Entrepreneurs have two key aims in managing their ego–networks: extending reach to valuable resources and facilitating resource acquisition. This study provides a synthesis of the brokerage, cohesion, and embeddedness literatures to develop and present a multilevel theoretical framework and analytical model that treat both aims jointly. It makes three contributions. First, it highlights a trade–off that entrepreneurs face in allocating their available networking time and energy while pursuing these two aims. Second, it explores the central role of two types of embeddedness—relational and structural—in resolving this trade–off. Third, it helps entrepreneurs decide when to embed a particular dyadic connection relationally or structurally. We show that entrepreneurs can better balance their dual aim by structurally embedding some ties rather than trying to relationally embed all. The resultant network is one that meshes characteristics of brokerage and cohesive ego–network structures.
AldrichH.E. & MartinezM.A. (2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41–57.
3.
AndersonA.R., ParkJ., & JackS.L. (2007). Entrepreneurial social capital—Conceptualizing social capital in new high–tech firms. International Small Business Journal, 25(3), 245–272.
4.
BakerT. & NelsonR.E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
5.
BatesT. (1997). Financing small business creation: The case of Chinese and Korean immigrant entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(2), 109–124.
6.
BatjargalB. (2007). Network triads: Transitivity, referral and venture capital decisions in China and Russia. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(6), 998–1012.
7.
BhagavatulaS., ElfringT., van TilburgA., & van de BuntG.G. (2010). How social and human capital influence opportunity recognition and resource mobilization in India's handloom industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(3), 245–260.
8.
BoormanS.A. (1975). Combinatorial optimization model for transmission of job information through contact networks. Bell Journal of Economics, 6(1), 216–249.
9.
BorgattiS.P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.
10.
BothnerM.S., MeadowS.F., & OzdemirS.Z. (2006). Social constraint and the rate of reciprocal exchange among venture capital firms. Chicago: University of Chicago, Booth School of Business.
11.
BourdieuP. (2002). The forms of capital. In BiggartN.W. (Ed.), Readings in economic sociology (pp. 280–291). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
12.
BruderlJ. & PreisendorferP. (1998). Network support and the success of newly founded businesses. Small Business Economics, 10(3), 213–225.
13.
BurtR.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
BurtR.S. (2002). Bridge decay. Social Networks, 24(4), 333–363.
15.
BurtR.S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
BygraveW.D. (1987). Syndicated investments by venture capital firms—A networking perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), 139–154.
17.
CarleyK.M. & KrackhardtD. (1996). Cognitive inconsistencies and non–symmetric friendship. Social Networks, 18(1), 1–27.
18.
CarterN.M., GartnerW.B., & ReynoldsP.D. (1996). Exploring start–up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 151–166.
19.
CassonM. & Della GiustaM. (2007). Entrepreneurship and social capital—Analysing the impact of social networks on entrepreneurial activity from a rational action perspective. International Small Business Journal, 25(3), 220–244.
20.
CentolaD. & MacyM. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 702–734.
21.
ColemanJ.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human–capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
22.
CookK.S., EmersonR.M., GillmoreM.R., & YamagishiT. (1983). The distribution of power in exchange networks—Theory and experimental results. American Journal of Sociology, 89(2), 275–305.
23.
CrosonR. & BuchanN. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. American Economic Review, 89(2), 386–391.
24.
CrossR.L. & ParkerA. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
25.
DavidssonP. & HonigB. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
26.
ElfringT. & HulsinkW. (2003). Networks in entrepreneurship: The case of high–technology firms. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 409–422.
27.
ElfringT. & HulsinkW. (2007). Networking by entrepreneurs: Patterns of tie–formation in emerging organizations. Organization Studies, 28(12), 1849–1872.
28.
FeldS.L. (1997). Structural embeddedness and stability of interpersonal relations. Social Networks, 19(1), 91–95.
29.
FloydS.W. & WooldridgeB. (1999). Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate entrepreneurship: The renewal of organizational capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 123–143.
30.
GabarroJ.J. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations. In AthosA. & GabarroJ.J. (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior (pp. 290–303). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
GarnseyE. (1998). A theory of the early growth of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7(3), 523–556.
32.
GedajlovicE., HonigB., MooreC.B., PayneG.T., & WrightM. (2013). Social capital and entrepreneurship: A schema and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 455–478.
33.
GranovetterM.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
34.
GranovetterM.S. (1985). Economic–action and social–structure—The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
35.
GranovetterM.S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In NohriaN. & EcclesR. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 25–56). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
36.
GreifA. (1989). Reputation and coalitions in medieval trade—Evidence on the Maghribi traders. Journal of Economic History, 49(4), 857–882.
37.
GreveA. & SalaffJ.W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1–22.
38.
GulatiR. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.
39.
GulatiR. & GargiuloM. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from?American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.
40.
HannanM.T. & FreemanJ. (1977). Population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.
41.
HannanM.T., PólosL., & CarrollG.R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
HansenM.T. (1999). The search–transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
43.
HiteJ.M. (2005). Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 113–144.
44.
HiteJ.M. & HesterlyW.S. (2001). The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 275–286.
45.
HoangH. & AntoncicB. (2003). Network–based research in entrepreneurship—A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.
46.
IbarraH. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 673–703.
47.
IbarraH., KilduffM., & TsaiW. (2005). Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science, 16(4), 359–371.
48.
JackS.L. (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1233–1259.
49.
JackS.L. & AndersonA.R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467–487.
50.
KimP. & AldrichH. (2005). Social capital and entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: Now.
51.
KrackhardtD. (1990). Assessing the political landscape—Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 342–369.
52.
KrackhardtD. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In NohriaN. & EcclesR. (Eds.), Organizations and networks: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216–239). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
53.
KrippnerG.R. & AlvarezA.S. (2007). Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 219–240.
54.
KuratkoD.F., IrelandR.D., CovinJ.G., & HornsbyJ.S. (2005). A model of middle–level managers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 699–716.
55.
LawrenceT.B., MorseE.A., & FowlerS.W. (2005). Managing your portfolio of connections. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 59–65.
56.
LeanaC.R. & Van BurenH.J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.
57.
LechnerC. & DowlingM. (2003). Firm networks: External relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 15(1), 1–26.
58.
LevinD.Z. & CrossR. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.
59.
LichtensteinB.B., CarterN.M., DooleyK.J., & GartnerW.B. (2007). Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 236–261.
60.
LinN. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
61.
LinN. (2010). Social capital: Critical concepts in the social sciences. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
62.
LockettA. & WrightM. (2001). The syndication of venture capital investments. Omega–International Journal of Management Science, 29(5), 375–390.
63.
MarsdenP.V. & CampbellK.E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482–501.
64.
MartinezM.A. & AldrichH.E. (2011). Networking strategies for entrepreneurs: Balancing cohesion and diversity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(1), 7–38.
65.
McEvilyB., PerroneV., & ZaheerA. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14(1), 91–103.
66.
McFadyenM.A. & CannellaA.A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746.
67.
McFadyenM.A., SemadeniM., & CannellaA.A. (2009). Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organization Science, 20(3), 552–564.
68.
MoodyJ. & WhiteD.R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68(1), 103–127.
69.
MoranP. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1129–1151.
70.
ObstfeldD. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.
71.
PatelP.C. & TerjesenS. (2011). Complementary effects of network range and tie strength in enhancing transnational venture performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 58–80.
72.
PayneG.T., MooreC.B., GriffisS.E., & AutryC.W. (2011). Multilevel challenges and opportunities in social capital research. Journal of Management, 37(2), 491–520.
73.
PodolnyJ.M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1), 33–60.
74.
PodolnyJ.M. & BaronJ.N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693.
75.
RaubW. & WeesieJ. (1990). Reputation and efficiency in social interactions—An example of network effects. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 626–654.
76.
ReagansR. & McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
77.
ReagansR. & McEvilyB. (2008). Contradictory or compatible? Reconsidering the “trade–off” between brokerage and closure on knowledge sharing. Network Strategy, 25, 275–313.
78.
ReagansR., ZuckermanE., & McEvilyB. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101–133.
79.
ReagansR. & ZuckermanE.W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.
80.
ReynoldsP.D., CarterN.M., GartnerW.B., & GreeneP.G. (2004). The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Small Business Economics, 23(4), 263–284.
81.
RousseauD.M., SitkinS.B., BurtR.S., & CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross–discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
82.
RowleyT.J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.
83.
SaxenianA. (1996). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
84.
SemrauT. & WernerA. (2013). How exactly do network relationships pay off? The effects of network size and relationship quality on access to start–up resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(3), 501–525.
85.
SingR.P., HillsG.E., HybelsR.C., & LumpkinG.T. (1999). Opportunity recognition through social network characteristics of entrepreneurs. In ReynoldsP.D., BygraveW.D., ManigartS., MasonC.M., MeyerG.D., SapienzaH.J., et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 228–256). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
86.
StamW., ArzlanianS., & ElfringT. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm performance: A meta–analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 152–173.
87.
StarrJ.A. & MacMillanI.C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting—Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 79–92.
88.
SteierL. & GreenwoodR. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the evolution of angel financial networks. Organization Studies, 21(1), 163–192.
SutterM. & KocherM.G. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 59(2), 364–382.
91.
TullockG. (1985). Adam Smith and the prisoners’ dilemma. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100, 1073–1081.
92.
UzziB. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698.
93.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.
94.
van LiereD.W., KoppiusO.R., & VervestP.H. (2008). Network horizon: An information–based view on the dynamics of bridging positions. Advances in Strategic Management, 25, 595–639.
95.
VissaB. (2012). Agency in action: Entrepreneurs’ networking style and initiation of economic exchange. Organization Science, 23(2), 492–510.
96.
Von HippelE. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
97.
WassermanS. & FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
98.
WittP. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ networks and the success of start–ups. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16(5), 391–412.
99.
WongS.S. & BohW.F. (2010). Leveraging the ties of others to build a reputation for trustworthiness among peers. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 129–148.
100.
XiaoZ.X. & TsuiA.S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high–tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 1–31.
101.
ZhaoL.M. & AramJ.D. (1995). Networking and growth of young technology–intensive ventures in China. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5), 349–370.
102.
ZhongX. & OzdemirS.Z. (2010). Structure, learning, and the speed of innovating: A two–phase model of collective innovation using agent based modeling. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1459–1492.
103.
ZuckermanE.W. & SgourevS.V. (2006). Peer capitalism: Parallel relationships in the US economy. American Journal of Sociology, 111(5), 1327–1366.
