The deal–making process requires entrepreneurial actors to create and maintain wide networks of weak ties while simultaneously developing stronger collaborative ties that will enable opportunities to be realized. We currently lack an adequate account of how these activities are integrated by deal–makers under conditions of risk and uncertainty. In an empirical study of deal making in early–stage technology ventures, we find that deal–makers rely on different forms of trust in the early and later phases. Based on this study, we develop a process model and propositions on the role of trust in integrating strong and weak ties in deal making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhujaG. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.
2.
AldrichH. & FiolC. (1994). Fools rush in: The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19, 645–670.
3.
AmabileT.M., PattersonC., MuellerJ., WojcikT., KramerS.J., OdomirokP.W., et al. (2001). Academic–practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross–profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal,44(2), 418–431.
4.
AuerswaldP.E. & BranscombL.M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3), 227–239.
5.
BaumJ.A.C. & SilvermanB.S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 411–436.
6.
BoyatzisR. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. New York: Sage Publications, Inc.
7.
ChellE. & AllmanK. (2003). Mapping the motivations and intentions of technology orientated entrepreneurs. R&D Management, 33(2), 117–134.
8.
CurrallS.C. & JudgeT.A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151–170.
9.
DushnitskyG. (2010). Entrepreneurial optimism in the market for technological inventions. Organization Science, 21(1), 150–167.
10.
EckhardtJ.T. & ShaneS.A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.
11.
EisenhardtK. & GraebnerM. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
12.
FaemsD., Van LooyB., & DebackereK. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 238–250.
13.
FietJ.O. (1995). Reliance upon informants in the venture capital industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 195–223.
14.
FlanaganJ.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.
15.
FriedV.H. & HisrichR.D. (1994). Toward a model of venture capital investment decision making. Financial Management, 23(3), 28–37.
16.
GansJ.S. & SternS. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333–350.
17.
GioiaD.A., PriceK.N., HamiltonA.L., & ThomasJ.B. (2010). Forging an identity: An insider–outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 1–46.
18.
GlaserB. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
19.
GlaserB. & StraussA. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
20.
GoldenbergJ., LehmannD.R., & MazurskyD. (2001). The idea itself and the circumstances of its emergence as predictors of new product success. Management Science, 47(1), 69–84.
21.
GranovetterM.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
22.
GreveA. (1995). Networks and entrepreneurship—An analysis of social relations, occupational background, and use of contacts during the establishment process. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–24.
23.
HallJ. & HoferC.W. (1993). Venture capitalists’ decision criteria and new venture evaluation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 25–42.
24.
HallenB.L. & EisenhardtK.M. (2012). Catalyzing strategies and efficient tie formation: How entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 35–70.
25.
HansenM.T. (1999). The search–transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
26.
HansenM.T. & HaasM.R. (2001). Competing for attention in knowledge markets: Electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 1–28.
27.
HarrisonR.T., DibbenM.R., & MasonC.M. (1997). The role of trust in the informal investor's investment decision: An exploratory analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(4), 63–81.
28.
HiteJ.M. (2004). Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 113–144.
29.
InkpenA.C. & CurrallS.C. (2004). The coevolution of trust, control, and learning in joint ventures. Organization Science, 15(5), 586–599.
30.
KahnR. & CannellC. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing. New York: Wiley.
31.
KarlssonT. & HonigB. (2009). Judging a business by its cover: An institutional perspective on new ventures and the business plan. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1), 27–45.
32.
KarnoeP. (2004). The dynamics of framing in transactional spaces: The co–creation of worth, calculative devices and calculative agencies in the Danish wind power market. Copenhagen Business School Working Paper No 2004.18. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
33.
KramerR. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.
34.
LarsonA. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 76–104.
35.
LewickiR.J. & BunkerB.B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In KramerR.M. & TylerT.R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
36.
LiaoJ. & WelschH. (2005). Roles of social capital in venture creation: Key dimensions and research implications. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 345–362.
37.
LincolnY. & GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
LockeK.D. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. New York: Sage Publications Limited.
39.
MacMillanI.C., ZemannL., & NarasimhaP.N.S. (1987). Criteria distinguishing successful from unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 123–137.
40.
MasonC.M. & HarrisonR.T. (1994). The informal venture capital market in the UK. In HughesA. & StoreyD.J. (Eds.), Financing small firms (pp. 64–111). London: Routledge.
41.
MasonC.M. & HarrisonR.T. (1999). Public policy and the development of the informal venture capital market: UK experience and lessons for Europe. In CowlingK. (Ed.), Industrial policy in Europe (pp. 199–223). London: Routledge.
42.
MaxwellA.L., JeffreyS.A., & LévesqueM. (2011). Business angel early stage decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(2), 212–225.
43.
MaxwellA.L. & LévesqueM. (2011). Trustworthiness: A critical ingredient for entrepreneurs seeking investors. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 10.1111/j.1540–6520.2011.00475.x.
44.
McEvilyB. & TortorielloM. (2011). Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1(1), 23–63.
45.
McKnightD.H. & ChervanyN.L. (2006). Reflections on an initial trust–building model. In BachmannR. (Ed.), Handbook of trust research (pp. 29–51). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
46.
McKnightD.H., CummingsL.L., & ChervanyN.L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490.
47.
MeyersonD., WeickK.E., & KramerR.M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In KramerR.M. & TylerT.R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
48.
MilesM. & HubermanA.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
NeergaardH. & UlhøiJ. (2006). Government agency and trust in the formation and transformation of interorganizational entrepreneurial networks. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), 519–539.
51.
NewellS. & SwanJ. (2000). Trust and inter–organizational networking. Human Relations, 53(10), 1287–1328.
52.
NooteboomB. & SixF. (2003). The trust process in organizations: Empirical studies of the determinants and the process of trust development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
53.
PayneG.T., DavisJ.L., MooreC.B., & BellR.G. (2009). The deal structuring stage of the venture capitalist decision–making process: Exploring confidence and control. Journal of Small Business Management, 2, 154–179.
54.
PodolnyJ.M. (1994). Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 458–483.
55.
PollockT.G., PoracJ.F., & WadeJ.B. (2004). Constructing deal networks: Brokers as network “architects” in the US IPO market and other examples. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 50–72.
56.
PrattM.G., RockmannK.W., & KaufmannJ.B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262.
57.
RidingA.L. & OrserB.J. (2000). Beyond the banks: Creative financing for Canadian entrepreneurs. Toronto, ON: Wiley.
58.
RingP. & Van De VenA. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.
59.
RostK. (2011). The strength of strong ties in the creation of innovation. Research Policy, 40(4), 588–604.
60.
RotterJ. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and gullibility. The American Psychologist, 35, 1–7.
61.
RousseauD., SitkinS., BurtR., & CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross–discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
62.
SapienzaH. & KorsgaardM. (1996). Procedural justice in entrepreneur–investor relations. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 544–574.
63.
ShaneS. & CableD. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381.
64.
ShepherdD.A. & ZacharakisA. (2001). The venture capitalist–entrepreneur relationship: Control, trust and confidence in co–operative behaviour. Venture Capital, 3(2), 129–149.
65.
SpenceM.A. (1974). Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
66.
SpradleyJ. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
StraussA. & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
69.
TyebjeeT.T. & BrunoA.V. (1984). A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management Science, 30, 1051–1066.
70.
UzziB. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.
71.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.
72.
UzziB. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological review, 64(4), 481–505.
73.
UzziB. & GillespieJ.J. (1999). Corporate social capital and the cost of financial capital: An embeddedness approach. In LeendersR.T.A & GabbayS.M. (Eds.), Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 446–459). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
74.
UzziB. & LancasterR. (2003). Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49(4), 383–399.
75.
VenkataramanS. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor's perspective. In KatzJ. & BrockhausR. (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneuship, firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
76.
VohoraA., WrightM., & LockettA. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high–tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.
77.
WelterF. (2012). All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature. International Small Business Journal, 30(3), 193–212.
78.
WelterF. & SmallboneD. (2006). Exploring the role of trust in entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), 465–475.
79.
WrightM., LockettA., ClarysseB., & BinksM. (2006). University spin–out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.
80.
YinR.K. & CampbellD.T. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
81.
ZahraS., YavuzR., & UcbasaranD. (2006). How much do you trust me? The dark side of relational trust in new business creation in established companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4), 541–559.
82.
ZottC. & HuyQ.N. (2007). How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 70–105.
83.
ZuckerL. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 53–111.
