Evolutionary Processes and Paths of Relationally Embedded Network Ties in Emerging Entrepreneurial Firms

Abstract

113Relationally embedded network ties influence the economic decisions of emerging firms and evolve over time. Evolutionary processes and paths of these ties are examined based on two research questions: How do components of social relationships facilitate the evolution of relational embeddedness? What are the different paths to relational embeddedness? Findings from qualitative case study methods suggest three evolutionary processes (network entry, social component leverage and trust facilitation), four evolutionary paths, and the conclusion that ties entering the network through personal relationship may evolve more quickly toward full embeddedness. Strategic implications for emerging firms are suggested regarding entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, resource acquisition and effective governance of relationally embedded ties.

Re-imagining the growth process: (co)-evolving metaphorical representations of entrepreneurial growth

“…Networking extends the reach and abilities of any actor to access resources held by others and so improve entrepreneurial effectiveness, these networks becoming an important aspect of growth. Hite (2005) argues that the nature, extent and types of social interaction that take place between an entrepreneur and his/her network are fundamental to building and growing organizations.…”

Levels of Multiplexity in Entrepreneur’s Networks: Implications for Dynamism and Value Creation

“…Strategic changes tend to occur at higher levels of multiplexity. At the social and relational level, there is a growing body of evidence of how multiplexity evolves (e.g., Hite, 2003Hite, , 2005Jack et al, 2008;Jack et al, 2010;Ferriani et al, 2013). However, beyond the relational level, evidence of changes in strategic or closed multiplexity remains sparse or anecdotal.…”

“…Multiplexity is not a novel concept (Hite, 2005;Hoang & Antoncic, 2003;Rogers & Kincaid, 1981), and is analogous to a 'mixture of relations' (Harary, 1959).…”

“…This stability (and its antithesis, dynamism) is important to entrepreneurial networks, which are inherently dynamic (e.g., Elfring & Hulsink, 2007;Jack, Dodd & Anderson, 2008;Jack, 2010), and evolve with the firm (e.g., Hite, 2005;Hite & Hesterly, 2001). Studying multiplexity in entrepreneurship thus requires an investigation of how each level of multiplexity affects the dynamism of the network.…”

“…The concept of interest in this paper is multiplexity (see also Shipilov et al, 2014;Hite, 2005;Hoang & Antoncic, 2003;Rogers & Kincaid, 1981) and its variation. Multiplexity is broadly defined as the "layering of different types of exchanges within the same relationship" (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003, p. 169) and can be extended to include the layering of exchanges across multiple relationships (e.g., Shipilov, 2012).…”