Entrepreneurship and networking are the lifeblood of many economies

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.


Entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of many economies that face major challenges, which have been reported over 40% of startup companies, are having difficulties (Huang and Brown, 1999, in Leek and Canning, 2009). Accessing information, capital, and skills and labor is the problems they might facade as mention by Greve and Salaff, (2003), which the service entrepreneur overcomes difficulties of establishing both a supplier and a customer base. Networking as defined by Shaw (1999) is about up-to-date significant mechanism towards non-profit sector to examine the network in which the entrepreneur is embedded and a popular approach for understanding how entrepreneurs market their goods and services that have been adopted by Interface researchers. The network analysis also concern on the process of interaction between the network and the owner-managers comprise either than the structural dimensions of network (Granovetter et al., 1973).


The main issue in this study is about the roles of networking for entrepreneurship and the effect of adopting the networks. The causes for entrepreneurs engage with the networking also have been critically elucidated here. As cited in Groen (2005), according to ibid, Van der Veen and Wakkee (2004), in entrepreneurship theory, there is no coherent framework which would allow multi-dimensional and multi-level analysis of entrepreneurial processes in such multi-level action systems. By new ventures, entrepreneurs are entrenched to the relationships formed as they exchange resources with suppliers, customers and others. It can be agreed that myriad of benefits offer to entrepreneurs who networks and alliances with other organizations. As cited in Martinez and Aldrich, (2011) referring to Fukuyama, (1995); Van Hippel, (1987); Lipparini and Sobrero, (1994); McEvily and Zaheer, (1999); Robertson et al., (1996), they increase the likelihood of innovation through facilitating the exchange and diffusion of information and technology. They also provided potential cost advantages for entrepreneurs, (Starr and Macmillan, 1990), increase flexibility and production capacity to meet the needs of client's, (Pyke, 1992; Schmitz, 1995; Strambach, 1994), facilitate cooperation and governance (De Toni and Nassimbeni, 1995), and promote growth (Lechner and Dowling, 2003; Stearns, 1996; Zhao and Aram, 1995). By contrast, as Chell and Baines, (2000), said, even in non-knowledge related endeavors, businesses tend to plateau or decline if do not develop diversity in their networks.

Based on Martinez and Howard, (2011), as cited in, since Granovetter's (1973) seminal piece on the strength of weak ties and Burt's (1992, 2005) work on the importance of relational diversity, "cohesion" and "diversity" have been a central focus of the entrepreneurship and network literature. Thus entrepreneurship, involve capturing ideas, alter them into products and/or services and then structure a venture to take the product to market, in its narrowest sense, (Johnson D., 2001). To achieve the strategic vision in emerging internationally, the networking capability is foster personally by the entrepreneurs that can be support by Zontanos and Anderson, (2004) note that "…what seems to distinguish 'formal' marketing from 'entrepreneurial' marketing is the active role of the entrepreneurs, and networks appear to be link between the phenomena".

Reffering to Coleman, (1988); Bourdieu, (1974), it can be agreed that networking increased the chances of resources sharing and transfer between individuals and argued by Burt, (2005); Davidson and Hunig, (2003); Granovetter, (1973), access to an extensive circle of information about potential markets, new business locations, innovations, sources of capital and potential investors. In addition, particularly for small or new business that may have problems attracting talent, the employee recruitment process using network is an exceptional strategy, (Leung et al., 2006). Rasmussan et al., (2001), emphasized the role of the entrepreneur in finding approaches that reduce the risk of internationalization.

Nowadays, not surprisingly, governments all over the globe engage in public policies designed to aid networking among entrepreneurs (Malecki, 1993). Under the assumption that geographic proximity creates cooperations, governments support the creation of clusters or industrial district (Becattini, 1990; Lawson and Lorenz, 1999; Maskell and Malmberg, 1999; Maskell, 2001). In clusters, the state is instrumental in building institutions, promoting inter-organizational associations and developing collective service centers (Humphrey and Schmitz, 1996; Tambunan, 2005). Ceglie et al., (1999); Kilpatrick et al., (2007), has mention that networks will cultivate "broker" individuals or organizational that facilitate connections between actors in an industry.

Unfortunately, have to agreed, as cited in Mort and Weerawardena, (2006), entrepreneurs recognize that only with considerable effort and over a significant time period can develop in building of networking capabilities (Hayes et al., 1996). The progression involves first building networking capability and then depending on strategic direction, reconfiguring, gaining or releasing resource combinations to the point where entrepreneurs become the basis for rapid and early internationalization. Here, the additional arguments from Leek and Canning, (2009), that must be agreed, express that acknowledging the importance of social capital in aiding new business start-ups, they argue that although it might be used to instigate exchange relationships and establish a network position, for some entrepreneurs this resource does not exist.

Frigell and Gustavsson, (2009), assume that thus requires an analysis of the types of relationships involved with the social entrepreneur in understanding the role of networking to a group of social entrepreneurs and what the principal motivations for engaging in these relationships are, i.e. what value these relationships bear for the social entrepreneur in executing their business. As was previously affirmed, in others term to across sector boundaries of the economy, there are various causes for an entrepreneur to engage in networking, not necessarily related to intentions of increasing the wealth but also such nature as to stimulating, encouraging or enhancing self-confidence in the entrepreneurial process, as first proposed by Leadbeater, (1997).

Sequentially to prevent any tendency of being too much linked with any one of those role faces, espouse a number of roles has created a tension in identification where the entrepreneurs demonstrate an unwillingness to commit to a certain role description. Robustly support that which expand the inherent conflict among profit-oriented and social-goals in running their endeavor, there is an embedded pressure between the social entrepreneurs' missions and the commercial aspects of running a business, transmitted through this unwillingness to commit. Building supportive network structure allow the entrepreneurs built self-confidence and mental-support for their actions, commonly assisting them in keeping focus on the social mission even in inhospitable contexts have critically issued by Frigell and Gustavsson, (2009).


So that the outline have proof that there have a strong-relations between networking and entrepreneurship as according to Carson, (1993), contact networks are a natural phenomenon, not planned processes. As cited in Simmons et al., (2008), the key influences of entrepreneurs' success will depend on the level of satisfaction and trust customers feels towards the internet presence (Lee, 2002; Law and Bai, 2008). Chaston, (1997), as cited in Martin, (2009), is reticent to privilege an alternative marketing style as the formula for entrepreneurial success. This is understandable that the four key factors of successful entrepreneurship organization: creation, innovation, uniqueness and growth when one consider how formulaic processes are generally anathema (Hills and LaForge, 1992). Assuming that network is the back stand for entrepreneurship to step over into the global scope. There have a brilliant ideas adopting by government in order to manage the entrepreneurship performances such as by used social networks to find opportunities and ease preferential access to specific markets exclusively in which they can establish their ventures. Obviously, connections to the political establishment are an important source of opportunities for potential entrepreneurs. Connections become more valuable and more visible during the turmoil caused by shifts in political and economic systems (Manev et al., 2005). The privatization of many economies over the last 30-years, including the collapse of socialist governments and institutions, has made political connection a key to accessing opportunities (Aidis et al., 2008; Batjargal, 2003).

Words count: 1, 281 words.