Post on 02-Mar-2023
This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 23 January 2013, At: 20:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Entrepreneurship & RegionalDevelopment: An International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tepn20
Networking and culture inentrepreneurshipKim Klyver a & Dennis Foley ba Department of Entrepreneurship & Relationship Management,University of Southern Denmark, Engstien 1, Kolding 6000,Denmarkb Institute of Social Well-being, University of NewcastleCallaghan, Newcastle 2308, AustraliaVersion of record first published: 01 Aug 2012.
To cite this article: Kim Klyver & Dennis Foley (2012): Networking and culture in entrepreneurship,Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 24:7-8, 561-588
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.710257
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Entrepreneurship & Regional DevelopmentVol. 24, Nos. 7–8, September 2012, 561–588
Networking and culture in entrepreneurship
Kim Klyvera* and Dennis Foleyb
aDepartment of Entrepreneurship & Relationship Management, University of SouthernDenmark, Engstien 1, Kolding 6000, Denmark; bInstitute of Social Well-being,
University of Newcastle Callaghan, Newcastle 2308, Australia
Case studies on three diverse cultural groups are used to investigate howculture norms and practices moderate the way entrepreneurs utilize socialnetworking. Moving away from a universalist mono-dimensional position,prior research calls for studies on how culture moderates entrepreneurialnetworking. Understandably, the concept of a national culture inevitablyrefers to the mainstream culture which fails to address the sub-culture andminority culture. This paper explores entrepreneurial networking acrossthree cultures (one mainstream culture and two minority) allowing theresearcher an insight into how culture moderates entrepreneurial network-ing. The empirical results reveal variform universality of entrepreneurialnetworking in two ways: (1) seven drivers moderate how entrepreneurialnetworking is practiced across cultures, and (2) being embedded in amainstream culture rather than a minority culture moderates howentrepreneurial networking is practiced.
Keywords: social networks; networking; culture; Indigenousentrepreneurship
1. Introduction
This study builds on the limited existing research on the interaction of culture andnetworking in entrepreneurial activity (Dodd and Patra 2002). The aim was to explorethe influence of culture on entrepreneurial networking. The influence of a nationalculture on entrepreneurship has been reasonably well researched, as has theimportance of social networks to entrepreneurship. What is missing is an understand-ing of the relationship between culture and social networks within entrepreneurialactivity – especially when culture is not defined as a nation–state phenomenon. Thispaper explores how social networking fluctuates across cultures (and not nation–statecultures), enabling us to understand cultural differences in entrepreneurial networks.To illustrate cultural variance, a national mainstream European culture, together withminority cultures within Hawaiian and Australian society, was investigated.
This paper provides a review of the literature dealing with culture andentrepreneurship, together with literature on social networks and entrepreneurship,and a more comprehensive review of literature on culture and entrepreneurialnetworks. Together with an introduction to the empirical study covering the specificresearch questions and the applied methodology, a presentation of three case studiesof entrepreneurs’ social networking from three independent cultures is presented.
*Corresponding author. Email: kkl@sam.sdu.dk
ISSN 0898–5626 print/ISSN 1464–5114 online
� 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.710257
http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
In conclusion, there is an analysis of the three case studies and a concludingdiscussion.
2. Culture and entrepreneurship
There is widespread belief that cultural difference can be a powerful determinant ofregional or national variation in the ‘supply’ of entrepreneurship (Davidsson andWiklund 1995). Empirical research on the issue is relatively scarce; although, therehave been attempts to explain large-scale economic development from a sociologicalperspective (McClelland 1961; Weber 1930). Previous research has argued thatsocieties holding different cultural values experience different levels of entrepreneur-ial activities (Shane 1992; Ettlie et al. 1993; Shane 1993; Nakata and Sivakumar 1996;Tiessen 1997; Lee and Peterson 2000; Morrison 2000; Mueller and Thomas 2000;Thomas and Mueller 2000; Begley and Tan 2001). The relationship is not causal andsimple but very complex.
Several cultural theories, cultural definitions and operationalizations of cultureprevail (e.g. Geertz 1973; Hall 1976; Hofstede 1980; Schwartz 1992; Inglehart 1997).Although we do not approach culture as a national feature, we define culture incompliance with Hofstede (1980) as the ‘ . . . collective programming of the mindwhich distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from those ofanother . . . the interactive aggregate of common characteristics that influence ahuman group’s response to its environment’ (Hofstede 1980, 25). Thus, culture is theaccepted social norms that a self-defined group mutually employ as a guide to theirsocial actions.
Inspired initially by Hofstede (1980, 2001), the general argument seems to be thatindividualism (e.g. McGrath, MacMillan, and Tsai 1992; Shane 1992, 1993; Tiessen1997; Johnson and Lenartowics 1998; Lee and Peterson 2000; Morrison 2000) andmasculinity (e.g. Lee and Peterson 2000) have a positive association with a nation’slevels of entrepreneurship, whereas uncertainty avoidance (e.g. McGrath, MacMillan,and Tsai 1992; Shane 1993; Johnson and Lenartowics 1998; Lee and Peterson 2000;Morrison 2000) and power distance (e.g. Shane 1992, 1993; Johnson and Lenartowics1998; Lee and Peterson 2000) can have a negative impact. From this we can concludethat culture may have an influence on entrepreneurship.
Despite the extensive and numerous research using Hofstede’s cultural dimen-sions to explain business behaviour, making it the dominant culture paradigm inbusiness research (Sivakumar and Nakata 2001), Hofstede’s cultural model has alsobeen criticized (e.g. McSweeney 2002; Baskerville 2003). Probably the most well-known criticism of Hofstede’s cultural model is his delimitation of culture to thenation–state (Sivakumar and Nakata 2001). Culture does not equal a nation–stateand generally there are more cultures in any one country at any specific time. Inaddition, national culture is changeable over time and national culture is hetero-geneous within a given country (Sivakumar and Nakata 2001; Kirkman, Lowe, andGibson 2006). Apart from the more conceptual critiques McSweeney (2002) attackedthe robustness of Hofstede’s cultural model, mainly due to a flawed methodology.Overall, she questions whether national culture is capable of explaining behaviouraldifferences between individuals living in different cultures. Her critique is not only acritique of Hofstede’s cultural model but rather a critique of all cultural modelsemerging from the functionalist paradigm (Williamson 2002).
562 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Hofstede has also been subject to criticism in entrepreneurship research.
Garcia-Cabrera and Garcia-Solo (2008) following Sivakumar and Nakata (2001)criticized the nation¼ culture axiom from an intra-country point of view in the
approach to cultural differences in their study of entrepreneurial behaviour inCape Verde.
Indirectly the work on ethnic entrepreneurship (e.g. Waldinger 1993; Razin 2002)
and Indigenous entrepreneurship (Fuller et al. 1999; Foley 2003; Hindle andLansdowne 2005; Hindle and Moroz 2010) clearly illustrates the importance of
considering both mainstream and minority culture. Entrepreneurs embedded indifferent minority sub-cultures are somewhat different from the mainstream societal
groups. Kloosterman, van der Leun, and Rath (1999) introduced the concept of‘mixed embeddedness’, arguing that in order to understand minority groups’
economic behaviour it is necessary to understand their co-ethnic social networks andtheir linkage to the host society.
Thus, it would seem that entrepreneurs embedded in a minority culture
might be more influenced by their minority culture rather than the mainstreamcountry culture, which is something that the ‘national culture’ approach fails to
consider.Thus, to define culture at the country level in the modern period is far too
generalized, due to the multinational ethnic makeup of the majority of the western
nations. Any attempt to stereotype the national demography by only one facet of thesocial makeup is potentially incorrect. This paper however broadens the concept of
national culture to include and consider both the sub-culture and minority cultures.This enables a more sophisticated approach to understanding how culture influences
social networking by entrepreneurs.
3. Social networks and entrepreneurship
In the case of social networks and entrepreneurship, there is a solid knowledge base(see Hoang and Antoncic 2003; O’Donnell et al. 2001; Jack 2010 for comprehensive
reviews). Here it is generally accepted that social networks have a strong influence onentrepreneurial activity (e.g. Batjargal 2010; Zhao, Frese, and Giardini 2010). The
social network approach argues that entrepreneurs are embedded into social contextsthat influence the decisions which they take, and this influences the chances of
successfully completing their plans (Greve 1995; Jack and Anderson 2002; Davidssonand Honig 2003). These social contexts are constituted by their social networks.
Entrepreneurs’ social networks consist of a variety of relationships that can be madeup of formal as well as social relationships, which include acquaintances, friends and
family (Evald, Klyver, and Svendsen 2006). It is known that entrepreneurs obtainresources from the social networks – resources that are important and supplement
what they already have in their possession (Jenssen 2001; Jenssen and Koenig 2002;Greve and Salaff 2003; Witt 2010). These resources take on different forms, ranging
from financial capital, industry information and advice, to emotional support and
other pertinent general knowledge. It is the composition of their social networks thatto a certain degree determines which resources entrepreneurs can obtain from it.
Different social networks provide different resources to entrepreneurs (Jenssen andKoenig 2002; Witt 2010).
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 563
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
4. Culture and social networks – A weak link
There is existing research on culture and entrepreneurship, and substantial researchon social networks and entrepreneurship. However, the relationship between cultureand social networks within entrepreneurial literature is yet to be widely published.
Klyver, Hindle, and Meyer (2008) identified two extreme ideal typical positionswithin the existing research on culture and social networks in entrepreneurship. Theyhave to be perceived as pure thoughts on each end of a continuum and whereresearch places itself in between these extremes. The universalist, mono-dimensionalposition argues that entrepreneurial networking plays a generic and universal roleindependent of the context in which the entrepreneur is embedded. The role ofresearch, although there might be differences in social network structure and theways networking is practiced, is to identify common and generic elements acrosscontexts. The fundamental assumption is that entrepreneurs practice networkingsimilarly across cultures and thus social networks of entrepreneurs from differentcultures are more alike with each other than individuals from same cultures.
The other extreme ideal typical position emphasizes context determinism, arguingthat social networks differ dramatically depending on the context in which theentrepreneur is embedded. Here the fundamental assumption is that individuals fromthe same culture develop more alike social networks than entrepreneurs fromdifferent cultures. The role of research according to this position is to explorevariance in entrepreneurial networking among entrepreneurs embedded in differentcultures.
There has been a long debate on whether the universality view or the contextualview aptly describes entrepreneurial networking. One group of studies has dominatedthis discussion. These studies have been carried out by Aldrich and colleagues in theUS and Italy (Aldrich, Reese, and Dubini 1989), Norway (Greve 1995), Sweden(Johannisson and Nilsson 1989), Northern Ireland (Birley, Cromie, and Myers1991), Japan (Aldrich and Sakano 1995), Canada (Staber and Aldrich 1995) andGreece (Dodd and Patra 1998). Their interest was specifically targeted at interna-tional comparisons, and their main research task has been to investigate ‘. . . howculturally determined and diverse entrepreneurial networks are’ (Dodd and Patra2002, 119).
It should be recognized that the research agendas influenced the data collection inthe different countries (Dodd and Patra 2002). Some studies focused specifically onyoung entrepreneurs, some on women and some on urban and rural groups (Doddand Patra 2002). The sample construction and questionnaire administrationtechniques also differ among the studies. Even though these limitations have to beacknowledged, some international comparisons have been possible. Staber andAldrich (1995) argued that ‘at least some aspects of business networking are genericand that owners approach some tasks in similar ways in different environments’(Staber and Aldrich 1995, 443). Further, Dodd and Patra (2002) observed that ‘. . . insummary, the results from this series of linked (although not methodologicallyidentical) studies indicate some homogeneity, suggesting a degree of generic universalentrepreneurial behaviour, and some heterogeneity, highlighting the importance ofcultural differences’ (Dodd and Patra 2002, 119).
Although there have been some difficulties in interpreting the results, the researchseems to have made substantial progress towards understanding the influence ofnational culture on entrepreneurs’ social networks. It is time to move beyond the
564 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
simple universality versus context dependence discussion. Based on Dickson, denHartog, and Mitchelson (2003), Klyver, Hindle, and Meyer (2008) introduced theconcepts of variform universality and functional universality to the literature onentrepreneurial networking which nuance and sophisticate our understanding ofuniversality. Variform universality indicates ‘ . . . a general relationship that holdsacross countries, but which is moderated by culture’ (Klyver, Hindle, and Meyer2008, 344), whereas functional universality prevails ‘ . . .where relationships are thesame within groups’ (Klyver, Hindle, and Meyer 2008, 344).
The need to move beyond the simple universality discussion and the prior validcritique of Hofstede’s (1980) culture model equalizing nation–state and culturepreviously discussed call for investigations first of all within nation–states andsecond for studies focusing on drivers of variform and functional universality.
5. The empirical study
5.1. Research objective
Within this paper, we aim to extend the knowledge on culture and entrepreneurialnetworking by investigating specifically drivers of variform universality withinnation–state cultures. Two main research questions are raised:
(1) Does entrepreneurial networking differ between cultures, and if so, how?(2) Does entrepreneurial networking differ between entrepreneurs embedded in a
mainstream culture and entrepreneurs embedded in a minority culture, and ifso, how?
5.2. Methodology: Three intensive case studies
A multiple case study approach was applied in this study (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin2002). Each case study involved general results about networking behaviour thatwere applied to a group of entrepreneurs embedded in a specific culture. The casestudies involved three completely different cultures. Originally, these specific casestudies were carried out for purposes other than this paper and used differentmethodologies. But in the context of this study it is not the methodologies used thatwere essential; rather, the commonality of the outcomes discussed and explored wasof interest. Eisenhardt (1989) argues that choosing extreme cases might be a strategyin order to develop theory through case studies. In this research context, ‘extremecases’ can imply those that represent diverse culture as well as mainstream culturesand minority sub-cultures. These two criteria are met. The three case studies includeinvestigations on the social networks of mainstream Danish entrepreneurs inDenmark, Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs in Hawaii and Indigenous Australianentrepreneurs in Australia operating in urban environments, rather than remoteAustralian Indigenous communities. Mainstream Danish entrepreneurs are chosenas representative of a mainstream Westerners – the sample seems to behave verymuch like other mainstream Westerners – for instance, entrepreneurs embedded in amainstream culture in Scotland (Jack, Dodd, and Anderson 2008), in England (Chelland Baines 2000) and in Australia (Klyver and Hindle 2007). The behaviouralsimilarities among mainstream Westerners are also confirmed by Hite and Hesterly’s(2001) review of (mainly) Western literature on entrepreneurial networking.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 565
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Indigenous minority cultures are chosen rather than immigrant of ethnic minoritycultures to eliminate any possible generational variance in influence of themainstream culture. In addition Indigenous cultures normally have a strongerincentive and as well as community pressure to maintain their culture and socialheritage (Foley 2005).
5.2.1. Mainstream Danish entrepreneurs’ social networks
This study was undertaken between 2002 and 2008, gathering both quantitative dataand qualitative data. The qualitative data came from formal and informal interviewswith, and observations of, 10 Danish entrepreneurs over a six-year period.
The quantitative data consist of two surveys. A representative sample of Danishentrepreneurs was surveyed upon their use of social networks throughout thebusiness life cycle (Klyver 2007; Klyver and Terjesen 2007). The name-generatorapproach was used (Burt 1984), where respondents are asked to mention the peoplethey have activated or talked to regarding a specific activity. In this case, the activitywas the intention to start a business or the activities associated with running theirnewly established business. A total of 264 questionnaires were completed; 239 in2003 and 25 in 2002.
5.2.2. Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs’ social networks
This study was carried out in Hawaii in 2000 and 2001. In it, 25 ‘snowball selected’urban entrepreneurs were interviewed using a semi-structured interview format.Substantive coding (open coding and constant comparative coding) was used for theanalysis of interview data (Glaser 1992). The interviewed entrepreneurs covered abroad range of industries in order to represent the diversity of Native Hawaiianenterprises.
5.2.3. Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs’ social networks
The case of Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs’ social networks is based on severalprior research projects (Foley 2003, 2005) as well as recent case studies spanning aperiod of 10 years. It involved sixty ‘snowball selected’ urban Indigenousentrepreneurs from geographical regions ranging from Hobart to Darwin. Theseentrepreneurs were regularly interviewed over a period from two to ten years with asemi-structured interview format. Substantive coding (open coding and constantcomparative coding) was used for the analysis of interview data (Glaser 1992). Theparticipants covered a broad range of industries that were far removed from the art,craft and tourism ventures that are stereotypically associated with Indigenousbusiness activity.
5.3. Three case studies
5.3.1. Mainstream Danish entrepreneurs’ social networks
For Danish entrepreneurs embedded in the mainstream culture, networking is anatural part of doing business. Social networks and specific contacts are rationallyactivated among people the entrepreneurs know, the choice of person dictated by theactivities and decisions they are undertaking at the time.
566 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Overall, entrepreneurs expect people in their networks to provide resources,otherwise the relationship would not have been activated and other and more usefulrelationships might have been commenced. Few network members might actuallyexert their influence without a useful outcome. Normally, entrepreneurs have mutualobligations to those network members. Often, the decisions entrepreneurs are aboutto take are important to these people as well, for there may exist mutual obligations,or similar, as they may be closely related family members, such as a spouse.
While family members play an important role for many Danish entrepreneurs,the surveys revealed that almost 40% had no family members in their activated socialnetworks (i.e. those people with whom entrepreneurs discuss their venture). Familymembers tend to be influential in the start-up phase where they most often providethe entrepreneur with emotional support or financial resources.
Danish entrepreneurs’ social networks are relatively dynamic, with theircompositions changing during the business life cycle. In the main, entrepreneurs inthe discovery phase, who are looking for opportunities to pursue, rely on all thepeople they know in order to access non-redundant information. They try to activatea diversity of social networks. As they move forward into the start-up phase, theirsocial networks become more convergent, producing stronger relationships. In thisphase, the social network serves the purpose of providing the entrepreneurs withemotional support, and for some the social network may also provide financialresources. The network then shifts again to a diverse structure with many weak ties(including business related ties) as the entrepreneur moves into the young businessphase. Here, the essence of the social network is to exploit the opportunity includingattracting new customers.
5.3.2. Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs’ social networks
Native Hawaiians make up approximately 19.85% (U.S. Census 2000) of thepopulation of the State of Hawaii. The population density is high and mostHawaiians live close to or in major cities. In comparison with countries likeAustralia, there has only been limited disruption to family networks by the effect ofcolonisation in Hawaii. Research indicates Hawaiian entrepreneurs do not normallyexperience discrimination in their business pursuits, and business success is culturallyacceptable, in fact many see it as a contributor to their social status.
Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs value networking and perceive networking skillsas an essential business attribute. The development and utilization of relationshipswith other organizations provides many opportunities for them to build industrycredibility as well as access to supplier and customer channels. They have been ableto maintain strong multicultural networks that are exceedingly important in theirbusiness pursuits, not only within the Hawaiian community, but also within otherminority community networks. Long-term associations with other respected Asianminorities have been invaluable in business interaction, providing market advantagesas these associations allow entrepreneurs to access other markets.
The strong multicultural networks are often referred to as the ‘coloured network’,consisting, along with the Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs, of American–Japanese–Philippine–Vietnamese and Pacifica peoples. Networking is understood by many tobe an underground movement in some ways, as it often takes several years to tap intothis network unless you have good family connections prior to the commencement ofbusiness. Once accepted into the Hawaiian business community and its market
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 567
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
resources, it seems the Hawaiian grapevine works effectively in strengtheningbusiness market access.
To Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs, social life and business life are not separated.Although family is seen as the core basis of their culture, business activities andbusiness partners are seen as an extension of the family and vice versa.
In certain industries, such as the retail sector, entrepreneurs adopt novelmarketing strategies in their attempts to generate loyal customers. By well-organizedsponsorship programmes with the aim of giving back to the community, theysimultaneously create customer loyalty from community members. Further loyalty isgenerated by employing local staff from the community.
5.3.3. Australian Indigenous entrepreneurs’ social networks
The estimated Indigenous Australian population is only 2.5% (Australian Bureau ofStatistics 2007) of the Australian population. The population density in general isvery low considering the huge geographical area Australia covers, although high inthe sense that most people live in the larger cities. Racial discrimination iswidespread in Australia, especially against Indigenous female entrepreneurs. AmongIndigenous people, success as an entrepreneur is normally not rewarded with statuswithin the community.
Among Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs, networking is seen as an essentialbusiness activity, but their networking activity is predominately undertaken with thedominant Anglo-Australian society and not with other minority groups. This isdriven by what is perceived as a business necessity. Indigenous entrepreneurs arecommonly forced to find expertise outside the Indigenous community. Necessitydrives them to network with mainstream business contacts. Indigenous Australianentrepreneurs often rely on the experiences and the skills of non-indigenous mentorswho helped them establish key industry contacts.
Apart from gaining access to the wider business community and the opportu-nities associated with it, networking with the dominant society provides Indigenousentrepreneurs with credibility and positive image essential in their struggle withdiscriminatory behaviour in the business world.
Yet Indigenous entrepreneurs pay a price for their access to the wider businesscommunity. In order to succeed, they must appear to be acculturated into themainstream business world. Many feel isolated from their Indigenous community, asit is not always well accepted within Indigenous circles that their primary interactionsare with the mainstream ‘settler society’ business world. This can be a difficult socialdecision for entrepreneurs to make, for if they are to be successful in business theymust be proficient in networking across cultural and/or racial barriers. Thisentrepreneurial attribute only seems to arise after extensive industry experience and/or exposure to the mainstream business world.
5.4. Comparing the three case studies
The three cases show how entrepreneurial networking differs dramatically amongentrepreneurs embedded in different cultures. In order to identify the differences inentrepreneurial networking we went through an abductive process – a wrestlingbetween data and theory (Davidsson 2004). A first step was for each member of the
568 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
research team to read through the case material while taking notes. Second, with thisempirical case material in mind theoretically we deduced the drivers that arenormally essential for entrepreneurial networking. Third, each empirical caseprovided information on the uniqueness in entrepreneurial networking for eachdriver. Although the research process here is describe as a step-by-step approach thereal process is to better describe as a ‘back and forth’ process between data andtheory.
A short presentation of the embedded cases in the three cultural cases is presentedin Table 1, although only selection of the embedded cases is presented for TheAustralian Indigenous cultural case.
Table 2 outlines the main differences in entrepreneurial networking practicesadapted by mainstream Danish entrepreneurs, Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs andAustralian Indigenous entrepreneurs.
Seven key dimensions were found that distinguish approaches to entrepreneurialnetworking adapted by entrepreneurs in the three cultures: drivers for activation ofrelationship; view of network; role of family; dynamics; diversity; business relationsand relationship between social and business spheres. Extracts including examplesand quotes of the qualitative data representing each drivers and each cultural caseare presented in Table 3.
5.4.1. Drivers for activation of relationship
Different factors stimulate entrepreneurs in the three different cultures to activaterelationships. Among Danish entrepreneurs, individual rationality is of crucialimportance. They activate those relationships that they perceive as valuable for theirforthcoming challenges, trying to maximize their own individual values. NativeHawaiian entrepreneurs’ activations of relationships are also made rationally,although their rational decisions are dramatically different from those made byDanish entrepreneurs. Native Hawaiian entrepreneurs try to maximize the value fortheir family. They see networking as an offshoot of the family obligations. AmongAustralian Indigenous entrepreneurs, activation of relationships is a clinical decisionmade necessary in dealing with the dominant Anglo-society, when they are forced tointeract with non-indigenous people. This is because the majority of AustralianIndigenous people have very low social and human capital available to apply toentrepreneurship within their own personal networks generated by pre-entrepreneur-ship activity. In traditional (pre-European contact) Aboriginal society, socialnetworks through complex kinship relations were well established, however theimpact of colonization, dispossession and urbanization has resulted in the destruc-tion of many cultural ties and traditional practices resulting in radical change that isnot based on kin or culture groups (Fryer-Smith 2002). Traditional kinship-basedlevels of social and human capital are diminished to unrecognizable levels in thecolonized urban environment.
5.4.2. View of network
Among Danish majority entrepreneurs social networks are seen as an importantresource; many Danish entrepreneurs are very conscious about how they positionthemselves in their networks and how they continuously develop them. NativeHawaiian entrepreneurs perceive their network as a natural offshoot of cultural
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 569
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Table
1.
Description
ofDanish,AustralianandHawaiiancases.
Case
no.
Typeof
entrepreneur
Sex
Age
Industry
Start-upyear
(first
business)
Number
of
business
Financialsuccess
1Serial
M40s
Hospitality
industry,
detail
1989
45
Verysuccessful
2Serial
M39
Marketing
1996
3Verysuccessful
3Novice
M39
Design
Notregisteredyet
1Sofarnotsuccessful
4Serial
M42
Music
1991
3Moderate
successful
5Serial
M37
Realestate
2000
45
Failed
6Novice
M36
Realestate
Notregisteredyet
1Sofarnotsuccessful
7Novice
M23
Internet
2008
1Verysuccessful
8Novice
M25
B2B
2006
1Successful
9Novice
M41
Internet
2007
1Verysuccessful
10
Novice
M37
Detail
2006
45
Sold;verysuccessful
Australiancases
1Novice
M40
Dance
troupe/cultural
consultant
1998
1Moderate
successful
2Serial
MF
70
Bed
&Breakfast
owner/
operator
1980
8Moderate
successful
3Novice
M39
Internet
andinform
ation
technologyconsultant
1999
1Moderate
successful
4Novice
M34
Steel
fabricator
1999
1Moderate
successful
5Novice
M42
Solicitor
1998
1Verysuccessful
6Novice
M44
Mixed
farm
er:property
investor
1989
2Verysuccessful
7Novice
M39
Furniture
andartefact
manufacturerand
retailer
1999
1Moderate
successful
8Serial
MF
40’s
Furniture
manufacturer
1989
4Moderate
successful
9Serial
MF
40’s
Artefact
manufacturer
andretailer
1992
3Moderate
successful
10
Novice
MF
49þ
Art
galleryretail
1993
1Moderate
successful
570 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
11
Serial
MF
49þ
Hospitality
industry,
retail
1993
3Verysuccessful
12
Serial
M34
Commercialwriter
1996
2Moderate
success
13
Novice
M28
Tim
ber
mill
1998
1Team
14
Serial
F42
Employmentconsultant
1995
2Moderate
successful
15
Serial
F43
Bookretailer
and
wholesaler
1998
2Moderate
successful
16
Novice
MF
49þ
Retailfruitandveg
1999
1Moderate
successful
17
Novice
MF
49þ
Retailcnrstore
1998
1Moderate
success
18
Serial
M70
Retailauto
spares
1990
3Moderate
successful
19
Novice
F30þ
Retail
1998
1Moderate
success
20
Novice
MF
44
GarageMV
2000
1Moderate
successful
21
Novice
M40
Educationconsultant
2000
1Moderate
success
22
Novice
F38
Hospitality
consultant
1998
1Verysuccessful
23
Serial
MF
60
Motelier
1997
3Verysuccessful
24
Serial
MF
55
Restaurateur
1996
3Moderate
successful
25
Serial
MF
570
Artefact
manufacturer
1990
4Moderate
successful
26
Serial
M49þ
Artefact
manufacturer
1990
2Moderate
successful
27
Novice
M49þ
Artefact
manufacturer
1997
1Notsuccessful
28
Novice
M5
70
Artefact
manufacturer
1990
1Moderate
successful
29
Serial
F65
Restaurateur
1996
4Notsuccessful
30
Novice
FF
39þ
Educationpublisher
2000
1Notsuccessful
31
Novice
MF
40þ
Hospitality
1999
1Verysuccessful
32
Serial
M39
Marketing
1996
3Verysuccessful
33
Novice
M29
Design
2000
1Notsuccessful
34
Serial
M42
Musiccomposer
perform
er1994
2Moderate
successful
35
Novice
M40
Film
&V
director
1997
1Verysuccessful
36
Novice
MF
570
Apiarist
1994
1Moderate
success
37
Novice
M30
Fashiondesign
1994
1Notsuccessful
38
Novice
F28
Fashiondesign
2000
1Moderate
success
39
Serial
MF
49þ
Art
galleryretail
1993
3Moderate
success
40
Novice
F5
40
Art
galleryretail
2000
1Moderate
success
41
Serial
MF
570
Hospitality
industry
1999
2Verysuccessful (continued
)
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 571
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Table
1.Continued.
Case
no.
Typeof
entrepreneur
Sex
Age
Industry
Start-upyear
(first
business)
Number
of
business
Financialsuccess
42
Serial
M39
Marketing
1996
3Verysuccessful
43
Novice
M39
Buildingdesign
1999
1Notsuccessful
44
Serial
M42
Music
1996
3Moderate
success
45
Serial
MF
570
Retailhospitality
1998
3Moderate
success
46
Serial
MM
49þ
Hardware
retail
1990
3Moderate
success
47
Serial
MF
49þ
Hardware
retail
1988
4Verysuccessful
48
Serial
MF
40þ
Country&
Western
Clothing
1997
3Moderate
success
49
Novice
M40þ
Chef
consultant
1988
1Moderate
success
50
Serial
M49þ
Designer
Indigenous
projectscommercial&
domestic
1984
8Moderate
success
51
Serial
MF
49þ
Hospitality
1988
4Verysuccessful
52
Serial
M39
Marketing
1996
3Verysuccessful
53
Novice
M39
Designcommercial
1992
1Moderate
success
54
Serial
M42
Music
1988
3Moderate
success
55
Serial
MM
70
Designfabricclothing
1978
7Verysuccessful
56
Serial
M49þ
Legalconsultant
1978
7Moderate
success
57
Serial
M40þ
Horticulturalist
1988
4Moderate
success
58
Novice
F5
40
Computerconsultant
1997
1Notsuccessful
59
Novice
F5
40
Legalconsultant
1989
1Verysuccessful
60
Novice
F40þ
Deportmentconsultant
1997
1Moderate
success
572 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Hawaiiancases
1Serial
F49
Retailtourism
1994
3Verysuccessful
2Serial
M49
Fishing
1996
3Notsuccessful
3Serial
M49
Transport
1990
3Verysuccessful
4Serial
M72
Domesticbuilding
industry
1970
8Verysuccessful
5Serial
M44
Agriculture
1984
2Moderate
successful
6Serial
M71
Agriculture
1978
3Moderate
successful
7Serial
F40
Artefact
manufacture
1992
2Moderate
successful
8Novice
F42
Artsandcraft
1997
1Moderate
successful
9Serial
F44
Retail/W
holesale
educa-
tionandcultural
Products
1994
3Verysuccessful
10
Serial
M48
Gift-wearretail
1990
4Verysuccessful
11
Serial
M39
Hospitality
industry,
retail
1998
3Verysuccessful
12
Serial
F71
Aquaculture,
1990
3Verysuccessful
13
Serial
M39
Serviceindustry
1997
3Successful
14
Serial
F38
Restaurant
1994
3Moderate
successful
15
Serial
M49
Retailautomotiveparts
1988
2Moderate
successful
16
Serial
M43
Artefact
manufacture
1994
3Moderate
successful
17
Serial
M39
Artsandcraft
1998
2Moderate
successful
18
Serial
M40
Gift-wearretail
1997
3Moderate
successful
19
Serial
M71
Industrialbuilding
Contracting
1970
10
Verysuccessful
20
Serial
F39
Artsandcraft
1998
2Moderate
successful
21
Serial
M48
Hospitality
industry,
retail
1994
4Verysuccessful
22
Serial
M49
Serviceindustry
1996
3Verysuccessful
23
Serial
M39
Serviceindustry
1997
3Moderate
successful
24
Serial
M70
Nursery
1988
9Moderate
successful
25
Serial
M40
Fineart
retailing
1994
4Moderate
successful
Note:Numbersdonotcorrespondwithcase
studyquotesin
Table
3to
hideidentity
ofparticipants.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 573
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
respect for others, although they are strategic in their alliances to ensure that thenetwork provides the best output for their family (and business). Due to the lowproportion of Indigenous Australian population and even lower proportion ofIndigenous entrepreneurs in general, the Indigenous Australian entrepreneur has nochoice other than to interact with the dominant Anglo-Australian business society asthe non-indigenous people are invariably both their suppliers and customers.
5.4.3. Role of family
The role of family differs among entrepreneurs embedded in the three differentcultures. Among some Danish entrepreneurs family plays a role, whereas family iswithout significance for others. Often when family does play a role it is because offamily members are informal investors or providers of emotional support. ForNative Hawaiian entrepreneurs, business activities are seen as an extension of familyand vice versa, but family is more than just blood connections, it also includesconnections with people from other ethnic minorities whose business philosophyaccords with, the Hawaiian family network concept. The Indigenous Australianentrepreneurs, on the other hand, are in business to provide for their nuclear family.For many, it is why they are in business. They do not see the business as an extensionof their family; rather, it is somewhat an alien structure that is a means to an end,providing the physiological needs required by their nuclear families.
5.4.4. Dynamics
Most Danish entrepreneurs’ networks are very dynamic in the sense that they aresubject to change and make modification in the life cycle, while a small percentage ofthe relations in a network, due to mutual obligations, will form a stable core that will
Table 2. Comparative analysis of the three cases.
Mainstream Danishentrepreneurs
Native Hawaiianentrepreneurs
AustralianIndigenous
entrepreneurs
Drivers for activationof relationships
Individual rationality Family rationality A clinical decisionof necessity
View of network A business resource A family resource A necessityRole of family Important to some
entrepreneursVery important and
supportiveNegligible, most cases
negativeNetwork dynamics Relatively dynamic ‘coloured network’
dynamicDependence on racial
acceptanceDiversity High diversity (not
cultural diverse)Very diverse,
especiallyculturally
Limited
Business relation Relatively manybusiness relations
Many and verypersonal businessrelations
Dependent; powerimbalance
Relationship betweensocial and businessspheres
Overlaps exist, butnot highlyintegrated
Highly integrated Separated
574 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Table
3.
Empiricalpiecesfrom
thethreecase
studies.
Mainstream
Danishentrepreneurs
NativeHawaiianentrepreneurs
AustralianIndigenousentrepreneurs
Driversfor
activationof
relationship
Example
(C1):C1isarestaurantowner
andem
phasizesthatitisim
portantto
know
therightpeople.Hepromotes
allhisevents
throughmouth
tomouth.It
iswaytooexpensiveto
reach
somanypotentialcustomersby
use
ofordinary
salespromotion
methods.
Quote
(HO11):‘Inbusiness[m
eaning
thisindustry]just
cause
youcoloured
noproblem.Most
people
in[this]
businesscoloured
...w
estick
together,wesupport
each
other
...no
matter
ifyouare
Hawaiian,Pacifica
orAsian,weare
allconnectedandwe
use
each
other.If
notnoonewould
travel
upthelongdirtroadto
this
business’.
Quote
(A3):‘Iam
inbusiness,everyone
aroundmeisnon-indigenous.Iam
inawhiteworld.Ihaveto
provemyself
140%
continuously.Thepressure
isonmeallthetimeto
provemyself.
I’vegotto
wearatie,
I’vegotto
look
good,andIcan’tafford
tomake
mistakes,[IfIdid]thewhiteworld
willjumponmeanddiscard
meas
quickaslookatmebecause
it’sa
savagewhite[business]world’
Example
(C9):C9started
hisbusiness
together
withtw
oother
guysandthey
werequiteoptimisticaboutitspoten-
tial.After
thebasicproduct
was
developed
they
approached
potential
customers.C9wasthesalesperson
andheexplainsthatherelied
heavily
onrecommendationsbyothers.
Especiallygettingthefirstbig
cus-
tomer
wasextrem
elyim
portant.Big
customerswereusedexplicitlyasa
reference
when
approachingnew
customers.
Quote
(A29):‘A
boriginalAustraliahas
notmaturedin
business,most
ofmy
suppliersandthemajority
ofmy
clients
...youcould
saymybusiness
isdependentonmynon-indigenous
networks,whichare
essentialfor
survival’.
View
of
network
Quote
(C1):‘N
etworksare
weird
andare
sometim
esdifficultto
manage.
However,businessisfundamentally
aboutmakinguse
ofcontactsor
makinguse
ofcontacts’contacts’.
Quote
(HO11):‘Christmasweputona
big
party,plenty
beer,pig,good
Hawaiianfood.Weinviteallour
businesscontacts.Itpaysoffandthey
are
goodto
us.Withoutwhatyousay
networking,youhavenothing!You
just
hopepeople
driveupthatdirt
Quote
(A16):‘A
saKoori,Ihold
my
headuphigh,andIliveagoodhonest
life.Iwork
hard
andvalue
relationships.Ithinktheseare
very
important;perhapstraditionalvalues
are
beingredefined;now
they
are
traditionalcontemporary
urban,and
(continued
)
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 575
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Table
3.Continued.
Mainstream
Danishentrepreneurs
NativeHawaiianentrepreneurs
AustralianIndigenousentrepreneurs
roadandyoupray,withother
busi-
nesspeople
asfriendsthey
send
people
upthatroad;thereisabig
difference’.
kinship
islinked
into
modernbusiness
networks’.
Quote
(C4):
‘Networksare
everything.
Withoutmynetwork
Iwould
never
have
been
assuccessfulasIam
today..
..I
often
think
abouthow
Itreatother
people
–younever
know
whomightbe
usefulin
thefuture’.
Quote
(HM08):‘W
ehavealong-term
relationship
thatstarted
withmy
mother
...over
30years
ofexperi-
ence.Longassociationwithmarket
people
...Relationship
ithelps,I
hopeithelpmydaughter,thisrela-
tionship
issomethingIcanhand
down’.
Quote
(HO11):‘.
..withoutfriendships
[networkingcontacts]wewillnot
survive,
that’swhyitisim
portantto
knowandwork
withother
operators’.
Quote
(16):‘Icannotafford
tofail,asan
Indigenousbusinesspersontheeyes
of
non-indigenouspeople
are
onyou,
(andtheeyes
ofyourowncommu-
nity)alwayswatching,alwayswaiting
forfailure
sothey
cansayItold
you
so,hewould
notsucceed.Thisismy
chance;ifIfailImaynotget
another
chance.Iwillnotletthetallpoppy
negativityofother
people
win,Iwill
succeedandin
doingso
Ineedo
network
withthenonindigenous
businessworld,asoursuppliersand
buyersare
allwhile’.
Role
offamily
Example
(C8):C8’sfamilyhasplayed
ahugerole
inhisentrepreneurial
career.Hewastrained
asawaiter
inthefamilyhotelandwasalsointro-
ducedto
hospitality
managem
ent.He
explainsthatasayoungentrepreneur
hisparents
supported
hissubstan-
tively–both
financiallyandem
o-
tionally.Hisplanisto
takeover
the
parents’hotelgraduallyover
thenext
fiveyears.
Quote
(HH17):‘.
..seen
volcanoes
erupt,tsunamis,cyclones,drought,
theeconomic
collapse
oftherural
industry
andwesurvive.It’sallabout
people
...it’sallaboutbeingpart
of
thecommunity
...mywifewhen
8monthspregnantonce
drovethe22
wheeleraroundtheislandwhen
we
weredownonstaff.It’snothing
...to
putin
a20hourday[when
needed]..
.when
somethingneedsto
bedonewe
doit.Weallwork
together
...no
such
thing,as‘‘ohthat’snotmyjob’’.
Ifit’sto
bedoneanyoneofusdoit’.
Quote
(A4):‘M
yfather
isthefirst
successfulentrepreneurin
ourfamily,
Ihavestumbledin
myjourney
several
times
andhehasbeentherewith
guidance
andworkingcapital.I
would
notbesuccessfultodaywithout
hisandother
familysupport,albeit
moralin
mostcaseshowever
familyis
soim
portant
...thesadsideofthisis
thatmost
Aboriginalfamiliesdonot
support
theentrepreneurs
intheir
family,we-Iam
lucky’.
576 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Quote
(C2):‘M
ybrother
andIare
both
ownersofthecompany.Soin
that
sense
familyplaysarole
formy
entrepreneurialcareer.However,Ido
notdiscuss
businessissues
withother
familymem
bers.Iam
norm
allynotso
keenonthefamilyratrace’.
Quote
(HO11):‘Last
thingIsay,being
Hawaiianandbeingin
businessnot
makeyoudifferentbutIthinkitgives
youmore
opportunity,thisisgood.
Youhaveachance
andyoumusttake
care
ofthatandbuildonitforyour
family,Idon’tthinkweherefor
profit,thoughweneedthat.Wehere
cause
thiswhatweknowandwedoit
kindagoodandweenjoyit.If
Ihad
towork
forsomebodyInolikethat,
andInottakewelfare,Iwould
farm
andfish
formyfamily.Idon’tthink
thisanydifferentto
whatold
timelike
really’.
Quote
(A12):‘.
..[t]heboyandgirl,real
keen,get
involved
inthebusiness,
whole
familyinvolved.When
our
childrenstarted
workingforusthey
beganto
understandthesupport
and
needforus.They
nolonger
thought,
ohMum
andDadare
makinglots
of
money’.
Quote
(HK25):‘It’saboutbuildingfor
thecommunity,yourextended
family
...Thisbusinessismyfamily,itis
HawaiianEconomic
Sovereignty..
..Tobeable
toshare
togiveto
theless
fortunate
tohelpothers,andthey
inturn
willhelpyouwhen
youneedit.
ThisisHawaiian.Sharing,givingand
receivinggiftin
return,thisis
Hawaiian.Ilivebythesevalues
andI
am
judged
bythem
.Lookaroundthis
ismyvalues,thisismylife
andthisis
how
Iam
judged
inthislife
andthe
next’.
Dynamics
Quote
(C10):‘M
ynetwork
haschanged
dramaticallythroughmylife.Ionly
speakto
few
ofpeople
Iknew
inprimary
school,Irarely
speakto
any
from
secondary
school,butIcontinue
Quote
(H12andH15):‘Inow
have
choices
inmylife,when
Ilookback
inmyyouth,even
inmyearlyyears
inbusiness,those
people
whoIknew
on
adailybasisandwhoIrelied
uponin
Quote
(A9):‘[e]verythingischanging
across
thecountry[withIndigenous
people]engaged
intradeandcom-
merce
...it’snothingnew
tous
...
before
thewhitefellascameitthrived,
(continued
)
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 577
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Table
3.Continued.
Mainstream
Danishentrepreneurs
NativeHawaiianentrepreneurs
AustralianIndigenousentrepreneurs
totalk
topriorcolleagues.Iam
stillin
thesameindustry
andthesepeople
mightbevaluable
formein
the
future..
..Currently,after
wehave
started
thebusinessItalk
tocertain
people
–Iwillprobably
talk
toother
peoplelateron.Although,because
we
are
afamilyowned
firm
Iwillprob-
ably
continueto
discuss
business
matterswithcertain
familymem
bers’.
business,Inow
vary
rarely
have
contact
with,
...asmybusiness
maturedandmybusinessskills
maturedso
did
mybusinesscontacts
...manyofwhom
Idealwithwecall
thecolorednetwork.
...Uscolored
people
dependoneach
other
andwe
haveacomplexmatrix
ofpeoples;
(ethnic
minorities)whoare
inbusi-
ness,
...mymother
dealtwitha
Japaneseman,Inow
dealwithhis
son,andmyfather
wasin
business
andgoodconnectionwithaThai
family,Inow
dependonthem
for
freshsupplies,
...welookoutfor
each
other,thesebondsare
deep,the
network
isstrongandwhen
your
businesslife
isdependentonthe
honesty
ofyourbusinesscontacts
thesenetworksare
soim
portantas
withoutthem
yourchancesofsuccess
isreduced’.
nowwehaveacurrency
system
before
itwasopen
trade
...itseem
sthathalf
ofourcommunityisengaged
intrade
andcommerce,theother
remainson
itsown
...westillhavethiswelfare
mentality
ofgovernment[insome
sectors]
...Theculturalaspects
of
finance,that’swhereIstand,Iques-
tionsellingourculture.Businessis
fineaslongasyouare
notbastardiz-
ingyourculture
...itisaphilosoph-
icalposition
...whenever
youengage
incommerce,youare
engagingin
compromisingyourculture
...when
youtalk
aboutprofityouare
already
presuming
...youare
structuringand
positioningyourselfin
acorporate
scene
...theissueofownership
iscritical
...appropriate
conduct
...
communalarrangem
ents,how
will
they
beworked
out.When
inbusiness
youare
workingwithnew
contacts,
new
networksare
dynamic
when
comparedto
ourold
socialgroups,in
fact
isasifyouare
now
livingwithin
differentcircles’.
Example
(C3):C3isadesigner
andhe
explainshow
itisdifficultto
get
the
firstproductssold.Heneedssomeone
toopen
thedoors
forhim
–someone
whoknowstheindustry
andthe
people
intheindustry.Duringthe
start-upstagehemostly
discussed
his
designsandbusinessmattes
with
Quote
(A3):‘Iam
inbusiness,everyone
aroundmeisnon-indigenous.Iam
inawhiteworld.Ihaveto
provemyself
140%
continuously.Thepressure
isonmeallthetimeto
provemyself.
I’vegotto
wearatie,
I’vegotto
look
good,andIcan’tafford
tomake
mistakes,[IfIdid]thewhiteworld
578 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
familyandfriendsbutlaterheturned
tocontactsin
theindustry.Heisnow
spendingtimebuildingupcontactson
theindustry
butadmititishard
work
andtakes
alongtime.
willjumponmeanddiscard
meas
quickaslookatmebecause
it’sa
savagewhite[business]world’.
Diversity
Quote
(C10):‘Ilovetalkingto
allkindof
people.Ialwaysget
somethingoutof
itwhichisuseful–atleast
apleasant
moment’.
Quote
(HK22):‘O
urclientbase
isall
tourism
based,aim
edattheupper
end,althoughmanyofourclients
are
repeatcollectors
orprofessionaldec-
orators
from
theWestcoast
westill
get
manywalk
inswhocanbeany-
wherein
theworld.Thisiswhatwe
like,
mypartner
andIenjoythe
diversity
ofboth
attitudes
toour
culture
andthediversity
oftheir
languages
...it’slikeawashing
machinewithdifferentnationalities
poppingout,
...alotoffun
...I
thinkweget
somethingoutofthe
manynationswhodealwithusas
thesepeople
are
alwaysseeingthings
intheartworksthatare
differentto
ourunderstanding’.
Quote
(A19)‘weare
limited
bywhowe
dealwith,youtryandspreadyour
debtorbase
aswideasyoucanin
tradesalesandeven
yourretailthe
wider
thedebtorbase
thebetteritis
forstabilitybutweare
limited
inwho
weconfidein
and/orwhowecanseek
businessexpertise
from.Weare
the
firstin
ourfamilyandpossibly
com-
munityto
approach
enterprise
since
colonisation,wehavenofamilysup-
port
infact
theopposite.People
are
waiting,expectingusto
fail.Our
accountantisarrogant,ourbank
manager
unapproachable
soweare
veryisolated.Ourbusinessnetworks
are
limited,weare
dependentonthe
goodwillofafew
understandingnon-
indigenoussuppliers,just
afew.We
get
businessadvice,
mainly
gossip
from
them
.It
isverylonelywhen
you
are
Aboriginalandin
business!’
Example(C
9):C9explainsheisanopen
minded
personwhoknow
alotof
differentpersons.Heguessesthathis
open
mindandthatfact
thatheis
verytalkativeare
amonghisstrengths
asasalesperson.
Business
relations
Example
(C3):Duringthestart-upstage
C3mostly
discussed
hisdesignsand
businessmattes
withfamilyand
friendsbutlaterheturned
tocontacts
intheindustry.Heisnow
spending
timebuildingupcontactsonthe
industry
butadmititishard
work
and
takes
alongtime.
Quote
(HO15):‘H
ard
honestwork
equatesto
ablessed
happy
lifestyle
...I
havefoundthroughtrial
anderrorthatthisisnotenough,it’s
yournetworks,yourbusinesscon-
tacts,yourbusinessfamily
...for
withoutthem
allthehard
work
inthe
worldwillnotsellyourgoods,you
Quote
(A1):‘Thiswhitefella
(myclose
businessassociate),Iget
alotof
criticism
butheworksfarm
sata
profit,heworkshard,heknowsthe
land.Hegoes
tothesales,alwaysgets
bestprice
orbuyswellandgetsthe
lowestprice
onnew
stock,hiscon-
tactsare
thebest,hegetsfirst
(continued
)
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 579
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Table
3.Continued.
Mainstream
Danishentrepreneurs
NativeHawaiianentrepreneurs
AustralianIndigenousentrepreneurs
needyoursuppliersand
retailers.
...M
y‘‘family’’now
isnothinglikewhen
Istarted
outin
business’.
contract,firstpickofthelot,youget
thebestfeed,heteaches
meandhe
does
this
...thereare
noAboriginal
likethatin
thisindustry
...I
am
reliant’.
Example
(C7):C7’sparents
supported
him
inthestart-upstageuntilthey
realizedhewasaboutto
dropoutof
university
andwork
fulltimeonthe
business.Althoughthey
are
notkeen
andsupportivethey
acceptedhis
decision.In
thisperiodC7hadmany
intensivediscussionswithhisparents.
Todayhehasmuch
fewer
discussions
withhisparents
aboutthebusiness
andmost
ofhisdiscussionsaboutthe
businessare
donewithbusiness
partners.
Relationship
between
socialand
business
spheres
Quote
(C6):‘Ihavefriendswhohave
becomeessentialformybusiness
matters.Ialsohavebusinesscontacts
whichhasbecomegoodfriendsof
mine.
Ithashappen
mostly
bycoin-
cidence
andmost
often
Itryto
separate
thetw
owhen
possible’.
Quote
(HO11):‘Christmasweputona
big
party,plenty
beer,pig,good
Hawaiianfood.Weinviteallour
businesscontacts.Itpaysoffandthey
are
goodto
us.Withoutwhatyousay
networking,youhavenothing!You
just
hopepeople
driveupthatdirt
roadandyoupray,withother
busi-
nesspeople
asfriendsthey
send
people
upthatroad;thereisabig
difference’.
Quote
(A3):‘InbusinessIcan’tafford
tomix
withblack
people,in
community
Imix
butin
businessIcan’t.During
businesshours
andduringmybusi-
nesstimeIcannotafford
tomix
with
black
people
because
black
people
[IndigenousAustralians]donotgive
meaccessto
thingsIneed.They
do
notgivemeaccessto
businesscon-
nections.Indigenouspeople
havenot
developed
enoughto
providethese
thingsforme,
sotherefore
itisin
my
bestintereststo
mix
withwhite
people’.
Example(C
5):ForC5hiswork
ishislife
althoughhehasafamily.Hespendsa
lotoftimehangingoutwithcol-
leagues
andbusinesspartners.They
goto
restaurants,goforbeers
anddo
sport
together.
580 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
often involve a spouse or other close family member. Most Danish entrepreneurs’
networks are dynamic, with different people and network components activatedaccording to the specific problems the entrepreneurs experience. The Hawaiianentrepreneurs’ ‘coloured networks’ can also be classified as dynamic. The speed of
those dynamics is slower than that of the Danish entrepreneurs. In order to beembedded in Hawaiian entrepreneurs’ networks, people have to prove themselves
until they have gained enough trust. The process of embedding in new networks canbe a lengthy process, especially for individuals. On the more macro-level of the
‘coloured network’, it seems that changes are frequent and readily accepted. ToIndigenous Australian entrepreneurs, the dynamics of network are partly dependenton racial acceptance. To become embedded in the majority business networks,
Indigenous entrepreneurs have to be racially accepted. In some instances this hasresulted in the entrepreneur hiding their indigeneity or simply not allowing their
Aboriginality to be an identifying issue.
5.4.5. Diversity
Danish majority entrepreneurs’ social networks are often diverse in gender, age,industry and knowledge. Danish entrepreneurs try to build networks that incorpo-
rate a wide variety of competencies; normally these networks are not culturallydiverse, as they are mostly made up of other majority Danes. Native Hawaiian
entrepreneurs’ networks are also diverse, but in addition their networks are culturallydiverse. The concept of ‘coloured network’ captures the fact that they interact with a
diversity of other minority groups and cultures. Australian Indigenous entrepreneurshave less diverse networks. To become successful, they are forced to interact only
with the Australian ‘settler society’. This limits business interaction to those from thispredominant Anglo-society who accept them racially.
5.4.6. Business relations
In the activated network Danish entrepreneurs have numerous business relations.
In the early stages of the business life cycle, family, friends and earlier colleaguesnormally play a crucial role. Then, as the entrepreneurs move forward in the business
life cycle, the complexity and importance of their business relationships reduces theimportance of the relationship with family and friends. The Hawaiian entrepreneursalso have numerous business relations, but an important difference is the overlap of
business networks and family networks that they maintain. Consequently, theHawaiian entrepreneurs have stronger and often personal relationships with their
business partners. The Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs do not have a strongpersonal relationship with their business partners unless there has been a strong role-
model/mentor association from the commencement of business. The generally lowlevel of business relationship can be explained by the power imbalance betweenIndigenous entrepreneurs and their Anglo-Australian business partners. This
relationship is usually one of dependence, as the Indigenous entrepreneur is subjectto the racial acceptance of the partner to allow them to remain in industry. If the
business partners are no longer tolerant it can force the Indigenous entrepreneur outof business unless they can find alternative relationships.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 581
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
5.4.7. Relationship between social and business spheres
While the social and business relations of the Danish entrepreneurs overlap, theirnetworks are not highly integrated as are those of the Hawaiian entrepreneurs.Among Australian Indigenous entrepreneurs, their social and business networks tendto be separated due to their cultural separation. It is often perceived as a violation tothe Indigenous social and cultural heritage when Indigenous entrepreneurs createand interact with their business network that is dominated by settler society-AngloAustralia.
6. Discussion and interpretation
The research objective was to extend the existing knowledge on culture andentrepreneurial networking by investigating specifically the drivers of variformuniversality within nation–state cultures. This was completed by considering twoquestions: (1) Does entrepreneurial networking differ between cultures, and if so,how? (2) Does entrepreneurial networking differ between entrepreneurs embedded ina mainstream culture and entrepreneurs embedded in a minority culture, and if so,how?
6.1. Entrepreneurial networking diversity
The results provide solid evidence against the universalist, mono-dimensionalposition of entrepreneurial networking identified by Klyver, Hindle, and Meyer(2008) as entrepreneurs seem to practice and utilize social networks differentlydepending on the culture in which they are embedded. Entrepreneurial networking isnot constant across contexts. Meanwhile, without leaving us at the other end of thecontinuum and in the other extreme of total contextual determinism, the resultsmove the discussion of entrepreneurial networking towards a more contextualdetermined understanding. Entrepreneurial networking is important in variouscontexts; however, the way entrepreneurial networking is practised and how it isutilized varies across cultures and contexts.
The move towards a more contextual understanding of entrepreneurialnetworking was achieved mainly through a selection of more diversified cultures.As noted by Dodd and Patra (2002) most previously conclusions towards the moresimple universality view are to be explained by the cultural commonality among thecountries, or cultures that were studied.
The contextual understanding of entrepreneurial networking can be divided into avariform universality understanding and a functional universality understanding(Lonner 1980; Dickson, denHartog, andMitchelson 2003; Klyver, Hindle, andMeyer2008). Due to the few number of cases and the high degree of diversity among thosecases investigated, this study was not meant for investigating functional universality.This implies that although no support for functional universality can be found in thestudy the idea of functional universality should not be rejected. It may, as earlierstudies have indicated (Dodd and Patra 2002), be evident in like or similar cultures.
The empirical results did, however, strongly support variform universality.Within this study, the drivers of variform universality were identified through theseven dimensions of entrepreneurial networking. Each of these seven dimensionsplayed a significant role in entrepreneurial networking across all three cultures.
582 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
But how they functioned differ across cultures. Consequently, it is argued that acrossthese three contexts entrepreneurial networking is culturally moderated by sevendimensions: activation of relationship; view of network; role of family; dynamics;diversity; business relations and relationship between social and business spheres.
6.2. Differences between being embedded in mainstream and minority cultures
The variform universality of entrepreneurial networking is also supported in thisstudy as differences were found in networking practice between entrepreneursembedded in the mainstream culture and entrepreneurs embedded in minoritycultures. Our interpretation suggests that the key difference may be that entrepre-neurs embedded in minority cultures have to consider two cultures simultaneously,whereas those embedded in a mainstream culture only have to consider a singleculture.
In their networking activities, minority entrepreneurs need to consider theexpectations from the mainstream as well as their minority culture. Subject to thecontent of these cultures, it might be easy to integrate them (as in the case withNative Hawaiian entrepreneurs), or it can be difficult and often associated with hugepersonal and social decisions (as in the case with Indigenous Australian entrepre-neurs). This relates to the prior discussion on bridging and bonding activities inentrepreneurship research (e.g. Davidsson and Honig 2003). Minority entrepreneursface a special challenge of bonding with existing relationships in their minorityculture while simultaneously bridging with individuals outside their minoritycommunity.
Ethnic entrepreneurship theory has approached a similar problem by deriving theconcept of ‘mixed embeddedness’ (Kloosterman, van der Leun, and Rath 1999).It ‘. . . incorporates both the co-ethnic social networks and the nature of linkagesbetween migrant entrepreneurs and the economic and institutional context of thehost society’ (Razin 2002, 163). Indigenous entrepreneurship can learn a lot from thisconcept. In order to understand Indigenous entrepreneurs, researchers need toinvestigate both their networking activities with their own community and theirinteraction with the mainstream culture. A similar conclusion was reached by Hindleand Lansdowne (2005).
Difficulty in integrating cultures may result in a disintegration of socialframeworks. In some minority cultures (as in the case with the IndigenousAustralian culture), interacting with the mainstream culture is a difficult choice asit is not an appreciated behaviour. Because it is seen as violating the socialframework, it can cause identity crises and alienation among those who do so. Thisstudy suggests that the intensiveness of the problems associated with integratingmainstream and minority cultures is greater when the minority population comparedto the mainstream population is small, and that it is also influenced by thedemographic spread and isolation of minority groups.
7. Conclusion
Networking is generally accepted in wider literature as a key attribute in businessactivity, and this research reinforces its importance even in dramatically diversecultures. This paper provides the reader with a new perspective on how culture
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 583
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
interferes with entrepreneurial networking, an area that has received little empirical
attention until now. It is not the importance of networking that differs betweencultures; rather, it is how cultural norms and practices moderate the way
entrepreneurs utilize social networking. This variform universality of entrepreneurialnetworking is supported in this study by the way networking is practiced and the way
social networks are utilized. Specifically, it was found that social networks are
(1) culturally driven by seven dimensions of entrepreneurial networking, and(2) dependent on whether entrepreneurs are embedded in a mainstream culture or a
minority cultures.With regard to the first empirical result we found drivers of variform universality
through seven dimensions of entrepreneurial networking. Each dimension played a
significant role in entrepreneurial networking for entrepreneurs across all threeempirical contexts. However, the way each dimension formed and shaped entrepre-
neurial networking varied across the contexts. Thus, we argued that entrepreneurial
networking is culturally moderated by the seven dimensions. As the dimensions arededuced mainly from entrepreneurial network literature they are to be perceived as
relatively universal for the understanding of entrepreneurial networking; however,the specific content of the dimension for a given culture may vary dramatically due to
the cultural norms and values in which the entrepreneur operates.With regard to the second empirical result we found that entrepreneurs
embedded in a mainstream or minority culture differ, as the minority entrepreneurs
invariably had to consider both cultures simultaneously. They needed to envisage the
demands of the market within the mainstream culture, yet sacrifice their owninherent minority cultural position and perhaps identity. This mixed embeddedness
among minority entrepreneurs has various consequences in the social sphere, thebusiness sphere and in an individual’s creation and maintaining of psychological
wellbeing. The Indigenous Australians were seen to be dependent on the mainstream
culture, whereas the Hawaiian natives adopted a cultural network that ran parallel tothe mainstream. The Danish entrepreneurs adopted a social networking process that
evolved with the business life cycle.In this study, we have emphasized how culture moderates entrepreneurial
networking. However, there may be other possible explanations of the empirical
variation which our current empirical data cannot discount. The geographical andsocial structure of societies might be another, supplementary, explanation. Minority
groups may behave as they do, not because of cultural priorities, but rather because
their minority situation compels them to do so. Thus, although it seems plausiblefrom this study that (sub)culture matters, the established literature on entrepreneur-
ial environment or context, including region and community, may providesupplementary or alternative explanations (e.g. Julien 2007; Hindle 2010).
This study has important implications for research, policy makers, community
leaders and entrepreneurs. First of all, research on the concept of culture needs to bemore sophisticated. National culture might influence the overall networking practice
among entrepreneurs in a country, but subgroups belonging to various sub-cultures
behave in completely different ways according to the circumstances they experience.Therefore, future research needs to incorporate sub-culture into the research
framework and distinguish mainstream entrepreneurs from various minorityentrepreneurs. Approaching culture as a national proxy might explain
some variation, but is an oversimplification that ignores the essence of the
584 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
entrepreneurial phenomenon. Second, future research needs to abandon the simpleuniversality focus and emphasize variform and functional universality of entrepre-neurial networking more intensively.
For policy makers, the knowledge gained from this study suggests that it isessential to consider and incorporate the effect of national sub-cultures in theirimplementation of entrepreneurship fostering programmes – especially thoseprogrammes trying to enhance minority entrepreneurship.
To community leaders or elders, the knowledge gained in the study also haspotentially positive implications. Community leaders and elders play an importantrole in institutionalization of social norms, rules and values. Normally, they wouldbe perceived as the potential change agent if any cultural changes are desirable.Therefore, they may be seen as important actors in the process of enhancing orreducing the problems entrepreneurs face with mixed embeddedness, and would havethe opportunity to reduce the challenges entrepreneurs face in simultaneouslyinteracting with the mainstream business world and their minority group. However,Indigenous people’s cultural survival ‘. . . outside the materialist-rational paradigm. . . will depend on pro-active efforts . . . to define their own development futuresreflecting their own cultural values’ (Razak 2003, 907). Entrepreneurship andIndigenous cultural values can exist together, but the Aboriginal groups will needstrong management if they are to achieve their economic goals without the inherentloss of values as outlined by Razak (2003).
To minority entrepreneurs this study means that it is necessary to consider boththeir social heritage and the mainstream business world. Depending on thedifficulties in integrating these two network components, minority entrepreneursneed to consider the social and personal consequences of moving into anentrepreneurial career. It would seem reasonable to develop a network strategythat explicitly guides them on ways to interact simultaneously in both worlds.
References
Aldrich, H., P.R. Reese, and P. Dubini. 1989. Women on the verge of a breakthrough:
Networking between entrepreneurs in United States and Italy. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 1: 339–56.
Aldrich, H., and T. Sakano. 1995. Unbroken ties: How the personal networks
of Japanese business owners compare to those in other nations. In Networks and
markets: Pacific rim investigations, ed. M. Fruid, 17–45. New York: Oxford University
Press.Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007. 4705.0 Population distribution, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Australians, 2006. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/
Lookup/4705.0MainþFeatures12006? OpenDocument (accessed March 11, 2009).
Baskerville, R.F. 2003. Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society
28: 1–14.
Batjargal, B. 2010. Network dynamics and new ventures in China: A longitudinal study.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 22, no. 2: 139–53.Begley, T.M., and W.-L. Tan. 2001. The socio-cultural environment for entrepreneurship:
A comparison between East Asian and Anglo-Saxon countries. Journal of International
Business Studies 32, no. 3: 537–53.
Birley, S., S. Cromie, and A. Myers. 1991. Entrepreneurial networks: Their emergence in
Ireland and Overseas. International Small Business Journal 9, no. 4: 56–74.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 585
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Burt, R.S. 1984. Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks 6, no. 4:
293–339.Chell, E., and S. Baines. 2000. Networking, entrepreneurship and microbusiness behaviour.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 12, no. 3: 195–215.Davidsson, P. 2004. Researching entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
Davidsson, P., and SB. Honig. 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 18, no. 3: 301–31.Davidson, P., and J. Wiklund. 1995. Cultural values and regional variations in new firm
formation. In Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 1995, eds. W. Bygrave, B. Bird,
S. Birley, N. Churchill, M. Hay, R. Keeley, and W. Wetzel Jr, 352–5. Cambridge, MA:
Babson College Press.Dickson, M.W., D.N. den Hartog, and J.K. Mitchelson. 2003. Research on leadership in a
cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The Leadership
Quarterly 14: 729–68.
Dodd, S., and E. Patra. 1998. Transnational differences in entrepreneurial networks. Paper
presented at the Eighth Global Entrepreneurship Research Conference, INSEAD, in
Fontainebleau, France.Dodd, S.D., and E. Patra. 2002. National differences in entrepreneurial networking.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 14, no. 2: 117–34.Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review 14, no. 4: 532–50.
Ettlie, J.E., C. Dreher, G.L. Kovacs, and L. Trygg. 1993. Cross-national comparisons of
product development in manufacturing. The Journal of High Technology Management
Research 4: 139–55.Evald, M.R., K. Klyver, and S.G. Svendsen. 2006. The changing importance of the strength of
ties throughout the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Enterprising Culture 14, no. 1:
1–26.Foley, D. 2003. An examination of Indigenous Australian entrepreneurs. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship 8, no. 2: 133–52.Foley, D. 2005. Understanding Indigenous entrepreneurship: A case study analysis. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, University of Queensland.Fryer-Smith, S. 2002. Aspects of contemporary Aboriginal Australia. Aboriginal
benchbook for Western Australian courts (AIJA Model Indigenous Benchbook
Project). Carlton, VIC, Australia: The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
Incorporated.Fuller, D., P. Dansie, M. Jones, and S. Holmes. 1999. Indigenous Australians and self-
employment. Small Enterprise Research: The Journal of SEAANZ 7, no. 2: 5–28.
Garcia-Cabrera, A.M., and M.G. Garcia-Solo. 2008. Cultural differences and entrepreneurial
behaviour: An intra-country cross-cultural analysis in Cape Verde. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 20, no. 5: 451–83.Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. London: Fontana.Glaser, B.G. 1992. Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Greve, A. 1995. Networks and entrepreneurship – An analysis of social relations, occupational
background, and use of contacts during the establishment process. Scandinavian Journal
of Management 11, no. 1: 1–24.Greve, A., and J.W. Salaff. 2003. Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 28, no. 4: 1–22.Hall, E. 1976. Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Hindle, K. 2010. How community context affects entrepreneurial process: A diagnostic
framework. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 22, nos. 7–8: 599–647.Hindle, K., and M. Lansdowne. 2005. Brave spirits on new paths: Towards a globally relevant
paradigm of indigenous entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Special Issue on Indigenous Entrepreneurship 18, no. 2: 131–41.
586 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
Hindle, K., and P.W. Moroz. 2010. Indigenous entrepreneurship as a research field:
Developing a definitional framework from the emerging canon. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 6, no. 4: 357–85.Hite, J.M., and W.S. Hesterly. 2001. The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early
growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 22, no. 3: 275–86.Hoang, H., and B. Antoncic. 2003. Network-based research in entrepreneurship – A critical
review. Journal of Business Venturing 18, no. 2: 165–87.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills: Saga.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values behaviours institutions and
organizations across nations. London: Saga.Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political
change in 43 countries. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Jack, S.L. 2010. Approaches to studying networks: Implications and outcomes. Journal of
Business Venturing 25, no. 1: 120–37.Jack, S.L., and A.R. Anderson. 2002. The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial
process. Journal of Business Venturing 17, no. 5: 467–87.Jack, S., S.D. Dodd, and A Anderson. 2008. Change and the development of entrepreneurial
networks over time: A processual perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development
20, no. 2: 125–59.
Jenssen, J.I. 2001. Social networks, resources and entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation 2, no. 2: 103–9.Jenssen, J.I., and H.F. Koenig. 2002. The effect of social networks on resource access and
business start-ups. European Planning Studies 10, no. 8: 1039–46.Johannisson, B., and A. Nilsson. 1989. Community entrepreneurs: Networking for local
development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 1, no. 1: 3–19.Johnson, J.P., and T. Lenartowics. 1998. Culture, freedom and economic growth: Do cultural
values explain economic growth? Journal of World Business 33, no. 4: 332–56.Julien, P. 2007. A theory of local entrepreneurship in the knowledge economy. Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar.Kirkman, B.L., K.B. Lowe, and C.B. Gibson. 2006. A quarter century of culture’s
consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values
framework. Journal of International Business Studies 37: 285–320.Kloosterman, R., J. van der Leun, and J. Rath. 1999. Mixed embeddedness (in)formal
economic activities and immigrant businesses in the Netherlands. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 23: 252–66.Klyver, K. 2007. The shifting family involvement during the entrepreneurial process.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 13, no. 5: 258–77.
Klyver, K., and K. Hindle. 2007. The role of social networks at different stages of
business formation.Small Enterprise Research –The Journal of SEAANZ 15, no. 1: 22–38.
Klyver, K., K. Hindle, and D. Meyer. 2008. Influence of social network structure on
entrepreneurship participation – A study of 20 national cultures. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 4, no. 3: 331–47.Klyver, K., and S. Terjesen. 2007. Entrepreneurial network composition: An analysis across
venture development stage and gender. Women in Management Review 22, no. 8: 682–8.Lee, S.M., and S.J. Peterson. 2000. Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global
competitiveness. Journal of World Business 35, no. 4: 401–16.
Lonner, W.J. 1980. The search for psychological universals. In Handbook of cross-cultural
psychology, eds. H.C. Triandis and W.W. Lambert, 143–204. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
McClelland, D.C. 1961. The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold.McGrath, R.G., I.C. MacMillan, and E.A.Y.W. Tsai. 1992. Does culture endure, or is it
malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of Business
Venturing 7, no. 6: 441–58.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 587
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and theirconsequences: A triumph of faith – A failure of analysis. Human Relation 55, no. 1:89–118.
Morrison, A. 2000. Entrepreneurship: What triggers it? International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 6, no. 2: 59–71.Mueller, S.L., and A.S. Thomas. 2000. Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country
study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing 16, no. 1:
51–75.Nakata, C., and K. Sivakumar. 1996. National culture and new product development: An
integrative review. Journal of Marketing 60, no. 1: 61–72.
O’Donnell, A., A. Gilmore, D. Cummins, and D. Carson. 2001. The network construct inentrepreneurship research: A review and critique. Management Decision 39, no. 9:749–60.
Razak, V.M. 2003. Can Indigenous cultures survive the future? Futures 35: 907–15.Razin, E. 2002. The economic context, embeddedness and immigrant entrepreneurs.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour & Research 8, no. 1/2: 162–7.Schwartz, S. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advantages
and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25:1–65.
Shane, S. 1992. Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing
7, no. 1: 29–46.Shane, S. 1993. Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business
Venturing 8, no. 1: 59–73.
Sivakumar, K., and C. Nakata. 2001. The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: Avoidingthe sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies32, no. 3: 555–74.
Staber, U., and H. Aldrich. 1995. Cross-national similarities in the personal networks of small
business owners: A comparison of two regions in North America. Canadian Journal ofSociology 20, no. 4: 441–6.
Thomas, A.S., and S.L. Mueller. 2000. A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the
relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies 31, no. 2: 287–301.Tiessen, J.H. 1997. Individualism, collectivism, and entrepreneurship: A framework for
intentional comparative research. Journal of Business Venturing 12, no. 5: 367–84.
U.S. Census. 2000. www.census.gov/ in native Hawaiian data book. Honolulu: Office ofHawaiian Affairs.
Waldinger, R. 1993. The two sides of ethnic entrepreneurship. International Migration Review
27, no. 3: 692–702.Weber, M. 1930. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner.Williamson, D. 2002. Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of national culture.Human
Relation 55, no. 11: 1373–95.
Witt, P. 2010. Entrepreneurs’ networks and the success of start-ups. Entrepreneurship &Regional Development 16, no. 5: 391–412.
Yin, R.K. 2002. Case study research, design and methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Saga.
Zhao, X., M. Frese, and A. Giardini. 2010. Business owners’ network size and business growthin China: The role of comprehensive social competency. Entrepreneurship & RegionalDevelopment 22, no. 7/8: 675–705.
588 K. Klyver and D. Foley
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewca
stle
(A
ustr
alia
)] a
t 20:
09 2
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
13