Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org A Comparison of Social Capital between Owner-Managers and Professional Managers Ali N. Mosleh Shirazi1 Ali Mohamadi2 Jahangir Jahangiri3 Roya Khayer Zahed4 Abstract This research was carried out for the purpose of investigating social capital among owner-managers and professional managers. This research's findings could provide essential grounds for training and educating the entrepreneur managers and attract the attention of policy makers to training needs of entrepreneur. In this study, social capital is measured by three dimensions: structural, relational and cognitive. The research data has been collected through questionnaires from 137 managers of small and medium size industries in Iran. Using statistical methods such as T- test and one-way ANOVA, collected data were analyzed. Obtained results show that professional managers are weaker than owner managers in social capital. Although owner managers and professional managers are almost equal with respect to structural and cognitive social capital, owner-managers' relational social capital is higher than that of professional managers. In addition, we obtained good and reasonable results investigating the effects of control variables, such as gender, age, place of birth, and field of education on managers' social capital. The findings show that the control variables are almost equal between owner-managers and professional managers. Keywords: Social Capital, Owner-Managers, Professional Managers 1 Associat e Professor of management , Shiraz Universit y: an_mosleh@yahoo.com Associat e Professor of management , Shiraz Universit y: amohamadi11@gm ail.com 3 Assistant Professor of sociology, Shiraz universit y: jjahangiri@gmail.com 4 M A in indust rial management , Shiraz Universit y: r.khayer@yahoo.com 2 48 Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org 2. Theoretical Hypotheses 1. Introduction Researchers studying social capital have stated the importance of social relationships in entrepreneurial activities and actions (33;30]. The term social capital takes a sociological view of human actions and perceives individuals as actors who are shaped by societal factors [26]. Social capital is one of the infrastructures for cultural, political and economic development and it is believed to be the invisible wealth of a country [8]. The existence of factors such as participation, knowledge, integrity and trust will increase entrepreneurial activities in society [13]. In the case of low social capital in a society, the mere provision of financial capital and human capital (through education) cannot positively boost entrepreneurship, economic growth and poverty reduction and usually will not lead to more economic participation in such societies. Although the theory of social capital has attracted significant attention into entrepreneurial research, the differences of social capital between entrepreneurs and professional managers aren't investigated in previous studies. Therefore, this study undertakes to fill up this research gap and compares the social capital among owner-managers and professional managers. Given the lack of research and knowledge in the context, investigating such questions as how different dimensions of social capital are changed among owner-managers and professional managers has its own great theoretical values. In practical side as well, knowing the effective factors in improving entrepreneurial activities paves the way for boosting up economic in societies. Framework and According to Englen (2010), the existence of factors such as participation, knowledge, integrity and trust will increase entrepreneurial activities in society. One may argue that many of such factors are the same as in the meaning of social capital. As we will see later in this paper, there is a rather good number of meanings and definitions for social capital proposed by different scholars. But, a closer look at them reveals a common part which consists of factors similar to those needed for increasing entrepreneurial activities within organizations and societies. Thus, it may be expected that higher social capital is associated with more probability of being entrepreneur. 2.1. Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic, and social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards [17]. From the Schumpeter’s viewpoint, entrepreneurship is the most relevant factor in promoting economic growth [32]. An entrepreneur is individual profit-seeking and needs an adequate social environment to develop the activity [2]. If the entrepreneur manages the firm by himself/herself, he or she will be a owner-manager. However, a professional manager is a person who is paid for a service with which he / she is providing. In the other words, a professional manager is an expert, trained and experienced enough to adeptly manage any type of organization. It can be assumed owner-managers active more socially than professional managers 2.2. Social Capital Since Lyda Judson Hanifan (1916) first introduced the conceptual theory of social capital, there has been quite a number of developments reflecting different views and attitudes toward this concept. Social capital is a powerful concept for perception of the emergence, growth, and functioning of network linkages. As Walker et al. (1997) have mentioned social capital influences network formation that proceeds through the establishment of new relationships [35]. To develop a more comprehensive picture of how a manager’s social capital is related with his ownership, we compared the social capital of a sample of 137 Iranian SMEs’ owner-managers and professional ones. We investigated three dimensions of social capital, based on Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s model including structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions [29]. Thus, the approach taken in this study was to compare the social capital and its three dimensions between entrepreneurs and professional managers. 49 Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org capital are reducing transaction costs, improving efficiency, speeding up the information exchange, reducing corruption and strengthening the initiatives [7]. The main reason for adopting Nahapiet and Ghoshal's definition and model of social capital is its focal organizational approach which suits well the purpose of this study. In the 20th century, the human resources (HR) function became quite adept at managing human capital – defined as the skills, knowledge and experience of individual employees within the firm. However the key to success for the 21st century organization is social capital. Social capital is the ability to find, utilize and combine the skills, knowledge and experience of others, inside and outside of the organization [22]. A thorough review of relevant literature shows that social capital is a factor that can significantly influence on the extent and outcome of entrepreneurial activities. Besides, entrepreneurial initiatives and social capital are highly interconnected [36]. As new ventures have a greater propensity to fail than do mature firms, so relationships and connections of individuals in the entrepreneurial start-ups are critical to create and support the success of these businesses [3]. Batjargal (2007) also found that social capital has a positive effect on the survival likelihood of Internet firms [5]. Social capital is important in generating scientist entrepreneurship as well, and transnational social capital is conductive to scientist entrepreneurship in the life sciences [1] .Woodhouse (2006) found that social capital can be effective in economic development. He observed that a town displaying a high level of social capital also displays a high level of economic development, while a town with a low level of social capital displays a low level of economic development [37]. In all, the preceding observations, research findings, and arguments suggest that social capital and its dimensions would impact entrepreneurial activities. However, our focal phenomena in present research are the kind of impacts that social capital and its three dimensions might have on entrepreneurship. So, the general or main hypothesis of present study is defined as: Social capital does not have a clear, undisputed meaning, for substantive and ideological reasons [12]. There are numerous definitions of social capital found in the literature. For example Bourdieu (1983) stated that social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition [6]. Another researcher explained that social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities. It shows how social structure can be as a source to create social relationships between people [10]. Putnam (1993) also expressed that social capital contains of features such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions [31]. In this study, we adopted the Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) view of social capital and defined it as 'the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit.' In this definition, social capital comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network. Nahapiet and Ghoshal considered three dimensions for social capital: structural, relational, and cognitive. Structural dimension of social capital is referred to the overall pattern of connections between actors, that is, whom you reach and how you reach them [29]. In contrast, the term'relational dimension'describes the kind of personal relationships people have developed with each other through a history of interactions [29]. This concept focuses on the particular relations people have, such as respect and friendship, that influence their behavior. The third dimension of social capital, which is labeled as the'cognitive dimension', refers to those resources providing shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning among parties. They stated that they had identified this cluster separately because it represents an important set of assets not discussed in the mainstream literature on social capital but the significance of which is receiving substantial attention in the strategy domain [29]. As a conceptual discussion of differences in social capital definitions is out of this paper’s scope, it is useful to mention that the major functions of social Hypothesis 1: Owner managers are stronger in social capital than professional managers. 50 Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org performance of enterprise [15]. This type of social capital encourages cooperative behavior and facilitates the development of new forms of association [26]. The foregoing observations and research findings imply that there could assume a higher structural social capital among SMEs' owner-managers than professional managers. In all, we formulated the second hypothesis of the present research as follow: 2.2.1. Structural Dimension of Social capital The structural dimension of social capital concerns the configuration of linkages between people and firm units. Structural social capital involves various forms of social organization, including roles, rules, presidencies and procedures as well as a variety of networks that deals with organization. Structural component manifests itself in attributes of network ties, network configurations and appropriate organization [29]. Network ties provide resources and information, and help to find clients, suppliers, and investors, who are socially bound [4]. In the other worlds, network ties provide access to resources and information [29]. Networking approaches enable members within the networking structure to obtain more information [34]. Seghers et al. (2012) found that entrepreneurs who have network ties with finance experts have a greater knowledge of common finance alternatives and advanced finance alternatives for growth phase of their firms [33]. Furthermore, Klyver and Schøtt (2011) found out the individuals with relatively large business networks are more likely to develop entrepreneurial intentions [21]. Network configuration describes the impersonal configuration of linkages between people or units. In fact, network ties provide the channels for information transmission, but the overall configuration of these ties constitutes an important facet of social capital that may impact the development of intellectual capital [29]. Social capital developed in one context, such as ties, norms and trust, can often be transferred from one social setting to another, thus influence on patterns of social capital. Appropriable social organization can provide a potential network of access to people and their resources, including information and knowledge[29]. Lin et al. (2001), also sees social capital as a structural resource that is accessed by individuals through their social ties or networks to achieve social mobility, of which employment is a key motivator [27]. Establishing strong social interactions and ties can produce beneficial and productive resources for entrepreneurs in terms of exchanging information, recognizing business opportunities, sharing and exchanging resources and influencing the potential Hypothesis 2: Owner managers are stronger in structural social capital than professional managers. 2.2.2. Relational dimension of social capital The term 'relational embeddedness' describes the kind of personal relationships people have developed with each other through a history of interactions [29]. This dimension of social capital includes trust, norms, identification and obligation. Trust is an essential prerequisite for most forms of interdependent relationships [8]. It has been viewed as a set of specific beliefs dealing primarily with the integrity, benevolence, and ability of another party in the management literature [9]. Trust lubricates cooperation, and cooperation itself breeds trust [29].. It is suggested that social capital in the forms of high levels of trust reduces the need for costly monitoring processes [31]. Trust represents a degree of consensus in the social system. Social norms are ‘informal rules’ that condition behavior in various circumstances. According to Coleman (1988) where a norm exists and is effective, it constitutes a powerful though sometimes fragile form of social capital [10]. Obligations represent a commitment or duty to undertake some activity in the future [29]. Identification refers to one’s conception of self in terms of self-inclusive social category [9]. In fact, identification is the process whereby individuals see themselves as one with another person or group of people. This identification may result from their membership in that group or through the group’s operation as a reference group [29]. A number of research shows that relational social capital facilitates entrepreneurial opportunities and endeavors. For instance, Lechner and Dowling (2003) indicate that increased relational social 51 Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org Therefore, the fourth hypothesis of this research is defined as follow: capital can greatly enhance the opportunities of an enterprise [25]. Another study shows that a resident of a country with higher generalized trust and breadth of formal organizational memberships was more likely to perceive entrepreneurial opportunities [23]. It is logically expected that an entrepreneur who develops a higher degree of relational social capital, such as trust, norms, identification or obligations, would focus on his abilities and attributes to identify himself as a responsible person in his successes or failures. Therefore, the third hypothesis of this research is formulated as follow: Hypothesis 4: Owner managers are stronger in relational social capital than professional managers 3. Methodology In order to test the hypotheses, we distributed 250 questionnaires among the top managers of small and medium size enterprises in Shiraz, a major metropolitan in south western of Iran, from March 2011 to January 2012. We could gather 137 completed and acceptable questionnaires. The response rate was almost 55 percent. The questionnaire contained of two parts: at first, the demographic questions such as gender, age and level of education, income and firm age were asked. Second part, was related to measuring social capital which encompasses 26 questions with 5 points Likert scale to measure three dimensions of social capital. The social capital questionnaire is built on Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) model. Moghimi and Ramezan (2011) designed Iranian version of social capital measurement, which could measure three dimensions of social capital. Considering this factors, we design 32 questions. Questionnaire items were not only built upon previous literature, but also well informed by 5 in-depth interviews with specialists in social capital. After designing the questionnaire we tested it by 30 managers. We asked them to answer the questions carefully and explain their opinions about each question. As a result, some major changes were made over the earlier version of questionnaire. Eventually, it remains 26 items to measure social capital. The first nine questions measure structural dimension of social capital. These questions relate to network ties, network configuration and appropriate organization. The next fourteen questions relate to the second dimension of social capital, names “relational social capital”. These questions composed of trust, norms, identification Hypothesis 3: Owner managers are stronger in relational social capital than professional managers. 2.2.3. Cognitive Dimension of Social Capital Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) cognitive dimension relates to those resources providing shared representations, interpretations and systems of meaning among parties. The Social Cognitive capital argues that a person's behavior is partially shaped and controlled by the influences of social network. They explained that shared language and codes operationalised through shared narratives are part of the conditions for the exchange and combination of knowledge. Shared language and codes enable people to create common grounds. The emergence of shared narratives within a community enables the creation and transfer of new interpretations of events. Cognitive dimension is important because trusting relationships will be rooted in this common ground [15]. Chiu et al (2006) demonstrated that shared languages and shared vision affect positively and significantly on knowledge quantity [9]. Many of the evidences provided in this section and almost all of the arguments made earlier for developing the underlying theory and in justifying the hypothesis are directly applicable to expecting a relationship between cognitive social capital and entrepreneurship. In fact, the cognitive dimension of social capital not only provides the possibility to share resources and information, but also in doing so, would enhance the ground for strengthening the members' beliefs towards behaving responsibility. 52 Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org and obligations. The last three questions relate to cognitive dimension of social capital which includes shared codes and language and shared narratives. In order to assess the reliability of data, the Cronbach’s alpha is used. It is an indication of internal consistency and the degree to which items are homogeneous [11; 33]. The value of Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each dimension of social capital and total social capital. The acceptable value of Cronbach’s alpha is recommended to be more than 0.6 for new scales, such as the one used in this study [14; 16]. In this sample, Cronbach’s alpha for social capital was 0.853 and for structural, relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital are 0.601, 0.833 and 0.605, respectively which shows an acceptable reliability. In order to measure the validation of questionnaire several procedures were taken. First of all, face validity was considered. Face validity is referred to as the extent to which an assessment instrument subjectively appears to be measuring what it is supposed to measure [26]. Five specialists confirmed the face validity of items which used to measuring dimensions of social capital. We also evaluated the construct validity of social capital. In order to assess construct validity, factor analysis was used. A Principal components analysis with Varimax Rotation produces the dimension of differentiation was used in order to confirm the scale constructs validity. To define if the subscales were suitable for factor analysis, two statistical tests were used. The first is the Bartlet Test of Sphericity, in which it is examined if the subscales of the social capital scale are inter-independent, and the latter is the criterion KMO (Kaiser-Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy, KMO) [20], which examines sample sufficiency. It illustrates that sample sufficiency index ΚΜΟ which compares the sizes of the observed correlation coefficients to the sizes of the partial correlation coefficients for the sum of analysis variables is 76.4%. In addition, supposition test of Sphericity by the Bartlett test (Ηο: All correlation coefficients are not quite far from zero) is rejected on a level of statistical significance p<0.0005 for Approx. Chi-Square=1053.33. Consequently, the coefficients are not all zero, so that the second acceptance of factor analysis is satisfied. As a result, both acceptances for the conduct of factor analysis are satisfied and we can proceed to it. The number of factors to be extracted was based on the result from the Scree-plots, Rotation of varimax, and the Kaiser´s eigenvalue criterion (eigenvalues greater than one). Therefore seven factors were retained, which explain the 62.430 percent of the whole inertia of data. In addition, all of the social capital scale questions present high factor loading (more than 0.4), so all of the questions in this scale are important in determining social capital. To minimize the possibility of drawing misleading conclusions about the hypothesized social capital effects on entrepreneurial locus of control, we incorporated four control variables: gender, age and field of education. 4. Results The demographic findings revealed that 11.3 percent of respondents were women and 88.7 percent were men. Most of the participants fall in 30- 40 age group (35 percent). The field of education was as follow: 62 percent, engineering field; 19 percent, management and accounting; and others studied in other fields. In order to examine the relationship between social capital (and its dimensions) and entrepreneurship, at first, t-test was computed. The findings of t-test are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Independent Sample Tests Groups N Mean Std. Deviation 53 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t Sig. Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org Social capital Owner-managers 73 102.69 9.27 Professional managers 60 98.97 9.00 Owner-managers 73 32.044 4.148 Professional managers 60 31.01 3.379 Owner-managers Professional managers Owner-managers Professional managers 73 60 73 60 57.677 55.143 12.97 12.82 5.544 6.109 1.36 1.85 F 0.183 sig. 0.669 2.326 0.022 1.719 0.192 1.553 .123 0.843 0.360 2.506 0.013 6.722 0.011 0.505 0.615 Structural Relational Cognitive As it is shown in table 1, social capital is significantly higher among owner-managers than professional managers (sig < 0.05). The results, also, show although owner managers and professional managers are almost equal with respect to structural and cognitive social capital, ownermanagers' relational social capital is higher than that of professional managers. Relational capital captures the accessibility, meaning the extent that an entrepreneur is actually able to receive informational, physical, and emotional support in the venture creation process so it was predictable that relational social capital will be higher among entrepreneurs. We recognize that a lot of other variables could influence the entrepreneurship. . To minimize the possibility of drawing misleading conclusions about the hypotheses, we incorporated four control variables: gender, age, place of birth, and field of education. The results are shown in table 2 and 3. Table 2 Comparing social capital between men and women Social capital gender N Mean Std. Deviation male 118 101.34 9.40 female 15 98.42 8.29 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F sig. 0.594 0.442 t Sig. 1.148 0.253 Table 3 Comparing social capital between different groups variables age N Mean Std. Deviation 20-30 35 100.44 8.98 31-40 41 98.87 9.86 41-50 30 102.66 8.31 51-60 20 103.89 9.60 61 and higher 5 103.04 10.59 54 F 1.359 Sig. 0.252 Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org Place of birth Field of education Metropolis 92 101.36 8.55 city 31 101.43 11.01 village 1 106.00 0 engineering 85 100.96 9.53 Management and Accounting 26 102.01 8.25 others 21 100.19 10.11 0.125 0.882 0.229 0.796 social capital, SMEs’ managers have also been able to trust to their personal ability. The findings of recent study approve findings of previous literatures. Landry et al. (2002) found a positive relationship between social capital and innovation [24]. In this regard, Jiang et al. (2010) stated that while an increase in the number of entrepreneurs creates a growth enhancing variety effect, the reduced overall quality of entrepreneurial ability retards growth [19]. Considering the above-mentioned research findings, the present research finding is quite justifiable. Not only is social capital important to entrepreneurial actions, but the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of social capital having unique effects. Our results show that there isn’t any significant association between structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital and entrepreneurship. This could be the effect of transient Iranian culture and poor performance of networks in this country. In fact, the transition to modernism has not developed enough to encompass social activities through social networks yet. In the literature review Liao and Welsch (2006) found no significant differences in various dimensions of social capital between entrepreneurs and no entrepreneurs [26]. The other findings also show that owner-managers are significantly higher in relational social capital than professional managers. As mentioned earlier, the relational dimension of social capital focuses on the particular relations among people, such as respect and friendship that influence their behavior. This dimension encompasses trust, norms, identification and obligation which could boost up entrepreneurial activities. As it is illustrated in tables 2 and 3, all of control variables show no significant differences of social capital between groups. 5. Discussion and conclusion It is widely acknowledged that there is a significant linkage between social capital and entrepreneurship. In fact, the majority of studies have emphasized on the impact of social capital on entrepreneurs performance [33; 30].In order to fully evaluate the effect of social capital on entrepreneurship, it is meaningful to compare social capital between entrepreneurs and none entrepreneurs. The aim of this study was to investigate whether social capital (and its dimensions) was higher among owner-managers than professional managers or not. This aim has been achieved by the study reported. In the other words, the results respond to an unanswered question in the extant literature: Are owner-managers stronger in social capital than professional managers? The findings suggested that owner-managers are significantly stronger in social capital (Table 1). That is due to the concept of social capital as a resource for social actions (Nahapeit and Ghoshal 1998). In addition the results show that although owner managers and professional managers are almost equal in cognitive and structural social capital, owner managers are significantly higher in relational social capital than professional managers. By acting from social, innovative, economic, and civil and not least the political perspective, CEO has created and developed relations with a large number of actors in different sectors of society. Being able to build 55 Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org and economic performance in post-communist Russia', Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 38, 357-368 [9] Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M. H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006).'Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories', Decision Support Systems, 42, 1872–1888 So the findings show that the higher social capital, the more probability of being entrepreneurs. Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk (2011) suggested that in order to improve social capital, tasks should be more operational and developmental [28]. In addition, it is recommended that community-based development projects implicated to strengthen social capital in terms of trust and collective action. Janssens (2009) stated that contributions to community projects such as the construction or maintenance of schools, roads, and bridges significantly affect on strengthening of social capital [18]. Entrepreneurship, also, has a significant positive effect on economic growth (Li et al. 2012). Therefore, the increase in social capital can improve entrepreneurship and economic growth. [10] Coleman, J. S. (1988).'Social capital in the creation of human capital', The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. [11] Cooper, D.R. and Emory, C.W. (1995), Business Research Methods, Irwin, Chicago, IL. [12] Dolfsma, Wilfred and Charlie Dannreeuther (2003).'Subjects and boundaries: Contesting social capital- based policies', journal of Ecconomic Issues, 37, 405-413. [13] Engelen, Andreas (2010).'Entrepreneurial orientation as a function of national cultural variations in two countries', Journal of International Management, 16, 354–368 References [1] Audretsch, D., & Aldridge, T. (2012).'Transnational social capital and scientist entrepreneurship', Journal of Management and Government, 16, 369–376 [2] Bahmani, S, Galindo, M.A., and Mendez, M.T. (2012).'Non-profit organizations, entrepreneurship, social capital and economic growth', Small Bus Econ, 38, 271-281. [3] Bamford, C. E., Bruton, G. D, Hinson, Y.L (2006).'Founder/Chief Executive Officer Exit: A Social Capital Perspective of New Ventures', Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 207–220 [4] Batjargal, B. (2003).'Social capital and entrepreneurial performance in Russia: a longitudinal study', Organization Studies, 24 (4), 535-556. [5] Batjargal, B. (2007).'Internet entrepreneurship: Social capital, human capital, and performance of Internet ventures in China', Research Policy, 36, 605–618 [6] Bourdieu, Pierre (1983). 'The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed', Poetics, 12, 311-356 [7] Burt, R. S. (2000).'The Network Structure of Social Capital', Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, pages 345-423. [8] Buttrick, S.C. & John P. M. (2005). 'Russia's missing link? Social capital, entrepreneurialism, [14] Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994),'A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument', Journal of Operations Management, 11 No. 4, 339-66. [15] Fuller, T. and Tian, Y. (2006).'Social and Symbolic Capital and Responsible Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Investigation of SME Narratives', Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 287-304. [16] Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. [17] Hisrich, R. D., Peters, M. P., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. [18] Janssens, W. (2009).'Women’s Empowerment and the Creation of Social Capital in Indian Villages', World Development, 38, No. 7, 974–988 [19] Jiang, Neville; Wang, Ping & Haibin Wu (2010).'Ability-heterogeneity, entrepreneurship, and economic growth', journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 34, 522- 541. [20] Kaiser, H.F., (1974).'An index of factorial simplicity', Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. 56 Global Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (ISSN : 2322-2441) Issue 8, 2013 , pp. 48-57 © GJSET Publishing, 2013. http://www.gjset.org organizational advantage', Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-266. [30] Pirolo, L. & Presutti, M.(2010).'The Impact of Social Capital on the Start-ups’ Performance Growth', Journal of Small Business Management, 48(2), 197–227 [31] Putnam, R.D. (1993).'The prosperous community: Social capital and public life.'Cognition, 2(1), 131-146. [32] Schumpeter, J.A. (1947).'Theoretical Problems of Economic Growth'. Journal of Economic History Supplement, 7, 1-9. [33] Seghers, A., Manigart, S. and Vanacker, T. (2012).'The Impact of Human and Social Capital on Entrepreneurs’ Knowledge of Finance Alternatives', Journal of Small Business Management, 50(1), 63–86 [34] Sørheim, R. (2003).'The Pre-investment Behavior of Business Angels: a Social Capital Approach', Venture Capital, 5(4), 337–364. [35] Walker, G., Kogut, B. & Shan, W. (1997).'Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network', Organization Science, 8(2), 109–125. [36] Westlund, H., Gawell, M. (2012).'Bulding Social Capital for Social Entrepreneurship’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 83:1, 101-116. [37] Woodhouse, Andrew (2006).'Social capital and economic development in regional Australia: A case study', Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 83-94. [21] Klyver, K., and Schøtt, T (2011).'How Social Network Structure Shapes Entrepreneurial Intentions?', Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 1, No.1, 3-19 [22] Krebs, V. (2008).'Social Capital: the Key to Success for the 21st century organization', IHRIM Journal, XII (5), 38-42. [23] Kwon, S.W. and Arenius, P., (2010).'Nations of entrepreneurs: A social capital perspective', Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 315–330. [24] Landry, R.; Nabil, A. & Lamari , M.(2002) .'Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent?', Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 69, 681–701 [25] Lechner, C. and Dowling, M. (2003).'Firm Networks: External Relationships as Sources for the Growth and Competitiveness of Entrepreneurial Firms', Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 15, 1–26. [26] Liao, J. and Welsch, H. (2005).'Roles of Social Capital in Venture Creation: Key Dimensions and Research Implications', Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 345–362 [27] Lin, N., Cook, K., and Burt, R.S. (2001). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital: Theory and Research, New York: Aldine De Gruyter, [28] Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, B. (2011).'Corporate social capital: Results of empirical research in a financial institution', Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 10, 62–67. [29] Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal (1998).'Social capital, intellectual capital and the 57