David Diz Hang

8/22/2019 David Diz Hang

1/48

Social Entrepreneurship Framework 1

FACTORS THAT AFFECTSOCIAL

ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK

David Di Zhang, PhD

Associate Professor, Management and Marketing

Edwards School of Business

University of Saskatchewan

25 Campus Drive

Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada

S7N 5A7

Telephone: (306) 966-5920 Email: zhang@edwards .usask.ca

Lee Swanson, EdD

Associate Professor, Management and Marketing


2/48


Edwards School of Business

University of Saskatchewan

25 Campus Drive

Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada

S7N 5A7

Telephone: (306) 966-2124 Email: [email protected]

FACTORS THAT AFFECT SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK ABSTRACT

Social entrepreneurship has emerged as an increasingly important domain, both in academic research and in

practice. Prior studies have identified a number of antecedent factors and managerial processes that

would advance social entrepreneurial ventures. This paper attempts to further enhance our

understanding of social entrepreneurship by synthesizing some of these findings and presenting a

conceptual framework that elucidates how ex-ante context, including personal characteristics,

organizational factors, and environmental factors influence the on-going conduct of social

entrepreneurship, which in turn produce ex-post multiple performance. Several propositions are put

forward for future empirical testing.

Keywords: social entrepreneurship; innovation; market orientation; government policy


3/48


INTRODUCTION

Social entrepreneurship research has evolved from its original focus on non-profit entities. It now

encompasses organizations at and between the for-profit and not-for-profit poles; and includes some

public sector entities that apply business practices to sustain operations that deliver social outcomes

(Dees, 1998; Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2003; Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, 2009;

Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort, 2006). In relative terms, however, our understanding of social

entrepreneurship is still limited. This is in comparison to the study of commercial entrepreneurship,

which itself is an evolving discipline.

During the past two decades, researchers in entrepreneurship have developed sophisticated theoretical

frameworks and business models that delineate how commercial entrepreneurs go about conducting

their businesses. For example, prior studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurial motivations

(Taormina & Lao, 2007), firm characteristics (Kelmar & Wingham, 1995), personal traits and skill sets

(Kickul & Gundry, 2002), resource endowments (Packalen, 2007), and strategic choice (Dobbs &

Hamilton, 2007) are among the factors that play important roles in the success of commercial

entrepreneurship. In the domain of social entrepreneurship, however multi dimensional and holistic

theory is yet to emerge, but considerable progress has been in the making. Several researchers have

identified a number of specific characteristics that separate social entrepreneurs from their commercial

counterparts (Harding, 2006; Van Ryzin et al., 2009). In addition to sharing some of the common

challenges with commercial entrepreneurs, such as creating economic value, social entrepreneurs also

face the challenges of creating social value, and being responsible for a multitude of stakeholders.

Hence, it can be expected that the theories and models in social entrepreneurship would be even more


4/48


complex.

This paper aims to enhance our understanding of social entrepreneurship by simultaneously

investigating multiple groups of factors that potentially assert their influences on social

entrepreneurship. In our proposed framework we examine how the personal characteristics of social

entrepreneurs differ from primarily profit-seeking commercial entrepreneurs; how social

entrepreneurial ventures acquire resources; how they formulate and implement unique and effective

competitive and collaborative strategies; and how social, political, technological, and economic

environments impact social entrepreneurs. Our framework is neither definitive nor exhaustive. Our

primary objective of this paper is to attract further discussion and debate on the subject matter by

putting forward propositions that can be empirically tested through future investigations.

A SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP FRAMEWORK

While a substantial body of literature has emerged on the topic of entrepreneurship and some of its sub

domains, the literature on social entrepreneurship is still fragmented (Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort,

2006). Even the construct of social entrepreneurship has been defined in a number of different ways.

For example, Prabhu (1999) argued that what distinguishes social entrepreneurship is its mission of

social change and its targeting of specific client groups. In other words it is the intentions that matters.

On the other hand, it has also been argued that social entrepreneurship should to be defined by its

outcome - maintaining both economic and social returns (Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship,

2001). Both of these types of definitions focus on the intended or actual outcomes of the social

entrepreneurial ventures and how such outcomes can benefit society.


5/48


Weerawardena and Sullivan Morts (2006) multi-dimensional conceptualization of social

entrepreneurship incorporated some of the basic elements of entrepreneurial orientation (Covin &

Slevin, 1991) - innovativeness, pro-activeness, and risk-taking. In addition, they also describe social

entrepreneurs strategic orientations as being responsive to environmental dynamics, sensitive to

organizational sustainability, and incorporating social mission. Therefore, this type of construal of

social entrepreneurship places emphasis on individual behaviors and organizational processes, and on

how social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurial ventures conduct their business.

While social entrepreneurs and the social entrepreneurial ventures they created are intrinsically linked,

we believe it is important to make an explicit distinction. This is because these two constructs are

different in terms of their unit of analysis. The social entrepreneurs internal motivations and their

visions for their ventures are manifested through the actions of the venture. Yet, the actions of the

entrepreneurial venture are contextually limited by their resource endowments and the constraints

imposed by external social, economic, and political environments. Alternatively, with an affable

external environment and adequate resources the social entrepreneurs individual vision can be

emancipated and magnified through collaborations and networks.

In the domain of traditional commercial entrepreneurship, there have been many theories

hypothesizing how and why individuals start new entrepreneurial ventures. Research has shown that

internal entrepreneurial motivation is often one of the first major enabling factors for an

entrepreneurship idea to germinate. A strong internal motivation not only initiates entrepreneurial

capital in the starting up process (Audretsch & Keilbach, 2004b), but also moderates the positive link

between entrepreneurship and economic performance on an on-going basis (Audretsch & Keilbach,


6/48


2004a). Intuitively, commercial entrepreneurship has been associated with profit maximizing behavior.

Evidence suggests, however, that most entrepreneurs enter and persist in business despite the fact that

they have both lower initial earnings and lower earnings growth than in paid employment (Hamilton,

2000). It is even more so in the case of not-for-profit organizations and social entrepreneurship. Social

entrepreneurs often derive gratification from and are motivated by the feeling of control they get from

providing the services they deliver (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006). We believe the personal

characteristics of an individual would have tremendous influence on his/her social entrepreneurial

behaviors. Organizational factors, such as resource endowment, are critical variables that moderate the

relationship between entrepreneurial skills on the input side and entrepreneurial achievement on the

output side (Sriram, Mersha, & Herron, 2007). Once a social entrepreneur has started the venture, they

must maximize the utility of resources that is available, and mobilize the people within the

organization to achieve the missions of the social entrepreneurial venture.

External forces also assert their influences. As Meijer, Hekkert, and Koppenjan (2007) have

demonstrated, technological, political, and resource uncertainties have limiting and negative effects on

entrepreneurship. Moreover, it has also been demonstrated that opportunities exist for government

initiated interventions to stimulate and enhance entrepreneurial success (Sriram et al., 2007). Together,

these factors affect management strategies and the growth of entrepreneurial ventures (Dobbs &

Hamilton, 2007).

Researchers have started categorizing what kind of individual factors and environmental factors wouldinfluence social entrepreneurship (Taormina & Lao, 2007). We believe such effort has only begun.

More work in this area is needed to investigate additional factors to portray a more realistic picture of

social entrepreneurship. In order to obtain a better understanding of the phenomenon, we must take into

account not only ex-ante motivation and resource availability, but also the on-going socialentrepreneurial modus operandi, as well as ex-post outcomes, including both social and economic value

creation. Based on prior theories and findings on traditional commercial entrepreneurship and the


7/48


newly emerged evidence in social entrepreneurship, we propose an inclusive framework that considers

five groups of factors. The first collection of factors pertains to the personal characteristics of the socialentrepreneurs; the second group considers the organizational characteristics of the social

entrepreneurial ventures. Together, these two groups of factors constitute an ex-ante context within

which the social entrepreneurial ventures operate. The next group of factors describes the strategicprocesses of the social ventures. We also address external environmental factors including social,

economic, and political environmental, and how they influence the actions and outcomes of social

entrepreneurship. Last, but not least, we consider a multitude of performance outcomes of the socialentrepreneurship, and how they feed back to influence the inputs and conducts (see Figure 1)


8/48

8

.

Social Entrepreneurship FrameworkFigure 1: Social Entrepreneurship Framework

Individual Factors

Our first area of interest is the set of characteristics that distinguishes social entrepreneurs

from the more traditional commercial entrepreneurs and others. Upper echelon theory

(Hambrick & Mason, 1984) posits that the firm is a reflection and extension of the

entrepreneur. As such, the firms strategic choices, behaviours, and performance are, to a

large extend, influenced by the demographic characteristics of the entrepreneurs (Smith

et al., 1994), their social connections (Geletkanycz & Hambrick, 1997), their perceptions

of the environment (Kiesler & Sproull, 1982), and their decision-making styles

(Eisenhardt, 1999). If we value the individual qualities as a set of personal resources that

the entrepreneurs bring to the venture, the upper echelon theory can be interpreted as a


9/48

9

special case of the resource based view of the firm (Barney, 1991; Hunt & Morgan, 1995;

Penrose, 1959; Peteraf, 1993) which asserts that each organization is endowed with a

finite amount of resources; and such resource endowment provides the firm with

opportunities to gain competitive advantages. Penrose (1959) argued that human capital,

as represented by the skills, experience, and personal characteristics of entrepreneurs, is

the foremost important resource endowment for the firm. Thus, it would be reasonable to

anticipate that the personal characteristics of the social entrepreneurs would have

significant impact on how their social entrepreneurial ventures function.

The Social Entrepreneurship Monitor (Harding, 2006) reported that 3.2% of the working

age population in the UK were engaged in social entrepreneurship to some extend. The

report indicated that these individuals demonstrated distinct characteristics, such as a

postive attitude. These social entrepreneurs were more likely to be younger, people from

minority groups, and men; although women were proportionately more likely to be social

rather than primarily profit- seeing entrepreneurs. The report also found that social

entrepreneurial ventures were proportionately more likely to be started by unemployed

individuals and those from excluded groups.

Van Ryzin, Grossman, DiPadova-Stocks, & Bergrud (2009) analyzed 1,327 online survey

responses from an American online database expected to include social entrepreneurs.

Twenty two percent of their respondents were classified as social entrepreneurs. This

American study found that social entrepreneurs may be more likely to be female, non-


10/48

10

white, younger, and college-educated individuals with some business experience (p.

129). They also appeared to have more social capital and were more likely to live in big

cities and to be happy, interested in politics, extroverted, giving (to charity), and liberal

ideologically (p. 129). Although the authors highlighted several methodological

limitations and suggested further research to validate these findings, this study represents

an early attempt to isolate the distinguishing characteristics of social entrepreneurs.

While useful to understand the individual demographic situations that may distinguish

social entrepreneurs from others, an examination of their entrepreneurial characteristics

may provide more insights into how they acquire resources and manage their enterprises.

In their work on entrepreneurial characteristics, Tajeddini and Mueller (2009) described

the following list of criteria as characterizing entrepreneurs: internal locus of control,

need for achievement, confidence, belief in the effect of effort on determining outcomes,

tolerance of ambiguity, attitude toward risk, and the willingness to assume uncertainty.

Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) also described social entrepreneurs as

innovative and risk-taking.

Procedural Innovation. There has been considerable evidence to suggest that traditional

profitseeking commercial entrepreneurs can be characterized by their desire and ability

to produce product innovations (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). In

contrast, social entrepreneurs might be more likely to place emphasis on procedural

innovations. Dees and Battle Anderson (2006) identified a sub group of social


11/48

11

entrepreneurs as social innovators, who place their emphasis on applying improvements

to the ways in which social problems and needs are addressed. These enterprising social

innovators may provide similar products and services as other entrepreneurs; but their

unique contribution lies in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of processes rather

than on product improvements. They believe that there is a better way of doing things.

By better, it could mean that they deliver products and services with higher consideration

for social motivations, including environmental responsibility and social justice.

These social innovators achieve such improvements by implementing procedural

innovations. For example, individuals in social entrepreneurial ventures often describe

their organizations as being innovative, creative, and think differently to find a better

solution for the problems at hand (Shaw & Carter, 2007). This type of procedural

innovation in finding new and better ways of delivering services is also a common theme

documented by Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) in their study of not-for-profit

organizations.

P1 Social entrepreneurs are more likely than their commercial counterparts toplace emphasis on procedural innovation.

Collaborative Competition. Traditional commercial entrepreneurs have been described

as being more aggressive than their managerial counterparts and having the tendency to

engage in more cut-throat like competitive practices (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin &

Dess, 1996). Social entrepreneurs, however, may not be interested in engaging in such

direct and aggressive competitive behaviour to the same degree. Instead, they might be


12/48

12

more likely to seek a win-win solution and engage in collaborative behaviour to cope

with their competitive environment. Their ideology, grounded in finding solutions to

social problems, may not be consistent with a cutthroat approach to competitive

challenges faced when tackling these issues. Ring and van de Ven

(1994) argued that cooperative inter-organizational relationships reduce transaction costs

and can help organizations to achieve efficient and equitable outcomes. Depending on

what outcome indicator was measured, the empirical evidence seemed to be mixed on the

performance of alliances. It is commonly acknowledged, however, that forming alliances

with other organizations with in the value chain enhances the rate of survival for

businesses (Gulati, 1998). In the context of social entrepreneurship, the special

characteristics of the competitive environment might be such that like-minded social

entrepreneurial ventures do not see eliminating competitors as their objective. Rather,

they are more likely to seek efficient and equitable outcomes and a win-win solution for

all. Social entrepreneurship is collective in nature (Shaw & Carter, 2007); they need to

involve others in the community to achieve their goals.

P2 Social entrepreneurs are more likely than commercial entrepreneurs to be engage incollaborative behavior.

Risk Assumption. Traditional profit-seeking commercial entrepreneurs are inherently

risk- takers subject to their assessment of the anticipated financial costs and benefits

associated with assuming the risks (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).


13/48

13

Social entrepreneurs might also be risk-takers, but they are faced with different kinds of

risks, and subject to a broader scope of considerations. They may assume the risks they

perceive will help them achieve their social goals, while primarily profit-seeking

entrepreneurs would forgo the same opportunities because fewer or no financial rewards

are expected. Social entrepreneurs, therefore, may have a higher propensity to pursue the

kind of opportunities that primarily profit-seeking entrepreneurs deem not-worthy, as

long as such ventures would bring about social value.

Shaw and Carter (2007) documented that, in UK, only a small proportion of social

entrepreneurs actually utilize their personal funding, and thus, social entrepreneurs seem

to assume less personal financial risk. Instead, they rely upon the support of grants from

various governmental agencies and philanthropic donations from businesses and private

foundations. This is not to say that social entrepreneurs are free-spending bunch.

Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) reported that social entrepreneurs typically

have great difficulty in securing funding in the traditional fashion because they are

unlikely to have the options of raising money by issuing stock or borrowing from the

commercial banks. They also have difficulties in charging fees for their services. During

difficult economic times, governments seem to have the tendency of cutting social

programs and businesses reduce philanthropic contributions. In addition, their risk

exposure is more likely to include social failure, loss of local credibility, network

rejections, and personal relationship deterioration. Social entrepreneurs therefore must

consider a complex mix of risk factors and manage risks sensibly.


14/48

14

P3 Social entrepreneurs are more likely than commercial entrepreneurs to consider non-financial risks and rewards.

Organizational Factors

The second group of factors in our framework pertains to organizational factors. We are

particularly interested in how resource endowment affects managerial strategies

employed by social entrepreneurs. Plans can only be effectively implemented when

adequate resources are available. Few studies have examined how social entrepreneurs

actually bring their ideas to life. This paper takes a network based perspective on how

social entrepreneurs secure the resources necessary for carrying out their social missions.

Personal Resources. From a resource-based view, unique resource endowment -

including the possession of needed information - is a source for sustained competitive

advantage (Dew, Velamuri, & Venkataraman, 2004). Education, experience and

environmental dynamism magnify one's growth aspirations (Wiklund & Shepherd,

2003). Individuals with better information are more likely to maximize their gains by

starting their own businesses. Thus, social entrepreneurs bring a wealth of knowledge

and experience into their social entrepreneurial ventures. An analysis of longitudinal data

illustrated that motivation to engage in entrepreneurship has strongly correlated with the

individuals internal locus of control (Evans & Leighton, 1989). Internally focused

individuals hold the belief that their actions make large contribution to firm

performances. They believe they can make a difference, and they often do. The


15/48

15

possession of a unique combination of resources, including knowledge and experience,

complemented by personal characteristics, such as confidence (Busenitz & Barney, 1997)

and willingness to take risks (Kihlstrom & Laffont, 1979) contribute greatly to ones

intention of starting a venture.

In addition to the knowledge, experience, and skills required for starting their own

businesses, social entrepreneurs would be benefited to have prior exposure to the causes

about which they feel so passionate about. If they have personally derived benefits from

social entrepreneurial ventures, they would have a stronger desire to contribute back to

society. Alternatively, if they have had a negative experience with certain cause, they

would strong desire to make a difference because they believe they can provide better

services than they have previously experienced.

P4 Individuals with internal locus of control and more experience with social causes aremore likely to become social entrepreneurs.

Network Resources. Value network theory (Allee, 2000; 2008; Basole & Rouse, 2008;

Christensen & Rosenbloom, 1995; Mair & Schoen, 2007) may help explain the

development of social entrepreneurial ventures. This theory enhances Porters (1985)

value chain concept to better reflect the complexities of relationships underpinning

todays organizations (Basole & Rouse, 2008). Networks can help member firms create

knowledge and develop capabilities, thereby creating value (Kogut, 2000). Network

theory can help explain resourcing strategies employed by social entrepreneurial


16/48

16

organizations as they strive to achieve their social and economic goals. In their

explorative research designed to derive propositions regarding social and economic

value creation through social entrepreneurship, Mair and Schoen (2007) found that

successful social entrepreneurial organizations: proactively create their own value

networks of companies that share their social vision; develop resource strategies as an

integral part of the business model; and integrate their target groups into the social value

network (p. 54). While useful for creating propositions, this comparative case analysis

of three organizations located in separate developing countries only provides a launch

point for further investigation. Little if any other research has examined the strategic

approaches employed by social entrepreneurial organizations toward the joint creation of

social and economic value.

Individuals differ in terms of their perception of opportunities because of the differences

between

the networks in which they are embedded (Arenius & De Clercq, 2005). In many ways

networks

often assert significant influences within a geographic region. Social networking ties are


17/48

17

instrumental for business activities, knowledge sharing, information transfer, and

maintaining

business reputations. Government agencies and professional associations, such as

chambers of

commerce, play a role as facilitators for entrepreneurship. As Shaw and Carter (2007)

have

documented, networks are critical for social entrepreneurs, not only for helping them

identify

local needs, but also for providing the credibility they need for their social enterprise.

P5 Social entrepreneurial ventures engage in more network relationships thancommercial entrepreneurial ventures.

Opportunity Recognition. When an entrepreneur sees an opportunity for improvement,

they will be motivated to act upon it if the benefits outweigh the associated costs (Casson

& Wadeson, 2007). Entrepreneurial motivation has an inverse relationship between the

opportunity costs of pursuing an entrepreneurial opportunity and the likelihood of

undertaking it (Amit, Muller, & Cockburn, 1995). What drives a social entrepreneur's


18/48

18

motivations, however, is the creation of a 'surplus' rather than a 'profit' to ensure

viability in tackling social problems (Fowler, 2000). With this focus, social

entrepreneurs might be more likely to exclusively focus on maximizing the value added

by the services they provide, and less concerned about the costs associated with it.

Hence, we believe that profit-seeking and social entrepreneurs differ in how they assess

entrepreneurial opportunities.

P6 Social entrepreneurs are likely to recognize different opportunities than commercialentrepreneurs.

Environmental Factors

Social entrepreneurship does not operate in a vacuum. Instead, social entrepreneurship

should respond to the demands from global market forces. Like all successful

entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurial ventures are shaped by historical and economic

conditions (Aoyama, 2009). Prior studies have assessed new business start-ups in various

countries, and identified a list of social, economic, political and cultural conditions that

impact entrepreneurship. For example, Kim and Cho (2009) reported that a sound policy

environment that provides abundant information and funding opportunities would

stimulate start-ups. Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) claimed that changes in

social, economic, and governmental environments would impact social entrepreneurship.

Little is known, however, about exactly how social and economic environments assert

their influences on social entrepreneurship.


19/48

19

The push hypothesis argues that some entrepreneurs enter into self-employment in

response to economic recessions. For example, Kim and Cho (2009) demonstrated that

the recent economic sluggishness and an increase in unemployment correlated with a

higher rate of entrepreneurial start-ups in South Korea. This pattern seems to suggest that

a problematic economic environment pushes entrepreneurs out of waiting mode, and

creates the urgency of starting the business. In a similar line of reasoning, Austin et al.

(2006) predicted that there will be an increased level of social entrepreneurial activities

during economic down time.

The pull hypothesis, on the other hand, asserts that a positive economic environment

stimulates an entrepreneurs intentionality to start a venture. In this environment,

entrepreneurs are more alert to opportunities, perseverant, and committed to the new

enterprise (Tang, 2008). Furthermore, a positive political environment will also influence

entrepreneurship through encouraging entrepreneurial behaviors. A stable socio-political

climate, coupled with favorable government policies would foster a nurturing climate for

the development of entrepreneurship (Chowdhury, 2007).

Research has found that rural areas and deprived areas seem to have more active social

entrepreneurial ventures. For example, Poon et al. (2009) reported that the rural areas in

China have very active social entrepreneurial activities. Local government policies

encourage and help villagers grass-root movements to start their own businesses to

address their own problems. In the context of rural areas in China, of course, the fact that


20/48

20

government allow entrepreneurship is deemed to be a significant improvement compared

to the previous rigid government control. As a consequence, burgeoning local social

enterprises contribute to both business development and the social welfare of local

communities. Harding (2006) reported that rural areas in the UK also seem to have more

social entrepreneurial activities. She found that the most deprived areas in the UK have

higher concentrations of social entrepreneurial ventures. Ironically, the same report also

documents that social entrepreneurs are proportionately more likely to have difficulties

gaining access to finance because of the nature of their businesses (Harding 2006), and

therefore impact the on-going operations of social entrepreneurial ventures.

As the available evidence have suggested, a poor economic environment creates more

need for social entrepreneurship; it also reduces the resources available for social

entrepreneurship, thereby places constraints on the functioning of social entrepreneurial

venture. Knowing these, government agencies should foster social and political

environments where social entrepreneurship activities are encouraged and nourished.

P7 Social, economic, and political environments impact the resources, management, andoutcomes of social entrepreneurship.

Operations and Management

The extant literature is relatively mute on how social entrepreneurs manage their social

entrepreneurial ventures on a day to day basis. More specifically, little is known about

how social entrepreneurs adopt managerial and competitive strategies differently from


21/48

21

their traditional commercial counterparts. Ketchen, Hult and Slater (2007) argued that

resource endowment does not automatically lead to superior firm performance. Instead,

the resource-performance link is mediated by the firms strategy choice. In other words,

social entrepreneurs and the managers of social entrepreneurial ventures must carefully

consider what resources are available to them, develop managerial processes that is

appropriate for their environment in order to create the intended social and economic

value.

Academic scholars have identified a number of strategic choices as critical success

factors for the performance of entrepreneurial firms. We are interested in identifying

whether social entrepreneurs manage their ventures differently than commercial

entrepreneurs. There is, of course, a wide spectrum of strategic options for entrepreneurs

and social entrepreneurs to consider. In this paper, we focus on strategic orientation,

generative learning, leadership and empowerment.

Strategic Orientations. Entrepreneurial orientation refers to the processes, practices,

and decision-making activities that lead to new entry such as starting a new company,

entering into a new market, or developing a new product (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).

Entrepreneurial orientation involves not only the intentions but also the actions of key

players functioning in a dynamic generative process. Lumpkin and Dess argued that the

key dimensions that characterize an entrepreneurial orientation include a propensity to

act autonomously, a willingness to innovate and take risks, and a tendency to be


22/48

22

aggressive toward competitors and proactive relative to marketplace opportunities.

Researchers typically treat entrepreneurial orientation as an organizational-level

construct, and not a personal characteristic of the entrepreneur (Atuahene-Gima & Ko,

2001; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Naman & Slevin, 1993; Zhou,

Yim, & Tse, 2005). Covin and

Slevin (1991) argued that an organizational-level strategic orientation is not about what

is going on in the individuals mind; it is more about the manifested outcomes of the

entrepreneurial oriented processes and behaviours, such as how often a firm enters into a

new strategic business, the extent of expansion, and the development of new markets and

new products. The enduring benefits of being entrepreneurial are not limited to small

corporations. Organizational level entrepreneurship is also a means of growth and

strategic renewal for larger firms (Guth & Ginsberg, 1990).

A parallel yet related stream of research emphasizes on market orientation (Cano,

Carrillat, & Jaramillo, 2004; Kirca, Jayachandran, & Bearden, 2005; Kohli & Jaworski,

1990; Narver & Slater, 1990). Market-oriented firms focus on generating, disseminating,

and responding to, market intelligence. They view a better understanding of the market

as a source for competitive advantage.


23/48

23

These two schools of researchers are primarily engaged in assessing how well an

organizations strategic orientations predict performance outcomes. The consensus seems

to be that both orientations have positive impacts on performance. Less is known about

how entrepreneurs, including social entrepreneurs, choose between these two strategic

options. Prior research indicates a relationship exists between motivation and strategy

choice (Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007). Emerging evidence seems to suggest that while both

market and entrepreneurial orientations are positively correlated with firm performance,

their influences follow different paths. Market-oriented firms achieve market success by

first appealing to their customers, ensuring customer satisfaction, and cultivating

customer loyalty. In comparison, entrepreneurial- oriented firms opt to aggressively

pursue product related innovation (Zhang, 2006). In the context of social

entrepreneurship, market needs can be interpreted as the exsistence of a social need to be

fulfilled. It is essential that social entrepreneurs identify the gaps in exisiting social

programs and evaluate the potential market need for the products and services the newly

created social entreprneirial venture could deliver, and more importantly, find an

innovative and effective way to deliver these products and services. In essence, social

entrepreneurial ventures have to be both entrepreneurial and market oriented.

P8 Social entrepreneurs are more likely than traditional entrepreneurs to be bothentrepreneurial-oriented and market-oriented.

Learning and Organization Development. Baker and Sinkula (1999; 2007) suggested

that learning occurs in organizational processes and should be accounted for in

theoretical models. A firms generative and adaptive learning can shape and re-shape the


24/48

24

entrepreneurs motivation and strategic priorities. Little is known, however, about how

social entrepreneurial ventures evolve as they develop and learn. There is a pressing

need, therefore, to investigate the evolution of social entrepreneurial ventures and the

dynamic interface between contextual circumstances and strategic choices. Over time,

social entrepreneurs personal situations change; the social, economic, political, and

competitive environment change. The social entrepreneurial ventures and their mission

goals and managerial strategies should change as well.

Van de Ven (1992) posited that the organizational change process can be viewed as a

sequence of steps over time. Firms have different patterns in the steps they take. Van de

Ven and Poole

(1995) theorized four motors of change, including evolution, dialectic, lifecycle, and

teleology.

The teleological motor of change, for example, describes a constructive change process

within a single entity, where learning drives the cycle of goal formulation, execution,

appraisal, and revision. Dass (2004) reported that this perspective is one of the most

frequently employed approaches in empirical studies of strategy in the management

literature.


25/48

25

It is not clear whether social entrepreneurs follow the same path as traditional profit-

seeking entrepreneurs. We suspect alternative views on organizational development, such

as the evolution, dialectic and lifecycle motors of change will also explain the

development pattern of social entrepreneurs.

P9 Social entrepreneurs employ generative learning and employ diverse motors ofchange for organizational development.

Leadership and Empowerment. Prior studies have documented that charismatic

leadership is not only helpful, but often essential to the success of social entrepreneurship

(Roper & Cheney, 2005; Waddock & Post, 1991). The personal characteristics of leaders

enhance their ability to enlist the enthusiasm and commitment from all people involved

in and around social entrepreneurial ventures, including employees, affiliates, and

government officials. Social entrepreneurs need to employ charismatic leadership to

infuse employee commitment partially because they often lack the financial resources to

provide monetary incentives to stimulate motivation.

Many employees in social entrepreneurial ventures place considerable value on non-

monetary rewards (Austin, Stevenson, Wei-Skillern, 2006). The intrinsic satisfaction in

fulfilling the social mission of the organization could be one aspect of such non-

pecuniary compensation.

Satisfaction in working in an empowered environment could be another. The popular use


26/48

26

ofcommunity and collective in describing social entrepreneurial ventures seem to reflect

the kind of organizational structure these enterprises adopts (Shaw & Carter, 2007).

P10 Successful social entrepreneurial ventures incorporate both charismatic leadershipand employee empowerment.

Effectuation processes take a set of means as a given and focus on selecting between

possible effects that can be created with that set of means (Sarasvathy, 2001). This is in

contrast to the more conventional conceptualization of causation processes, which take a

particular effect as a given and focus on selecting between means to create that effect. As

Mintzberg and Lampel (1999) have argued, the traditional planning and designing

schools of thought on corporate strategy place much stress on finding the means to meet

the ends. This is assuming that entrepreneurs already have end goals in mind. Under such

casual processes entrepreneurs would have a specific and detailed objective and would

be able to segment, define a target market, and develop a positioning strategy

accordingly. This also assumes that entrepreneurs can attain the necessary resources and

implement chosen strategies.

In the context of social entrepreneurship, however, such assumptions are too idealistic. In

fact, social entrepreneurs often have difficulties in securing financial and human

resources at the onset of the venture. Townsend and Hart (2008) argued that recent

changes in government policies have made it even more difficult for many nonprofit

organizations to acquire necessary resources to achieve their goals. Social entrepreneurs

must work with what is available and do the best they can.


27/48

27

Under effectual processes, social entrepreneurs scan their environment to determine what

resources they have at their disposal including volunteers, advisors, corporate entities,

and cash flow. They use their personal experience, knowledge, and acumen to imagine

possible future outcomes if they were to employ the resources at their disposal.

In reality, the causation and effectuation processes are not mutually exclusive options.

Every social entrepreneur would have some end goals in mind, normally to create both

social and economic value and provide some kind of service to a target group. At the

same time, social entrepreneurs would have to work within the limitation of their

resource endowment, and develop programs based on the means that are already

available to them.

P11 Social entrepreneurs are more likely to engage in effectuation processes; in contrastto commercial entrepreneurs who are more likely to engage in causation processes.

The Outcomes of Social Entrepreneurship

Organizational performance is a multifaceted construct. The financial aspects of

performance, such as sales revenue, return on investment and return on assets, are

presumably an important goal for most entrepreneurs. However, many strategic decisions

may not have an immediate and apparent impact on the financial performance of the firm

in the same year. In order to factor in the long-term, and often non-financial,

performance outcomes, some seminal works in marketing strategy specify attitudinal

measures, such as customer satisfaction and loyalty, as the indicator for performance


28/48

28

measurement. They argue, for example, customer satisfaction and loyalty have positive

impact on the firms financial performance in the long run (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990;

Narver & Slater, 1990). Kirca et al. (2005) found that empirical evidence on the direct

link between market orientation and financial performance is somewhat mixed, but

market orientation has a powerful impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty. Firms that

achieve high levels of customer satisfaction tend to enjoy high economic returns

(Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994). Customer loyalty and customer satisfaction are

inextricably linked; and customer satisfaction is sequentially linked to customer loyalty,

customer retention, and profitability (Rust & Zahorik, 1993).

In the domain of social entrepreneurship, the concept of customers may be extended to

include a host of stakeholders with diverse interests, including, but not limited to the

groups the social entrepreneurial venture set out to service, the funding organizations,

and government agencies. Therefore, social entrepreneurial ventures are likely required

to satisfy these multiple groups of stakeholders; and different matrices would be adopted

for measuring these relationships.

A balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), for example, incorporates performance

from a customer perspective, internal operational perspective, innovation, and the

financial perspective. More recent developments in the domain of scorecard matrixes

have lead to further inclusion of the perspectives of stakeholders, including employees,

and governments. While the term balanced scorecard has a definitive meaning, research


29/48

29

indicates many variations of similar multiple indicator measurement tools have emerged.

A number of indicators, including criteria on social, environmental, and sustainability

issues have been adopted by a wide array of companies (Dias-Sardinha & Reijnders,

2005; Figge et al., 2002; Jusoh, Ibrahim, & Zainuddin, 2006; Schaltegger & Wagner,

2006; Yongvanich & Guthrie, 2006).

The benefit of adopting a scorecard-like measurement tool with multiple indicators is

that such tools not assess the outcomes, but also help the management in clarifying

objectives, finding focuses, orchestrating deliberate actions, and aligning deployment of

resources with desired outcomes. Using scorecard-like tools, social entrepreneurs attempt

to balance competing resource demands, test the strategic soundness of a particular

action, and set clear boundaries. As such, a multiple scorecard is not merely an outcome

measurement; it also regulates the resources input and the on-going management of

social entrepreneurial ventures. Multiple scorecards have helped social entrepreneurial

ventures in addressing internal, customer, learning and growth issues, and achieving

success. For example, the United Way has adopted second generation scorecards to help

the organization in mapping strategic formulation and implementation (Armitage &

Scholey, 2003).

As Weerawardena and Sullivan Mort (2006) conceptualized, social entrepreneurial

ventures have multiple missions that concern not only economic but also social,

environmental, and sustainability issues. Therefore, it would make sense for social


30/48

30

entrepreneurial ventures to adopt such multiple measures.

P12 Social entrepreneurs are more likely than commercial entrepreneurs to use amultiple scorecard to measure performance.

IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Prior studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurial motivations, resource endowments,

and strategic choice play important roles in the success of entrepreneurship. A central

objective of our discussion in this paper is to highlight the uniqueness of social

entrepreneurs and how they acquire various resources and manage their social

entrepreneurial ventures. Such an exercise can lead to several noticeable benefits. First,

we reviewed a number of prior studies in social entrepreneurship, commercial

entrepreneurship and general strategy management literature, and organized the seeming

chaotic and multifaceted competing factors into an orderly sequence, which include an

ex-ante context, on-going conduct, and ex-post outcomes. This is not to say that these

factors only influence each other in a linear and uni-directional way. They will still

interact with each other. With future empirical testing and further theoretical

development, we trust the social entrepreneurship model will become fuller and more

dynamic.

Second, we have categorized various ex-ante influences into individual and

organizational factors groups. The distinction between the social entrepreneur and the

social entrepreneurial venture is not always clear. As social entrepreneurs bring along


31/48

31

their personal experience, knowledge, motivations, and financial resources to their social

entrepreneurial ventures, the boundaries are often blurry. Nevertheless, by making an

attempt to distinguish between the types of influences, we will have the opportunity to

isolate one factor at a time, and closely examine the relationship it may have with other

factors. Furthermore, by identifying the sources of these influences, social entrepreneurs

can potentially take proactive actions to change the source of influences.

Third, we seek to understand the complexity of the social economic and political

environment within which the social entrepreneurial ventures operate. Prior studies have

produced mixed signals in terms of what types of external environments are affable to

social entrepreneurship. By understanding risk assumptions and entrepreneurial

objectives, we come to a better understanding of how the external environments impact

social entrepreneurship and commercial entrepreneurship different.

One of the major limitations of this paper is that we have not yet collected enough

empirical evidence to support our claims. We have based our propositions on theories

and evidence that have been reported. By developing new propositions, this paper

identifies key areas where future research should focus on to generate potential practical

insights that will help social entrepreneurial ventures acquire resources, implement

strategies, achieve missions, and maintain sustainability. In addition, these insights will

help various government agencies to understand social entrepreneurship better, and


32/48

32

develop policies that will encourage and promote social entrepreneurship. By doing so,

we can ultimately help the target groups the social entrepreneurial ventures aim to serve.

Prior studies are typically bounded within a country or region. Some have reported social

entrepreneurship in the UK (Shaw & Carter, 2007) or China (Poon, Zhou, & Chan,

2009), for example. Within each country and within a given time period, the social

policies, economic conditions, and political environment are relatively homogenous.

Much attention is needed in conducting cross-country comparative analyses and

longitudinal analyses to provide comprehensive understanding of social entrepreneurship

under alternative circumstances. For example, in an emerging market, such as China or

India, there are considerably higher economic uncertainties with vague and sometimes

contradicting government policies and scarce financial resources, yet there are higher

growth opportunities. The value of such a comparative analyses isto provide a better understanding of what could happen in dramatically different

environments. It would also provide some insight for social entrepreneurs from

developed countries who wish to venture into uncertain territories


33/48


.REFERENCES

Allee, V. (2008). Value networking analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible

assests.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1), 5-24.

Allee, V. (2000). Reconfiguring the value network.Journal of Business Strategy, 21(4), 36-39. Amit, R.,

Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. (1995). Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity.

Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2), 95-106.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and

profitability: Findings from Sweden.Journal of Marketing, 58(July), 53-66. Aoyama, Y.

(2009). Entrepreneurship and Regional Culture: The Case of Hamamatsu and Kyoto, Japan.

Regional Studies, 43(3), 495.

Arenius, P. & De Clercq, D. (2005). A network based approach on opportunity recognition.

Small Business Economics, 24(3), 249-265.

Armitage, H. & Scholey, C. (2003). Mapping mavens. CMA Management, 77(3), 15-18. Atuahene-

Gima, K. & Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation

and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science,


34/48


12(1), 54-74.

Audretsch, D. B. & Keilbach, M. (2004a). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance.

Regional Studies, 38(8), 949-961.

Audretsch, D. B. & Keilbach, M. (2004b). Does entrepreneurship capital matter.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(5), 419-436.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same,

different, or both?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.

Baker, W. E. & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and

learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 27(4), 411-427.

Baker, W. E. & Sinkula, J. M. (2007). Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation

programs? An organizational learning perspective. The Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 24(4), 316-329.


35/48


Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Basole, R. C. & Rouse, W. B. (2008). Complexity of service value networks:

Conceptualization and empirical investigation.IBM Systems Journal, 47(1), 53-70.

Busenitz, L. W. & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers

in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making.Journal

of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30.

Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (2001). Social entrepreneurship discussion

paper No. 1. Retrieved February, 2009 [On-line]. Available:

http://www.business.ualberta.ca/ccse/publications/default.htm

Cano, C. R., Carrillat, F. A., & Jaramillo, F. (2004). A meta-analysis of the relationship

between market orientation and business performance: evidence from five continents.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(2), 179-200.

Casson, M. & Wadeson, N. (2007). The Discovery of Opportunities: Extending the
http://www.business.ualberta.ca/ccse/publications/default.htmhttp://www.business.ualberta.ca/ccse/publications/default.htm


36/48


Economic Theory of the Entrepreneur. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 285-300.

Chowdhury, M. S. (2007). Overcoming entrepreneurship development constraints: the case

of Bangladesh.Journal of Enterprising Communities, 1(3), 240-251.

Christensen, C. M. & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker's advantage:

Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network.

Research Policy, 24(2), 233-257.

Covin, J. G. & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7-28.

Dass, P. (2004). Evolving process models of organizational development and change: A 'dirty

hands' approach. InNational Meetings of the Academy of Management.

Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits.Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 55-67.


37/48


Dees, J. G. & Battle Anderson, B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship:

Building on two schools of practice and thought. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.),

Research on social entrepreneurship: Understanding and contributing to an emerging

field(pp. 39-66). Washington DC: Aspen Institute.

Dew, N., Velamuri, R., & Venkataraman, S. (2004). Dispersed knowledge and an

entrepreneurial theory of the firm.Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 659-679.

Dias-Sardinha, I. & Reijnders, L. (2005). Evaluating environmental and social

performance of large Portuguese companies: a balanced scorecard approach.

Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(2), 73-91.

Dobbs, M. & Hamilton, R. T. (2007). Small business growth: Recent evidence and new

directions.International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 13(5),

296322.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999). Strategy as strategic decision making. Sloan Management Review,

40(3), 65-72.


38/48


Evans, D. S. & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. The

American Economic Review, 79(3), 519-535.

Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The Sustainability Balanced

Scorecard - linking sustainability management to business strategy.Business Strategy

and the Environment, 11(5), 269-284.

Fowler, A. (2000). NGDOs as a moment in history: Beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or

civic innovation. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 637-654.

Geletkanycz, M. A. & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). The external ties of top executives: Implications

for strategic choice and performance.Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 654-681.

Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19( 293-317.

Guth, W. D. & Ginsberg, A. (1990). Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management

Journal, 11(Special Issue), 5-15.


39/48


Hambrick, D. C. & Mason, P. (1984). Upper Echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top

managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.

Harding, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship monitor, United Kingdom. Retrieved April 15,

2009. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/facultyandresearch/GEM UK 2006 Social En

trepreneurship Monitor.pdf

Hunt, S. D. & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition.

Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1-15.

Jusoh, R., Ibrahim, D. N., & Zainuddin, Y. (2006). Assessing the alignment between business

strategy and use of multiple performance measures using interaction approach. The

Business Review, Cambridge, 5(1), 51-60.

Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. California

Management Review, 39(1), 53-79.
http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/facultyandresearch/GEMhttp://www.london.edu/assets/documents/facultyandresearch/GEM


40/48


Kelmar, J. H. & Wingham, D. L. W. (1995). Determining the relevant factors in the success

strategies of small enterprises.Journal of Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 215-236.

Ketchen, D. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Slater, S. F. (2007). Toward greater understanding of market

orientation and the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 28( 961-964.

Kickul, J. & Gundry, L. K. (2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: The proactive

entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation.Journal of Small

Business Management, 40(2), 85-97.

Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial response to changing environments: Perspectives

on problem sensing from social cognition.Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(4),

548570.

Kihlstrom, R. E. & Laffont, J.-J. (1979). A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm

formation based on risk aversion. The Journal of Political Economy, 87(4), 719-748.

Kim, G. & Cho, J. (2009). Entry dynamics of self-employment in South Korea.


41/48


Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(3), 303.

Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic

review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance.Journal of

Marketing, 69(2), 24-41.

Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of

structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21( 405-425.

Kohli, A. K. & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research

propositions, and managerial implications.Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1-18.

Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct

and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-

172.

Mair, J. & Schoen, O. (2007). Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context

of developing economies.International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1), 54-68.


42/48


Meijer, I. S. M., Hekkert, M. P., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2007). The influence of perceived

uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology:

Biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands.Energy Policy, 35(11), 5836-5854.

Mintzberg, H. & Lampel, J. (1999). Reflecting on the strategy process. Sloan Management

Review,Spring), 21-30.

Mort, G. S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Towards

conceptualisation.International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Marketing, 8(1), 76-88.

Naman, J. L. & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model

and empirical tests. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 137-153.

Narver, J. C. & Slater, S. F. (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business

Profitability.Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35.

Packalen, K. A. (2007). Complementing capital: The role of status, demographic features,


43/48


and social capital in founding team's abilities to obtai resources. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 31(6), 873-891.

Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Now York: John Wiley.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage - A resource-based

view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191.

Poon, P. S., Zhou, L., & Chan, T.-S. (2009). Social entrepreneurship in a transitional economy.

The Journal of Management Development, 28(2), 94-109.

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior

performance.New York: Free Press.

Prabhu, G. N. (1999). Social entrepreneurial leadership. Career Development International,

4(3), 140-150.

Ring, P. S. & van de Ven, A. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative


44/48


interorganizational relationships.Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90-118.

Roper, J. & Cheney, G. (2005). Leadership, learning and human resource management: The

meanings of social entrepreneurship today. Corporate Governance, 5(3), 95-104.

Rust, R. T. & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share.

Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193-215.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from

economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. The Academy of Management

Review, 26(2), 243-263.

Schaltegger, S. & Wagner, M. (2006). Integrative management of sustainability

performance, measurement and reporting.International Journal of Accounting,

Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 3(1), 1-19.

Shaw, E. & Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and

Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418-434.


45/48


Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (2009). What is social entrepreneurship. University

of Oxford [On-line]. Available:

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/skoll/what+is+social+entrepreneurship.htm

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P. J., O'Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A.

(1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration

and communication.Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412-438.

Sriram, V., Mersha, T., & Herron, L. (2007). Drivers of urban entrepreneurship: An

integrative model.International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,

13(4), 235-251.

Tajeddini, K. & Mueller, S. L. (2009). Entrepreneurial characteristics in Switzerland and the

UK: A comparative study of techno-entrepreneurs. Journal of International

Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1-25.

Tang, J. (2008). Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial alertness

and commitment. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/skoll/what+is+social+entrepreneurship.htmhttp://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/skoll/what+is+social+entrepreneurship.htm


46/48


Research, 14(3), 128-151.

Taormina, R. J. & Lao, S. K. M. (2007). Measuring Chinese entrepreneurial motivation.

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 13(4), 200-221.

Townsend, D. M. & Hart, T. A. (2008). Perceived institutional ambiguity and the choice

of organizational form in social entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 32(4), 685-700.

van de Ven, A. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic

Management Journal, 13( 169-188.

Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in

organizations.Academy of Management Review, 20( 510-540.

Van Ryzin, G. G., Grossman, S., DiPadova-Stocks, L., & Bergrud, E. (2009). Portrait of

the social entrepreneur: Statistical evidence from a US panel. International

Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 20(2), 129-140.


47/48


Waddock, S. A. & Post, J. E. (1991). Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change.Public

Administration Review, 51(5), 393-401.

Weerawardena, J. & Sullivan Mort, G. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A

multidimensional model.Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21-35.

Wiklund, J. & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based Resources, Enterpreneurial

Orientation, and the Performance of Small and Medium-sized Businesses. Strategic

Management Journal, 24(13), 1307-1314.

Yongvanich, K. & Guthrie, J. (2006). An extended performance reporting framework for

social and environmental accounting. Business Strategy and the Environment,

15(5), 309-321.

Zhang, D. D. (2006). Follow the market or the gut: Exploring the interplay of entrepreneurial

orientation and market orientation. In G. Hills & R. Shrader (Eds.), 20th Anniversary

UIC Research Symposium on Marketing and Entrepreneurship.

Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K. B., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The Effects of Strategic Orientations on


48/48


Technology- and Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations.Journal of Marketing,

69(2), 42-60.

Date post:	08-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	miguel-meza-martinez
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

David Diz Hang

Documents