Definiciones resumidas de los delitos incluidos en la operacionalización

Although agreement exists about the importance of networks to the small businesses context, there are opposing views in relation to what type of network with what characteristics are more advantageous, with opposing perspectives being found in the literature. According to Hite and Hesterly (2001) the existence of such opposing views reflects the fact that research has mostly examined networks at a single, static moment in their life span. As described earlier in Chapter 2, the setting up and management of (small) businesses are complex, context-specific, dynamic processes, which evolve through progressive stages, with specific strategic issues (e.g. goals, resource needs and resource acquisition challenges).

Attempts to understand its determinants’, including social networks, require dynamic approaches that take into account contextual specificities as well (O’Donnel et al. 2001; Hoang and Antoncic 2003).

3.2.5.1 Evolutionary perspective of networks

Network related research adopting a dynamic, process-driven perspective, has demonstrated that networking is a generically dynamic phenomenon, and that firms’ networks are determined by, and evolve in order to adapt to, the firm’s/owner’s resource needs and challenges (Butler and Hansen 1991; Greve 1995; Uzzi 1996; Hite and Hesterly 2001; Blundel 2002; Premaratne 2002; Greve and Sallaf 2003; Lechner and Dowling 2003; Shutjens and Stam 2003; Jack et al.

2008). Blundel (2002, p. 25) referred to the “episodic nature” of networks, to describe a central aspect of networks: the evolution over time. This evolutionary perspective is acknowledged as providing good explanations for networking and practices involved (Jack et al. 2008).

As an example of the numerous models identified in the literature, Butler and Hansen’s (1991) evolutionary model, is described next. The model presents networks as developing gradually, and as strongly influenced by the nature of the business founder’s social context. Three phases are identified, corresponding to three stages of firm development: the pre-start-up phase, the business start-up phase, and the ongoing business phase (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Model of entrepreneurial networking evolution

Source: Butler and Hansen (1991, p.3)

According to the proposed model, and concurring with other researchers (Birley et al. 1991; Hite and Hesterly 2001; Lechner and Dowling 2003), when firms emerge their networks consist mainly of informal networks of friends, family members and social contacts and as firms move into the early growth stage, their networks evolve, adding new contacts, according to the firm’s resources needs and strategic orientations. During the pre-start and start-up phase, the social network will be of greater significance but the needs of the business are likely to require links to other individuals and organizations, giving rise to a hybrid, and more focused network.

As the business evolves, and when owner’s interests are more growth and profit oriented, the model supposes the need for more strategic networks, with links to competitors and suppliers aiming at reducing the firm’s risk of failure and “provide advantages not obtained as an isolate entity” (Butler and Hansen 1991, p. 4).

In spite of its worthiness, and as Shutjens and Stam (2003, p. 118) argue, the models and theories that aim to explain network evolution “are ideal types, and in practice some stages are never reached, or are left out, or appear simultaneously”.

The network’s evolution is dependent on a series of business and owner related contextual factors, such as the type of business strategic orientation, the path to business ownership, and the owners’ conditions at start-up phase (e.g. human capital and motivations). Of relevance for this research is the fact that most models and studies analysed identify informal network of friends, family members and social contacts as the most relevant social contacts when firms emerge and that many of the firm’s later social relations were based on the pre-existing social relations of the business founder. Social contacts and business contacts are intertwined in different moments of the business (Birley et al. 1991; Greve and Salaff 2003; Lechner and Dowling 2003; Shutjens and Stam 2003). Subscribing Lechner and Dowling’s words, it seems that “without social relationships the firms would not have been able to establish any business network” (Lechner and Dowling 2003, p. 11).

3.2.5.2 Networks as industry specific

Another aspect that emerges from small businesses research is that networks are industry specific, namely with regard to network composition (Shutjens and Stam 2003). Social relationships seem to be more important resource acquisition mechanisms to firms in the service sector than to firms in the manufacturing industry (Johannisson and Monsted 1996). Additionally, different regional contexts are also considered to affect network types. In rural areas it may be harder to access relevant organizational or inter-firm networks, particularly in peripheral locations (Jack and Anderson 2002; Johannisson et al. 2002). Therefore, business owners located in rural areas tend to benefit from a greater embeddedness in the locale, with personal, informal networks playing an important role in the resource acquisition process (Jack and Anderson 2002), and in the building of inter-firm cooperation initiatives (Felzensztein et al. 2010). These findings are of particular interest for this research, considering the target population is tourism small businesses in rural areas.

3.2.5.3 Networks as culture specific

The role of personal networks and their utilisation by business owners in the setting up and management of their ventures is also gaining evidence as a culture-specific phenomenon (Dodd and Patra 2002) with culture-specificities even within the same country (Witt et al. 2008). Staber and Aldrich (1995, p. 443) found broad similarities exhibited across international samples, suggesting that “at least some aspects of business networking are generic, and that owners approach some tasks in similar ways in different environments.” However, some authors position themselves in the opposed perspective (e.g. Birley et al.1991; Curran et al. 1993) arguing that the network developed by each entrepreneur is actually unique to that individual, and it is reasonable to hypothesize that business owners in different countries may exhibit different networking styles. Curran et al. (1993, p. 77) have even argued that “networks are best seen as primarily cultural phenomena, that is as sets of meanings, norms and expectations usually linked with behavioural correlates of various kinds”.