3.8 Article

Business growth through intentional and non-intentional network processes

期刊

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/JSBED-08-2016-0131

关键词

Network theory; Business growth model; Intended and non-intended growth; Knowledge reservoir; Macro-actor

类别

资金

  1. Interreg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine business growth and explore the growth mode among 24 women entrepreneurs participating in a Nordic research, development and networking programme. Design/methodology/approach - A longitudinal design made it possible to follow entrepreneurial growth as an unfolding and emerging research process with a methodology inductive in nature and driven by empirical findings. The analysis is structured following established procedures for inductive, theory-building research, using guidelines for constant comparison techniques and working recursively between the data and the emerging theory. Findings - Two processes were found important to understand the women entrepreneurs' growth mode. The first is interpreted as intentionally driven and relates to the women's achievement of expanding their knowledge reservoir; the other is non-intentionally driven and a result of uncontrolled network responses. The latter unfolded as a movement towards a preferable macro-actor status for some of the entrepreneurs. Practical implications - The study calls attention to relevant knowledge preferable to entrepreneurs who face challenges when trying to grow their businesses. The political implications of this study relate to the importance of awareness among governmental organizations and municipal business advisers regarding the effects of entrepreneurial networking. Originality/value - This study provides an empirically rigorous insight into the processes of entrepreneurial growth. The findings led the authors to develop a conceptual model for business growth, which contributes to the recent stream of literature on how new businesses are growing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据