Stakeholder Relationship Building Processes of R&D Based Startups: The Case of Techno-entrepreneurs in Turkey

  • Elif Kalaycı
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)


Founding an R&D based startup is a risky challenge, one requiring balance between a technological search process and business capabilities. Stakeholders’ role is critical here as they help the entrepreneur in this endeavor. Our aim is to explore the stakeholder relationship building processes of R&D based startups. To this end, we conducted in-depth interviews with Turkish startups that were founded with the state’s ‘techno-entrepreneurship grant’ on the condition of conducting R&D. A common scheme emerging in all three cases was the presence of challenging and supporting stakeholders in the gestation stage. The predominant finding in the literature was the supportive role of the family; however we found a profoundly opposing role in one case. Secondly, the logic of the state’s techno-entrepreneurship fund monitoring staff seemed to be a vital factor in the sustainability of the startup. Finally, the ethical and passionate conduct of business by these startups could be a factor drawing third parties into becoming stakeholders. Based on these findings three propositions are stated to be studied in the future.


Techno-entrepreneurship Stakeholder relationship building 


  1. Anderson AR, Jack SL, Dodd SD (2005) The role of family members in entrepreneurial networks: beyond the boundaries of the family firm. Fam Bus Rev 18(2):135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazerman MH, Neale MA (1992) Negotiating rationally. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brüderl J, Preisendörfer P (1998) Network support and the success of newly founded businesses. Small Bus Econ 10(3):213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bygrave WD, Hay M, Ng E, Reynolds P (2003) A study of informal investing in 29 nations composing the global enterprise monitor. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance 5:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conti A, Thursby M, Rothaerme F (2013) Show me the right stuff: signals for high-tech startups. J Econ Manag Strateg 22(2):341–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cope J (2005) Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 29(4):373–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coviello NE, Jones MV (2004) Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. J Bus Ventur 19(4):485–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalley H, Hamilton B (2000) Knowledge, context and learning in the small business. Int Small Bus J 18(3):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniels C, Hofer C (1993) Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurial faculty and their innovative research teams. In: Frontiers of economic research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 598–609Google Scholar
  10. Deakins D, Freel M (1998) Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs. Learn Organ 5(3):144–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutta DK, Thornhill S (2014) Venture cognitive logics, entrepreneurial cognitive style and growth intentions: a conceptual model and an exploratory field study. Entrep Res J 4(2):147–166. Google Scholar
  12. Elfring T, Hulsink W (2003) Networks in entrepreneurship: the case of high-technology firms. Small Bus Econ 21:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksson P, Kovalainen A (2008) Qualitative methods in business research. Sage, London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evers N, Andersson S, Hannibal M (2012) Stakeholders and marketing capabilities in international new ventures: evidence from Ireland, Sweden, and Denmark. J Int Mark 20(4):46–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  16. Frooman J (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad Manag Rev 24:191–205Google Scholar
  17. Gans JS, Stern S (2003) The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res Policy 32(2):333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibb AA (1997) Small firms’ training and competitiveness: building on the small business as a learning organization. Int Small Bus J 15(3):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greve A, Salaff JW (2003) Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 28(4):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helfat CE, Finkelstein S, Mitchell W, Peteraf M, Singh H, Teece D, Winter SG (2007) Dynamic capabilities: understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Honig B Samuelson M (2009) Business planning and venture level performance: challenging the institution of planning. Working papers series from Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum. Accessed 31 Jan 2016
  22. Lawler EJ, Yoon J (1996) Commitment in exchange relations: test of a theory of relational cohesion. Am Sociol Rev 61(1):89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maxwell JA (1996) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886Google Scholar
  25. Neves P, Story J (2015) Ethical leadership and reputation: combined indirect effects on organizational deviance. J Bus Ethics 127:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD (2003) The policy agenda for growth. OECD Publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfeffer J, Salancik G (1978) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Postle D (1993) Putting the heart back into learning. In: Boud D, Cohen R, Walker D (eds) Using experience for learning. SRHE & Open University Press, Buckingham, pp 33–45Google Scholar
  30. Rosenblatt PC, de Mik L, Anderson RM, Johnson PA (1985) The family in business. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  31. Sarasvathy SD (2001) Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economics inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Acad Manag Rev 26(2):243–263Google Scholar
  32. Sarasvathy SD (2008) Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sarasvathy S, Venkatamaran S (2011) Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrep Theory Pract 35(1):113–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlange L (2009) Stakeholder identification in sustainability entrepreneurship the role of managerial and organisayional cognition. Greener Management International Winter 55:13–32Google Scholar
  35. Scottish Executive (2001) A smart successful Scotland: ambitions for the enterprise networks. HM Stationary Office, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  36. Sirolli E (2003) Ripples from the Zambesi: passion entrepreneurship and the rebirth of local economies. New Society Publishers, Gabriola IslandGoogle Scholar
  37. Steyaert C (1997) A qualitative methodology for process studies of entrepreneurship: creating local knowledge through stories. Int Stud Manag Organ 27(2):13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strauss AL, Curbin JM (1990) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson L, Gentner D, Loewenstein J (2000) Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82(1):60–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Young JE, Sexton DL (1997) Entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework. J Enterp Cult 5(3):223–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zahra H, Sapienza J, Davidsson P (2006) Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda. J Manag Stud 43(4):917–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAtılım UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations