Networking and Culture in Entrepreneurship

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.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tepn20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.710257

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

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: [email protected]

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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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

)


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


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.


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


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

)


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



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’.


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

)


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



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


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

)


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



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.


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.


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.


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


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


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/[email protected]/

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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Networking and Culture in Entrepreneurship

Documents

Transcript of Networking and Culture in Entrepreneurship