Análisis de variantes de ayuste “splicing” alternativo

Shaw and Conway (2000) note that the personal network of the owner-manager may be seen as a significant contributor to the effective performance of the small firm and the development of social capital. They define such networks as (p369):

…constructs which conceive of the environment in which small firms exist as forming a network structure of overlapping relationships. More specifically, small firm networks can be defined as the composite of the relationships in which small firms are embedded and which serve to link or connect small firms to the environments in which they exist and conduct their business.

Casson and Della Giusta (2007, p224) add that:

The defining feature of a network is ‘connection’. A set of ‘elements’ that are connected to each other form a ‘network’. The elements are the ‘members’ of the network. The connection is created by some kind of ‘relationship’ between the elements. Every pair of members is connected, either ‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’; indirect connections are effected through other members of the network.

Thus, such networks play an important role in enabling the business owner to access social capital. Networks also provide information about the industry in which the businesses operate, information about the behaviour of businesses within that environment and they enable business owners to make use of social capital through the enhancement of problem solving capabilities (Shaw, 1997; Fuller-Love and Thomas, 2004).

Cope et al (2007, p214) argue that networks develop from personal relationships, or strong ties, but expand over time to include ‘formal contractual arrangements, including strategic ties with other companies’. Further, information and support provided by such weak ties are necessary for the later development and growth of the firm. Indeed, Sorenson et al (2008, p617) refer to

44 the development of networks as ‘collaborative network orientation’ (CNO) and state that such approaches demonstrate:

a preference to build collaborative relationships among networks made up of customers, family members, community members, and, inside the organization, employees. Outside the organization, CNO managers tend to cast a relatively broad net when establishing themselves as the hub of collaborative networks.

Shaw and Conway (2000, p377) also distinguish between formal and informal networks, with the former consisting of ‘joint ventures, licensing agreements and supply chain linkages’ and the latter simply described as ‘personal relationships’. These are, respectively, broadly similar to the weak and strong ties to social capital.

Birley (1985, p107) is critical of the role that strong or, in her terms ‘informal’ aspects of social networks play in the development of the business. She argues that a reliance on ‘informal’ networks tended to reaffirm possible erroneous beliefs about the choices open to the venture. This is supported by evidence that found that firms that relied purely on these networks exhibited a tendency not to consult more formal sources of expertise, or weak ties, such as banks, accountants, lawyers and chambers of commerce. Thus, informal or strong networks acted as a barrier to formal or weak networks.

Larson and Starr (1993) enhance the understanding of the role of the network with a three stage model of entrepreneurial networking activity that examines the exchange processes between actors in their environmental contexts. The model aims to explore these relationships through the emergence and growth of the firm. The first stage of the model examines the early stages of relationships that are formed by the business owner. It appears that these early relationships are socially based on existing, strong linkages with family and friends who may have a resource or set of resources useful in the establishment of the new venture. These relationships are pared down to the most useful to the business at the end of stage one.

Stage two leads to the overlapping of social and business relationships as the exchange becomes two way and economic in nature, corresponding to weak ties. New economic relationships (for example with suppliers) may also become social in nature and thus the participants gain personal understanding and a trust and deeper knowledge of one another. This would suggest that the first stage informal networks or strong ties, criticised by Birley (1985, p116) as a ‘barrier’, is one that can be overcome.

45 An analysis of small service firms in the UK by Shaw (1998) would suggest that weak ties at this stage would be most effective and have a positive impact if the networks are diverse with a wide membership and with a large amount of information being shared. Conversely, a too narrow or strong network can be damaging, exhibiting the problems noted by Birley (1985).

The third stage of Larson and Starr’s (1993) model leads to a deeper financial commitment from the investors in the owner-manager’s business, a return on previous investments and a sharing of ideas leading to cooperative research and development. At this stage, the process becomes formalised, in that management of many relationships are delegated to subordinates and the actors have become organisational stakeholders; this is in common with the discussion of OM- FLM relationships in section 2.3.6. This model appears to suggest a long-term stability in the relationships that the owner-manager forms in the early and later stages of the business. The authors refer to this as a crystallisation at the ‘critical mass of dyads that establish the organisation as a new entity’ (Larson and Starr, 1993, p 10).

Taylor and Thorpe (2004) argue that networks are also vital to the experiential learning process that guides the owner-manager in the establishment and development of the business. The authors suggest that networks can provide an opportunity for learning in the absence of formalised government initiatives and training programmes. By exploring relationships within and outside the firm, the social, historical and cultural contexts of learning can be taken into account and every individual that the owner-manager has contact with may influence his or her decision making and behaviour.

The authors use a qualitative biographical approach in the gathering of data, described elsewhere as critical incident technique (Cope and Watts, 2000). They identify a series of crises faced by an owner-manager and analyse their stories following semi-structured interviews. The authors find that certain actors in the owner-manager’s network had strong relationships with each other, while others had weaker relationships. This leads to the formation of a clique of significant actors who have more complex long term relationships, although they state that there is no evidence of a greater intensity and direction of support among this group when compared to the non-clique.

The differentiation between strong and weak ties again supports Granovetter (1973), who argues, as has been recognised, that weak relationships are able to transcend cliques and

46 therefore it would be expected that these could provide as useful support and advice as strong relationships. Therefore non-clique actors are as important and relevant as cliques.

As an example of the influence of both strong and weak ties, Taylor and Thorpe (2004) recognise that a decision by the entrepreneur to sell shares to raise capital was influenced by a fellow commuter and through formal relationships with his solicitor and tax inspector. The authors acknowledge the limitations of this study but suggest that historical, cultural and social influences can have an influence on the owner-manager’s experiences, decision making and network involvement (Taylor and Thorpe, 2004). This research also provides further evidence that there need not always be a barrier between informal and formal networks.

In a quantitative study, examining social networks of a total of 588 owner-managers in four countries (USA, Norway, Italy and Sweden) Greve and Salaff (2003) found commonalities in entrepreneurial networking behaviour across those nations. They identify three distinct phases in the establishment of a business that led to different ways in which the entrepreneur used their social capital. Phase 3 is split between those who establish a new firm and those who take over an existing firm (3a/3b), although networking behaviour was not significantly different. Table 2.6 below represents the phases and approaches by the entrepreneur.

These findings appear to complement the work of both Larson and Starr (1993) and Taylor and Thorpe (2004) in that the social capital available to the owner-manager will shape the decisions that are made in the early stages of business development.

Table 2.6- Owner-managers’ Use of Social Capital With Firm Development

Phase Use of Social Capital

1- Motivation to start a business Discussion limited to closest relations

2- Planning a new business Enlargement of network, effort expended in building and maintaining relationships

3a- Establishment of new firm Slight reduction in network size, less time spent building new relationships

3b- Taking over a firm

Source: adapted from Greve and Salaff (2003)

47 … age, gender, and having a self-employed parent do not affect… network size or the

time entrepreneurs spend discussing their enterprise with others… (entrepreneurs have) a high proportion of family members in their networks, and those with the highest proportion rely less on outsiders. Females with self-employed parents to a larger extent than males draw on kin in their discussions of establishing and running a business.

The latter point regarding female owner-managers relying on family is justified by the argument that females may have restricted access to more diverse but male dominated networks. This is supported by earlier work by Smeltzer and Fann (1989) who found that women were unlikely to use the same networks as men and that they were more likely to seek advice from other women.

Sorenson et al (2008) found in their study that women were more likely to establish a broad collaborative network organisation (CNO) than men but that, because of the likelihood of a beneficially diverse gender balance in a CNO, male owner-managers would derive greater business success from it. In spite of the comparative differences between researchers, there appears to be some agreement that broad, mixed gender networks lead to better firm performance.

Further, Greve and Salaff (2003) argue that the approach to network development is similar across cultures, but this does not preclude arguments advanced earlier that ethnic minority business owners have specific networks (Fadahunsi et al, 2000) since although the approach to network development may be similar, the networks that emerge may be contextually specific.

In a qualitative analysis of small manufacturing firms in Australia, Hanna and Walsh (2008) find that inter firm networking can expand into inter-firm co-operation. The firms were able to use inter-firm co-operation to diversify and access new markets, providing that such activity did not affect their core business. Hanna and Walsh (2008, p308) also recognise that such close networking activity was possible because firms noted the ‘mutual benefit’ and ‘were willing to relinquish ultimate control for the opportunities this brings them’. They note that firms found that:

By working with appropriate peers they could array skills for which the market would pay a premium, for example the ability to design and install equipment or to deliver a complete range of components in a manner to suit the customer or to deliver a complete subassembly and thereby reduce the number of suppliers a company deals with.

48 The authors note that partners were chosen carefully and avoided co-operation with competitors. This also required a degree of trust that the partner would not behave opportunistically and this risk in trusting was taken because the alternative of subcontracting also contained risks. A more detailed examination of entrepreneurial trust is undertaken in sections 2.5.3 and 2.5.4.