Social Entrepreneurship Framework

FACTORS THAT AFFECT SOCIAL 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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework Edwards School of Business

University of Saskatchewan

25 Campus Drive

Saskatoon Saskatchewan Canada

S7N 5A7

Telephone: (306) 966-2124 Email: swanson@edwards .usask.ca FACTORS THAT AFFECT SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework 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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework 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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

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,

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

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 would influence 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 social entrepreneurial 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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

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 social entrepreneurs; 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 strategic processes 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 social entrepreneurship, and how they feed back to influence the inputs and conducts (see Figure 1)

Social Entrepreneurship Framework Figure 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

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

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

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 to place 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

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 in collaborative 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

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

P3 Social entrepreneurs are more likely than commercial entrepreneurs to consider nonfinancial 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

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 are more 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

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

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 than commercial 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

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 commercial entrepreneurs. 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

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

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, and outcomes 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

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

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

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 both entrepreneurial-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

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

It is not clear whether social entrepreneurs follow the same path as traditional profitseeking 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 of change 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 nonmonetary rewards (Austin, Stevenson, Wei-Skillern, 2006). The intrinsic satisfaction in fulfilling the social mission of the organization could be one aspect of such nonpecuniary compensation.

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

26

of community 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 leadership and 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

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 contrast to 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

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

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

entrepreneurial ventures to adopt such multiple measures. P12 Social entrepreneurs are more likely than commercial entrepreneurs to use a multiple 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

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

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 is to 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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

33

.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. AtuaheneGima, K. & Ko, A. (2001). An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. Organization Science,

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

34

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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

35

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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

36

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. In National Meetings of the Academy of Management.

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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

37

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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

38

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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

39

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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

40

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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

41

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), 135172.

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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

42

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,

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

43

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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

44

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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

45

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 &

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

46

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.

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

47

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

Social Entrepreneurship Framework

48

Technology- and Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42-60.