Formal entrepreneurial networks as communities of practice: a longitudinal case study

Abstract

This article argues that entrepreneurial learning is genuinely connected to entrepreneurial networking activities, within a co-evolving dynamics. We take a longitudinal network approach to study the combined development of network dynamics and learning in a French formal entrepreneurial network over a period of 4 years (2005–2009). Our aim is to extend our knowledge of entrepreneurial learning emphasized both as a process and an outcome of social interaction, by focusing on the interplay between network evolution and the changing learning needs of participants over time. Building on a situated social perspective of entrepreneurial learning, we demonstrate that network learning processes and outcomes are contingent on the progressive network transformation from a social network to a community of practice.

Keywords::

• formal entrepreneurial network
• learning
• community of practice

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

^1. We use the word ‘entrepreneurship’ here to designate not only the start-up process but also enterprise growth and expansion ‘well beyond the founding event’ (Merz, Weber, and Laetz 1994, 48; see also Cope 2005; Reuber and Fischer 1999).

^2. Embeddedness designates ‘the nature, depth, and extent of an individual's ties into the environment’ (Jack and Anderson 2002).

^3. According to Rostgaard Ervald, Klyver, and Gren Svensen (2006, 15), there are three main stages in the entrepreneurial process: firm emergence, newly established firm, and mature firm.

^4. A social network designates a group of individuals where members connect, communicate and coordinate mainly for socialization or instrumental reasons, ‘through third parties or indirectly’ (Brown and Duguid 2000, 141–142), whereas a community of practice is a group of individuals embedded in a ‘social learning system because they are the social “containers” of the competencies that make up such a system’ (Wenger 2000, 229).

^5. There are two main process models of network development: life cycle models and evolutionary models (Verburg and Andriessen 2011). The former emphasizes networks’ life from birth to death, and the latter stresses networks’ progression from a low to a high level of maturity.

^6. In April 2009, 75 entrepreneurs were actively involved in the Club's meetings. We decided to stop our field research in April 2009, when the network manager quit the Club to become project manager for entrepreneurship education and training in a Parisian business school.

^7. The membership subscription was an annual fee of €400 (€150 when the business had been founded fewer than 3 years prior, and €300 for membership renewal or co-optation).

^8. Emerging firms are here characterized as being less than 2 years old, cf. Hite 2005.

^9. Early-development firms are here characterized as being between 3 and 7 years old, cf. Gianecchini and Gubitta 2012.

^10. According to Jack et al. (2010), participant observation is particularly relevant for analysing the content and processes of network interactions.

^11. During these conversations with network members, we asked them additional questions about network interaction and learning: how network relationships influenced the processes of information exchange and learning within the Entrepreneurs’ Club, what they preferred to discuss with other members, what kind of information they have provided to advise or help other participants deal with business challenges or difficulties, and what information and advice provided by other members they used to improve their business activity. We also asked them about their relationships with other members, if they met other members outside the official network activities, and if they noted some improvements and/or difficulties in the evolution of the network dynamics.

^12. In January 2006, the Club brought together the first 10 founding members, while at the end of the year there were 40 network participants.

^13. Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) elaborated an evolutionary model with networks first providing members with access to one another (initial formation phase), then fostering members’ collective learning (second phase) while making shared knowledge available for an external audience (third ‘active phase’); at the fourth ‘adaptive phase’ members build new solutions, methods and processes together.

^14. A total of 15–30 participants attended these meetings on a regular basis.

^15. The first inter-club business breakfast organized with another network in the Paris area on the topic of ‘E-reputation and e-commerce’ brought together 80 participants of both clubs. In July, 90 members and non-members attended the annual business dinner organized by the club on the topic of ‘Sports and Entrepreneurship.’ Among the Club's events of 2007, the highest number of participants registered for inter-club business breakfasts (25–80 participants) and dinners (80–400).

^16. In April 2007, the network manager jointly launched with colleagues at the Paris Chamber of Commerce a ‘Community of Practice’ group for business support professionals in the Paris area.

^17. In 2008, the attendance sheets indicate a total of 285 attendees of business breakfasts, 149 attendees of best practices meetings, 310 attendees of the business dinner, 85 attendees of free discussions meetings and 80 attendees of the annual garden party. Twenty-seven best practices meetings and three ‘free discussion meetings’ were organized, together with two inter-club business meetings, seven business breakfasts, an inter-club business dinner and a garden party.

^18. The network size gradually evolved from 10 members at the beginning of 2006 to 95 members at the end of 2008, when members decided to limit the number of adherents to 120 so as to secure the group's ability to allow active participation of potentially all participants. Membership progression was strong in 2007 when the number of adherents almost doubled from 40 to 74 members.