Resultado de encuestas realizadas a empleados

While network analysis in the 1990s downplayed resources in favour of a structural approach (Gedajlovic et al., 2013; Powell and Smith-Doerr, 1994), the resource view of network resources has increasingly gained traction (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Burt, 1997; Podolny and Baron, 1997). The network resource approach focuses on networks as a means by which actors, especially entrepreneurs (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Batjargal, 2003), gain access to resources through their social contacts (Granovetter, 1983). Thus, social capital is in part defined by the resources held by network contacts (Burt, 1992; Hoang and Antoncic, 2003), or “informal access to others’ resources due to social ties” (Li, 2007: 231). Network resources refers to tangible and intangible resources located in different types of social networks to which actors may gain access for their own use (Lin, 2001a).

Early work on entrepreneurs’ networks found that they rely on contacts to gain access to a range of resources that facilitate discovery and pursuit of opportunities, including information, advice, and social support (Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1985). More recent studies reflect upon and refine this view. Entrepreneurs are likely to draw upon different networks to leverage ties for various utilities (Lechner et al., 2006). De Koning and Muzyka (1999) proposed a framework including an inner circle of (typically, non-business) ties, an intermediate “action set” of resource providers and business partners, and a broader network of weak ties providing primarily information. Meanwhile, Renzulli and Aldrich (2005) delineate three network utilities that enhance firm growth: tangible resources (such as financial capital or material goods), advice, and emotional support, with similar resources such as business information and social support noted in other studies (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Kilduff and Tsai, 2003; Wellman et al., 2002). Business advice and emotional support are described below.

69 4.5.1 Business advice and emotional support

Early research on social capital focused on networks as channels or sources of information, advice, and knowledge resources (Coleman, 1988). Entrepreneurs benefit from informal individual business contacts (Birley, 1985) as a source of knowledge and information (Uzzi, 1996), with specific benefits including preferential access to information, advance timing, and referrals to useful and knowledgeable actors (Burt, 1997) as well as business ideas and strategic advice (Hoang and Yi, 2015), all of which facilitate the recognition and exploitation of opportunities (Aldrich, 1999; Shane, 2003).

Business advice ties are those that provide business information, ideas, or guidance to the entrepreneur (Anderson et al., 2007; Ozgen and Baron, 2007), facilitating exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Business ties are a source of information about legal processes, regulations, financial resources, and managerial practices (Cromie and Birley, 1992; Renzulli and Aldrich, 2005). Such ties may also provide business owners with tips that eventually link them with prospective employees, customers, suppliers, and distributors (Brüderl and Preisendörfer, 1998). Business contacts, including suppliers and customers, may also provide information or inspiration for new product ideas (Deng et al., 2013). Finally, advice networks help entrepreneurs to deal with uncertainty through enhanced understanding of market forces (Arregle et al., 2013), to better recognise opportunities, and to keep abreast of new developments, for instance in regulations, product innovation, or technology (Batjargal, 2003, 2007b).

A second intangible resource derived from networks is emotional support (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Renzulli and Aldrich, 2005; Wellman et al., 2002). Entrepreneurs rely on network ties as a source of emotional support to pursue their goals (Jack, 2005; Renzulli and Aldrich, 2005). Such contacts help individuals cope with the uncertainty that accompanies the entrepreneurial process (Anderson et al., 2007), provide supportive confidantes with whom to discuss hopes and challenges surrounding new ventures (Reynolds and White, 1997), and help preserve emotional stability for entrepreneurs taking business risks (Brüderl and Preisendörfer, 1998). Emotional support ties, often friends and family, provide a positive outlet to cope with stress

70

related to work and competition (Batjargal et al., 2013), while serving as a source of encouragement rather than specific advice or information (Davidsson and Honig, 2003).

While the value of business advice and emotional support via networks is assumed, less is known about such ties in relation to network size or tie strength, and how this relationship affects outcomes. A few studies have begun to explore links among the different dimensions in this context. For instance, Lerner et al. (1995) found that a greater number of contacts (i.e., larger network size) in advice networks had positive effects on revenues; in Canada, meanwhile, the survival rate of new organisations benefited from larger boards of directors (Singh et al., 1986). In Davidsson and Honig’s (2003) study of Swedish entrepreneurs, the main social capital predictor of first sales was entrepreneur’s participation in a business networking group, implying a weak tie, though this was not tested. In a study of US corporate managers, size of strategic information and task advice networks was positively related to promotions, while social support networks tended to be smaller (Podolny and Baron, 1997). Despite these initial findings, few studies explicitly integrate the resource dimension with structural or relational dimensions to illuminate mechanisms of business advice and emotional support functions in networks.

4.5.2 Bonding, bridging and notes on measurement

Many analyses refer to two different kinds of social capital, “bonding” (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000) and “bridging” (Burt, 1992), even treating these two concepts as analogous (respectively) to strong ties and weak ties. Bridging ties are considered the sole link between two otherwise disconnected groups by which information or influence travels (Granovetter, 1973). Often, bridging ties are in fact weak ties, and vice versa, in terms of intimacy and frequency of interaction; however, they do not have to be weak to serve as bridges (Bian, 1997), as social contacts acting as bridges may be either strong or weak in terms of intimacy or frequency of contact (Burt, 1992).

It is difficult to discuss social capital concepts without some discussion of measurement, given the lack of clear consensus on how to define and measure

71

network elements. For instance, in network studies, both direct and indirect ties may be considered, as well as actual (observed) versus perceived (reported) ties (Marsden, 1990). For the purposes of this study, “network” refers to family, friends, acquaintances, and business contacts with whom the entrepreneur reports direct links at the individual level, i.e., dyadic ego–alter ties in egocentric networks (Dubini and Aldrich, 1991; Maurer and Ebers, 2006), rather than clusters or bridges (e.g., to indirect ties). The term “tie strength” refers to strong or weak dyadic ego–alter ties rather than using the terms bonding or bridging, although the broader information benefits of the latter are discussed as a potential function.

In collecting data on egocentric networks, surveys as well as mixed methods are considered effective means to analyse structural, relational, and resource qualities of a network tie (Gedajlovic et al., 2013). Questionnaires are the most typical method for collecting data, with the most common questionnaire being the “name generator” using a “fixed choice” approach (e.g., “To whom do you most often turn for advice and information?”) (Bhagavatula, 2013; Burt, 1985). Compared to a position- generator method (e.g., naming government or industry contacts), the name-generator method is biased toward strong ties, which respondents can more readily recall (Lin, 2001a).

In gauging tie strength, measurement must begin at a fundamental level of strength equivalent to at least acquaintanceship. That is, the alter needs to be strong enough to have been named as a contact, so that the range from weak to strong tie is in fact from a moderate to a very strong level of acquaintance, not from an absolute stranger to an intimate. This is an important point, given inconsistencies in the research regarding diverse measures of weak or strong ties.