High-tech startups are typically not controlled solely by just one entrepreneur, but rather by a team, through whose collaboration the development of new technologies are promoted and ideas are turned into commercially viable systems and programs to provide real products and services (Bygrave & Hofer 1992). Entrepreneurial teams are widespread in China. For example, J. Yang and Zhang (2008) found that 60.5% of all entrepreneurs in China form a team to operate their new venture. In recent years, the Chinese government has promoted the slogan “San Chuang spirit” to promote creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Local governments positively response to the call by directly investing in innovative programs, setting up start-up incubators, and providing tax preferential policy to those firms engaging in San Chuang activities. However, as China’s economic law is lagging behind, in that the institutional environment still needs to improve in the support of entrepreneurship, the number of entrepreneurial firms is still not as large as it could be if that support were available (Nee & Opper, 2012). Systematic research about entrepreneurial teams is needed to support the San Chuang policy, by offering guidance for enterprise practice.

It is widely accepted in organizational research that the social network is important to achieving business success (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Luk et al. (2008) conducted a study on the difference in the role of social capital in market economies and economies in transition, and found that social networks in business relationships affect business performance and innovativeness in a transitional economy but not in a market economy. In China, which is the world’s biggest transitional economy, the concept of guanxi means that entrepreneurs like to keep a good relationship with other firms or government officials. Xin and Pearce (1996) confirmed that social networks, as a substitute for formal institutional support, are especially important in developing countries like China. Luk et al. described how personal connections are particularly important for executives in countries without a stable legal and regulatory environment that allows space for impersonal business dealings. In China, for example, as entrepreneurs find personal relationships more important for business than are more formal or distant relationships, they invest more in the cultivation of personal relationships.

According to Adler and Kwon (2002) and Han and Hovav (2013), team social networks are network structures formed by the formal and informal relationships among team members (internal social network), as well as those between team members and external members (external social network). The social network is the carrier of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), and is also a key channel for communicating information and team norms, spreading resources, and providing cognitive and emotional support (Filieri, McNally, O’Dwyer, & O’Malley, 2014; Han & Hovav, 2013).

Previous researchers of team creativity have focused on these two aspects of  social networks. In regard to the effect of external social networks on team creativity it has been found that a team’s external ties can have a positive impact on team creativity (Jakobsen & Lorentzen, 2015; H. Yang, Lin, & Lin, 2010). Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) emphasized that contact with diverse associates can improve teams’ creativity-related skills. Oh, Chung, and Labianca (2004), Oh, Labianca, and Chung (2006), and Reagans and Zuckerman (2001) have focused on the effect of internal social networks on team creativity. Oh et al. (2006), for example, demonstrated that team performance can be improved through channel construction, involving the formation of a close link within the team, and bridging the technical team’s contact with the outside world.

A pertinent issue is whether the external and internal links of social networks affect team creativity in isolation. They affect different levels of team knowledge and behavior, namely, the diversity of knowledge and information access, and knowledge and information exchange and sharing. The former is often linked to the external social network, and the latter is often affected by the internal social network. Previous researchers have focused on whether these links are strong or weak (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003) and whether they are direct or indirect (J. Y. Kim, Steensma, & Park, 2019). Although these classifications have a different focus, these researchers have looked at the network structure dimensions and have neglected networking behavior.

Literature Review

External Social Networks and Team Creativity

Timmons (1999) proposed that the entrepreneurial process involves entrepreneurial opportunity, an entrepreneurial team, and entrepreneurial resources. P. H. Kim, Aldrich, and Keister (2006) found that a successful launch of entrepreneurial activities depends on the entrepreneur's ability to obtain resources. Therefore, strong external-social-network connections, and the social capital that they provide, play a crucial role in the success of entrepreneurial activities.

Team creativity may also be influenced by the heterogeneity of the entrepreneurial team’s external social network. To achieve a common goal, two or more people need to form an entrepreneurial team, and contribute their personal resources, management talent, and creativity, to the startup (Vyakarnam, Jacobs, & Handelberg, 1999). Molina-Morales and Martínez-Fernández (2010) undertook comparative research in Spain and found a positive association among district affiliation, social capital, involvement of local institutions, and creativity, which can offer prescriptions for policy makers and individual entrepreneurs. Gronum, Verreynne, and Kastelle (2012) found that strong, heterogeneous ties improve innovation in small and medium enterprises.

An external social network can also determine entrepreneurs’ ability to acquire information and resources. Zhao, Frese, and Giardini (2010) found that comprehensive social competency, assessed in terms of social skills, proactive and elaborate social strategies, and relational perseverance, is consistently related to network size and business growth. Batjargal (2010) found that entrepreneurs’ networking skills have a positive effect on entrepreneurial networks’ structural change over time, and that improvements in networking skills are conducive to greater venture legitimacy measured as the number of institutional investors in the new venture.

Internal Social Networks and Team Creativity

As the close connections within teams’ internal networks can play a key role in facilitating internal communication and sharing knowledge and information, team members’ relationships are very important in team creativity. Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) pointed out that close relationships involve social interaction and trust which, in turn, can broaden the scope of resource exchange, which greatly impacts on innovation, because mutual trust develops during social interaction. With great trust, both parties in an interaction will be more willing to exchange complementary resources, which may facilitate innovation. Reagans and Zuckerman (2001) argued that network density, that is, the average strength of the team members’ relationships, produces a positive effect on team creativity, and, at the same time, network heterogeneity may also affect the team performance. Bandura (1986) stated that creative cognition can be developed through personal experience, especially the team interactive process. Through social interaction and communication, team members produce an intersectional communication model and ideas about current problems and in-team creativity. As Csikszentmihalyi (1996) showed that creativity depends on communication with more than one individual, interaction among team members should produce more and better ideas.

As described by Oh and colleagues (2004; 2006), the vertical and horizontal boundaries of a team can be extended through channel building, and by building bridges between the team and external resources to improve team performance. Because social capital and resources flow through a number of channels, teams should commit to achieving the optimal balance among the channels. However, most researchers who have adopted the social network perspective have focused either on the team’s external social network or on internal social capital. Also, few studies have been conducted to examine networking behavior studies, with only a small number of such studies having a focus on members’ networking behavior in entrepreneurial teams, especially the effect of internal and external network interaction on team creativity (Aldrich & Kim 2007). In our examination of intraorganizational links between individuals and groups within a firm (intrafirm relationships), and connections of firms and institutions with other firms or institutions (interfirm relationships), we analyzed internal and external networking behavior. In contrast, a separate focus on each part of networking behavior hinders a comprehensive understanding (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Walter, Lechner, & Kellermanns, 2007), and a possible interaction effect on creativity may be neglected (Cuevas-Rodríguez et al., 2013).

Method

Interviews with Entrepreneurs

Before commencing the study, we received approval for our research from the Ethics Committee of our department in the Business School at Nanjing University. Our research team conducted in-depth interviews in Nanjing with a group of five entrepreneurs who had each established a new high-tech venture, each of which belongs to one of the following industries (according to the classification standards of the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics): information transmission and software or computer programming services. As these industries have a relatively high percentage of innovative companies, they were considered most suitable for our exploration of entrepreneurial team creativity.

We also had two other standards for choosing typical, representative, and comparable cases for study. These were the length of time the company had been established, because a new venture is considered to be one that has started up in the past 8 years, and the number of entrepreneurs in the venture. Because we were examining entrepreneurial teams, for the company to be included in our study, there had to be two or more entrepreneurs in the company. Table 1 shows the basic aggregate information for the five companies, which are identified as A, B, C, D, and E. Because the general manager is also a founding member and involved in almost all the company decisions, we selected the general managers as our interviewees.

Analysis of Entrepreneurial Responses and Hypotheses

Content analysis can be divided into two types: semantic and latent. Semantic content analysis is concerned with countable or measurable elements, and remains at the surface level of information, whereas in latent content analysis an attempt is made to interpret the deeper meanings hidden behind information. We used latent content analysis for the interview data. Throughout the comparative analysis process, we had constant dialogue and performed iteration across data, theory, and meaning. Firstly, we listed the networking descriptions of interviewees, then we extracted the main meaning and keywords of the descriptions, then we put the descriptions of similar meaning into the same units and named the units by referring to the theory.

Impact on team creativity of entrepreneurial team members’ external networking behavior. In our interviews, each founder mentioned the importance of the impact of external networking on team creativity. For example:

The most important thing for an entrepreneur is to have multiple interests, because one more interest means one more group of contacts. You should even consciously try to get into some nonprofessional social circles. I think networks in China are way too important. No connections means you have nothing at all ...Those of us who offer information services for small and medium sized enterprises attend every industry-related meeting, and chase after any possible leads so that we can get any new information, somewhere, sometime.

With regard to creativity, most interviewees agreed that they have benefited from their outward relationships in many ways, such as the role these external contacts played in guiding the entrepreneurs with novel ideas, providing access to vital resources or information, and facilitating business promotion. This guidance encourages the founders to engage in network building in reverse. For example:

I have joined one group of people who are fond of model aircraft, and another group focused on antiques, and one more on fitness and bodybuilding. I’ve made a lot of friends there. I got to know one of my best teachers in the antique group, and many of my ideas come from him. We are often in contact with people inside the industry, and cooperate in many ways. This way we can realize a division of labor, and this specialization is more efficient.

Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The external networking behavior of entrepreneurial team members will have a positive effect on team creativity.

Impact on team creativity of entrepreneurial team members’ internal networking behavior. Internal networks can also promote the creative process, as team members’ communication can influence the transfer and sharing of knowledge and information, which will further impact on team creativity.

During our interviews, founders talked about the importance of internal networking behavior. For example:

I think designers and marketing staff should often communicate, otherwise the things you design won’t satisfy customers. For the companies, their technology application is very important. Whether R&D people in multiple areas can cooperate depends heavily on their communication skills and, of course, also on their ability and the right perception. Our internal communication is very close... because no one wants to say “This is my personal secret” [with regard to information and resources], and we are all willing to share. My design team often holds meetings where everyone gathers together to review some designs. This has become our company's standard process.

Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The internal networking behavior of entrepreneurial team members will have a positive effect on team creativity.

The interaction between external and internal networking behavior and its impact on team creativity. In regard to the interaction between external and internal networking behavior, One founder said, after emphasizing the importance of external network:

I think team communication is equally important, as is mutual trust, otherwise no one would bring out his own information and knowledge for sharing. If someone starts a business on his or her own, the resources and capabilities will be limited, but in a partnership, everyone's resources and capabilities can be complementary. However, in the context of our combination of outside resources and capabilities, we communicate often and trust one another, and we have no doubts about profit distribution, because otherwise the complementary effect cannot be achieved.

Some founders pointed out that the internetwork and intranetwork should be a great match, for example:

In fact, there are so many business opportunities in our country. However, even though we can get close to one of them by some means, it may still be hard for us to reach it because of our own limitations.

And another founder observed:

We have an external R&D team, but they are in high workload… So we also pay great attention to developing our suppliers’ creativity to coprovide new products.

Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: The internal and external networking behavior of an entrepreneurial team will have an interactive effect on team creativity.

The results from our content analysis are summarized in Table 2, which show the degree to which each case study supports the three hypotheses, and the overall level of support for each hypothesis.

The degree of support for each hypothesis was evaluated by a group of experts that included professors and doctoral students, after independent readings of the content of the entrepreneurs’ responses.

Quantitative Survey and Results

Participants and procedure. To further verify the three hypotheses, we developed a survey that we distributed to entrepreneurs of 240 companies in Nanjing Xuzhuang Software Park, Nanjing Yuhua Software Park, Changzhou Creative Industry Base, and Wuxi National Software Park. We selected the companies according to the criteria described above. We outlined the purpose of our survey to participant companies and assured them that neither the names of the respondents, nor the names of the firms where they worked would be revealed. We informed them that the names of the four software parks would be included for the purpose of establishing the authenticity of the study. With the help of the management committees at the parks, we collected 158 valid survey forms, for a recovery rate of 65.8%.

Measures. All the scales were adopted or adapted from existing scales. To test the accuracy of the measurement, we adopted reverse-coding techniques when designing the scales.

To measure networking behavior, we adopted some of the items in Forret and Dougherty’s (2001) scale, discarding items that do not accord with conditions in China, such as “Involvement in church service” in the dimension of participation in community activities. We used a 5-point Likert scale to measure the networking behavior. We asked respondents to think of the times they had acted in accordance with the items in the last year and to assign a score from 1 to 5, that meant the actions happened more frequently, from 1 = never or seldom to 5 = very frequently. We derived a scale comprising five dimensions: keeping in touch (five items), social interaction (two items), participation in professional activities (seven items), participation in community activities (two items), and increasing internal transparency (four items). The first four dimensions depict external networking behavior, and the fifth dimension, which depicts internal networking behavior, describes an atmosphere of good team communication. Sample items are included in Table 3. Cronbach's α for each dimension was acceptable (> .70).

We measured team creativity with six items from the scale to measure key to creativity and innovation (KEYS; Amabile & Conti, 1999), in which a creative and innovative organization or unit is defined as one where a great deal of creativity is called for, and where people believe they actually produce creative work. We used a 5-point Likert scale to measure creativity. We asked respondents to describe whether the items were consistent with their team or their jobs, with the degree of consistency increasing from 1 = never agree to 5 = totally agree. A sample item is included in Table 3.

Control variables

We included the company size, length of operation, and the founder’s education level as control variables. The company size was measured by the company's total number of staff, length of operation was measured by the company's years of entrepreneurship, and the founder’s education level was classified by the degree held.

Data Analysis

We used SPSS 21.0 for factor analysis. In the principal component analysis, we extracted factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1, and conducted Varimax rotation to find six factors from 25 items. Their eigenvalues were 10.691, 4.785, 2.677, 2.133 1.892, and 1.404; the percentage of explained variance for each factor was 17.754%, 13.135%, 11.994%, 11.504%, 8.571%, 4.531%, and jointly explained 67.376% of the total variance. Each factor corresponded to each of the six main variables. Thus, the scale had good structural validity. We conducted hierarchical regression analysis with SPSS 21.0. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables are shown in Table 4.

The hierarchical regression results are shown in Table 5. Hypothesis 1 was partially supported in Model 2. The β coefficients for the external networking behaviors of keeping in touch and participation in professional activities were both positive and statistically significant (β = .340, p < .01; β = .228, p < .05, respectively). As there was a weak positive correlation between social interaction and team creativity (β = .010, p < .10), the relationship between participation in community activities and team creativity was nonsignificant, thus, there was an overall positive correlation between external networking behavior and team creativity. Hypothesis 2 was strongly supported in Model 2: The β coefficient for increasing internal transparency was positive, and statistically significant (β = .500, p < .01). This result is in line with the findings of Madjar (2005) and of Monge, Cozzens, and Noshir (1992) that in-team interpersonal interaction effectively promotes knowledge transfer and is closely related to the creation of innovative concepts.

To test the interactive effect we had proposed in Hypothesis 3, we added four interactive items of the prior variables in Model 3, which showed that the β coefficient of social interaction × increasing internal transparency was statistically significant (β = .485, p < .01). This suggests that increasing internal transparency had a positive role in moderating the relationship between social interaction and team creativity. When there was high transparency in the team, the positive correlation between social interaction and team creativity became more significant.

As the β coefficient of participation in professional activities × increasing internal transparency was statistically significant (β = .606, p < .01), this suggests that increasing internal transparency had a positive role in moderating the relationship between participation in professional activities and team creativity. When there was high transparency in the team, the positive correlation between participation in professional activities and team creativity became more significant.

However, the β coefficients of keeping in touch × increasing internal transparency, and participation in community activities × increasing internal transparency were not statistically significant. Internal networking behavior had no moderating effect on the relationship of external social interaction, participation in external community activities, and team creativity. In general, Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. The results shown in Figure 1 are based on steps proposed by Aiken and West (1991).

Discussion

We aimed to clarify how internal and external social networks jointly motivate the creativity performance of entrepreneurial teams, through an exploration of the two networks. In regard to research methodology, we combined typical case analysis and a  survey of a large sample to ensure both the reliability and validity of our findings.

Our empirical analysis showed that as our hypotheses that the external (Hypothesis 1) and internal (Hypothesis 2) networking behavior of entrepreneurial team members would have a positive effect on team creativity were both strongly supported and our third hypothesis that the internal and external networking behavior of an entrepreneurial team would have an interactive effect on team creativity was partially supported, external and internal network behavior positively influenced entrepreneurial team creativity among our respondents. Further, we found there is an interactive effect between the external and internal network behavior of startup teams in China, namely, when in-team networks exhibit higher network transparency, the positive correlation between external social participation, external professional activities, and team creativity is more significant.

However, we did not find a relationship between involvement in external community activities and team creativity. During the cross-case analysis, Founder C talked about the value of joining all kinds of community groups, including model airplane enthusiasts and bodybuilders, and stated that he very much valued these activities as he got to know more people for business marketing purposes. However, the value of this kind of participation in community groups for team creativity was not supported by the results from the survey of the large sample. A possible reason is that, as these activities are costly in time, with only an indirect effect on enterprise creativity behavior, many entrepreneurs will choose not to pursue them. As high-tech companies at the startup stage often do not have the capacity and resources to establish extensive and diverse external links, the external networking data from these companies did not support a positive effect of external community activities on team creativity as proposed in Hypothesis 1.

In addition, we did not find a moderating effect of internal networking behavior on the relationship between participation in professional activities and team creativity as we proposed in Hypothesis 2. This is likely because the effect on team creativity of maintaining external business relationships in the dimension of participation in professional activities was so significant that the moderating effect of internal networking behavior, if it even existed, had become camouflaged. The moderating effect of internal networking behavior in this relationship must, therefore, have been very weak among our participant group of entrepreneurs. That leaves participation in professional activities, itself, as the key factor in improving the creativity performance of entrepreneurial teams. Namely, the interactive effect with internal networking did not moderate in team creativity in the same way as it did for other external networking behaviors, such as social interaction, and participation in professional activities.

We have contributed to the theory of entrepreneurship by indicating very strong connections between external and internal networking behavior and team creativity. We have made some advances in the research field of entrepreneurship by taking the approach of examining the correlations between both sets of social relationships and team creativity.

Managerial Implications

Our results clearly point to the benefits of networking, which include better and broader knowledge about market demand and trends, areas for technological advancement, potential areas for product enhancement, new managerial ideas, and increased publicity for the company. Thus, entrepreneurial teams should communicate widely in the external environment to collect external knowledge efficiently, and internalize it as a useful stimulus for creativity. Our results also indicate that, among our respondents, it was keeping in touch with business colleagues outside the firm that had the strongest impact of the external networking behaviors on creativity. Managers should, thus, emphasize frequent contact with business colleagues.

In regard to the internal networking environment, successful entrepreneurship depends on the smooth flow, successful sharing, and constant updating of individual team members’ knowledge; this flow of information is built on mutual trust among team members. Trustful collaboration, in other words, derives from close communication among team members and internal information transparency.

In the entrepreneurial process, therefore, the wise team leader should develop or improve close relationships among team members as a starting point for effective management. The goal is to construct a democratic, open, and relatively stable work environment, and to implement humanized and flexible management, with a working atmosphere of respect, trust, and care for one other. The implementation of these management methods should guarantee the smooth flow of internal knowledge in entrepreneurial teams, which is necessary for the development of new ideas and achievement of a high level of creativity.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

There are two limitations in this study. First, as it was cross-sectional, with networking and creativity data collected at the same point in time, causal relationships cannot be determined; there is the possibility of adverse causality. To avoid such limitation, future researchers can design and conduct a serial study to collect antecedent and outcome variables.

Second, we used convenience sampling to collect data for analysis from enterprises in four typical software parks in Jiangsu, China. As most high-tech startups in China choose Jiangsu as the location in which to set up their businesses, the respondents in our sample can be considered representative of Chinese high-tech startups. However, whether our results can be applied and generalized nationwide or to other countries with a transitional economy needs to be considered and treated with caution and careful attention.

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.23074134367 

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aldrich, H. E., & Kim, P. H. (2007). Small worlds, infinite possibilities? How social networks affect entrepreneurial team formation and search. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.8 

Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630–640. https://doi.org/10.2307/256984 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.  

Batjargal, B. (2010). The effects of network's structural holes: Polycentric institutions, product portfolio, and new venture growth in China and Russia. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.88

Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1992). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879201600203 

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Cuevas-Rodríguez, G.,  Cabello-Medina, C., & Carmona-Lavado, A. (2014). Internal and external social capital for radical product innovation: Do they always work well together? British Journal of Management, 25, 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12002

Filieri, R., McNally, R. C., O'Dwyer, M., & O'Malley, L. (2014). Structural social capital evolution and knowledge transfer: Evidence from an Irish pharmaceutical network. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.011 

Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Group & Organization Management, 26, 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601101263004 

Gronum, S., Verreynne, M.-L., & Kastelle, T. (2012). The role of networks in small and medium-sized enterprise innovation and firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50, 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00353.x 

Han, J. Y., & Hovav, A. (2013). To bridge or to bond? Diverse social connections in an IS project team. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.001

Jakobsen, S.-E., & Lorentzen, T. (2015). Between bonding and bridging: Regional differences in innovative collaboration in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 69, 80–89. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00291951.2015.1016550

Kim, J. Y., Steensma, H. K., & Park, H. D. (2019). The influence of technological links, social ties, and incumbent firm opportunistic propensity on the formation of corporate venture capital deals. Journal of Management, 45, 1595–1622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317720722 

Kim, P. H., Aldrich, H. E., & Keister, L. A. (2006). Access (not) denied: The impact of financial, human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the United States. Small Business Economics, 27, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-0007-x 

Luk, C.-L., Yau, O. H. M., Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., Chow, R. P. M., & Lee, J. S. Y. (2008). The effects of social capital and organizational innovativeness in different institutional contexts. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 589–612. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400373

Madjar, N. (2005). The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees' creativity. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 182–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422305274525 

Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2010). Social networks: Effects of social capital on firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management, 48, 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00294.x 

Monge, P. R., Cozzens, M. D., & Noshir, S. (1992). Communication and motivational predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organization Science, 3, 250–274. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.2.250 

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373 

Nee, V., & Opper, S. (2012). Capitalism from below: Markets and institutional change in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 860–875. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159627

Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M.-H. (2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. The Academy of Management Review, 31, 569–582. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159229 

Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley. C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 28, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040691 

Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.502.10637 

Timmons, J. A. (1999). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw- Hill.

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/257085 

Vyakarnam, S., Jacobs, R., & Handelberg, J. (1999). Exploring the formation of entrepreneurial teams: The key to rapid growth business? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 6, 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006673 

Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners: Private versus collective benefits of social capital. Journal of Business Research, 60, 698–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.026 

Xin, K. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1641–1658. https://doi.org/10.5465/257072 

Yang, H., Lin, Z., & Lin, Y. (2010). A multilevel framework of firm boundaries: Firm characteristics, dyadic differences, and network attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.815 

Yang, J., & Zhang, Y. L. (2008). Social capital, entrepreneurial chance, and performance of new startups in China: A theoretical model and research propositions [In Chinese]. Foreign Economy and Management, 30, 19–­23.

Zhao, X. Y., Frese, M., & Giardini, A. (2010). Business owners’ network size and business growth in China: The role of comprehensive social competency. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 22, 675–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903171376

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China 2017&ndash

2020 (71672080).

Li Wang, Business School, Nanjing University, Suite 1905, Anzhong Hall, 17 Jinyin St. on Shanghai Rd., Nanjing, Jiangsu 210000, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]