Advertisement

Embeddedness or Over-Embeddedness? Women Entrepreneurs’ Networks and Their Influence on Business Performance

  • Lavlu MozumdarEmail author
  • Geoffrey Hagelaar
  • Valentina C. Materia
  • S. W. F. Omta
  • Mohammad Amirul Islam
  • Gerben van der Velde
Original Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

We analyse in what ways network embeddedness may influence the business performance of women entrepreneurs working in a socially constrained context. Data were collected through a survey sent to 292 women entrepreneurs engaged in handicraft businesses in Bangladesh. Results from multiple regression models show that, next to entrepreneurial orientation, financial capital and business experience, a small network is positively related, while medium-sized and large networks are negatively related, to performance. In-depth analysis reveals that a small bonding ties network is positively, while a medium-sized bonding ties network is negatively, and a large bonding ties network is not, statistically related to performance. Based on this, we assume that the networks of many women entrepreneurs may be over-embedded, because of too extensive connections with family and friends. Apparently, the over-embeddedness proposition of Uzzi (Am Sociol Rev 61:674–698, 1996) proves to be valid for women entrepreneurs operating under socially constrained circumstances in a developing country.

Keywords

Network (over-)embeddedness Business performance Women entrepreneurs Socially constrained context 

Résumé

Nous analysons de quelle manière l’encastrement dans un réseau social peut influer sur les performances commerciales des femmes entrepreneures travaillant dans un contexte de contrainte sociale. Les données sont collectées dans le cadre d’une enquête envoyée à 292 femmes entrepreneures engagées dans l’artisanat au Bangladesh. Les résultats issus de modèles de régression multiple montrent que, outre l’orientation entrepreneuriale, le capital financier, et l’expérience professionnelle, disposer d’un petit réseau est positivement lié à la performance commerciale, alors que les réseaux de taille moyenne et grande sont négativement liés à la performance. Une analyse approfondie révèle qu’un réseau de liaisons de petite taille est positivement relié à la performance, alors qu’un réseau de liaisons de taille moyenne y est inversement relié, et qu’un grand réseau de liaisons n’est pas statistiquement lié à la performance. Sur cette base, nous supposons que les réseaux de nombreuses femmes entrepreneures pourraient être trop encastrés, en raison de liens trop étroits avec la famille et les amis. Il semblerait que la proposition de sur-encastrement d’Uzzi (Am Sociol Rev 61:674–698, 1996) s’avère valable pour les femmes entrepreneures travaillant en situation de contrainte sociale dans un pays en développement.

Notes

References

  1. Al-Dajani, H., and S. Marlow. 2010. Impact of women’s home-based enterprise on family dynamics: Evidence from Jordan. International Small Business Journal 28 (5): 470–486.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H., and C. Zimmer. 1986. Entrepreneurship through social networks. In: D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smiler (eds) The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
  3. Amine, L.S., and K.M. Staub. 2009. Women entrepreneurs in sub-Saharan Africa: An institutional theory analysis from a social marketing point of view. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 21 (2): 183–211.Google Scholar
  4. Arregle, J.L., et al. 2015. Family ties in entrepreneurs’ social networks andA new venture growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39 (2): 313–344.Google Scholar
  5. Bates, T. 1994. Social resources generated by group support networks may not be beneficial to Asian immigrant-owned small businesses. Social Forces 72 (3): 671–689.Google Scholar
  6. Batjargal, B. 2007. Internet entrepreneurship: Social capital, human capital, and performance of Internet ventures in China. Research Policy 36 (5): 605–618.Google Scholar
  7. Baum, J.A., T. Calabrese, and B.S. Silverman. 2000. Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal 21: 267–294.Google Scholar
  8. Bliemel, M.J., and E.M. Maine. 2008. Network embeddedness as a predictor of performance for New Technology-Based Firms. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship 1 (3): 313–341.Google Scholar
  9. Brüderl, J., and P. Preisendörfer. 1998. Network support and the success of newly founded business. Small Business Economics 10 (3): 213–225.Google Scholar
  10. Burt, R.S. 2000. The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior 22: 345–423.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, S. 2007. The role of human and financial capital in the profitability and growth of women-owned small firms. Journal of Small Business Management 45 (3): 303–319.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, A.C., F.J. Gimeno-Gascon, and C.Y. Woo. 1994. Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing 9 (5): 371–395.Google Scholar
  13. Costello, A.B. 2009. Getting the most from your analysis. Pan 12 (2): 131–146.Google Scholar
  14. Davidsson, P., and B. Honig. 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (3): 301–331.Google Scholar
  15. De Vita, L., M. Mari, and S. Poggesi. 2014. Women entrepreneurs in and from developing countries: Evidences from the literature. European Management Journal 32 (3): 451–460.Google Scholar
  16. Dess, G.G., and R.B. Robinson. 1984. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal 5 (3): 265–273.Google Scholar
  17. Dollinger, M.J. 1985. Environmental contacts and financial performance of the small firm. Journal of Small Business Management 23 (1): 24–30.Google Scholar
  18. Dollinger, M.J. 2005. Entrepreneurship: strategies and resources. Lombard: Marsh.Google Scholar
  19. Drinkwater, M. 2009. ’We are also human’: identity and power in gender relations. In: S. Hickey and D. Mitlin (eds) Rights-based approaches to development: exploring the potential and pitfalls. Sterling: Kumarian, pp. 145–164.Google Scholar
  20. Dubini, P., and H. Aldrich. 2002. Personal and extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process, 217–228. Entrepreneurship: Critical perspectives on business and management.Google Scholar
  21. Eklinder-Frick, J., L.-T. Eriksson, and L. Hallén. 2011. Bridging and bonding forms of social capital in a regional strategic network. Industrial Marketing Management 40 (6): 994–1003.Google Scholar
  22. Fuentes-Fuentes, M.M., A.M. Bojica, and M. Ruiz-Arroyo. 2015. Entrepreneurial orientation and knowledge acquisition: Effects on performance in the specific context of women-owned firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11 (3): 695–717.Google Scholar
  23. Gargiulo, M., and M. Benassi. 1999. The dark side of social capital. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Gargiulo, M., and M. Benassi. 2000. Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science 11 (2): 183–196.Google Scholar
  25. Gittell, R., and A. Vidal. 1998. Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Glonti, K., et al. 2016. Psychosocial environment: definitions, measures and associations with weight status—A systematic review. Obesity Reviews 17 (S1): 81–95.Google Scholar
  27. Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380.Google Scholar
  28. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481–510.Google Scholar
  29. Granovetter, M. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action 25: 56.Google Scholar
  30. Granovetter, M. 1995. The economic sociology of firms and entrepreneurs. In: A. Portes (ed) The economic sociology of immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 28–165.Google Scholar
  31. Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  32. Greve, A., and J.W. Salaff. 2003. Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice 28 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  33. Gulati, R. 1998. Alliance and networks. Strategic Management Journal 19 (4): 293–317.Google Scholar
  34. Hampton, A., S. Cooper, and P. Mcgowan. 2009. Female entrepreneurial networks and networking activity in technology-based ventures an exploratory study. International Small Business Journal 27 (2): 193–214.Google Scholar
  35. Hawkins, R.L., and K. Maurer. 2010. Bonding, bridging and linking: How social capital operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social Work 40 (6): 1777–1793.Google Scholar
  36. Hite, J.M., and W.S. Hesterly. 2001. The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 22 (3): 275–286.Google Scholar
  37. Hoang, H., and B. Antoncic. 2003. Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (2): 165–187.Google Scholar
  38. Hoang, H., and A. Yi. 2015. Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A decade in review. Foundations and Trends (R) in Entrepreneurship 11 (1): 1–54.Google Scholar
  39. Hsueh, J.-T., N.-P. Lin, and H.-C. Li. 2010. The effects of network embeddedness on service innovation performance. The Service Industries Journal 30 (10): 1723–1736.Google Scholar
  40. Hughes, M., and R.E. Morgan. 2007. Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management 36 (5): 651–661.Google Scholar
  41. Inkpen, A.C., and E.W. Tsang. 2005. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review 30 (1): 146–165.Google Scholar
  42. Inmyxai, S., and Y. Takahashi. 2010. Performance contrast and its determinants between male and female headed firms in Lao MSMEs. International Journal of business and management 5 (4): 37.Google Scholar
  43. Jack, S.L. 2005. The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis*. Journal of Management Studies 42 (6): 1233–1259.Google Scholar
  44. Jack, S.L., and A.R. Anderson. 2002. The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing 17 (5): 467–487.Google Scholar
  45. Jamali, D. 2009. Constraints and opportunities facing women entrepreneurs in developing countries: A relational perspective. Gender in Management: An International Journal 24 (4): 232–251.Google Scholar
  46. Kabir, M., and X. Huo. 2011. Advancement of rural poor women through small entrepreneurship development: The case of Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management 6 (9): 134–140.Google Scholar
  47. Kantor, P. 2005. Determinants of women’s microenterprise success in Ahmedabad, India: Empowerment and economics. Feminist Economics 11 (3): 63–83.Google Scholar
  48. Klyver, K., and D. Foley. 2012. Networking and culture in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 24 (7–8): 561–588.Google Scholar
  49. Kraus, S., et al. 2012. Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: A quantitative study from the Netherlands. Review of Managerial Science 6 (2): 161–182.Google Scholar
  50. Kreiser, P.M., P.C. Patel, and J.O. Fiet. 2013. The influence of changes in social capital on firm-founding activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37 (3): 539–568.Google Scholar
  51. Kuada, J. 2009. Gender, social networks, and entrepreneurship in Ghana. Journal of African Business 10 (1): 85–103.Google Scholar
  52. Larson, A., and J.A. Starr. 1993. A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 17 (2): 5–16.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, C., K. Lee, and J.M. Pennings. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal 22 (6–7): 615–640.Google Scholar
  54. Lin, N. 2008. A network theory of social capital. The Handbook Of Social Capital 50: 69.Google Scholar
  55. Lindell, M.K., and D.J. Whitney. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1): 114.Google Scholar
  56. Lumpkin, G.T., and G.G. Dess. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review 21 (1): 135–172.Google Scholar
  57. Maas, J., et al. 2014. Bridging the disconnect: How network creation facilitates female Bangladeshi entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10 (3): 1–14.Google Scholar
  58. Mair, J., and I. Marti. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing 24 (5): 419–435.Google Scholar
  59. Mayoux, L. 2001. Tackling the down side: Social capital, women’s empowerment and micro-finance in Cameroon. Development and change 32 (3): 435–464.Google Scholar
  60. McEvily, B., and A. Zaheer. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20 (12): 1133–1156.Google Scholar
  61. Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 29 (7): 770–791.Google Scholar
  62. Moore, D.P., and E.H. Buttner. 1997. Women entrepreneurs: Moving beyond the glass ceiling. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Mozumdar, L. et al. (2016). Influence of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Women’s Business Performance in Bangladesh’. The 76th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 2016 Anaheim, California.Google Scholar
  64. Poggesi, S., M. Mari, and L. Vita. 2015. What’s new in female entrepreneurship research? Answers from the literature. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0364-5.Google Scholar
  65. Poon, J.P.H., D.T. Thai, and D. Naybor. 2012. Social capital and female entrepreneurship in rural regions: Evidence from Vietnam. Applied Geography 35 (1–2): 308–315.Google Scholar
  66. Portes, A. 2000. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. In: Eric L. Lesser (ed) Knowledge and social capital. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 43–67.Google Scholar
  67. Putzel, J. 1997. Policy arena: Accounting for the ‘dark side’of social capital: reading Robert Putnam on democracy. Journal of International Development 9 (7): 939–949.Google Scholar
  68. Rabbani, G., and M.S. Chowdhury. 2013. Policies and institutional supports for women entrepreneurship development in Bangladesh: Achievements and challenges. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science 2 (1): 31.Google Scholar
  69. Rauch, A., et al. 2009. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33 (3): 761–787.Google Scholar
  70. Raz, O., and P.A. Gloor. 2007. Size really matters-new insights for start-ups’ survival. Management Science 53 (2): 169–177.Google Scholar
  71. Renzulli, L.A., H. Aldrich, and J. Moody. 2000. Family matters: Gender, networks, and entrepreneurial outcomes. Social Forces 79 (2): 523–546.Google Scholar
  72. Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, M.J., P. Moreno, and P. Tejada. 2015. Entrepreneurial orientation and performance of SMEs in the services industry. Journal of Organizational Change Management 28 (2): 194–212.Google Scholar
  73. Roomi, M.A., and P. Harrison. 2010. Behind the veil: Women-only entrepreneurship training in Pakistan. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 2 (2): 150–172.Google Scholar
  74. Rutashobya, L.K., I.S. Allan, and K. Nilsson. 2009. Gender, social networks, and entrepreneurial outcomes in Tanzania. Journal of African Business 10 (1): 67–83.Google Scholar
  75. Sarkar, M., R. Echambadi, and J.S. Harrison. 2001. Research note: Alliance entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic Management Journal 22 (6–7): 701–711.Google Scholar
  76. Scholten, V., et al. 2015. Bridging ties and the role of research and start-up experience on the early growth of Dutch academic spin-offs. Technovation 45–46: 40–51.Google Scholar
  77. Slotte-Kock, S., and N. Coviello. 2010. Entrepreneurship research on network processes: A review and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34 (1): 31–57.Google Scholar
  78. Smith-Hunter, A.E., and J. Leone. 2010. Evidence on the characteristics of women entrepreneurs in Brazil: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research 3 (1): 85–102.Google Scholar
  79. Stam, W., and T. Elfring. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra- and extra-industry social capital. Academy of Management Journal 51 (1): 97–111.Google Scholar
  80. Szreter, S., and M. Woolcock. 2004. Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology 33 (4): 650–667.Google Scholar
  81. Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review 61: 674–698.Google Scholar
  82. Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 35–67.Google Scholar
  83. Venkatraman, N., and V. Ramanujam. 1986. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review 11 (4): 801–814.Google Scholar
  84. Verhees, F.J., T. Lans, and J.A. Verstegen. 2012. The influence of market and entrepreneurial orientation on strategic marketing choices: the cases of Dutch farmers and horticultural growers. Journal on Chain and Network Science 12 (2): 167–179.Google Scholar
  85. Wall, T.D., et al. 2004. On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology 57 (1): 95–118.Google Scholar
  86. Welter, F., and D. Smallbone. 2011. Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurial behavior in challenging environments. Journal of Small Business Management 49 (1): 107–125.Google Scholar
  87. Woolcock, M. 1998. Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society 27 (2): 151–208.Google Scholar
  88. Woolcock, M. 2001. The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2 (1): 11–17.Google Scholar
  89. Xie, X., and J. Lv. 2016. Social networks of female tech-entrepreneurs and new venture performance: The moderating effects of entrepreneurial alertness and gender discrimination. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12 (4): 963–983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lavlu Mozumdar
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Geoffrey Hagelaar
    • 2
  • Valentina C. Materia
    • 2
  • S. W. F. Omta
    • 2
  • Mohammad Amirul Islam
    • 3
  • Gerben van der Velde
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Rural SociologyBangladesh Agricultural UniversityMymensinghBangladesh
  2. 2.Business Management and OrganizationWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural StatisticsBangladesh Agricultural UniversityMymensinghBangladesh

Personalised recommendations