197

Nahapiet & Ghoshal(1998)

(Cohen & Levinthal, 1990)

198

An Investigation on Affecting Factors of Abilities

of Mastering Entrepreneurial Opportunity:

Using Social Capital Theory

Tung-Ching Lin Department of Information Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University

Yung-Chih Liou Department of Information Management, National Kaohsiung Marine University

Yi-Chun Liu Department of Information Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University

Abstract With the three traditional ICs (Intellectual Capital), including Human Capital,

Structural Capital and Customer Capital, Social Capital (SC) has been recognized as the forth critical IC to an organization in the network economy. In the 21st century, various kinds of collaborations among organizations, such as strategic alliance or virtual organization, play a major role in the global competitive marketplace. Therefore, organizations with intensively collaborative relationships with other enterprises will have better chances to discover, evaluate and exploit the emerging entrepreneurial opportunities. This study intends to investigate the impact of a firm’s social capital on its capabilities to discover, evaluate and exploit the entrepreneurial opportunities.

Three dimensions of a firm’s social capital are canalized (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998): (1) structural dimension, including network ties and network configurations, (2) cognitive dimension, including shared codes, languages and narratives, (3) relational dimension, including trust, norm, obligations, and identifications. Moreover, because the absorptive capability of a firm and its current base of related knowledge also influence the effectiveness of its exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunity, Absorptive Capability Theory (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and current knowledge base of a firm are also introduced into the research model for the integrity.

A survey method is applied to test the hypotheses proposed by the research model. Five out of nine hypotheses are validated by using path analysis. The result reveals that the

199

structural dimension of a firm’s social capital has the greatest impact on its abilities of mastering entrepreneurial opportunities; on the other hand, a firm’s absorptive capability of knowledge is affected by the structural and relational dimensions of social capital. Furthermore, the study also validates that both absorptive capability and the abilities of mastering entrepreneurial opportunities are characterized by “path dependency”, i.e., they are affected significantly by current knowledge base.

Keywords: Intellectual Capital, Entrepreneurship Opportunity, Social Capital, Knowledge Management

200

(Nature)92 1999 (Intellectual Capital, IC) (Pettey & Guthrie 1999)

Nahapiet & Ghoshal(1998) Carolis(2002)

(Loury 1987) (Putnam 1993) (Fukuyama 1995)Jacob(1965)

(Social Capital Theory, SCT)

IC( 92)

(Prahalad & Hamel 1990)

(Carolis 2002)(Steier & Greenwood 2000)

201

(Entrepreneurial Opportunity) (Entrepreneurship)Kuhn(1970)

Casson(1982)/ /

Shane & Venkataraman(2000) Venkataraman(1997)

(Existence of Entrepreneurial Opportunities)

(new means-ends relationships)(Kirzner 1997) (Venkataraman 1997)(Schumpeter 1934)

(Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities)

Shane & Venkataraman(2000) (1)

(Kaish & Gilad 1991)(Von Hippel 1986)

(Bruderl, Preisendorfer & Ziegler 1992)(2)

(Shane & Venkataraman 2000)Rosenberg(1994)

(Decision to Exploit Entrepreneurial Opportunities)Venkataraman (1997)

(1)

(Kirzner 1973; Schumpeter 1934) (2)

(Aldrich & Zimmer 1986) (Cooper, Woo & Dunkelberg 1988)

(Shane & Venkataraman 2000) (1) (2)

202

(3)

( 92)Steward(1997)

Edvinsson & Malone(1997)

Roos(1998)Know-How

1

1 ( 92)

IC

Skandia (1992) Steward (1994) Bontis (1996) Petrash (1997) Sveiby (1998) Roos (1998) Edvinsson & Malone (1997)

203

Jacob(1965) (Social Capital)

(Social Capital Theory, SCT)

(Bourdieu 1986)(Loury 1987) (Putnam 1993) (Fukuyama 1995)

Nahapiet & Ghoshal(1998) Carolis(2002)

(Baker 1990)

(1) vs.

(2) vs.

Nahapiet & Ghoshal(1998)

Nahapiet & Ghoshal(1998) (Network ties)(Network configuration) (Appropriable organization)

(Carolis 2002)

Burt(1992) (1)(Access)

(2) (Timing)

(3) (Referral)

204

(Vesper 1990)

Burt(1992) (1) / (sparse)Hansen(1996)

(2)/ (dense)

(Mental Schema)

(Legend) (Myth) (Story) (Metaphor)(Carolis 2002)

(Shared Language and Codes)(Shared Narrative)

—(Mental Model)

(Pondy & Mintroff 1979)

(Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Boland & Tenkasi 1995)

(Legend) (Myth) (Story) (Metaphor)(Clark 1972; Nisbet 1969)

(Bateson 1972; Orr 1990)

205

Nahapiet & Ghoshal(1998) (Trust) (Norms)(Obligations) (Identification)

/(Misztal 1996)

(Kramer et al. 1996) (Pruitt 1981; Fukuyama 1995; Gambetta 1988; Putnam 1993, 1995; Ring & Van de Ven 1992, 1994; Kramer & Tyler 1996)

( )

(Coleman 1990)

(Coleman 1988)(Coleman 1988)

Henderson(1990)/

(Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998)(Coleman 1990)

(Coleman 1990) Mauss(1954) Bourdieu(1977) Cheal(1988)

(Bourdieu 1986)

(Kramer et al. 1996; Lewicki & Bunker 1996)

(Combination) (Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998) 1

206

1 (Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998)

Nahapiet & Ghoshal(1998)

2 (Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998)

March & Simon(1958)

Cohen & Levinthal(1990) (Absorptive Capability Theory, ACT)Cohen & Levinthal(1990)

IC

207

(Path-Dependency)

R&D R&DR&D (Tilton 1971; Allen 1977;

Mowery 1983)(Accumulation)

(Diversity) (Overlap) (Identification) 3 (Cohen & Levinthal 1990; 92)

3 (Cohen & Levinthal 1990; 92)

(1)(2)

(3)

(4)

208

(Shane & Venkataraman 2000)

42

4

/

H1 H1-1~H1-3

H2 H2-1~H2-3

H3

H4

H5

209

2

1-4

5-8

9-10

11-12

13-15

/ 16-18

19-21

22-24

/ 1

/ 2-7

/ 8-11

( )

/ 12-14

1-4

1-5

210

H1 H5 H1H1-1 H1-3

H2 H2-1 H2-33

3

1 H1-1 Carolis 2002

2 H1-2 Carolis 2002

3 H1-3 Carolis 2002; Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998

4 H2-1 Cohen & Levinthal 1990; 92

5 H2-2 Cohen & Levinthal 1990; 92

6 H2-3 Cohen & Levinthal 1990; 92

7 H3 Cohen & Levinthal 1990; Shane & Venkataraman 2000

8 H4 Cohen & Levinthal 1990

9 H5 Shane & Venkataraman 2000

H1-1

(Burt 1992)Carolis(2002)

H1-1

H1-2

Carolis (2002)

211

(Bettis & Prahalad 1995)(Barringer & Bluedorn 1999)

H1-2

H1-3

(Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998)

Aldrich & Zimmer (1986)

(Steier & Greenwood 2000)

H1-3

H2-1

Cohen & Levinthal(1990)

H2-1

H2-2

(92)

(Bateson 1972; Orr 1990)

H2-2

H2-3

(Bourdieu 1986) ()

212

H2-3

H3

Shane & Venkataraman(2000) —

(Kaish & Gilad 1991)

(Shane & Venkataraman 2000)

(Shane & Venkataraman 2000)

H3

H4

(Cohen & Levinthal 1990)

H4

H5

Shane & Venkataraman(2000)

H5

(Quantitative)

213

(Structured questionnaire)(Likert) (1= 5= )

(EMBA)(IEMBA) (CMBA)/

EMBA IEMBA(CMBA)

1556 149 96.13

1(Content Validity Ratio, CVR, Lawshe 1975; Aiken 1980, 1985)

(Construct Validity) (Principal Component Method) (Eigen-value) 1 (Varimax Rotation)

47 361 67.978

Cronbach’s 0.7940 0.9525 Nunnally(1978) 0.7

(Path Analysis)

( )(Hair et al. 1995)

0.01

1 (Expert Panel)(Content Validity Ratio, CVR) (Lawshe, 1975) V (Aiken, 1980, 1985) CVR V

214

0.381 0.6520.01 0.392 0.663

(enter)0.10 4 5

4

bt

(constant) 2.087 .861 2.423** 0.090 .036 .201 2.497**

-0.051 .084 -.048 -.608 0.058 .032 .136 1.801*

.359 .057 .499 6.270*** R = .686, R2 = .471, Adjusted R2 = .457 F = 32.083, = .000 Durbin-Watson D = 1.878 * 0.10** 0.05*** 0.01

5

bt

(constant) .379 3.464 .109 .421 .145 .234 2.914***

-.199 .331 -.047 -.602 .197 .128 .115 1.545

1.302 .255 .447 5.112*** .319 .328 .079 .971

R = .708, R2 = .501, Adjusted R2 = .484 F = 28.772, Sig = .000 Durbin-Watson D = 2.221

* 0.10** 0.05*** 0.01

5

215

* 0.10** 0.05*** 0.01

5

(0.499) (0.201)(0.136)

(0.447) (0.234)

6

6

H1-1 H1-2 H1-3 H2-1 H2-2 H2-3 H3 H4 H5

(Y2)

R2=0.501

(X4)

(Y1)

R2=0.471

(X1)

(X3)

(X2)

H1-1 (0.234***)

H1-2 (-0.047)

H1-3 (0.115)

H2-1 (0.201**)

H2-2 (-0.048)

H2-3 (0.136*)

H4 (0.499***)

H3 (0.079)

H5 (0.447***)

216

Zahra & George(2002)

(Cohen & Levinthal 1990; 92)

(Path Dependency)Cohen & Levinthal(1990) Shane & Venkataraman(2000)

(Zahra & George 2002)

217

1930 (Learning Curve)Know-how

(Learning Rate)

know-how

218

/Know-How

R&D

(Core Competency Theory) (Resource-Based Theory, RBT)

(Barney 1991; Prahalad & Hamel 1990; 92)

trade-off(An Optimal Mix)

219

(Droege & Hoobler 2003)EMBA

1. 922. Aiken, A.A., “Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires,”

Educational and Psychological Measurement(40) 1980, pp.955-959. 3. Aiken, A.A., “Three Coefficients for Analyzing the Reliability and Validity of

Ratings,” Educational and Psychological Measurement(45:1) 1985, pp.131-142. 4. Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C., “Entrepreneurship Through Social Networks,” in D.

Sexton & R. Smilor (Eds.), The Art And Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1986, pp.3-23.

5. Allen, T.J., Managing the Flow of Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977. 6. Baker, W., “Market Networks and Corporate Behavior,” American Journal of

Sociology (96) 1990, pp.589-625. 7. Barney, J., “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of

Management(17:1) 1991, pp.99-120. 8. Barringer, B.R. & Bluedorn, A.C., “The Relationship Between Corporate

Entrepreneurship And Strategic Management,” Strategic Management Journal(20:5) 1999, pp.421-444.

9. Bateson, B., Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York: Ballantine Books, 1972. 10. Bettis, R.A. & Prahalad, C.K., “The Dominant Logic: Retrospective and Extension,”

Strategic Management Journal(16:1) 1995, pp.5-14. 11. Boland, R.J. & Tenkasi, R.V., “Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in

Communities of Knowing,” Organization Science(6:4) 1995, pp.350-372. 12. Bontis, N., “There’s A Price on Your Head: Managing Intellectual Capital

Strategically,” Ivey Business Quarterly(60:4) 1996, pp.40-47. 13. Bourdieu, P., Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1977. 14. Bourdieu, P., “The Forms of Capital,” in J.G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory

and Research for the Sociology of Education, pp.241-258, New York: Greenwood, 1986.

220

15. Bruderl, J., Preisendorfer, P., & Ziegler, R., “Survival chances of newly founded business organizations,” American Sociological Review(57:2) 1992, pp. 227-242.

16. Burt, R.S., Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

17. Carolis, D.M., “The Role of Social Capital and Organizational Knowledge in Enhancing Entrepreneurial Opportunities in High-Technology Environments,” in Choo, C.W. & Bontis, N.(eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, 2002, pp.699-710.

18. Casson, M., The Entrepreneur, Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Nobles Books, 1982. 19. Cheal, D., The Gift Economy, London: Routledge, 1988. 20. Clark, B.R., “The Occupational Saga in Higher Education,” Administrative Science

Quarterly(17) 1972, pp.178-184. 21. Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A., “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on

Learning and Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly(35:1) 1990, pp.1128-1152.

22. Coleman, J.S., “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital,” American Journal of Sociology(94) 1988, pp.S95-S120.

23. Coleman, J.S., Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1990. 24. Cooper, A., Woo, C., & Dunkelberg, W., “Entrepreneurs’ Perceived Chances for

Success,” Journal of Business Venturing(3) 1988, pp.97-108. 25. Droege & Hoobler, ”Employee Turnover and Tacit knowledge Diffusion: a Network

Perspective,” Journal of Managerial Issues(15:1) 2003, pp.50-64. 26. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S., Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s True

Value by Finding It’s Hidden Brainpower, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1997.

27. Fukuyama, F., Trust: Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, London: Management Publications Trust, 1995.

28. Gambetta, D., Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Oxford, New York, Basil Blackwell, 1988.

29. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C., Multivariate Data Analysis: with readings, Prentic Hall, 1995.

30. Hansen, M., Using the Wisdom of Others: Searching for and Transferring Knowledge,Presentation at the London Business School, 1996.

31. Henderson, J.C., “Plugging into Strategic Partnerships: The Critical IS Connection,” Sloan Management Review(31:3) 1990, pp.7-18.

32. Jacobs, J., The Death and Life of Great American Cities, London: Penguin Books, 1965.

221

33. Kaish, S., & Gilad, B., “Characteristics of Opportunities Search of Entrepreneurs Versus Executives: Sources, Interests, and General Alertness,” Journal of Business Venturing(6:1) 1991, pp.45-61.

34. Kirzner, I.M. , Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

35. Kirzner, I.M., “Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach,” Journal of Economic Literature(35:1) 1997, pp.60-85.

36. Kramer, R., & Tyler, T., Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

37. Kramer, R.M., Brewer, M.B. & Hanna, B.A., “Collective Trust and Collective Action: the Decision to Trust as a Social Decision,” in R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organization Frontiers of Theory Research, pp.357-389, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.

38. Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

39. Lawshe, C.H., “A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity,” Personnel Psychology(28:4) 1975, pp.563-575.

40. Lewicki, R.J. & Bunker, B.B., “Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships,” in R.M. Kramer & T.M. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp.114-139, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.

41. Loury, G., “Why Should We Care About Group Inequality? ”Social Philosophy and Policy(5) 1987, pp.249-271.

42. March, J.G., & Herbert A.S., Organizations, New York: Wiley, 1958. 43. Mauss, M., The Gift, New York: Free Press, 1954. 44. Misztal, B., Trust in Modern Societies, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996. 45. Mowery, D.C., “The Relationship Between Intrafirm and Contractual Forms of

Industrial Research in American Manufacturing, 1900-1940,” Explorations in Economic History(20) 1983, pp.351-374.

46. Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S., “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and The Organizational Advantage,” Academy of Management Review(23:2) 1998, pp.242-266.

47. Nisbet, R.A., Social Change and History: Aspects of the Western Theory of Development, London: Oxford University Press, 1969.

48. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge Creating Company, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

49. Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw Hill, 1978.

222

50. Orr, J., “Sharing Knowledge, Celebrating Identity: Community Memory in a Service Culture,” in D. Middleton & D. Edwards (eds.), Collective Remembering, pp.169-189, London: Sage, 1990.

51. Petrash, G., “Dow’s Journey to a Knowledge Value Management Culture,” European Management Journal(14:4) 1997, pp.365-373.

52. Petty, R. and Guthrie, J., “Managing Intellectual Capital: From Theory to Practice,” Australia CPA(69:7) 1999, pp.18-21.

53. Pondy, L.R. & Mitroff, I.I., “Beyond Open Systems Models of Organizations,” Research in Organization Behavior(1) 1979, pp.3-39.

54. Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G., “The Core Competence of the Organization,” Harvard Business Review 1990, pp.79-93.

55. Pruitt, D.G., Negotiation Behavior, New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1981. 56. Putnam, R.D., “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life,”

American Prospect(4:13) 1993, pp.35-42. 57. Putnam, R.D., “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital,” The Journal of

Democracy(6:1) 1995, pp.65-78. 58. Ring, P.S. & Van De Ven, A.H., “Structuring Cooperative Relationships Between

Organizations,” Strategic Management Journal(13:7) 1992, pp.483-498. 59. Ring, P.S. & Van De Ven, A.H., “Developmental Processes of Cooperative

Interorganizational Relationships,” Academy of Management Review(19:1) 1994, pp.90-118.

60. Roos, J., “Exploring the Concept of Intellectual Capital(IC),” Long Range Planning(Feb:31) 1998,pp.150-153.

61. Rosenberg, N., Uncertainty and Technological Change in Conference on Growth and Development: The Economics of the 21st Century, Standford, CA: Standford University, Center for Economic Policy Research, 1994.

62. Schumpeter, J., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York: Harper & Row, 1934.

63. Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S., “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research,” Academy of Management Review(25:1) 2000, pp.217-226.

64. Steier, L. & Greenwood, R., “Entrepreneurship and the Evolution of Angel Financial Networks,” Organization Studies(21:1) 2000, pp.163-192.

65. Steward, T. A., “Your Company's Most Valuable Asset Intellectual Capital,” Fortune(Oct, 3) 1994, pp.28-33.

66. Steward, T. A., Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organization, New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1997.

223

67. Sveiby, K.E., “Intellectual Capital: Thinking Ahead,” Australian CPA(68:5) 1998, pp.18-22.

68. Tilton, J.E., International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors,Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1971.

69. Venkataraman, S., “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor’s Perspective,” in Katz, J. & Brockhaus, R. (eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth (3) 1997, pp.119-138, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

70. Vesper, K., New Venture Strategies, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. 71. Von Hippel, E., “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts,” Management

Science(32:7) 1986, pp.791-805. 72. Zahra, S.A. & George, G. , “Absorptive Capability: A Review, Reconceptualization,

and Extension,” Academy of Management Review(27:2) 2002, pp.185-203.

224

1. )

2. ()

3. ()

4. ()

5. 6.

)7. (

)8. (

)9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. ………

15. 16.

225

17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22. 23.

24.

1. /2. 3. 4. 5. /6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

1. ( )2. ( )3. ( )4. ( )

226

1. /2. 3. /4. 5.

227

(%)48 32.2 17 11.4 3 2.0 3 2.0

25 16.8 7 4.7 7 4.7 6 4.0 5 3.4

28 18.8

(%)50 28 18.8 51-100 15 10.1

101-500 40 26.8 501-1000 19 12.8

1001-5000 32 21.5 5000 15 10.1

(%)5 18 12.1 6-10 21 14.1

11-15 17 11.4 16-20 25 16.8 21-25 20 13.4 26-30 13 8.7 31-35 8 5.4

36 27 18.1

228

(%)41 27.5 40 26.8 28 18.8

40 26.8