The emerging literature on entrepreneurial networks suggests that entrepreneurial action sets may be organizational in nature and may be investigated in organizational terms. We link three pre-founding entrepreneurial action set variables: (1) Size, (2) Degree (a measure of inter-connectivity within the entrepreneurial action set), and (3) Frequency (a measure of how often entrepreneurial action set members Interact with each other) to first-year new organization growth. Data were gathered through structured interviews with 44 entrepreneurs and analyzed with multiple regression. The hypotheses were strongly supported by the data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldrichH., & ZimmerC. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In SextonD. L., SmilorR. W. (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship, pp. 3–23. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
2.
AldrichH., RosenB., & WoodwardW. (1987). The impact of social networks on business foundings and profit: A longitudinal study. In ChurchillN. C., HornadayJ.A., KirchhoffB. A., KrasnerO. J., & VesperK. H., Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, pp. 154–168. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
3.
BarnesJ. A. (1969). Networks and political process. In MitchellJ. C. (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations, pp. 51–76. Manchester, UK: The University Press.
4.
BavelasA. (1951). An experimental approach to organizational communication.Personnel, 27, 366–371.
5.
BlauP. M. (1967). Exchange and power in social life.New York: John Wiley.
6.
BurtR. (1992). The social structure of competition. In NitinN., & EcclesR. (Eds.) Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, Harvard Business School Press. Boston: pp. 57–91.
7.
ChandlerG. N., & HanksS. H. (1993). Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: A validation study.Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 391–408.
8.
DessG. G., & OrigerN. K. (1987). Environment, structure, and consensus in strategy formulation: A conceptual integration.Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 313–330.
9.
DiMaggioP. (1992). Nadel's paradox revisited: Relational and cultural aspects of organizational structure. In NitinN., & EcclesR. (Eds.), pp 118–142. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
10.
GranovetterM. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In NitinN., & EcclesR. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, pp. 25–56. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
11.
HansenE. L., & AllenK. R. (1992). The creation corridor: Environmental load and pre-organization information-processing ability.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 57–65.
12.
HansenE. L., & WortmanM. S. (1989). Entrepreneurial networks: The organization in vitro.Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 49th annual meeting, Washington, D. C., pp. 69–73.
13.
JohannissonB. (1986). New venture creation: A network approach. In RonstadtR., (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, pp. 236–238. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
14.
KanterR. M. (1981). The change masters.New York: Simon and Schuster.
15.
KatzJ. (1993). The dynamics of organizational emergence: A contemporary group formation perspective.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 97–101.
16.
KatzJ., & GartnerW. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations.Academy of Management Review, pp. 13(3), 429–441.
17.
KatzR., & TushmanM. (1979). Communication patterns, project performance, and task characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration in an R & D setting.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 139–162.
18.
KrackhardtD. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In NitinN., & EcclesR. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: structure, form, and action, pp. 216–239. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
19.
LawrenceP., & LorschJ. (1967). Organization and environment.Boston: Harvard University Press.
20.
LeavittH. J. (1962). Unhuman organizations.Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug, 90–98.
21.
MillerD., DrögeC., & ToulouseJ.M. (1988). Strategic process and content as mediators between organizational context and structure.Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 544–569.
22.
NiemeijerR. (1973). Some applications of the notion of density. In BoissevainJ., & MitchellJ. C. (Eds.), Network analysis: Studies in human interaction.The Hague: Mouton.
23.
NeterJ., WassermanW., & KutnerM. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models (2nd ed.). Home-wood, IL: Irwin.
24.
NohriaN. (1992). Information and search in the creation of new business ventures: The case of the 128 venture group. In NitinN., & EcclesR. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, pp. 240–261. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
25.
ReynoldsP., & MillerB. (1992). New firm gestation: Conception, birth, and implications for research.Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 405–417.
26.
ScottJ. (1991). Social network analysis, London: Sage Publications.
27.
SnyderR. A., & MorrisJ. H. (1984). Organizational communication and performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 461–465.
28.
StarrJ. A., & MacmillanI. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures.Strategic Management Journal, 11, 79–92.
29.
TichyN. M., TushmanM. L., & FombrunC. (1979). Social network analysis for organizations.Academy of Management Review, 4, 507–519.
30.
TushmanM. L. (1977). Special boundary roles of the innovation process.Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587–605.
31.
Van de VenA. H., HudsonR., & SchroederD. M. (1984). Designing new business startups: Entrepreneurial, organizational, and ecological considerations.Journal of Management, 10, 87–107.
