The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises

During the last two decades, researchers have sought to develop categories of entrepreneurs and their businesses along a variety of dimensions to better comprehend and analyze the entrepreneurial growth process. Some of this research has focused on differences related to industrial sectors, firm size, the geographical region in which a business is located, the use of high-technology or low-technology, and the life-cycle stage of the firm (i.e., start-up vs. more mature, formalized companies). Researchers have also considered ways in which entrepreneurs can be differentiated from small business managers. One of these classifications is based on the entrepreneur's desire to grow the business rapidly. This is the focus of our study.To date, the media have paid considerable attention to rapidly growing new ventures. However, still lacking are large-scale research studies guided by theory through which we can expand our knowledge of the underlying factors supporting ambitious expansion plans. Some research has identified factors that enhance or reduce the willingness of the entrepreneur to grow the business. Factors include the strategic origin of the business (i.e., the methods and paths through which the firm was founded); previous experience of the founder/owner; and the ability of the entrepreneur to set realistic, measurable goals and to manage conflict effectively.Our study attempted to identify the strategic paths chosen by entrepreneurs and the relation of those paths to the growth orientation of the firm. The entrepreneurs sampled in this study are women entrepreneurs across a wide range of industrial sectors. Recent reviews of entrepreneurship research have suggested the need for more studies comparing high-growth firms with slower-growth firms to better delineate their differences in strategic choices and behaviors.Our study sought to answer the following questions: What characterizes a “high growth-oriented entrepreneur?” Is this distinction associated with specific strategic intentions, prior experience, equity held in previous firms, the type of company structure in place, or success factors the entrepreneur perceives are important to the business? Do “high growth” entrepreneurs show greater entrepreneurial “intensity” (i.e., commitment to the firm's success)? Are they willing to “pay the price” for their own and their firm's success? (i.e., the “opportunity costs” associated with business success and growth). Other relationships under investigation included different patterns of financing the business' start-up and early growth. Do “high-growth” entrepreneurs use unique sources of funding compared with “lower-growth” entrepreneurs?Eight hundred thirty-two entrepreneurs responded to a survey in which they were asked to describe their growth intentions along nineteen strategic dimensions, as well as respond to the foregoing questions. Some of the strategic activity measures included adding a new product or service, expanding operations, selling to a new market, and applying for a loan to expand operations. Actual growth rates based on sales revenues were calculated, and average annualized growth rates of the industrial sectors represented in the sample were obtained. This study showed that high-growth-oriented entrepreneurs were clearly different from low-growth-oriented entrepreneurs along several dimensions. The former were much more likely to select strategies for their firms that permitted greater focus on market expansion and new technologies, to exhibit greater intensity towards business ownership (“my business is the most important activity in my life”), and to be willing to incur greater opportunity costs for the success of their firms (“I would rather own my own business than earn a higher salary while employed by someone else”).The high-growth–oriented entrepreneurs tended to have a more structured approach to organizing their businesses, which suggests a more disciplined perception of managing the firm. In summary, results showed the group of high-growth–oriented entrepreneurs, labeled “ambitious,” as having the following distinctions: strategic intentions that emphasize market growth and technological change, stronger commitment to the success of the business, greater willingness to sacrifice on behalf of the business, earlier planning for the growth of the business, utilization of a team-based form of organization design, concern for reputation and quality, adequate capitalization, strong leadership, and utilization of a wider range of financing sources for the expansion of the venture. The purpose in uncovering these differences is to enable entrepreneurs and researchers to identify more clearly the attributes of rapid-growth ventures and their founders and to move closer to a field-based model of the entrepreneurial growth process which will help delineate the alternative paths to venture growth and organizational change.     

Uncertainty,Learning and Error Elimination: Taiwanese Entrepreneurs in Mainland China

This article presents a dynamic model of the entrepreneurial process based on Weber's and Schutz's theories of human agency. It argues that human agents accumulate experience as they make sense out of their everyday business life. Experiences from everyday life are assembled into a stock of knowledge that can be used to interpret incoming events as well as problem solving. If incoming events are repeated and familiar, the entrepreneur can utilize the rule of thumb to solve problems without difficulties. If incoming events are novel, the entrepreneur's interpretative framework will fail to give an adequate account of the new situation. Encountering this situation, some agents may continue to use old methods to solve new problems. This response does not catch up with market's expectation and is doomed to fail. Most entrepreneurs will devise new methods to solve new problems by trial and error, and experimentation. They will cope with their knowledge deficiency by creating temporary expectations. This knowledge surrogate will be later tested in the market. If a new strategy works, then it will be adopted and further routinized as a rule of thumb. This theoretical framework is applied to Taiwanese entrepreneurs investing in mainland China. Two case studies in the food and catering industries are conducted. This article concludes that the theory of entrepreneurial process in terms of learning, experimentation, and revision of plans provides us with useful understanding of survival, growth, expansion of an enterprise.     

Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research

International new ventures (INVs) represent a growing and important type of start-up. An INV is defined as a business organization that, from inception, seeks to derive significant competitive advantage from the use of resources and the sale of outputs in multiple countries (Oviatt and McDougall 1994). Their increasing prevalence and important role in international competition indicates a need for greater understanding of these new ventures (Oviatt and McDougall 1994).Logitech, as described in a case study by Alahuhta (1990), is a vivid example of an INV. Its founders were from two different countries and had a global vision for the company from its inception. The venture, which produces peripheral devices for personal computers, established headquarters in both Switzerland and the U.S. Manufacturing and R&D were split between the U.S. and Switzerland, and then quickly spread to Taiwan and Ireland. The venture's first commercial contract was with a Japanese company.Using 24 case studies of INVs, we found that their formation process is not explained by existing theories from the field of international business. Specifically, neither monopolistic advantage theory, product cycle theory, stage theory of internationalization, oligopolistic reaction theory, nor internalization theory can explain the formation process of INVs. These theories fail because they assume that firms become international long after they have been formed, and they therefore highlight large, mature firms. They also focus too much on the firm level and largely ignore the individual and small group level of analysis (i.e., the entrepreneur and his or her network of business alliances).We propose that an explanation for the formation process of INVs must answer three questions: (1) who are the founders of INVs? (2) why do these entrepreneurs choose to compete internationally rather than just in their home countries? and (3) what form do their international business activities take?Who are the founders of INVs? We argue that founders of INVs are individuals who see opportunities from establishing ventures that operate across national borders. They are “alert” to the possibilities of combining resources from different national markets because of the competencies (networks, knowledge, and background) that they have developed from their earlier activities. Following the logic of the resource-based view of the firm, we argue that the possession of these competencies is not matched by other entrepreneurs. Only the entrepreneur possessing these competencies is able to combine a particular set of resources across national borders and form a given INV.Why do these entrepreneurs choose to compete internationally rather than just in their home countries? The founders of INVs recognize they must create international business competencies from the time of venture formation. Otherwise, the venture may become path-dependent on the development of domestic competencies and the entrepreneur will find it difficult to change strategic direction when international expansion eventually becomes necessary. As the founder of one INV explained, “The advantage of starting internationally is that you establish an international spirit from the very beginning” (Mamis 1989:38).What form do their international business activities take? Founders of INVs prefer to use hybrid structures (i.e., strategic alliances and networks) for their international activities as a way to overcome the usual poverty of resources at the time of start-up.This study has important implications for the practice of management. In financing decisions relating to INVs, venture capitalists and other venture financiers should look for entrepreneurs who have a global vision, international business competence, and an established international network. When entrepreneurs start INVs they should create hybrid structures to preserve scarce resources. Finally, given the path-dependence of competence development, founders of new ventures should consider whether establishing a domestic new venture with plans to later internationalize will be as successful a strategy as establishing a new venture that is international from inception.     

Differentiating Legal Issues by Business Type

Developing legal strategies is a fundamental part of business formation and strategic operation. The ability to incorporate legal planning into the business planning process allows entrepreneurs to strategically plan their operations to minimize risks arising from legal and regulatory regimes and better protect the assets of the business and entrepreneur. Research regarding the legal issues encountered in nascent business ventures is just beginning. Conducting a content analysis of 292 legal information letters, prepared in a university-based legal clinic for new ventures, legal issues and business type were identified. An analysis of the data indicated that: (1) certain legal issues are relevant to all new ventures, (2) certain legal issues are relevant to specific types of new ventures, and (3) the relevancy of individual legal issues will vary depending on the category of business.     

What happens to international new ventures beyond start-up: An exploratory study

Since its inception, research in international entrepreneurship has focused mainly on how and why international new ventures internationalize early on. To date, there has been hardly any research regarding the issue of continuing corporate growth in such ventures beyond their start-up phase or initial internationalization. Theoretically, we ground our study within the dynamic capabilities view of the firm and through an inductive theory building research explore how and whether international new ventures made-it beyond the start-up phase, aiming to generate early theoretical constructs to guide international entrepreneurship research in this substantive area. Grounded in data, we develop the following constructs related to made-it points: strategic experimentation, tensions in organizational gestalt, and legitimacy lies. To get to a made-it point, entrepreneurs experiment with their venture at several levels: organizational, business model, and operational. These experimentation efforts are fueled by tensions that exist in the organizational gestalt, such as ownership structure, business proposition to the market, and product development process. To legitimate themselves and their venture in the stakeholders’ eyes, entrepreneurs may tell legitimacy lies. We maintain that international new ventures do not reach a made-it point if they only manage to develop substantive capabilities to produce desired outputs at various levels within the venture but fail to create dynamic capabilities to change and reconfigure existing substantive capabilities.     

Who Learns What?—A Study Based on Entrepreneurs from Biotechnology New Ventures

Despite a proliferation of research in the field of entrepreneurship, our understanding of entrepreneurial learning remains limited. We do not have systematic answers to many key questions. To what extent does the context of the learning shape that learning? How does the prior experience of an entrepreneur influence what they learn in new ventures? Does the specific role that the entrepreneur plays in a new venture, and the characteristics of the venture team, influence learning? To address this gap, and to progress the broader program of empirical research into entrepreneurial learning, we need to more fully explicate both the context and the content of learning. That is the objective and contribution of this study. We find that prior experience, the “division of (decision‐making) labor” and the “knowledge” characteristic of the venture team shape learning. One implication is that future research will need to assess more carefully both the content of new learning from the new venture experience, and the context of learning.     

Launching a new venture

With the current economic storm raging, can a better understanding of business models make for smoother sailing for today's entrepreneur? What strategies can entrepreneurs adopt to help them weather this storm? John Mullins has researched entrepreneurial ventures and offers some valuable insights.     

The Corridor Principle

This article discusses how many entrepreneurs create multiple ventures, and thereby apparently lengthen the duration of their entrepreneurial careers. A new concept, called the Corridor Principle, is proposed as a possible explanation of the multiple venture phenomenon. The Corridor Principle states that the mere act of starting a venture enables entrepreneurs to see other venture opportunities they could neither see nor take advantage of until they had started their initial venture.The Corridor Principle presents an alternative model to the linear single venture career model, embodied by such celebrity entrepreneurs as Ray Kroc of MacDonald' s and Kenneth Olsen of Digital Equipment Corp. Six hypotheses test expectations about the timing and duration of entrepreneurial careers, as well as the relationship between entrepreneurial career length and the creation of multiple ventures.The findings strongly support: • the position that entrepreneurship is a dynamic, multi-venture process for a great many entrepreneurs the rule, rather than the exception. • the existence of a positive correlation between finding at least a second venture and realizing a longer entrepreneurial career. Though there are a variety of explanations for this, and the patterns include both sequential and overlapping ventures, the net effect of creating multiple ventures appears to produce a longer entrepreneurial career. • the position that significant numbers of entrepreneurs create their second venture very early in their entrepreneurial careers especially when contrasted to the group of ex-entrepreneurs, who create multiple ventures (if at all) at a slower rate and later in their careers.Overall, these observations reinforce the notion of the Corridor Principle. Though who can and cannot take advantage of the Corridor Principle is not entirely revealed by the data, some indication exists that an entrepreneurs ability to use Corridor Principle strategy to prolong his or her career is related both to age at startup, and to conscious anticipation and preparation for an entrepreneurial career.The main implications for entrepreneurship practitioners, advisors, researchers, teachers and students are these: Whether studying the entrepreneurial process or planning to start an entrepreneurial career, a long-term view should be taken, one that includes the likely possibility of multiple ventures. The minimum economic returns of earlier ventures can be lower than previously thought if these ventures provide entry to subsequent ventures that possess higher (more acceptable) returns to the entrepreneur. The evidence thus far available indicates that the creation of subsequent ventures occurs relatively quickly when corridors of opportunity become visible and attainable after earlier ventures are established. The likelihood of career failure, as opposed to venture failure, may be lowered if one selects earlier ventures based on their potential to reveal follow-on-venture opportunities that the entrepreneur can investigate and possibly pursue.     

Insights on the mentorship and coachability of entrepreneurs

Mentorship from other experienced individuals has become essential to entrepreneurs and their fledgling ventures, particularly in today’s accelerators. However, even with the acknowledgment that mentoring and coaching improve an entrepreneur’s likelihood of success, we know very little about the nuances of mentor-mentee relationships or the individual characteristics important to an entrepreneur’s coachability. Therefore, we examined mentors and founders across entrepreneurial support organizations to investigate the factors that influence an entrepreneur’s coachability, how coachability translates to venture outcomes, and whether or not the mentor-mentee relationship met the entrepreneur’s expectations. We found that entrepreneurs that are more coachable are ultimately more successful during their time in these programs and are more satisfied with their mentorship experience. This article provides insights for the leaders of accelerators to improve mentorship opportunities and suggestions for entrepreneurs to improve their coachability.     

Venture capitalists' decision criteria in new venture evaluation

What criteria do venture capitalists use to make venture investment decisions? The criteria venture capitalists use to make their venture investment decisions are of interest for several reasons. First, venture capitalists are conspicuously successful in their investment decisions. The success rate of venture capital-backed ventures is significantly higher than the success rate of new ventures generally (Dorsey 1979: Davis and Stetson 1984). A better understanding of the criteria used could lead to a better understanding of the reasons for this success.Second, a better understanding of the criteria for successful new ventures could lead to an improvement in the success rate of new ventures. Although there is no clear agreement on the precise rate, the failure rate among new ventures is generally viewed as significantly higher than the average failure rate (Dun and Bradstreet 1984; Van de Ven 1980; Shapero 1981).Finally, venture capitalists' investment criteria are of enormous import to entrepreneurs seeking venture funding. Such entrepreneurs require a significant infusion of capital in order to grow their businesses, and knowledge of the criteria sought by venture capitalists can aid entrepreneurs in gaining the necessary financing.This study attempts to uncover the criteria used by venture capitalists through semistructured interviews and verbal protocol analysis of venture capitalists' evaluations of actual venture proposals. Sixteen verbal protocols—in which the participants “think aloud” as they review business proposals— were made of venture capitalists' venture evaluation decisions.The findings of this study suggest that venture capitalists screen and assess business proposals very rapidly: the subjects in this study reached a GO/NO-GO decision in an average of less than six minutes on initial screening and less than 21 minutes on proposal assessment. In venture capitalists' initial proposal screening, key criteria identified include fit with the venture firm's lending guidelines and the long-term growth and profitability of the industry in which the proposed business will operate. In the second stage of proposal assessment, the source of the business proposal also played a major role in the venture capitalists' interest in the plan, with proposals previously reviewed by persons known and trusted by the venture capitalist receiving a high level of interest.In addition to the specific criteria identified and how they were used in reaching GO/NO-GO decisions, the findings of this study also were surprising for the lack of importance venture capitalists attached to the entrepreneur/entrepreneurial team and the strategy of the proposed venture during these early stages of the venture evaluation process.     

Venture capitalists and serial entrepreneurs

Habitual entrepreneurship is receiving growing attention, much of which has focused on entrepreneurs who have started more than one venture. This paper examines the importance of habitual entrepreneurs to the venture capital industry, with particular emphasis on those who have exited from an initial investment in the venture capitalist's portfolio, termed serial entrepreneurs. As venture capital markets mature, increasing numbers of entrepreneurs are likely to exit from their initial enterprises, creating a pool of entrepreneurs with the potential for embarking on subsequent ventures. Venture capitalists making investments may invest both in entrepreneurs starting new ventures and those who purchase a venture through a management buy-out or buy-in. On this wider basis, the paper develops a classification of types of serial venture. A number of issues are raised for venture capitalists, notably the relative attractiveness of reinvesting in exited entrepreneurs and the policy they adopt in tracking and assessing such individuals.The paper addresses venture capitalists' perspectives on investing in serial entrepreneurs based on a representative sample of 55 UK venture capitalists (a response rate of 48.7%, and a follow-up survey of those who had more extensive experience of serial entrepreneurs (23 respondents). The results of the survey show that despite a strong preference for using an entrepreneur who had played a major role in a previous venture, the extent to which exiting entrepreneurs are funded from their own portfolio again is limited, though there is more extensive use of such individuals in a consultancy capacity. In screening entrepreneurs exiting from previous ventures for subsequent investments, venture capitalists scored attributes relating to commercial awareness, experience in a particular sector, and personal ambition of the entrepreneur most highly.Venture capitalists do make extensive use of serial entrepreneurs who have exited from other venture capitalists' portfolios, primarily to lead management buy-ins. Indications from the survey are that venture capitalists rarely assess entrepreneurs formally at the time of exit and that it is unusual to maintain formal links with entrepreneurs after they have exited. These apparent shortcomings suggest that perhaps investment opportunities are being missed. Those venture capitalists preferring serial entrepreneurs generally had a larger volume of funds under investment and were rather older than those venture capitalists who do not prefer to use serial entrepreneurs, reflecting the possibility that longer established venture capitalists have had more opportunity and experience in relation to second-time entrepreneurs.Investment appraisal factors were subject to a principal components analysis to identify underlying dimensions/relationships between them. With respect to the general investment appraisal factors, five factors were identified. Two factors were related to track record; one of these reflected ownership experience, while the other represented management experience. The third factor was related to personal attributes such as age, knowledge, and family background. The fourth factor represented links to the funding institution, and the final factor (a single variable factor) concerned financial commitment. The principal components analysis for screening factors on management buy-ins produced a single factor comprising all variables. These factors were then subject to a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), with preference for use of a serial entrepreneur as the independent variable. The results suggest that there are significant differences between venture capitalists who prefer serial entrepreneurs and those who do not in respect to their business ownership experience, the length of their entrepreneurial careers, and the number of their previous ventures.The results of the study have implications for practitioners. First, the findings emphasize the importance of not considering previous venture experience in isolation but in the context of other key investment criteria. Second, the lack of strongly greater performance from serial, versus novice, entrepreneurs further emphasizes the care to be taken in assessing experienced entrepreneurs. Third, the relatively low degree of formal and rigorous post-exit assessment and monitoring by venture capitalists suggests that important opportunities to invest in experienced entrepreneurs may be missed.     

A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation

The process model of entrepreneurial venture creation developed in this paper is based on interviews with entrepreneurs who started twenty-seven business in a range of industries in upstate New York. The venture creation process described here is an iterative, nonlinear, feedback-driven, conceptual, and physical process.The model includes internally and externally stimulated opportunity recognition, commitment to physical creation, set-up of production technology, organization creation, product creation, linking with markets, and customer feedback. For analytical convenience, the process has been divided into the opportunity stage, the technology set-up and organization-creation stage, and the exchange stage. Business concept, production technology, and product are respectively the core variables representing the three stages.Entrepreneurs introduce differing amounts of novelty at each core variable during venture creation, and the varying amounts of novelty qualitatively distinguish one kind of entrepreneurship from another.For the researcher, the model suggests a better method for specifying samples of entrepreneurial firms. It shows how studies on the context of venture creation can be more specific, and proposes that novelty at the core variables be operationalized as a step toward defining the entrepreneurial content of ventures.For the prospective entrepreneur, the model will serve as a useful road map. It will alert the entrepreneur to the strategic issues at each stage in the venture creation process, particularly when introducing significant novelty at any of the core variables.     

Does money matter?: Wealth attainment as the motive for initiating growth-oriented technology ventures

The desire to attain personal wealth has long been regarded as the foremost motive for entrepreneurship. Other goals and values, however, may also contribute to entrepreneurial motivation. Thus, the extent to which money matters relative to other motives is an empirical question. In this study we examine the role of wealth as the motive for the decision to found new ventures. Three focal questions guide our research: 1) does money matter more relative to other decision dimensions in deciding to start a new high-technology venture? 2) does money matter more to entrepreneurs compared to non-entrepreneurs? and 3) does money matter in absolute terms, that is, does a decision model that focuses solely on the motive of wealth attainment parsimoniously predict entrepreneurs' start-up decisions?We conducted in-depth interviews with 51 entrepreneurs and a control group of 28 senior managers who decided not to start ventures (non-entrepreneurs) in the high-technology industry in British Columbia to address our research questions. The motives we examined are wealth attainment and an aggregate of other dimensions identified by entrepreneurs and managers. We considered three components of values: participants' ratings of the importance of various decision dimensions, their rating of the salience of these dimensions, and their satisfaction with prior levels of attainment on those decision dimensions. We assessed beliefs as participants' perceived probability of attaining their desired level of a particular decision dimension in each of three alternatives: the position held at the time the venture decision was made, the venture itself, and the next best career alternative at that time. The data were analyzed to compare entrepreneurs' values and beliefs regarding wealth with an aggregate of other decision dimensions (our relative hypotheses), and with those of non-entrepreneurs (our comparative hypotheses).Our findings do not support the common perception that money is the only, or even the most important, motive for entrepreneurs' decisions to start new ventures. Wealth attainment was significantly less important to entrepreneurs relative to an aggregate of 10 other decision dimensions, and entrepreneurs did not rate wealth as any more important than did non-entrepreneurs. Non-entrepreneurs rated wealth as no more important than other motives. Wealth attainment was also significantly less salient to entrepreneurs' decisions to venture than were other motives. Non-entrepreneurs reported that wealth was significantly more salient to their decision against founding a venture than other dimensions. In fact, non-entrepreneurs rated wealth attainment as significantly more salient to their decision against founding than entrepreneurs rated it for their decision to proceed with starting a high-technology business. A significant number of entrepreneurs started businesses even when they believed that doing so offered them a lower probability of obtaining their most desired level of wealth than did one of their other alternatives.Satisfaction ratings and stated beliefs also dispute classical predictions. Just prior to making the decision to venture, the entrepreneurs in our study were as satisfied with wealth as they were with other decision dimensions. The non-entrepreneurs were actually more satisfied with wealth attainment than with other dimensions. A comparison of the groups revealed no difference in satisfaction with wealth attainment levels. Entrepreneurs did believe that their chances of attaining their desired level of wealth were much greater through founding a new high-technology venture than through their other alternatives. This difference in beliefs, however, was not significantly greater than their optimistic beliefs about chances of attaining desired levels of other dimensions. It was significantly higher compared to the non-entrepreneurs' belief difference measures for wealth. In fact, the entrepreneurs' stated beliefs regarding the chances of attaining their desired levels of all dimensions were higher than those of the non-entrepreneurs, suggesting that entrepreneurs were simply more optimistic at the time of their decision than non-entrepreneurs.Salience findings suggest that these optimistic beliefs about wealth did not motivate the founding decision alone.We can distinguish those people who successfully started ventures by their regard for wealth as a less salient factor, and their beliefs in higher chances of a venture producing monetary and other returns. Other motives, such as innovation, vision, independence, and challenge were more important and much more salient to this sample of entrepreneurs.Our findings have implications for practice, teaching, and research. Venture capitalists who partially base their assessment of entrepreneurs on the extent to which they are motivated to make a great deal of money may benefit from reconsideration of this criterion. We have evidence of one group of high-technology entrepreneurs who achieved success without placing much decision weight on attainment of personal wealth. Nascent entrepreneurs and those who teach entrepreneurship can use this empirical finding to argue two main points: 1) not all entrepreneurs found a business for personal wealth reasons, and 2) one need not be motivated by personal wealth attainment to be a successful entrepreneur. Similarly, theoretical models that assume money is the primary motive for entrepreneurial activity require re-examination. Future research in entrepreneurship should focus less on wealth attainment and more on other motives for the venturing decision. A multiple-attribute decision model may be able to more fully explain venturing decisions.     

Networking and growth of young technology-intensive ventures in China

More often than not, new ventures lack established products, known technologies, longstanding customer relations, experienced managerial teams, sufficient capital, and strong reputations. Almost by definition, small, new firms lack the resources of many larger, established firms. The task of an infant firm, and a measure of its success, is to make a transition from being resource weak to being resource strong.How can resources that are critical for profitable growth be acquired for the resource weak new venture? Researchers have found that entrepreneurs can gain access to valuable resources and they can seek to achieve competitive advantage through “networking activities.” Forming and utilizing available relationships with external organizations can allow entrepreneurs to build credibility, gain advice, financing, and customer access, build a positive image and obtain resources at below-market prices, and obtain channel access, information, and innovations. Business relationships with other organizations allow an entrepreneur to achieve desired business results through “asset parsimony.”A favorable view toward networking for new ventures leaves a number of unanswered questions, however. Relevant research questions might include, who should the entrepreneur seek as a business partner? Are all inter-organizational relationships equal, or are some types more valuable to new ventures than other relationships? Do firms relying on high levels of networking activities actually outperform firms that less actively seek resources through external organizational relationships?The present study provides a specific understanding of the concept of networking for entrepreneurs. We propose that networking can be understood in terms of “range,” the number of external relationships to obtain resources, and of “intensity,” the frequency of contact of and amount of resource obtained from these relationships. This research project evaluates the range and intensity of networking among high-growth and low-growth entrepreneurial ventures.Extensive interviewing with managers of six young technology-oriented firms in the People's Republic of China (PRC) affirmed the importance of entrepreneurial networking. Managers in the three high-growth firms reported greater range and intensity of business networking than did managers of three low-growth firms, matched by industry and age. Moreover, the relationship between networking activities and growth transcended the stage of firm development.Where networking range and intensity are deemed important in the growth process, new venture success may call for entrepreneurs to reach out deliberately to external organizations to capture needed resources. To a certain extent, such networking activities run counter to important entrepreneurial motivations of independence and autonomy. The concept of networking, and the results of this study, imply that entrepreneurs need to combine the spirit of independence with the reality of resource dependence, and they need to balance personal autonomy with strategic business relationships.This study also contributes to the understanding of entrepreneurship in our increasingly global economy, particularly in the PRC. Business relationships between the United States and the PRC have been expanding rapidly in the last decade. Many foreign businesses seek license agreements, joint venture partners, equity participation, or channel relationships with young ventures in that country. Do the same rules of networking apply in the PRC as the literature suggests apply in the United States? New ventures in this study were found to engage in processes of networking activities consistent with those in the West. Although networking activities may have different cultural roots, firm success appeared influenced by the same principles of networking.     

The story and the storyteller: Strategic storytelling that gets human attention for entrepreneurs

As a captivating way to engage, inform, and persuade one’s audiences, storytelling can serve as a strategic skill in an entrepreneur’s arsenal. Although entrepreneurs often use storytelling to mobilize financial resources from external stakeholders, less attention has been paid to how entrepreneurs can leverage this powerful tool to gain strategic partnerships. As such, there is little practical guidance on utilizing storytelling to gain a competitive advantage. In this article, we use wisdom from the academic and practical world to illuminate the science of storytelling, identify the type of stories that entrepreneurs may narrate (or refrain from telling), and understand the mechanism through which stories engage and persuade external stakeholders. We also highlight Freytag’s Dramatic Arc, which can teach entrepreneurs how to frame profound stories that gain attention from external stakeholders. We offer practical guidelines for entrepreneurs interested in learning and harnessing the power of compelling storytelling for strategic partnerships.     

Opportunities and institutions: A co-creation story of the king crab industry

If entrepreneurs are constrained and shaped by existing institutions, how? If entrepreneurs products and services, how can institutions remain unchanged? This paper explores this theoretical conundrum empirically through the examination of the actions of entrepreneur Lowell Wakefield. Contrary to previous work that suggests that it is institutional entrepreneurs that bring about institutional change as a means of advancing their social interests, this paper shows that a profit-seeking entrepreneur without prior institutional affiliation or experience can create an opportunity along with the supporting industry standards and regulations.     

Emerging life sciences ventures: The quest for legitimacy

As an emerging life sciences venture, gaining legitimacy (credibility) with external stakeholders (e.g., investors) is a critical challenge in today's environment. This quest for legitimacy relates to issues that focus on the individual, the environment, and the process. Integrating insights gained from interviews with three CEOs of life sciences companies along with the academic literature, we provide guidance for entrepreneurs regarding the unique challenges facing life sciences ventures. We propose that these ventures are driven by a “quest for legitimacy” and that life sciences entrepreneurs therefore must be aware of the strategic issues which impact legitimacy in the eyes of external stakeholders (e.g., investors).     

SMEs international growth: The moderating role of experience on entrepreneurial and learning orientations

New and small firms operating in the high-tech environments need strong entrepreneurial (EO) and learning (LO) orientations to enhance international growth. Yet, the relationship between these two key strategic dimensions and foreign growth can be contingent to the entrepreneur’s individual characteristics. Bringing together elements from strategic management, organization and entrepreneurship literatures, we employ a dynamic temporal perspective considering two levels of analysis, the firm and the entrepreneur, and we apply a fixed effects pooled time-series regression on a sample of 170 firms in two periods of time (2005 and 2015). Our findings indicate that SMEs that possess greater EO and LO have higher international growth. However, previous entrepreneurial and industry-specific managerial experience of the founder/CEO positively exert their effect on these relationships. Our results have important theoretical and practical implications for entrepreneurs and policy makers operating in highly innovative sectors.     

Hidden ties in international new venturing: The case of portfolio entrepreneurship

A hitherto neglected phenomenon in international new venturing is portfolio entrepreneurship, which occurs when entrepreneurs found, own, manage and control more than one business at a time, with ownership of the new venture being distinct from that of the existing business ventures. This study introduces the phenomenon of portfolio entrepreneurship in international new venturing through a longitudinal study of a cluster of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Tasmania, Australia, where 6 of 11 firms in the cluster were international new ventures (INVs). The pattern of international portfolio entrepreneurship pursued by the Tasmanian entrepreneurs and coupling between firms is described. Key findings include the ability of portfolio entrepreneurs to leverage high-discretion slack resources, positive legitimacy spillovers, and learning effects and experimentation across loosely coupled INVs in the portfolio. The findings also identify dysfunctional elements of portfolio entrepreneurship, and cast doubt over the conventional use of ‘the firm’ as the focal unit of analysis in INV studies. A particular contribution of this study is to remind us of the richness and pluralism inherent in international new venturing.     

Entrepreneur opportunity costs and intended venture growth

This study investigates how entrepreneur opportunity costs influence the intended future size of new ventures. In particular, using a survey of nascent entrepreneurs in the process of starting a venture, this paper examines how intended future sales revenue is influenced by entrepreneur current household income, education, and managerial experience. Consistent with opportunity cost and human capital arguments, it is found that individuals with higher current household income and greater supervisory experience have higher levels of intended firm size in 5 years time. While this study finds that entrepreneur stated preferences for growth also influence intended future sales of the venture, the association between nascent entrepreneur opportunity costs and venture scale is complementary to these stated preferences.