Abstract
It is widely acknowledged that R&D based startups play a significant role in the economic growth of many countries. However, founding such an enterprise is a risky endeavor, one that requires a balance between the technological search process and business capabilities. Most of the time these varied skills are found among several different people. The task becomes more difficult for recent engineering school graduates who are neither scientists nor business people. Therefore, it is critical for these new techno-entrepreneurs to conscientiously work on building relationships with stakeholders through whom they might access scientific knowledge on one hand and commercial knowledge on the other.
The paper explores the process of building relationships with stakeholders based on evidence from Turkish companies. It begins with a review of literature, presenting the different theories concerning relationships with stakeholders as far as entrepreneurship is concerned. Then, it presents the methodology, classification and analysis of in-depth interviews with the founders of R&D-based startups, which help justify the use of a qualitative approach. The case profiles are considered with a focus on the following issues: the counterbalancing of stakeholder power, learning by the entrepreneur as a by-product of interactions with stakeholders, and the earning of a reputation through ethical and passionate business practices. Building upon these preliminary findings, the author draws three main propositions that could be the subject of further research.
The main finding of this paper is that there are two opposing forces affecting the development of any company — problem and supporter stakeholders. At that, a stakeholder who was once a supporter could turn into a challenger or vice versa. The entrepreneur could benefit from the counterbalancing effect of these forces. Two major stakeholder groups emerged at the initial stage of the business: the family members and the state’s grant-handling officers. Then, the ethical and passionate conduct of business by these startups could become a factor drawing third parties in to become stakeholders of these startups. The nature and impact of these relationships should be researched further. Such an analysis allows one to understand how R&D-based startups are established and what kind of problems they face when turning (hopefully) into large corporations. On such a basis, this could help governments develop more suitable support programs that would benefit and expand the opportunities available to the founders of new R&D-based firms.
References
Anderson A.R., Jack S.L., Dodd S.D. (2005) The role of family members in entrepreneurial networks: Beyond the boundaries of the family firm // Family Business Review. Vol. 18. № 2. Р. 135-154.
Bazerman M.H., Neale M.A. (1992) Negotiating rationally. New York: Free Press.
Brüderl J., Preisendörfer P. (1998) Network support and the success of newly founded businesses // Small Business Economics. Vol. 10. № 3. Р. 213-225.
Bygrave W.D., Hay M., Ng E., Reynolds P. (2003) A Study of Informal Investing in 29 Nations Composing The Global Enterprise Monitor // Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance. Vol. 5. P. 101-116.
Conti A., Thursby M., Rothaerme F. (2013) Show Me the Right Stuff: Signals for High-Tech Startups // Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. Vol. 22. № 2. Р. 341-364.
Cope J. (2005) Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship // Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 29. № 4. Р. 373-397.
Coviello N.E., Jones M.V. (2004) Methodological Issues in International Entrepreneurship Research // Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 19. № 4. Р. 485-508.
Dalley H., Hamilton B. (2000) Knowledge, context and learning in the small business // International Small Business Journal. Vol. 18. № 3. Р. 51-59.
Daniels C., Hofer C. (1993) Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurial faculty and their innovative research teams // Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research / Eds. N. Churchill, S. Birley, W. Bygrave, J. Doutriaux, E. Gatewood, F. Hoy, W. Wetzel. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. P. 598-609.
Deakins D., Freel M. (1998) Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs // The Learning Organisation. Vol. 5. № 3. Р. 144-155.
Dutta D.K., Thornhill S. (2014) Venture Cognitive Logics, Entrepreneurial Cognitive Style and Growth Intentions: A Conceptual Model and an Exploratory Field Study // Entrepreneurship Research Journal. Vol. 4. № 2. P. 147-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2012-0004
Eriksson P., Kovalainen A. (2008) Qualitative methods in business research. London: Sage.
Evers N., Andersson S., Hannibal M. (2012) Stakeholders and Marketing Gapabilities in International New Ventures: Evidence from Ireland, Sweden, and Denmark // Journal of International Marketing. Vol. 20. № 4. Р. 46-71.
Freeman R.E. (1984) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, MA: Pitman.
Frooman J. (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies // Academy of Management Review. Vol. 24. P. 191-205.
Gans J.S., Stern S. (2003) The product market and the market for ideas: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs // Research Policy. Vol. 32. № 2. Р. 333-350.
Gibb A.A. (1997) Small firms' training and competitiveness: Building on the small business as a learning organization // International Small Business Journal. Vol. 15. № 3. Р. 13-29.
Greve A., Salaff J.W. (2003) Social networks and entrepreneurship // Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 28. № 4. Р. 1-22.
Helfat C.E., Finkelstein S., Mitchell W., Margaret P., Singh H., Teece D., Winter S.G. (2007) Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. London: Blackwell.
Honig B., Samuelson M. (2009) Business planning and venture level performance: Challenging the institution of planning (Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum WP № 05). Örebro: Örebro University. Available at: http://entreprenorskapsforum.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WP_05.pdf, accessed 31.01.2016.
Julien P. (1995) New technologies and technological information in small businesses // Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 10. № 6. Р. 459-475.
Lawler E.J., Yoon J. (1996) Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion // American Sociological Review. Vol. 61. № 1. Р. 89-108.
MSIT (2014) 2009-2014 Teknogirişim Dönem Raporu. Ankara: Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology. Режим доступа: http://sagm.sanayi.gov.tr/userfiles/file/Teknogiri%C5%9Fim%20Sermayesi%20Deste%C4%9Fi/TGSD%2009-14%20D%C3%96NEM%20RAPORU%20REV%C4%B0ZYON%200409.pdf, дата обращения 19.03.2016.
Maxwell J.A. (1996) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell R.K., Agle B.R., Wood D.J. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts // Academy of Management Review. Vol. 22. № 4. Р. 853-886.
Neves P., Story J. (2015) Ethical Leadership and Reputation: Combined Indirect Effects on Organizational Deviance // Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 127. P. 165-176.
OECD (2003) The Policy Agenda for Growth. Paris: OECD.
Patton M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pfeffer J., Salancik G. (1978) The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Postle D. (1993) Putting the Heart Back into Learning // Using Experience for Learning / Eds. D. Boud, R. Cohen, D. Walker. Buckingham: SRHE, Open University Press. P. 33-45.
Rosenblatt P.C., de Mik L., Anderson R.M., Johnson P.A. (1985) The Family in Business. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sarasvathy S., Venkatamaran S. (2011) Entrepreneurship as Method: Open Questions for an Entrepreneurial Future // Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 35. № 1. P. 113-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00425.x
Sarasvathy S.D. (2001) Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economics inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency // Academy of Management Review. Vol. 26. № 2. Р. 243-263.
Sarasvathy S.D. (2008) Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Schlange L.E. (2009) Stakeholder identification in sustainability entrepreneurship: The role of managerial and organisational cognition // Greener Management International. Vol. 55. P. 13-32.
Scottish Executive (2001) A Smart Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks. Edinburgh: HM Stationary Office.
Sirolli E. (2003) Ripples from the Zambesi. Passion. Entrepreneurship and the rebirth of local economies. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Steyaert C. (1997) A qualitative methodology for process studies of entrepreneurship: Creating local knowledge through stories // International Studies of Management and Organization. Vol. 27. № 2. Р. 13-33.
Strauss A.L., Curbin J.M. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson L., Gentner D., Loewenstein J. (2000) Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 82. № 1. P. 60-75.
Young J.E., Sexton D.L. (1997) Entrepreneurial Learning: A Conceptual Framework // Journal of Enterprising Culture. Vol. 5. № 3. P. 223-248.
Zahra H., Sapienza J., Davidsson P. (2006) Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda // Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 43. № 4. Р. 917-955.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.