Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Growing Pains: The Transformative Journey from a Nascent to a Formal Not-For-Profit Venture

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines how a social venture transitions from nascent to formal status and argues that the transformation of the organization set in motion by establishing formal boundaries is a deeply profound one. Drawing from the nonprofit and social entrepreneurship literature on what prompts and energizes individuals to initiate new not-for-profit ventures, and linking it to a notion of revolutionary crisis as organizations emerge and develop, we seek to illuminate and explore the tension, and its consequences, between nonprofit entrepreneurs and the organization they create as the new venture transitions from nascent to formal. We do this by presenting the results from an in-depth case study examining the gestation and boundary-forming phases of Robert’s Place Cooperative, a plucky start-up cooperative in a midsize Midwestern city.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcadipani, R., & Hassard, J. (2010). Actor-network theory, organizations and critique: Towards a politics of organizing. Organization, 17(4), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. A. (2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, F. O. (2017). A new focus on nonprofit entrepreneurship research: Highlighting the need and relevance of nascent stage inquiry. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(2), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, F. O., & Edenfield, A. C. (2015). Nonprofit governance and the power of things. Nonprofit Quarterly, Summer, 2015, 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bess, G. (1998). A first stage organization life cycle study of six emerging nonprofit organizations in Los Angeles. Administration in Social Work, 22(4), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brothers, J., & Sherman, A. (2011). Building nonprofit capacity: A guide to managing change through organizational lifecycles. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, P. T. (2014). Imprinting by design: The microfoundations of entrepreneurial adaptation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1081–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, P. (2006). Navigating the organizational lifecycle: A capacity-building guide for nonprofit leaders. Washington, DC: Boardsource.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durepos, G., & Mills, A. J. (2012). Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization, 19(6), 703–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farías, I., & Bender, T. (Eds.). (2012). Urban assemblages: How actor-network theory changes urban studies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T. J. (2010). (un) Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (Eds.). (2012). Researching education through actor-network theory. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, T., & Stones, R. (2010). Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Social Science and Medicine, 70(9), 1285–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner, L. E. (1972/1998). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55–68.

  • Hasenfeld, Y., & Schmid, H. (1989). The life cycle of human service organizations: An administrative perspective. Administration in Social Work, 13(3–4), 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, H. (2007). Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justesen, L., & Mouritsen, J. (2011). Effects of actor-network theory in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(2), 161–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A., & Starr, J. A. (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination. London: Rutledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijke & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippitt, G. L., & Schmidt, W. H. (1967). Crises in a developing organization. Harvard Business Review, 45, 102–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, W. M., & Lundberg, C. O. (2008). The essential guide to rhetoric. Martins, New York: Bedford/St.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organisation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, L. (2010). Using actor network theory to trace and improve multimodal communication design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18, 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renko, M. (2013). Early challenges of nascent social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1045–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert's Place. (2011). “[Redacted] cooperative bylaws”. Ratified March 2011.

  • Schryer, C. (1994). The lab vs. the clinic: Sites of competing genres. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. S. (2001). Five life stages of nonprofit organizations: Where you are, where you’re going, and what to expect when you get there. Saint Paul, MN: Fieldstone Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinuzzi, C. (2007). Who killed Rex? Tracing a message through three kinds of network. In M. Zachry & C. Thrall (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations. Amityville: Baywood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technologies, and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination. London: Rutledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steier, L. P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2004). Entrepreneurial management and governance in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. K. (2008). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for nonprofit capacity (2nd ed.). Long Lake, Minnesota: Stagewise Enterprises.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsor, D. A. (2003). Writing power: Communication in an engineering Center. Albany: SUNY UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsor, D. A. (2007). Using texts to manage continuity and change in an activity center. In M. Zachry & C. Thrall (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations. Amityville: Baywood Press.

    Google Scholar 

Interviews

  • “Levi”. (2014, November). Face to face interview.

  • “Lucy”. (2014, July). Face to face interview.

  • “Patty”. (2014, July). Face to face interview.

  • “Robert”. (2014, September). Face to face interview.

  • “Steve”. (2014, June). Face to face interview.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Utah State University, 3200 Old Main Hall, Logan, UT, 84322-3200, USA

    Avery C. Edenfield

  2. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 801 W. Michigan Street BS 4066, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Fredrik O. Andersson

Authors
  1. Avery C. Edenfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fredrik O. Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Avery C. Edenfield.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Avery C. Edenfield was previously employed at the research site and was elected to serve on the Board of Directors for a 3-year term. Avery C. Edenfield presented research participants with recommendations and other relevant findings. Fredrik O. Andersson declared there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Edenfield, A.C., Andersson, F.O. Growing Pains: The Transformative Journey from a Nascent to a Formal Not-For-Profit Venture. Voluntas 29, 1033–1043 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9936-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9936-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation