivations. During the first step, I applied open coding to understand how respondents perceived their networking motivation. Common statements formed first-order concepts. For example, I found several data segments around ‘getting feedback.’ ‘learn,’ ‘getting new ideas,’ ‘developing my own skills,’ ‘need people for own growth.’ In the second step, I moved from open to axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) by consolidating the categories, which became more abstract and general. For example, I consolidated statements about ‘doing a favor for a favor,’ ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘reciprocity principle,’ ‘what you reap is what you sow,’ ‘win-win’ into the second-order theme of ‘reciprocal networking motivation’. In the third step, I identified aggregate dimensions underlying my second-order themes. When the cases were ordered according to the degree of emphasis on each second-order theme, I observed that the same cases repeatedly clustered together – indicating the existence
of a recurrent pattern. I, therefore, introduced the aggregate dimension of networking motivation.
After coding the networking motivations, I analyzed per case the degree of emphasis respondents showed towards a certain motivation to engage in networking – the same way as I do with networking actions.
All along, research findings were compared with existing literature (networking motivation and networking action), with the aim to enhance the internal validity, generalizability, and level of theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989). Finally, I used a cross case analysis of both networking actions- and motivations to establish patterns between them and see how networking motivations related to networking actions.
First-Order Concepts Second-Order Themes Aggregate Dimensions
Statements about ‘getting exposure,’ ‘drive sales,’
‘need people out of my network reach.’
Statements about ‘getting feedback.’ ‘learn,’ ‘getting new ideas,’ ‘developing my own skills,’ ‘need people for
own growth.’
Instrumental Networking
Motivation
Statements about ‘doing a favor for a favor,’ ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘reciprocity principle,’
‘what you reap is what you sow,’ ‘win-win.’ Reciprocal Networking Motivation Prosocial Networking Motivation Statements about ‘help
others when it doesn’t help me,’ ’help others as long as own work doesn’t suffer,’
‘not 50/50,’ ‘grant,’ ‘giving,’ ’adding value,’
‘help because person deserves it,’ ‘likability of a
person,’ ‘help on my own terms.’
Intrinsic Networking
Motivation Statements about ‘not
business driven,’ ‘no expectation,’ ‘no direct benefit,’ ‘no strategy,’ ‘like meeting new people,’ ‘fun,’ ‘interested in other people,’ ‘like getting to know new cultures,’ ‘butterfly around.’
Self-Interest
FINDINGS
I start explaining my findings by deriving networking actions that I observed in the data. These are considered unique, though it does not mean that an entrepreneur can only be driven by one networking action exclusively. The networking actions that evolve from theoretical concepts are underpinned with one quote for each of them that evince it in the data.
Subsequently, I introduce four observed networking motivations. I present and explain each of them, as well as how they align with extant literature. Also in this case, an entrepreneur showing one networking motivation, does not exclude the presence of other networking motivations. Following suggestions for presenting qualitative results (Pratt, 2008), I illustrate my findings with vivid ‘power quotes’ in the text, and demonstrate prevalence with ‘proof quotes’ in comparative tables.
Networking Action
Four types of networking actions could be observed in my data – (1) Explorative Actions; (2) Embedding Actions; (3) Nurturing Actions; and (4) Helping Actions. The first three are represented actions that could be classified in line with existing literature (see Table I). The fourth is a coalescence of tertius iungens orientation, which is classified in existing literature (see Table I) and a new type of networking action that I find evidence for in my findings.
Explorative action is evident in three of the ten cases. As one of the respondents put it: “Spray and Pay, you go to an event and you happen to meet someone who could be interesting afterwards” (R7). Embedding actions is evident in five of the ten cases. As one of the respondents put it: “80 percent of networking to me is about listening. Trying to understand what they need and where they want to go” (R2). Nurturing actions is evident three of the ten cases. As one of the respondents put it: “You know, sometimes you have
encounter those people I try to keep them on a distance” (R10). Finally, tertius iungens orientation is evident. As one of the respondents put it: “Sometimes I see an opportunity and I see and I link two people in my mind and then I exploit that and you know help someone with it” (R6). After an exhaustive iteration process, I have come to conclude one type of action is not introduced in the existing literature, though it is observed in multiple cases. It characterizes the extent to which the entrepreneur helps others. It describes an action where the entrepreneur is doing favors or helping others unconditionally. It can be altruistic, since it benefits another person – sometimes at some costs (i.e. time, money, resources). As one of the respondents put it: “Doing business has to do with doing favors. It is really difficult to sell something to someone that you do not really like and the same the other way around” (R2). Both tertius iungens orientation and this phenomenon depict an action to help others. I therefore group them and, hereby, introduce a fourth networking strategy, termed Helping Action. Helping action is evident in in three of the ten cases.
Networking Motivation
Instrumental Networking Motivations: What’s in it for me?
The popular view of an entrepreneurs’ motivation for networking – to be self-serving and goal-driven – stems from the interviews as well. It is labeled as instrumental networking motivation, since networking is largely goal driven and directed at receiving some form of expected benefit. Instrumental networking motivation is evident in four of the ten cases, as indicated by entrepreneur R6:
“… the main reason, like if I go to some place, I mean recently there was this get in the ring finals next door and I really went to that event and said I’m going to go networking tonight. And in such cases I’m really there to talk to people and find out if they could be my customer and primarily developing my venture…” (R6)
This portrait of preparing for taking on opportunities that in turn will lead to benefitting the entrepreneur personally, matches with what is earlier described by Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016, p. 238) as “striving for maximizing its absolute payoffs, regardless of others.”
Table III: Instrumental Networking
R1 The possibility to build my business relationships to help develop my skills at any given time.
R3 The focus is on meeting new people. New people can generate new ideas or projects.
R4 Opportunity driven is the main driver, but also for expertise or competences that we do not have ourselves and might need in the future.
The reason for having this motivation is that the respondents perceived networking as a driver to personal benefit. Whether the counterparty would also benefit, was not something they thought about. Rather they were self-interested and wanted to benefit as efficient and as effective as possible. I observed variation among the respondents for their motivation. Some respondents displayed this networking motivation when it was particularly tied to increasing the sales of their startup. Others displayed this networking motivation when developing their own personal skills. I also observed variation in the strength it was present. Some respondents expressed a strong emphasis on instrumental networking. As R7 put it “The main reason we decide to network and talk to people is to get feedback on what we do.” Others were more moderate as they shared they also considered their counterparty. As R4 put it “… at first we were really pushing deals to learn and build a track record, later we also deliberated a bit what the counterparty wanted.”
Reciprocal Networking Motivations: “If you’ll help me I’ll help you”
The entrepreneurs shared a networking motivation around reciprocity in that they were not only thinking of how to benefit themselves, but they also thought about how the
other would benefit. The label should be self-explanatory. Reciprocal networking motivation is evident in five of the ten cases. Entrepreneur R1 explained:
“Yes, it mostly happens because I want something from someone and it is the same the other way around. So sometimes, you do get a little bit harassed through emails for example or excessive nice behavior. I do not do it myself, but others try it on me. I try to approach things to achieve a win-win solution for both parties, but it seems that others are not seeing it in the same way.” (R1)
Based on the findings, though less obvious, it seems that entrepreneurs can still be goal-driven, but they do not only do that for their own benefit. Rather, entrepreneurs can be goal-driven, while bearing in mind, what the other party wishes. This is in line with the notion of collective interest (Van de Ven et al., 2007). In this way, the entrepreneur tries to establish an end result where both parties are pleased. This however is not something preliminary agreed upon by both parties; therefore, entrepreneurs can be let down. If this happens the entrepreneur generally does not help the other person a second time, which is different to the prosocial networking motivation that is introduced hereafter.
Table IV: Reciprocal Networking Motivation
R3 I try to approach things to achieve a win-win solution for both parties, but it seems that others are not seeing it in the same way.
R7 I think theoretically, it would be. The activity of adding value to a group of people via, like do what you can through your leverage and that is sort of, that is the nice thing of networks or networking, that it increases your leverage.
R6 Since pretty recent, I really come to have really prominently this question that comes to my mind about this idea of what you reap is what you sow.
The aggregated dimension perfectly epitomizes what Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016, p. 238) describe as the social disposition that seeks “to maximize the joint payoffs for oneself and others, as long as others are perceived to be cooperative and fair.” In addition, it is in
line with what the SET theory portrays as a scenario of “interactions that generate obligations” and these in turn are “interdependent and contingent on the actions of another person” (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005, p. 874). I observed variation between motivations for reciprocity. Some entrepreneurs came to it, as they were helped before, meaning they were once in the same position and therefore felt like paying off debt by reciprocating or if they had a bad experience. I consider such exogenous remarks to be moderate. As R3 put it “Yes, at first I was a bit naïve and trusted that everybody had honest intentions. Now I realize that people like to use you and only have their own interest at heart. … That changed my networking behavior and made me more selective. I am not talking to everybody anymore, I first want to know the reason why people want to talk to me. I do not mind sitting down for a cup of coffee, but it should not be a waste of time.” Others pursued it, out of a more helping view. I consider such endogenous remarks to be strong. As R10 put it “… I believe that if you do good and if you help others, you get the same in return… In Dutch, we have a word for that ‘Gunnen’; meaning ‘Award/Allow/Grant’ - You have to grant others, and they will grant you.”
All entrepreneurs however were ultimately doing it out of self-interest. More specifically, all entrepreneurs that conveyed this networking motivation would only pursue this if they would benefit themselves as well.
Prosocial Networking Motivations: “How can I help?”
This prosocial networking motivation is in stark contrast with the conventional wisdom that networking motivation of an entrepreneur, or even more general, that an entrepreneur is motivated by a goal and that it wants to benefit just as much or more than the person the entrepreneur is networking with. Put more simply, the finding is in contrast with the notion of self-interest motivation, which most literature up till now assumes to be the only driver. I labeled it prosocial networking motivation to underline the motivation of the
entrepreneur to benefit the other. Prosocial networking motivation is evident in three of the ten cases. As expressed by R8:
“I’m happy to help, I’m happy to help everybody, as long as my own work doesn’t suffer from it.” (R8)
Prosocial networking motivation is considered other-interest and is expressed in the cases in different gradations. R1, for instance, applied this only for people that ‘deserved it’. This judgment seems to affiliate with the notion of Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2016, p. 238) that we introduced in the reciprocal section; “… others will benefit when they are perceived cooperative and fair.” It varies though, since in comparison with the reciprocal networking motivation, this position would still benefit the other, without necessarily benefitting the entrepreneur itself. The other cases rather equal a persona Bridoux and Stoelhorst describe as people that seek “to maximize the payoffs for others, regardless of their own payoffs”
Table V: Prosocial Networking Motivation
R2 There are a lot of people who want to start their own company, but few people that actually do start their own company. So I drink coffee a lot, but most people are not really starting their own company. It is the same with having this interview with you. There is no direct benefit for me.
R3 R5
It’s all based upon a willingness to help without wanting anything in return.
Everybody can come to me or us for advice and we will help you out if we can. Same goes for giving this interview. We could have rejected your request, but we know that is valuable for students and we have all been in that same position, so we try to help each other out.
This finding is unconventional in the entrepreneurship literature so far. It describes entrepreneurs that just like to help others. It is more than reciprocal, as they do not necessarily expect anything for their help in return. The degree of helpfulness varies, as some only do it when they judge the other person to deserve it. This I typify as moderate emphasis. As R1 put it “It is more about the people I know from my network that I can introduce to people .... I sometimes do that, based upon if I think someone deserves it. Sometimes you like
a person enough to grant him access to your own network.” Others help unconditionally, as long as the other person shows thankfulness. This I typify as strong emphasis. As R7 put it “I don’t mind if it’s not mutual, but at least don’t abuse it and be grateful for what happened you know, that is the bear minimum.”
Intrinsic Networking Motivation: “Just for the fun of it”
The final networking motivation that is discovered from the cases, is one showing an incognizant position that is not concerned with outcomes, nor with helping, but rather living in an atmosphere of doing without thinking and surrendering to emotional satisfaction. Intrinsic networking motivation is evident in two of the ten cases. As R6 indicated:
“I just love it. It’s not something I consciously think of, it’s not something like, Sometimes I see an opportunity and I see and I link two people in my mind and then I exploit that and you know help someone with it.” (R6)
The motivation principally describes the entrepreneur to be driven by satisfaction that comes from within (i.e. love, fun, nice, enjoy), hence the label of intrinsic networking motivation.
Table VI: Intrinsic Networking Motivation
R2 I agree, but what is the benefit then? Maybe having fun? Or becoming an ambassador for me? It is a possible benefit, but you do not really know. It is fun. I believe that this interview could be handy. Is it smart thing to do? I could probably use my time otherwise and make money out of that. But I think that it is fun, for me that is the main driver.
R3 A nice conversation is sufficient. For me it is fun to go there, but most people do not like networking events. So the best you can do in that case is having a nice conversation with somebody else.
R9 I really haven’t really, had a really conscious approach that I know from my past. It is more a natural thing I think, how that grows, with some people you just have a nice click, you have a discussion and then you meet them again and again. Suddenly you know them for a long time, so that is more of an organic thing. I don’t have really, like ok this is how I built relationships
R8 Well the butterfly approach is working very well for me, but it is also when you are yourself and you don’t expect anything, it only gets more successful I think
I discovered that the cases that shared this motivation did not really think of their actions at all, but rather subjected to their feelings. As a consequence, any motivation to engage in networking was, for these respondents, based on the fact that they loved doing it. In some cases, this evolved down the road to business. This seems to be in line with the idea of ‘serendipitous networking’ (Shipilov et al., 2014). I consider it to be a self-interest motivation, although it can be argued that it also matches with what Van de Ven and his colleagues (2007) remark as collective interest, since a nice conversation, for instance, has to be mutual and therefore benefitting the other person as well. The emphasis varied among respondents. Some showed a moderate emphasis. For instance, R9 shared that ideally his networking motivation is just being social and less focused on business, but it depends on the success of his startup. As he puts it: “If I would have more capital in my company and more long-term security I will become more social again.” Others showed a strong emphasis
towards intrinsic networking motivation, independent of the status of their startup. For instance, R2 shared “I am not driven by financial things. I am driven by a desire to make
fun.”
Explaining the collective existence of networking motivation and networking action
After the different networking motivations that were observed in the data had been established, defined, and underpinned, I checked to what extent each type of networking action and -motivation was present per case. The following cross case analysis enables a more complete overview and comparison to identify similarities between groups of entrepreneurs (see Table VII).
Table VII: Cross-case summary of findings
Motivation Action
Cases Intrinsic Instrumental Reciprocal Prosocial Explorative Embedding Nurturing Helping
R01 R02 R03 R04 R05 R06 R07 R08 R09 R10
Looking at the findings as a whole, I derived three clusters of entrepreneurs. (1) Entrepreneurs 1, 3, 4 and 5 that are predominantly self-interested; employing only embedding- and nurturing actions, (2) entrepreneurs 2, 7 and 9 that are predominantly other-interested; employing only explorative- and helping actions, and (3) entrepreneurs 6, 8 and 10 that are moderately self-interested and moderately other-interested as well as moderate in their actions. These revelations are consistent with existing basic theories of motivation that distinguish between self-oriented and other-oriented motivation (Bandura, 1994; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kanfer, 1990; Kleinginna Jr, & Kleinginna, 1981; Locke & Latham, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Taylor, 1914). They are inconsistent with the conventional assumption that existing theories take around entrepreneurial networking motivation, as it was generally assumed that the networking motivation for entrepreneurs are only self-interested (Engel et al., 2015). The third observation of being interjacent in motivation as well as actions, seems to correlate with the two types of collective-interest; where respondents alternate between collective-interest while bending towards self-interest and collective-interest while bending towards other-interest (Van de Ven et al., 2007, p. 355).
DISCUSSION Propositions
From the cross-case comparisons, a clear pattern becomes discernible and can be broadly summarized in three formal propositions.
Firstly, respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 that principally showed a strong instrumental networking motivation, generally performed actions that are at least embedding and also typically nurturing. Hence the following proposition:
Proposition 1. Entrepreneurs that predominantly express an instrumental networking motivation, are taking embedding- and nurturing networking actions.
Secondly, respondents 2, 7 and 9 that principally showed a strong prosocial networking motivation along with intrinsic networking motivation, primarily undertake explorative- and helping actions. Therefore the following proposition:
Proposition 2. Entrepreneurs that are driven by a prosocial- or intrinsic networking motivation, are primarily showing networking actions that are explorative and helping.
Third, and finally, respondents 6, 8 and 10 that principally showed a strong reciprocal networking motivation, were ambivalent in their actions. When solely looking at strong networking actions identified from these respondents and therefore marked black, not one networking action is shared between the respondents. When including the moderate (marked grey) cells, it is evident that all actions are employed by at least one of the three respondent, but just nurturing actions are shared by all three respondents. As a result of this moderate and dispersed finding, the following proposition:
Proposition 3. Entrepreneurs that predominately express a reciprocal networking motivation, are balanced in their networking actions.
Toward a model of entrepreneurs’ networking motivation
Based on my findings, I present an inductively derived model of networking motivation in
Figure II.
Figure II: A conceptual model of networking motivation
Theoretical Contributions and Implications
My study is a contribution to the literatures on entrepreneurship and personal networks in various ways. I extend the entrepreneurial networking literature (e.g., Engel et al., 2015, Shipolov et al., 2007) by documenting and explaining four distinctive networking motivations that are unique to entrepreneurial networking motivation.
As shared in the introduction, research on entrepreneurial networking has uncovered several networking actions and styles and showed that entrepreneurs vary in their use (Bensaou et al., 2014; Vissa, 2012), less was known however about the reasons for this variation (Porter & Woo, 2015). My study adds to Porter and Woo (2015) that call for a study
Entrepreneurs’ Networking Motivation Other-Interest Self-Interest Prosocial Networking Motivation Intrinsic Networking Motivation Reciprocal Networking Motivation Instrumental Networking Motivation Entrepreneurs’ Networking Action Nurturing Actions Embedding Actions Explorative Actions Helping Actions P1 P2 P3
understand the reasons of entrepreneurs for varying motivations around networking actions and styles. By filling this gap, I also address an issue raised by Casciaro and colleagues that shared that, unlike individual differences in personality, affect or cognition, which started to receive some attention in network studies, theories of motivation were still largely absent from this type of inquiries (Casciaro et al., 2015).
When reviewing extant literature, practically all studies dealing with entrepreneurial networking had uniformly adopted the assumption that entrepreneurs are self-interested and instrumental in their attempts to efficiently target and maintain specific valuable network ties (see Engel et al., 2015 for a review). However, this assumption had yet to be empirically tested (Engel et al., 2015; Folger & Salvador, 2008; Haynes et al., 2015; Jensen, 1994; Van de Ven et al., 2007; Ruskin et al., 2016). My study challenges this conventional assumption by empirically clarifying that the motivation of entrepreneurs behind networking actions is not solely driven by a self-interested motivation, but can also be driven by an other-interested motivation.
My aim was to explore why entrepreneurs engage in networking by comparing my inductive findings with the literature on networking motivation and networking action. One of the main goals of my study was to better understand the networking motivations, as, up until now, it was only theoretically substantiated, but lacking an empirical body. My results show four distinctive networking motivations – intrinsic, instrumental, reciprocal, prosocial – that are empirically substantiated. Hereby, I validate theoretical models and finally open up the black box for networking motivation (Shipilov et al., 2007).
Both conventional wisdom and considerable research suggested that entrepreneurs’ interpersonal networks were an important driver of entrepreneurial success (Aldrich, Rosen & Woodward, 1987; Brüderl & Preisendörfer, 1998; Dubini & Aldrich, 2002). Now that the notion that all entrepreneurs are goal-driven and instrumental in their attempt to efficiently target and maintain valuable network ties is proven to be inaccurate – as there are additional
networking motivations entrepreneurs can be driven by – it is unclear to what extent all four distinctive networking motivations lead to the same degree of entrepreneurial success. This also obscures the core idea that better connected entrepreneurs empower their ventures with valuable information and resources (Aldrich & Reese, 1993; Freeman, 1999; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003; McEvily & Zaheer, 1999; Shane & Stuart, 2002). As, for example, better connected entrepreneurs that have an instrumental networking motivation may experience no performance advantages, whereas better connected entrepreneurs that have a prosocial networking motivation may experience performance advantages.
Limitations
There are three limitations in the present study revolving around scrutiny, reliability and robustness. Firstly, when a startup had more than one founder-entrepreneur, I did not interview the co-founder(s). It could be that the networking motivation differs among the individual members of a founding team (Burt et al., 1998; Neergaard, 2005). Secondly, although my coding, analysis and inferences are carried out in accordance with the guidelines that are set by researchers, they have not been corroborated by an independent second party (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Lastly, motives are not directly observable, and self-reports of attributions are error prone. Furthermore, motives driving individual behavior may not always result in the consequences intended. This known difficulty (Van de Ven et al., 2007) of accurately assigning motives to behavior based on observations of entrepreneurial behavior or outcomes is something that I experienced as well.
Future research directions
The entrepreneurial networking literature issued a call for explaining why entrepreneurs engage in networking. Now that the aggregate motivations have been grounded, it is fruitful to test the findings through a deductive study and see what my findings put forward across a larger sample size.
My findings suggest that different networking motivations, especially instrumental versus prosocial and intrinsic, prompt entrepreneurs to take entirely different networking actions as well. So far, this revelation has not been explored. Future research could help better understand the rationale behind this.
As the conventional wisdom, of entrepreneurs having one networking motivation, has been challenged, I believe it is imperative to study to what extent performance advantages are consenting among the different networking motivations. Are all different networking motivations equally performing, or is, for example, an entrepreneur displaying prosocial networking motivation more likely to experience a performance advantage.
Casciaro, Gino, & Kouchaki (2014) examined the consequences of networking for an individual’s morality. They argue that the content and approach of networking have different implications for how a person feels during the development and maintenance of social ties (Casciaro et al., 2014). I believe that morality fosters motivation. The design of my study does not address the issue of morality, and future research could examine the extent to which morality plays a role in pursuing one of the four introduced networking motivations. For example, it is plausible that the reason an entrepreneur expressed reciprocal networking motivation is partly, if not, fully based on a morality aspect, such as adherence to what is generally considered as behavioral. If this is the case, the complementing networking actions can also be put in perspective and thereby be better substantiated.
CONCLUSION
I identified four different motivations that tell why entrepreneurs engage in networking. These networking motivations are new as they reflect that all entrepreneurs are not only self-interested, but entrepreneurs can also be other-interested. Moreover, I observed that variation of networking motivation among entrepreneurs lead entrepreneurs to take different networking actions. Entrepreneurs displaying an instrumental networking motivation perform embedding- and nurturing actions, whereas entrepreneurs displaying a
