Exploring the Notion of Business Networking

Executive Summary
BusinessNet is a professional business network that focuses on network creation for local businesses in
primarily the Triangle Region, although they have members from all over Denmark. Currently they
have seven groups with members that range from sole proprietors to major companies, and the many
different lines of business’ that are represented in these groups provide a high level of diversity.
The purpose of this dissertation is to identify what options and possibilities BusinessNet have in order
to improve their network offering, by providing its members with valuable knowledge which they can
use to create a more well-rounded approach to their networking efforts. This knowledge the members
can then utilize to get more out of the resources they have allocated to networking.
Furthermore, the dissertation will look at what the members’ thoughts are regarding issues such as the
groups in general, their approach to, and expected gains from, networking and what negative elements
they associated networking with.
The findings of the dissertation is based on a questionnaire that 50 members answered, as well as
interviews and conversations with BusinessNet facilitators Jon Kristiansen and Carsten Andersen.
Diversity is an important part of networking, because this is one of the elements that generate value to
the members, and though heterogeneity the groups are provided with many different sets of approaches
to a wide variety of challenges. All the groups have business exclusivity in order to avoid internal
conflict by having companies fight for the same customers, it also secures a high level of diversity and
provide a more trusting atmosphere.
Through the sharing of experience everybody gains valuable knowledge they can utilize in their
respective companies, since it gives various approaches to a range of issues. Every member come with
a unique background, and it is with the experience they have gathered from that background, that they
can give valuable inputs to the members that currently are facing a similar situation. By utilizing these
inputs, a company can avoid making the same mistakes other have made – or use a similar approach if
it was successful.

In general, the members are satisfied with the product that the BusinessNet groups provides. Getting
leads, inspiration and sparring opportunities through BusinessNet were all valuable outcomes of their
membership.
The majority of the members had not clearly defined the purpose of their membership of BusinessNet
or their approach to networking. But even though they did not have precise articulate statements, most
members had an idea, it just was not the result of a thorough thought process. However, it is exactly
this thought process that is important, because it force them to be more aware of where networking
really is beneficial to them.
Those elements that were perceived as the most negative were primarily slacking behavior and lacking
attendance from fellow members. When these members do not put in an serious effort, it hurts the
value and overall potential of the entire group, because every member not attending a meeting is
guaranteed not to provide anything useful to anyone. In order to prevent this, BN should create tangible
demands to the members, and if these demands are not met, there should be repercussions. Expulsion
should be a last resort, but can be necessary in order to secure a healthy group.
Stadil and Waldstrøm (2009) developed the eight cubes of networking, a model that show and embody
the many elements networking has to offer. BusinessNet could use these cubes to educate their
members to the formal/informal, organizational/individual and internal/external elements, and through
that likely open their eyes to several new and exciting opportunities.
A drawback of the eight cubes, is that it focuses on companies of a certain size, which makes it less
viable for the sole proprietors, although not useless, because it is something they can find use for in the
future, if their company grows in size.
When a group has consisted of the same members for around two years, its potential begin to decline
and become equivalent of a coffee club, because they to some extent have exhausted each others’
networks, and the many hours they have spent together are likely to make the group continuously more
homogeneous. To avoid this, there should be rotation every two years, in order for the members to get
continuous value from their membership.

BN could create groups for those that want to try networking on more goal-oriented level, because right
now the group composition is 100% random, apart from the line of business exclusivity. By bringing
members together that share similar size and ambition level, the chance for them to engage in actual
relationships increases, instead of having the majority of the focus on lead generating.
In order to get members that have a better understanding of networking, every new prospect should be
submitted to an interview or questionnaire, where they are asked to explain why they are considering
joining BN, and elaborate on the potential they see in networking. That way the prospects have to put
serious consideration into their goals, which in turn decreases the likelihood that those who join only
do so because networking is popular.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Problem Formulation............................................................................................................................... 4
2. Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Theory of Science ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Single Case Study ................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3. Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1. Selection of Interviewees.................................................................................................................. 9
2.4. Assessing Validity, Reliability and Trustworthiness................................................................................. 9
2.5. Interview Guide .................................................................................................................................... 11
2.6. Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................................ 12
3. Company Description..................................................................................................................... 13
3.1. History and Background........................................................................................................................ 14
3.2. Vision ................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.3. Mission................................................................................................................................................. 14
3.4. Organization ......................................................................................................................................... 14
3.5. Products................................................................................................................................................ 14
3.6. Competitive Situation............................................................................................................................ 15
4. Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................................. 16
4.1. The Eight Cubes of Networking ............................................................................................................ 16
4.1.1. Corporate Relations........................................................................................................................ 17
4.1.2. Business Collaborations.................................................................................................................. 18
4.1.3. Personal Relations .......................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.4. Professional Relations .................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.5. Relation Culture ............................................................................................................................. 19
4.1.6. Organizational Structure................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.7. Colleagues...................................................................................................................................... 20
4.1.8. Work Communities ........................................................................................................................ 21
4.1.9. Sum Up .......................................................................................................................................... 21
4.2. Competitive Advantages Through Network........................................................................................... 22

4.2.1. Two Arguments, Two Levels and Two Perspectives of Networking................................................ 24
5. Analyzing BN’s Network Offering................................................................................................. 26
5.1. The Members Thoughts on Network...................................................................................................... 26
5.2. Expected Gains From Networking......................................................................................................... 34
5.3. Making the Most of Networking Efforts ................................................................................................ 42
5.4. The Negative Aspects of Networking .................................................................................................... 47
5.5. How Can BN Improve their Network Service........................................................................................ 53
6. Additional Recommendations......................................................................................................... 60
6.1. Key Performance Indicators .................................................................................................................. 60
6.1.1. Customer Satisfaction..................................................................................................................... 62
6.1.2. Economic Evolution of the Members .............................................................................................. 62
6.1.3. Attendance ..................................................................................................................................... 63
6.1.4. Customer Retention Rate................................................................................................................ 64
6.1.5.Customer Conversion Rate .............................................................................................................. 64
6.1.6. Member Engagement...................................................................................................................... 64
6.1.7. Customer Online Engagement ........................................................................................................ 64
6.1.8. Group Composition Satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 65
6.2. Entrepreneurial Elements ...................................................................................................................... 65
6.3. BN Online............................................................................................................................................. 69
6.4. Additional Suggestions.......................................................................................................................... 70
7. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 74
8. Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 77
9. Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 79
9.1. Appendix A: Transcript of the Interview with Jon Kristiansen ............................................................... 80
9.2. Appendix B: Quantitative Summary of the Questionnaire ...................................................................... 80
9.3. Appendix C: All Questionnaires, Including Both the Qualitative and Quantitative Questions ................. 80
9.4. Appendix D: BusinessNet Handbook..................................................................................................... 80

of 80
1. Introduction
“Networking between organizations has increased dramatically in number and diversity during the last
decade, yet a very large proportion of alliances fail to meet partners’ expectations and generate any
real value” (Ho and Christian, 2006).
Networking is a huge buzzword in today’s contemporary world, since it is becoming increasingly
important and is continuously gaining more attention. The reason for this surge in popularity is
primarily rooted in the belief that business networks and the process of networking, can provide access
to a number of different benefits. Not only is a healthy network thought to provide greater access to
leads and prospects from a selling perspective, by offering opportunities and exposure, but it also
provide companies with the opportunity to pool resources with each other. Networks apply to many
situations, such as in social, personal or business contexts. For companies this means that they have to
adopt an increasingly proactive strategy regarding their business partners to widen their options and
own business potential.
Through that they can create a synergy effect that no single company can develop and create on their
own, since no business is an island (Håkansson & Snehota, 1989). It is dependent on the skills,
resources, actions and intentions of suppliers, distributors, other customers and sometimes competitors
(Håkansson & Ford, 2002). A strong professional business network extends your sphere of contact
from your direct contacts, to partners of your business partners and can provide valuable help in filling
any structural holes. (Burt, 1992) describes structural holes as the gaps between non-redundant contacts
– an example could be a company looking for a resource or employee, that they are not able to find on
their own, where you can connect them with what they need.
A firm grows by being a player; it does not become a player by growing (Powell, Koput, & Smith-
Doerr, 1996). So business networking is about being proactive and gaining new business through
creation of tightly knitted relationships that are mutually beneficial to all companies involved (Ho,
2006), and can be viewed as an organism that must be nurtured continuously, in order to grow and
reach its full potential over the course of time. Furthermore, it can be argued that engaging with a
transparent agenda to gain trust, and being able to choose the right companies to cooperate with, can

of 80
help your company to gain leads, prospects and opportunities. But networking is not without obstacles
and problems. For example an organization’s performance can be largely dependent on whom it
interacts with (Håkansson & Snehota, 1989).
So engaging in networking is not necessarily solely a guaranteed positive endeavor. Some of the more
negative elements are that creation and maintenance consume both time and resources, which could
have been used in direct sales efforts or allocated to projects or product development. Additionally, a
company can be blinded by its network, meaning that they accept an easy solution offered by its current
network members, when they should exchange/improve their network ties to achieve a better solution
(Klyver, Evald & Hindle, 2011).
One company/organization that faces these different networking issues is Vejle Boldklub (henceforth
VB). VB is a professional Danish football club, which have created a division focused on network
creation for local businesses in the Triangle Region primarily, although they do have members from all
over Denmark. They call the division BusinessNet (henceforth BN). Currently BN has seven groups
with 20-35 members each, with a stated goal of 33-35 members in each group for perceived optimal
size (Jon Kristiansen – appendix A) where every member of the individual groups has industry
exclusivity, in order to avoid internal competition and thus conflicts of interests. BN host bimonthly
meetings orchestrated by Jon Kristiansen, the manager and man behind BN, and his colleague Carsten
Andersen, in Vejle as well as in Kolding. The main ideas are to help companies gain business contacts
through exposure of their company, and create value that can be seen on the bottom line.
However, as mentioned, network affiliation does not necessarily only bring a company positive
elements, so it is very important that BN is aware of the weaknesses of the networking service that they
provide, because that is the only way they will be able to help their members avoid networking pitfalls,
which e.g. could be engaging in a relationship with a less dedicated partner. Elements such as this can
be just as important as identifying networking opportunities.
An important aspect in networking theory is the notion of heterogeneous and homogeneous network
relations. Heterogeneous and homogeneous networks are defined by their level of diversity (Klyver,
Evald & Hindle, 2011). For example, if BN had one of their network groups consist of only bankers or
lawyers, they would rarely be able to offer each other new and different insight into a given situation,

of 80
because they are likely to share the same view on things because of their fairly identical backgrounds,
and thereby taking similar approaches. Their competencies are very similar, which makes it much less
likely that they will be able to bring new perspectives and ideas, which will make the network very
homogeneous. On the other hand there is the heterogeneous network, which is defined by a high level
of diversity, which for example could be a network group that has a mason, a cleaning company, an
advertising agency, a production company, etc. In this case they come with different background and
all of them provide different competencies and expertise, and thus will be able to offer different
insights, perspectives and ideas, because they have diversified knowledge from their respective areas.
One of the BN groups, consists of a phone company, a fitness company, a hospital, a carpenter and a
communication company, just to name a few - these companies perfectly illustrate the diversity of
BN’s network. Every company has their own challenges where they have a tendency to view things in a
specific way because of their past experiences in that area. Companies from other lines of business
could have some completely different approaches and points of view, which mean they can contribute
with a much broader variety of ideas and possible solutions that the focal company would never have
thought of themselves.
A thing to keep in mind when working with network, is that there is no such thing as best practice and
standard solutions (Stadil & Waldstrøm, 2009: 14), but every initiative and solution is related to the
surroundings, competencies, history and current situation of the company.
Networking between organizations have increased dramatically in both number and diversity during the
last decade, and despite the potential benefits a very large proportion of alliances fail to meet the
partners’ expectations and generate any real value (Ho & Christian, 2006).
The above statement underlines that networking is rapidly and increasingly becoming a major
contemporary aspect, and one that companies cannot afford to ignore, neglect or enter halfheartedly –
especially the latter is important, because you only get back what you put in. Moreover, it is not enough
to solely focus on creating and maintaining networks with external partners, as there are many other
aspects in networking that demand the attention of companies, if they want to harness the full potential
of their network.

of 80
1.1. Problem Formulation
When a company chooses to become a member of BN it is because they acknowledge that they need to
expand their network in a manner they are not capable of on their own. They do this in order to create a
higher level of value for themselves, as well as for their suppliers and customers through the
knowledge, competencies and potential business partners made available to them through BN. Another
important goal is improving their turnover and bottom line. Most, but not all, are aware that it takes
dedication, hard work and time in order to create this valuable network (Jon Kristiansen, 2013).
When the knowledge base of an industry is both complex and expanding and the sources of expertise
are widely dispersed, the locus of innovation will be found in networks of learning, rather than in
individual firms (Powell, 1998). That is an important reason why BN should be continuously
contemporary, and offer the service that their members are looking for, and elements that the members
probably have not even considered. Additionally, they must provide the members with valuable
connections on a longitudinal level, and not just transaction based, which it, to some extent, tends to be
at the moment. BN want to stay fresh and relevant in order create a high satisfaction level for their
members.
The main question and challenge is:
How can BN help their members, in order to create and utilize their current and potential network
resources, while continuously providing a broad, versatile and useful network for their members?
In the process of finding the answer to the main research question formulated above, four sub research
questions have been formulated, as these will help provide the information, which will assist in
comprehensively answering the main research question. They are:
A. What are the member’s thoughts about elements such as the groups in general, creation
and optimization of networks?
B. Have the member internally in their respective companies discussed, and clearly
defined, what it is they expect to gain from their membership?
C. How can BN help their members to focus on more aspects of networking than primarily
scouting for leads, and provide information and education about these aspects?

of 80
D. What negative elements are in the members’ minds associated with networking, and
what can BN do in order to avoid, prevent and negate these elements?
2. Methodology
This section is concerned with the scientific approach that underpins the dissertation. Choosing a
scientific approach can be influenced by a number of different aspects. In reference to this, Arbnor &
Bjerke makes the argument that methodological procedures are influenced by the nature of the problem
being investigated and the scientific position of the researcher (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2009: 10). The
approach is crucial in order to understand the background for the methodological and philosophical
approaches applied in the dissertation. A short explanation of the different paradigms will be elaborated
upon in the following section.
In order to make this dissertation as relevant, contemporary and accurate as possible, a wide array of
academic articles and books will be utilized in the writing process. The focus in on how the companies
that are members (or prospects) of BN, can utilize the opportunities that BN provide. Primary data will
be collected from BN members and managers, both quantitative and qualitative, in order to give a more
specific picture, rather than a general.
2.1. Theory of Science
Theory of science often operates with three main scientific points of view, or paradigms, that have a
critical effect on the writing of the assignment, as well as the data collection.
“Methodological views make the researcher think along some predetermined tracks/follow a certain
pattern…of how research should be done” (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2009: 24).
The chosen scientific paradigm is affected by the ultimate presumptions an individual has. Ultimate
presumptions are the way a person perceives the world, and looks at problems and how they look at
existing and available sets of techniques and knowledge in general. These presumptions are unlikely to
change, as they are a part of an individual’s persona, and the sum of our convictions (Arbnor & Bjerke
2009: 9). As an individual grows and gains knowledge, the ultimate presumptions are prone to
regulations, which over time could change the individual’s perception of the world, and thus cause a

of 80
paradigm shift (Arbnor & Bjerke 2009: 11). Furthermore, these ultimate presumptions greatly influence
the shaping of a paper, assignment or dissertation as in this case.
Arbnor and Bjerke define a paradigm as:
“Consisting of a conception of reality (vision of the world), a construction of science, a scientific ideal
and ethical/aesthetical aspects” ( Arbnor and Bjerke, 2009: 16)
As mentioned above there are three general paradigms, or methodological views, Arbnor and Bjerke
have named these the analytical view (positivism), the systems view (post-positivism/neo-
positivism/logical positivism) and the actors view (constructivism).
Some crucial elements of the positivist/analytical view are that reality is governed by natural laws, and
there is objective knowledge which implies that there is no influence or bias regarding the research, no
interpretation, just facts. There is one truth – you can see what happens, and the result will be the same,
regardless of the researcher. The reality is out there, and as humans we are capable of finding and
understanding it and create a testable hypotheses (Arbnor & Bjerke 2009: 81).
Some crucial elements of the post-positivist/systems view are that the world is real. Knowledge is
fallible – objectivity is a regulatory ideal, something to strive for. The approach will get us as close to
reality and objectivity as possible, but we should be conscious that complete objectivity is impossible.
Humans are not capable of complete understanding, as they lack senses and intellect. The whole differs
from the sum of its parts, as in 2+2=5 (Arbnor & Bjerke 2009: 55).
Some crucial elements of the constructivist/actors view are that knowledge is subjective and affected
by the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as objective knowledge. Realities exist in the form of
multiple mental constructions, socially and experimentally based, dependent on the eye of the beholder.
It is subjective – the inquirer and the subject of inquiry are fused together into a single entity. Their
findings are literally created in the process of interaction between the two (Arbnor & Bjerke 2009: 70).
Based on an abductive research process, the theoretical literature on the subject of business networking
will be utilized, along with an empirical examination of BN’s current setup and network concept. The

of 80
abductive approach is a mixture of deduction as well as induction, where you alternate between theory
and empirical data.
As a result of this analysis, recommendations will be proposed, which BN could apply in an effort to
improve and optimize the organizations ability to provide a broad, versatile and useful network for their
members. The profile of the members of BN is important to know, in order for BN optimize the value
they offer. Additionally it will help map the characteristics of their members, which will give them
insights in order to be able to create the right value proposition to gain additional members in the
future.
The collection of data will be conducted from the paradigm perspective of the system view, because it
takes into account that complete and absolute reality and objectivity is impossible to achieve, but
should be strived for, as well as taking the limitation of people in general into consideration, and more
specifically, the author of this assignment. Additionally, it takes into consideration that combining
knowledge or information is highly likely to create synergies, and thus create a result that is more than
just the sum of its parts. This is crucial when using our existing knowledge and mixing it with new the
new knowledge we generate, as it creates comprehensive insights that would not be available from a
single element on its own.
Often research is categorized as being either descriptive, explanatory or exploratory. However, as this
thesis follows a system view, it is difficult to determine whether the research should be categorized as
being one of these specific types or another.
The primary data will be gathered through a mixed methodology consisting of both qualitative
interviews, mail correspondence and conversations with primarily Jon Kristiansen and to some extent
Carsten Andersen, as well as from a questionnaire created and presented personally by the author to all
BN members, at their respective meetings. The personal presentation was done in order to get a high
response rate and also to help clarify any uncertainties or questions concerning the questionnaire.
Finally, data will be gathered from interviews with 3 carefully selected members that best embody the
diversity the members that the groups represent. The interviews will be conducted after the BN
members have completed the questionnaire, this is done in order to use the collected data to create a
useful and relevant interview, which takes the previously gathered information into account.

of 80
2.2. Single Case Study
When working with a single case study scenario the opportunity to go in depth is a strong positive
element. Furthermore, a single case study is excellent when it is a contemporary phenomenon, such as
business networking is, that is being investigated.
In the book “Case Study Research: Designs and Methods – Fourth Edition” it is explained that:
“The more that your questions seek to explain some present circumstance (e.g., “how” or “why” some
social phenomenon works), the more that the case study method will be relevant.” (Robert K. Yin,
2009).
This is assessed as fitting well with the research questions of this dissertation. Additionally, as the
following quote explains, case studies are appropriate when engaging in network research:
“Case studies have proved to be useful for network research in general, and network dynamics in
particular: “…it is obvious that case strategies are most suitable for the study of business networks. It
allows the study of a contemporary phenomenon, which is difficult to separate from its context, but
necessary to study within it to understand the dynamics involved in the setting.” (Halinen & Törnroos,
2005, p. 1286).
2.3. Data Collection
Primary data will be gathered from the all current members of BN through a questionnaire which will
be handed out at the meeting – with an option to fill it out online for those members that missed the
meeting. The questionnaire consists of both quantitative and qualitative questions. Additionally there
will be conducted interviews with BN members that differ in their dedication level, in order to get a
more nuanced and accurate understanding of the diversity in BN. The dedication level is derived from
parameters such as attendance level, active contribution during meetings and the number of leads
provided.
Quantitative data will be collected from questionnaires, and qualitative data will be gathered from
personal interviews with above mentioned members of BN selected by Jon Kristiansen and the author
in unity, as well as continuous conversations with BN coordinator Jon Kristiansen.

of 80
Secondary data will be gathered through a broad variety of academic network related articles and usage
of the possibilities that the internet has to offer, e.g. blogs, handbooks and articles.
2.3.1. Selection of Interviewees
In collaboration with Jon Kristiansen, three BN members would have been selected and asked to
participate in an elaborate interview. The author and Jon Kristiansen were to pick these three members
after discussing which members can contribute with views that best represent the overall diversity of
BN. But due to unfortunate circumstances, these interviews were cancelled, an explanation is provided
in the limitations and delimitations section (page 9).
2.4. Assessing Validity, Reliability and Trustworthiness
The reliability is depending on how the data gathering is conducted, meaning the accuracy of the data
collection. On the other hand validity depends on whether the investigated was actually what was
intended beforehand. A high reliability is a prerequisite for high validity.
There has to be a link between theory and empirical data, as well as a logical structure in the
assignment. That means that the gathered material has to be relevant and trustworthy. Furthermore it is
reliability that implies if the findings of the assignment are reliable and relatively free of the author’s
subjective opinions, and that other researchers would come to a similar conclusion if they repeated the
research, something which is fairly hard when dealing with qualitative research though.
The level of the data quality is assessed as being high, as much of the data will be amassed through
firsthand data collection from the members of BN. Ceteris paribus, the members would want to
contribute honestly and accurately to make the results of the dissertation as viable, precise and useable
as possible, and thus giving them better insight into working with networking, and acquiring the tools
to do so, through the findings of the dissertation.
A major part of the dissertation is based on qualitative data, which can be very subjective and is
affected, to some extent, by the eye of the beholder, so its validity and reliability must be evaluated. In
order to do so, the four criteria suggested by Guba and Lincoln (1994) are used.
The first element is credibility, which is how confident we are in the truth of the data and
interpretations. The credibility is assessed as being very high, since the BN members have it in their

of 80
own best interest to answer in an elaborate and truthful manner, which was asked by the author to be
underlined through Carsten Andersen who managed the data collection on the authors behalf during the
meetings.
The next element is dependability. This refers to how the collected data will be accurate in future
scenarios. This is fairly hard to assess, as both BN and networking in general are dynamic, and almost
certain to change over time, but that does not necessarily mean that the data will become outdated.
The third element is confirmability, which is the level of objectivity in the collected data. The data was
collected primarily through a questionnaire containing a mix of quantitative and qualitative question,
which ceteris paribus is highly likely to generate a high level of subjectivity.
Finally, there is the element of transferability, which is the degree that the findings are transferable to
other groups. Since BN is mainly SME’s it is assumed that the findings can be transferred to other
similar business networking companies in Denmark, because of both the industry diversity as well as
the relative geographical spread and diversity there is in BN. On the other hand it might not be as
accurate when comparing to organizations such as BNI (Business Network International), as they are
very large and a worldwide organization, with an extremely high level of diversity.
When the data collection was conducted, it showed some variance in the overall satisfaction of the
different groups, but because only four of the intended seven BN groups answered the questionnaire, it
lacks the full picture. The reason for the low number of respondents was, that the authors contact
person Jon Kristiansen became ill, and Carsten Andersen became the new contact person.
Unfortunately, that meant that the data collection was not prioritized, and the promises made by Jon
could unfortunately not be fulfilled.
The overall credibility of the dissertation is assessed as being mediocre, since only 50 BN members, of
the 130+, answered the questionnaire. But even though it was a fairly small number, it still provided
useful information - but whether or not it is representative for BN as a whole is impossible to conclude,
since BN was not able to provide information about the overall population, which could have aided in a
more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the credibility.

of 80
2.5. Interview Guide
A total of four interviews were originally intended in the process of writing this dissertation. The first
interview was with Jon Kristiansen, one of two current managers of BN.
A semi-structured approach was selected as the interview method, because it allows the interviewer and
interviewee to jump around topics at will, for a more fluent interview. According to Bryman and Bell
(2003), it allows close interaction with respondents and enables the interviewer to depart from the
initial interview guide and ask follow-up questions if necessary. This often produces rich and detailed
answers.
The interview with Jon Kristiansen (appendix A) was conducted at the University of Southern
Denmark in Kolding, and had a duration of a little less than one hour. The interview was conducted in a
small classroom, as this offered a more intimate setting than a larger room would. The structure of the
interview was taken from the system view, and allowed both interviewer and interviewee to stray from
the topics, in order to create a more organic interview that could address topics that would serve both as
inspiration for supplementary elements as well as exploration areas of the dissertation.
The 3 following interviews should have been with members, that best represented the diversity of BN.
The interviewees would have been selected in cooperation with Jon Kristiansen, to identify the
members that best suited the following criteria:
 A very dedicated member, which actively prepared for the meetings, have a high attendance
level and also a high activity level during the meetings.
 Secondly, a member that was perceived as best representing an average member.
 Finally, a member that did not put much effort into their BN membership, regarding preparation
and attendance as well, and might be on the verge of cancelling their subscription to BN.
Depending on the geographic location of the different companies, these interviews would have been
conducted either at the University, or immediately after a BN meeting, and was sought to have to same
characteristics as with the interview with Jon Kristiansen. The interviews would have been based on the
answers from the questionnaire, from the general BN population.

of 80
2.6. Limitations and Delimitations
The data is gathered from a relatively small geographical area, and is not necessarily transferable to
different contexts.
The results of the dissertation are not necessarily generally applicable when talking about networking,
only specifically accurate regarding BN.
In the interview with BN manager Jon Kristiansen, he stated that he could not see any problems
regarding networking, which is clearly a biased opinion, and it very important to identify possible
negative elements in order to address them before they grow and thus become much harder to handle.
That makes it important to know the members point of view, if they agree that networking is solely
positive, in order to create a more accurate overall picture.
The suggested theoretical framework is to some extent primarily viable for companies of a certain size,
because some of the elements presuppose that the company employs several departments, and not just a
handful of employees, or a sole proprietorship, which is the case for some of the members of BN.
During the course of writing the dissertation BN has changed the authors contact person twice. First
Morten Bech was fired, and secondly Jon Kristiansen, who originally initiated the link between the
author and BN, was unavailable during the data collection stage, due to illness. This caused some
confusion and unfortunately BN’s willingness to participate in this part of the study diminished with
Jon’s absence. As a result, this part of the data collection process was not as successful as it could have
been.
Some BN members did not attend the meetings where the questionnaire was handed out, and was asked
to complete it online instead. Unfortunately only one group was given the link to the questionnaire,
reducing the number of respondents significantly.
Included in the questionnaire was a request for the members to draw their network. But it was either
too overwhelming to draw, or maybe too time consuming, because it was ignored by the majority of the
respondents – and the few who did draw something made a generic network drawing, and one member
even stated that he/she had a non-existing network - rendering this part of the questionnaire useless.

of 80
After Jon’s unfortunate illness, the planned interviews with three members, as mentioned in the
interview guide, were not possible to conduct due to the prolonged nature of the data collection, and
thus ultimately cancelled.
The original intent was that the author should attend meetings with all seven groups and present the
questionnaire and be available to answer any questions the members might have. Instead, only one
meeting was arranged, while Carsten opted to conduct the rest. Of the remaining six groups three
answered, since they were the only groups that had time allocated to answer during a meeting. The
others should have been provided with an online link to the questionnaire, but unfortunately it yielded
zero answers (three online answers were given from the group where the author had access to their
email list). So what was originally scheduled to take two weeks and provide answers from all groups
and members, became a seven week process, that yielded 34 respondents.
When asked directly about what negative elements they associate with networking, many respondents
explained their views regarding network in the questionnaire, as their opinion about negative elements
in or about BN, rather than about network in general.
In retrospective, it was a mistake not to include a question about how long the individual respondents
had been members of BN, because it could have provided valuable and accurate information about how
membership duration affected the perspective of the members. Some respondents indicated how long
they had been members in relation to some of the questions, but since not asked directly, it was a
minority that did.
Under section 3.6. (page 11) there is a description of BN’s competitive situation, but no competitive
analysis has been conducted, as the scope of the dissertation is how BN can improve internally.
3. Company Description
BN is as mentioned earlier a division in Vejle Boldklub – a professional Danish football club. The
company description was created through information from conversations with Jon Kristiansen and
Carsten Andersen, as well as the conducted interview, additionally information from the BN homepage
was utilized.

of 80
3.1. History and Background
BN was founded in March 2009, by Carsten Andersen – he found his inspiration from both being a
member of Business Network International, which is the largest business network on a global scale, as
well as other network organizations. He took the elements he liked from these organizations, and
removed the elements he found redundant.
Initially BN started with two groups, but more would quickly follow. Over the course of nine months
the membership count exceeded more than 100 members, which primarily came from another division
of Vejle Boldklub, called Erhversklubben, which currently has around 450 members (vejle-
boldklub.dk).
3.2. Vision
BN does not have an official vision statement, but Carsten Andersen puts it like this; “We want to
create value for our members though expanding the individual company’s number of contacts, and
provide them with opportunities for bouncing ideas off their peers, as well as continuous sparring and
proactive networking”.
3.3. Mission
Exactly as with the vision, BN does not have an official mission statement. So again it is the words of
Carsten Andersen that provide the information. “We encourage our members to help each in any which
way they can, find out which person/company can provide you with something useful, whether it is a
potential partner or a lead to a future customer or supplier”.
3.4. Organization
When Vejle failed to achieve promotion to Superligaen last season, a member of the BN team was fired
(Morten Bech, who was the authors original contact person), as a part of a general downsizing, leaving
the organization consisting of sales manager Carsten Andersen and facilitator Jon Kristiansen.
3.5. Products
The product BN provide is facilitating proactive and profitable networking opportunities for their
members, through systematization and a concentrated effort in their bimonthly meetings, where the
members know the agenda, namely creating relations, lead generation and expanding the width of their
network.

of 80
Carsten and Jon act as facilitators, and through careful planning and structuring they provide a serious,
credible and professional product for their members.
3.6. Competitive Situation
There are many different business network organizations, on both a national and international level. In
Denmark BN is the biggest actor among football networks, a position they overtook from FCK around
2 years ago, when FCK trimmed their organization, and thus ultimately lowered their quality (Jon
Kristiansen, 2013 – appendix A).
But if we look a little further, there are numerous minor local organizations which is utilized by many
BN members to make their networking effort more effective and expand their reach. For example, in
Vejle there are BusinessVejle, ForretningsTeamet and Slagteriet as local competitors to BN. There are
also big network organizations that have a much bigger geographical scope than BN, which primarily
focuses on the Triangle Region. Some of the largest are BNI, Junior Chamber International (JCI) and
Netværk Danmark (ND).
BNI hold meetings every week (stated by Jon Kristiansen, but according to BNI’s webpage their
meetings are every other week), while BN have estimated that bimonthly meetings works better.
According to Jon Kristiansen, who is a former BNI member, it was a little too straining to meet every
week, which is why he and Carsten opted that a meeting every two weeks would be better. A survey
among the members confirm that two meetings a month is the preferred amount. As stated by Jon:
”It is all about when opening doors - the lead has to be warm, which it will be with our bimonthly
meetings. But if we only held meetings every three weeks, the lead will become cold, and lose value. So
meeting twice a month work very, very well.” (Jon Kristiansen, 2013) (appendix A).
The interview with Jon Kristiansen revealed that BN has a wide variety of members in all shapes and
sizes, from the sole proprietorship to companies with hundreds of employees. This level of diversity
contribute to keeping the network fresh, because with a high level of similarity it is limited how much
companies can learn from each other.

of 80
4. Theoretical Framework
In an effort to answer the problem formulation in an fitting manner, existing theory on the subject of
networking is utilized. In order to do this in a clear and structured way, a model has been outlined in
the figure on page 13.
4.1. The Eight Cubes of Networking
In their book Corporate Networking from 2009, Stadil and Waldstrøm define corporate networking as:
“Strategic awareness about how the company, including their employees, uses networks and
networking”.
In the book they introduce the eight cubes of networking, which illustrates that networking contains
many aspects for a company both internally and externally, which companies
can benefit from and use to their advantage. The main idea is that the model
is like a 2x2x2 Rubik’s Cube, as seen in the figure to the right. Each number
represents 2 options in a networking paradox, namely:
 Network is a company’s most important resource, but not its property
 Where is the focus – the individual or the organization?
 Network is understood informally, but managed formally
 Is the network controlled formally or informally?
 Companies are network’s and part of a network
 Where does the focus lie – internally or externally?
By analyzing the results of the questionnaire, the BN members current usage of different network
approaches will be examined, and by comparing them to the eight cubes, the intention is to pinpoint
areas of particular interest, that will create basis and opportunity for BN to help the members address
areas they probably did not even know existed. In turn BN can then help them to understand
networking better and optimize their overall networking approach by utilizing their resources in a more
optimal manner than they do today. This supplements BN’s current primary focus of lead generating.
The figure below shows an overview of the different cubes, which can contribute to creating awareness
about where networking can generate value for the company.

of 80
4.1.1. Corporate Relations
This cube contains the informal, external and organizational relations of a company. This could for
example be arrangements for business partners, where the occasion is not necessarily business related.
A specific example could be sponsor arrangements, where a company as a benefit of being sponsor of a
football club receives a VIP table that is available a few hours before kickoff, at every home match
during a season. They are free to invite business associates, and can use the time both before and during
the match to build their informal relations and network. It can also be a useful way to assess if a
potential business partner is compatible with your company culture. Basically it is all about investing
time and interest in other people, without having an underlying business agenda, at least at first,
because of course the people you invest time in, should be able to offer some kind of potential
regarding future business.
For football clubs this kind of networking can prove extremely valuable. It is fairly easy to get sponsors
when your team is winning, but much harder if they are struggling to avoid relegation. BN is a perfect

of 80
example, no matter how the results are on the football field, they have built a strong network, that will
give their members an incentive to stay, regardless of lacking success, because they have created
multilateral bonds with other sponsors and stakeholders, instead of just bilateral bonds with the club.
On a potential negative note, it is important that these relationships do not create bias and nepotism.
Furthermore, it is important not to become too dependent on a single person as the only tie between
your companies, because this can result in a relation that is tied too much to a person, rather than to a
firm.
4.1.2. Business Collaborations
This cube refers to the formal, external and organizational relations of a company, where there is
signed a contract or another kind of formal deal with a partner. This could also be one of your
employees that are on a board of some sort. While the board is formal in nature, it has an informal
dimension that can open doors and be of use for the company. These formal relations are likely to be
continuous exactly because it is a formal occasion. But it is important that the connection is integrated
into the company, meaning that the person that originally made the connection is not crucial for the
continuous collaboration, in case he or she parts ways with the company. BN is an example of the
above mentioned. The group gatherings are formal, but communication is informal in nature.
Stadil & Waldstrøm (2009: 36) talk about shrinking core/expanding periphery, which entails that
companies focus on their core competencies, and outsource everything else. When pursuing such a
strategy, it is very important to have a broad network to gain access to a wider array of opportunities.
4.1.3. Personal Relations
This cube is about the informal personal relations the employees have outside the company – family,
friends and acquaintances. Often it will be acquaintances that provide the best access to broad and
versatile networks, since ties to family and friends tend to be rather embedded and homogeneous in
nature and thus provide very similar networks. On the other hand we have loose acquaintances, they
connect us to a network we do not have access to on our own, and provide a much higher level of
diversified knowledge (Granovetter, 1973). Through BN the representatives can create bonds and ties,
which over time can lead to personal relations that will continue regardless of the individual’s
continued membership. The nature of a informal network also offer the benefit that you cannot be fired
from it.

of 80
Personal relations can also work as a sales channel and can create great value because when friends and
family vouch for a product or service, it is much more likely that you will end up buying it, compared
to presented with the same opportunity by a salesperson you do not know, simply because you trust
friends and family not to fool you into buying poor quality or something you do not really need.
4.1.4. Professional Relations
This cube relates to the formal relations individuals can be a part of, as a company representative. This
is often through memberships with annual fees. This can be organizations such as BNI, JCI and BN.
There are many other organizations than the ones mentioned, and they emphasize different things.
There can be a group solely for high level business managers that meet to discuss leadership issues
with their peers without facing judgment, it can be like JCI that primarily focus on personal
development (Martin Bjørn Marks – JCI member), or it can be like BN where companies send a
representative in order to gain leads and prospects.
But it important to underline that the company must have a goal when sending an employee to network
meetings, it should not be done just because everyone else is doing it, because it is an investment like
any other, and of course it should generate value for the company to be worth the time and effort. The
more focus on networking, the greater is the need for coordination, for example to avoid that two
account managers fight over the same customer.
4.1.5. Relation Culture
This cube refers to the internal culture and environment of the organization, and is a little more abstract
than the other cubes. In entails to what extent internal networking is encouraged, facilitated and
managed. Is it allowed to visit colleagues during work hours to chat, or maybe even encouraged or part
of a schedule? Casual chatting can both be a blessing and a curse. It can be good despite of its casual
nature, because it will give both conversationalists insight into each others’ work, which they can take
into account in their respective positions, in order to create solutions that are holistic and does not
create sub-optimization.
On the other hand it is important that these casual conversations do not turn into some kind of coffee
club, where nothing business related is being shared or discussed, and is basically just being wasted. It
is all about finding the right balance, and can vary greatly from company to company, depending on
both their internal culture and their employees. Not everybody thrive in an informal setting, and if there

of 80
is little room for the informal, an informal and hidden clique can emerge (Stadil & Waldstrøm, 2009:
102). An approach that balances the formal and informal, is perceived as the most optimal.
4.1.6. Organizational Structure
This cube is about how the company is organized internally and formally. Keywords are dynamic and
flexible structures, because that let information flow more freely, compared to traditional hieratical
organizations, where it is clear-cut, functionally divided between sales, purchase, marketing, etc.
An important aspect is having the knowledge about who has what competencies in the organization, so
assignments easily reach those who are most qualified to solve them, instead of bouncing around and
wasting both time and resources before arriving at its right destination.
As an example, Spar Nord Bank is organized decentrally and focus on internal, organizational formal
networking. Leading employees are offered courses in network management, to improve their ability to
network more consciously and professionally internally. The courses focus on creating transparency
related to which competencies, what knowledge and experience there are across the organization. With
the knowledge they obtain from these courses, they can pass it on to their respective departments, and
thus create the best conditions for communication and collective learning, and they know exactly where
to go to find specific information when it is needed (Stadil & Waldstrøm, 2009: 107).
4.1.7. Colleagues
This cube relates to the level of opportunities made available to the individual employee in order to
create strong informal relations within the organization. How much do the employees know about what
goes on in other departments? A higher level of knowledge and transparence mean that they can
incorporate other department’s wishes in their decisions, and thus create solutions with a more holistic
approach to any given problem, in that aspect it is quite similar to organizational structure cube.
A strong internal network gives the individual access to information faster than everybody else, and it
also improves chances of obtaining promotions and more attractive positions. Additionally it allows the
individual to influence decisions outside his or her normal work sphere. A good internal network is also
likely to improve job satisfaction, because of the many people the individual know and socialize with,
and it will ceteris paribus create a higher retention level for the company.

of 80
The company Grontmij Carl Bro has introduced speed networking. It is scheduled internal networking
where two people are paired at random and explain who they are, what they do and maybe what they
need at the moment. Both participants have three minutes to present these elements, and take notes,
before moving on to a new partner. This goes on for 45 minutes. Through this activation of the passive
network, employees can now put a face on the people on their phone list, plus the activity in itself
generates energy and happiness (Stadil & Waldstrøm, 2009: 109). Another positive consequence, is
that people gain insight about your personality and profession, which leads to assignments that both
faster and more easily find the right person for the job, rather than being bounced around in the
organization and wasting time.
Even though smoking is becoming increasingly frowned upon, it actually provides a strong networking
opportunity between employees, because they tend to synchronize when to smoke during the day, and
are likely to discuss organizational issues during their break, and thus gain insight and opportunity to
help with various issues. Even non-smokers join them, not to smoke, but for recreational reasons and to
become a part of the smoker network (Stadil & Waldstrøm, 2009: 109).
4.1.8. Work Communities
The final cube about work communities is related to how the company can facilitate the bonding of
their employees. It could for example be through staff social clubs or paying for gym membership, so
the employees have incentives to meet outside the company walls, with the added benefit of better
health and higher happiness of the individual. It also correlates well with Herzberg’s (The Motivation
to Work, 1959) X and Y theory, which state that some people are stimulated by higher wages, job
security, etc. (hygiene factor/X), while others crave more intangible things, like recognition, job
satisfaction and other benefits (motivational factors/Y).
This is one way to make employees bond, both with each other, but also with the company, and thus
creating a higher level of loyalty. Additionally, the expanding network of the employee has shown to
have a positive influence on overall health and life duration (Stadil & Waldstrøm, 2009: 111),
compared to those with smaller networks.
4.1.9. Sum Up
These eight cubes illustrate that there are many different aspects of networking, and how important it is
to have a holistic approach. The contents of the cubes are something that BN could use in order to

of 80
expand the scope of their product, and the horizon of the members, supplementing the primarily focus
on external elements lead generation.
4.2. Competitive Advantages Through Network
“Firms operate in the context of business relations and networks that affect the nature and outcomes of
their actions and which are potential sources of competitive advantage” (Wilkinson & Young, 2000).
A diverse and broad network can provide numerous advantages for companies. For example the
company will have access to resources as well as information that they could not get on their own, and
are not available to their competitors. They can get valuable advice and learn from others’ successes
and failures alike, both to minimize risk and increase the opportunity of their own success.
Furthermore, a broad network could introduce you to potential investors, partners and distribution
channels, as well as providing financial benefits such as for example economies of scale.
A high level of diversity in a company’s network can also give them the opportunity to act as fillers of
structural holes for members of their network, and through helping them, the chance of receiving
reciprocal services increases significantly, which underlines that:
“A firm grows by being a player; it does not become a player by growing” (Powell, Koput and Smith-
Doerr, 1996).
This works well in conjunction with the phrase “givers gain” (“If I give you business you will give me
business and we will both benefit as a result”) a concept/quote developed by BNI founder Ivan Misner
(bni.com).
Additionally, a large diverse network can help your company to create critical mass (Kim Klyver in the
class “Network, resources and entrepreneurial strategy” at SDU Kolding 27/8-12) for new services or
products, something Facebook benefitted immensely from. It is relevant for any kind of new
technology, product or service, because it increases the reach which will be much further than just your
own company’s network, since it multiplies as well as attains and generates a higher level exposure.
When companies interact with each other, they are influenced by their counterparts, and as they gain
more knowledge and experience they can utilize this to their advantage in future relationships. It also
shapes the company, because every relation brings something unique, and that can affect their

of 80
approach, culture and competencies – resulting in a company that continuously evolve through
interaction with their relations. This correlates well with the following quote from Håkansson &
Snehota (1989):
“The distinctive capabilities of an organization are developed through its interactions in the
relationships that it maintains with other parties. The identity of the organization is thus created
through relations with others”.
Intense competition can be a central driving element in pressuring and stimulating firms to innovate
and upgrade their competitive advantage (Porter, 1990), but it important to keep in mind that decisions,
big as well as small, can have an impact on both the company’s internal and external relations (Stadil &
Waldstrøm, 2009: 23). This means that all decisions should be well thought through before initiated or
implemented. An example could be a company that are considering joining BN, a well thought out
approach increases the likelihood that they will experience a successful outcome.
A firm’s resource capability is concerned with its ability to use, develop, access and combine and
complement resources with other firms in networks to take advantage of both valuable resources and
structural differences (e.g. differentiated markets, cost leadership) for developing competitive
advantage (Håkansson and Snehota 1995; Kaleka 2002). Through utilizing their network and
relationships, a company can develop collaborative advantages with their partners, because when they
pool their resources they both gain additional knowledge, which are likely to complement each other in
a manner so that they can perform better together than alone.
Exchange relationships have traditionally been classified in two types: economic and social (Homans,
1961; Blau, 1964) - these two types of relationships have been conceptualized as a zero sum (when one
company benefits, the other does the opposite) classification:
 Economic exchange is based on an explicit agreement (specified contract)
 Social exchange is based on an implicit agreement that covers non specific obligations
Networking is not a zero sum game, but a positive-sum relationship in which new mechanisms for
providing resources develop in tandem with advances in knowledge. We use relationships to gain
competitive advantage, to strengthen our core competencies and to create market position (Wilson &

of 80
Janttania 1994). In the questionnaire, a respondent explained that networking to him/her is 1+1=3, that
statement hits the nail on the head. An example could be Lego - over the years they have continuously
gained knowledge about how kids play, and they combined that knowledge with TT games, that
develop computer games. Together they have developed numerous computer games with great success,
because their competencies complemented each others’.
“It is not who you know, but who knows you - and knows what you know” (David Avrin, 2010).
This quote underlines the importance of having others know about your competencies and merits,
because that is the only way that they will endorse you to others – or engage in business with you
themselves. Image a scenario where a company is the best in the world at what they do – but if nobody
knows it, and you have no one to endorse the company, it will be much harder to succeed.
4.2.1. Two Arguments, Two Levels and Two Perspectives of Networking
In relation to the concept of networking, Klyver, Evald and Hindle (2011) introduced what they call
two arguments, two levels and two perspectives in their chapter from Handbook of Research on New
Venture Creation.
The two arguments are between heterogeneity and homogeneity. Heterogenic actors are those who are
most likely to have access to diverse and non-redundant information through their large network of
weak ties. In theory they will outperform others, because their network is larger and thus gives them
access to more opportunities, competencies and differentiated knowledge, than those with a smaller
network. An example could be if you were to host a party, and wanted as many as possible to attend,
then weak ties would be preferable over strong ties. A heterogenic network will provide a higher level
of diversity, this could for example be elements such as age, gender, education or political orientation.
Heterogeneity is important in the later stages of the business life cycle, because as a company grows in
size, so does its need for diversity and a broader range of business partners, which it more likely to
attain through heterogeneous contacts which provides a wider reach and contact surface. Heterogeneity
also pave the road related to increased likelihood of discovering opportunities, because they are in
contact with a diverse community that continuously provide them with knowledge, information and
valuable resources that they can utilize in their market approach. Finally, a heterogenic network allows
the actor to become a filler of structural holes, because being member of a diverse community increases

of 80
your area of contact, and thus enabling them to provide others with valuable information, contacts or
potential employees from their network. Furthermore, having a large network of weak ties can be
beneficial as weak ties can function as bridges between otherwise disconnected groups of people.
The homogeneity argument is often used in the entrepreneurship literature, and rests on the reasoning
that homogeneity provide strong ties. Strong ties enables entrepreneurs to gain access to sensitive
information from the high level of trusted ties in their network - for example, it could be those you
would trust taking care of your dog, when you are away from home. Homogeneity is associated with a
small network. The trust and similarity embedded in homogeneity provides a higher chance of
emotional support, which can be a crucial element in an entrepreneurs start-up phase, and the early
phases of the business life cycle, where things might not go as smoothly as intended. Strong ties also
have a higher likelihood of providing the monetary funds necessary in the establishing of the company.
An example could be parents that are willing to invest in their child’s company, even though they
might not be completely convinced of its viability. But on the other hand, the similarity connected with
homogeneity often makes much harder to develop new ideas and create innovative thoughts, because
that the mindset will be very much alike, and in that manner the community can constrain its members
(Klyver, Evald & Hindle, 2011). Additionally, (Burt, 1992) argues that strong ties involve closely
related actors, who are likely to possess similar information, thus making them redundant as they do
not provide new information or resources.
“Strong ties creates a high level of similarity and mutual obligation, because we know each other very
well” (Burt 1997).
In order to determine the strength of a tie, Granovetter (1973) has compiled a list of 4 elements:
“The strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity,
the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie. Each of these is
somewhat independent of the other, though the set is obviously highly intracorrelated” (Granovetter,
1973).
In a networking context there are two levels. The first being the relational level – related to the
heterogeneity argument, which is a relationship between two companies or individuals. On the other

of 80
hand there is the network level – related to the homogeneity argument, which focuses on key elements
such as density, size and diversity, and consists of three or more actors.
The last of the afore mentioned elements are the two perspectives, which addresses the approach to
networking. The first perspective is the rational approach, which means that we actively choose and
control who is in our network and try to select those who are most valuable to us, and is embodied by a
high level of control, though looking actively and purposely for new potential contacts continuously.
The second perspective is the embedded view. The embedded perspective relies on the assumption that
our current network is an automatic and natural consequence of the way we have lived our lives (it
refers to the individual, but is transferable to a company context, as every action taken influence the
shaping of the company), and it is hard to change. An embedded network is not carefully selected, but
more like a free network that is not restrained and allows everybody in. It includes contacts from the
past and prioritizes convenience. So, if you are truly embedded, you have no control of your network.
When joining BN a company makes a decision based on the rational approach, at least to some extent.
Because while it is a rational decision, they have very little saying in which companies they are going
to be grouped with, making that element somewhat embedded.
5.
This section will cover the findings of the primary data collected, and attempt to answer the questions
asked in the problem formulation.
5.1. The Members Thoughts on Network
Through the questionnaire it became evident that the groups are different from each other, and that
people in the same group have different perceptions about what is good and what is bad in the current
setup and approach. Overall the members are satisfied with the product that BN delivers as 88%
(appendix B) have or would recommend BN to family members, friends or professional contacts.
However, on the other hand they also see room for improvement in many different areas.
A very important point, and reason for many members’ BN membership, was that it is very exciting
and offer a great learning experience when companies share their current and former challenges alike,
and how they approached them. Often these problems are similar to the challenges that other

of 80
companies face, or have faced, regardless of the line of business they represent. These elements offer
knowledge and insight into other lines of business and create synergy through the members helping
each other by sharing experiences, as well as getting and receiving help. This is underlined by the
following quotes:
“Knowledge creation occurs in the context of a community, one that is fluid and evolving rather than
tightly bound or static” (Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996).
“Learning occurs within the context of membership in a community” (Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr,
1996).
“Talking about failures, shortcomings, and rough spots in a relationship would be equally as valuable
as discussions of successes and lessons learned” (Powell, 1998).
This creates an opportunity for the members to discuss and assess any given situation as a group, and
help each other to avoid making mistakes that have been made by others, which can be at least equally
as valuable as getting leads and prospects, to sell your product to. Additionally, a common, and
expected, reason for the members initially joining BN, was that they wanted to find future partners and
had high hopes that their membership would yield new and exciting ideas which their company could
utilize in their endeavors.
“The advantages of new relations are that they can be important sources of learning and development,
that challenge old routines and patterns of thinking” (Wilkinson & Young, 2000).
One member pointed out that his/her group was very homogeneous in some aspects – they all have a
large desire to nurture their networking skills as well as emphasizing dialogue in order to help each
other achieve it in a group effort – this kind of homogeneity is desirable for all the groups. There were
also consensus that networking was a great way to open doors and increase visibility.
Many companies share similar problems , and there is always help to get at the BN meetings through
the other members, good advice is always at hand through the combined experience of all the
companies that are represented, as well as access to new leads, contacts and potential customers or
partners.

of 80
When looking at what potential and actual value the members are hope to gain through BN, sparring
was an important aspect – because seeing a situation with different eyes and from different perspectives
are likely to offer a wider array of possible solutions and approaches, than the company would be able
to come up with themselves. This giving them the opportunity to exploit the experience and diversity of
the group to come up with the approach that is best suited for the situation at hand, and make them
grow as a company, as well as providing valuable insight for the company representatives. The
individual will gain valuable personal and professional experience, which is also the case for all the
members discussing the topic. In the context of network relationships, having differential capabilities
can be considered valuable resources (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995).
On a more negative note, an issue that was mentioned repeatedly in the questionnaire, was the general
attendance level of the different groups. Many members feel that some companies’ lack in attendance,
as well as lacking the common courtesy to report their absence in advance, severely hurts the outcome
and potential value they receive from the time they themselves invest into BN. One member even felt
that the companies that only show up sporadically seem to get more attention, which he/she felt was
unfair. Others suggested that BN should exclude the members that do not put enough effort into BN -
whether it is attendance, preparation or participation level that is lacking - or at least allocate them to a
separate group that fits their attendance/ambition level. This would make room for companies that are
more dedicated to actively participating and contributing to creating a thriving group.
In general, BN was commended on the environment they had created, but the lacking attendance gave
rise to a suggestion that there should be a minimum requirement in attendance, in order to weed out
those companies that did not put in an adequate effort to contribute to a prosperous group. So it seems
that the requirement of at least 80% attendance as stated by Jon Kristiansen (appendix A), is not being
strictly enforced. Those who found the attendance level too low were also in general those that were
anxious for more contact with the other BN groups, in order to increase the value they get from their
investment in BN.
One respondent wrote that the owner of the company that he/she represents does not see any advantage
in engaging in networking, and has no intention of investing in it, which also leaves the question of
why he/she is even there in the first place. With a support like that, it is highly doubtful that this

of 80
representative will be able create a positive value for neither the group nor his/her company – because
with no actual investment other than time, chances are that whatever little effort is put in, will yield no
benefits in the long run.
When the companies that are part of BN hire new employees, they take the network of the potential
employee into account primarily when it is a sales position that is being filled, and to a much smaller,
or in some cases non existing, extent when it is an administrative position, or a sales assistant in a retail
store like Sportsmaster. While 30% stated that they have a high or very high focus on the employees
network (appendix B), however one only explained why it was important to them, and why they found
it valuable to exploit their employees network – they said that it was because it rubbed off on their
sales, as well as increasing their visibility and the knowledge level about them.
A respondent explained that his/her focus primarily was on hiring and creating a happy employee, and
that the network of the individual was not taken into acount, in their employment process. Another
respondent explained that they had not seen the relevance earlier, but in the future they were going to
focus on this for all new employees. But of course it is also related to the line of business that is
looking for new employees. A member that described his/her company as network based found the
network of the employees extremely important – while another respondent proclaimed that network is
everything, and that they have extensive focus on hiring employees with broad networks, and through
that renewing the company, and keeping it fresh. On the other end of the scale a member representing a
retail store stated that they had no focus on it, because it simply was not relevant to them to have sales
assistants with extensive networks.
One company said that they preferred locals when they hired, they did not elaborate upon it, but it may
be linked to the possibility of getting a higher level of visibility and knowledge about the firm in their
immediate vicinity. Another member said that he/she preferred a good salesperson, to one with a large
network, but in the authors personal experience a good salesperson is more likely than not to have a
broad network, so a situation where the company would have to choose one or the other is fairly
unlikely. The only stated salesperson in the questionnaire said that networking is one of the most
valuable tools that he/she has available when finding and engaging new potential customers.

of 80
There were some companies that have not hired for some time, and then there was the one man
companies that do not currently have any employees, where the question related to employee network
were not relevant in their current situation.
Even though there was some criticism, only a single member answered that his/her satisfaction with the
BN meetings were below satisfactory, 26% (appendix B) answered that they found it average, while the
remaining 72% were satisfied or very satisfied. The positive things mentioned were opinions like BN is
better than their competitors, that BN created a great group with good energy, good variation and good
members (at least those that are active), all while keeping the networking effort focused. A few
members even praised BN, their group and how it works very well for them, and that what they do
gives both meaning and business. They stated that BN have great potential and delivers a valuable,
serious and professional product with active and business oriented members, giving members the
opportunity to meet many new wonderful people. One member pointed out that BN had opened his/her
eyes regarding resource allocation, and that his/her company would shift their focus from canvassing to
networking – which was a sentiment that was shared by another member that said that: “Selling is hard
over the phone, I need close relations”.
The structure at the meetings is also an element several members pointed out as being very good, as
well as the positive energy and nice tone that exists between the members – which ceteris paribus
makes it a little easier to connect and create relations.
Another member said that he/she liked that there are demands to the members, and that these demands
are followed up upon, which is what he/she feels is necessary to evolve. All while keeping it somewhat
informal, making sure that it is not 100% about business, but also allow for the group to have fun at
times because that also helps in building more tightly knitted relationships. Related to the informal
approach, a respondent said that his/her group has a very open approach to new members, and he/she
praised the tone of the group – something which they benefit from when they have social arrangements
and get to learn each other on a different level, and not just keeping the relationship strictly
professional.
On the other hand one member stated that he/she was all about business, being professional and
wasting no time on small talk or anything not related to networking, and he/she was very happy with

of 80
the way the meetings are conducted. So the tone of the meetings is to a certain degree in the eye of the
beholder, because here we have two fairly different wishes, but they are being fulfilled on both
accounts in the same group.
Some members were looking for improvements and more diverse agendas, as well as time allocated to
specific subjects in order to gain more network related knowledge or learn elements related to personal
development. This would be better than spending the majority of their time as either lead generators or
acquirers, which according to one member should have less time allocated at the meetings, since leads
are bound to come naturally over the course of time, as the relationships develop and strengthen. One
of the comments that stood out the most, was a member wishing for more and different networking
related subjects during the meetings, they mentioned that they want to work more with networking, and
learn how to create a better structure in their efforts to improve their current networking approach and
setup.
An individual stated that he/she was not convinced that the network that BN provides was valuable,
and that he/she was not interested in giving business if the favor was not returned. The few truly
negative comments were related to a lack of both discipline and efficiency in the groups, which often
made the meetings take longer than planned, and thus interrupting the timetable of those that had other
appointments scheduled. Again it is related to the eye of the beholder, as members of the same group
said completely opposite things about the same subject. Additionally, a few members felt that their
group has become a little rusty and the agendas was becoming increasingly slavish – probably meaning
that they have been together for a long time and have more less extracted what they can from each
other. A few respondents felt that they did not get their money’s worth and are currently considering
quitting, if things stay the way they are at the moment.
For some members networking is aimed at being a permanent part of their future marketing efforts –
and through an increased activity level it is believed to become their most valuable sales channel.
Through word-of-mouth these companies hope to minimize marketing costs, while gaining a higher
level of exposure of their brand. Through BN they acquire good opportunities to gain many contacts
and relations in a relatively short period of time, and as they nurture these relations, over time, they
hope to gain endorsements from them. Not many respondents explained how they approached

of 80
networking with examples, but one member illustrated how his/her company approached networking -
by sponsoring different sporting events and inviting current and potential customers to these events, to
build or maintain relationships, in an informal manner. The outcome was a new and refreshing
experience that helped them build more tightly knitted relationships.
Eight members proclaimed that their future networking efforts would likely be the same as it is today
(appendix C). For some it meant maintaining a high level of proactiveness and awareness, while others
explained that because of their limited time or resources, they felt that the current effort was sufficient
for the time being. A few members stated that they would work hard to improve their networking
awareness and focus in the future. Unfortunately many respondents skipped the question about future
networking efforts, thus indicating that they have not made plans or discussed their approach internally.
There was a comment that stood out negatively in relation to the above, namely a member that stated:
“I am not convinced that networking is important, it depends on who is in the network – we have joined
BN because networking is a buzzword, and we have not put much thought into it”.
While no one else were this blunt about it, the questionnaire indicated that many of the members had a
similar approach. With an approach like this, it can prove to be very hard to reap any benefits from
networking, because the glass is seen as half empty from the get-go, and that will likely prohibit the
company from engaging actively and openmindedly, and chances are that it will minimize the potential
that other members see in them.
Exactly this topic was brought up by a member that felt that too many companies did not realize their
potential networking gains, simply because they did not have a plan or any kind of proactive approach,
they simply joined because it is popular at the moment.
Regarding the group composition the majority was satisfied or happy with the 100% random mixture
(except for the business exclusivity) of companies in their respective groups. Some stated that this way
they get companies in their network, that they would have never even considered outside of BN, and
through the diverse composition they hear new and interesting stories and experiences which they can
learn and benefit from.

of 80
While the current groups work fine for generic lead generating, they lack when it comes to a focused
effort in improving network for companies that differ in size. If a meeting focuses on how small
companies can improve their network, the larger ones will not benefit much, and vice versa.
For example, sole proprietorship companies will not benefit much from learning about how improve a
company’s internal network, while the larger ones could learn valuable lessons. It raises the question
whether to change the current groups and make them more goal-oriented. Perhaps there should be
created subgroups, that attend meetings besides the regular ones, or theme days that are based on the
size of organizations that the members represent.
Those members who were dissatisfied with the group composition argued that without a goal oriented
combination of members, meetings often ends with a more or less useless outcome. A less random
group composition would make for sense for these companies.
One member wrote that he/she would certainly continue with the membership, and would like to try
one of the other groups sometime in the future. This would both broaden their network, but also allow
them to gain all the benefits they have gotten from their current group all over again, through all the
new members they would come to interact with.
An important point that was brought up, was that BN create synergy between the participants but it is
primarily due to the member’s efforts – but of course that is related to the frames and opportunities that
is provided by BN, one thing without the other would not have the same synergetic effect.
Many of the respondents agreed that focused networking is a must in the business world of today, and
the overall impression from the questionnaire is that most of those who are not already engaged in
focused networking, are making it a part of their future agenda. Through BN they hope to exploit the
opportunities efficient networking have to offer.
From time to time BN pull the members out of the meeting room to go to fairs, or hold the meetings at
one of the member’s headquarters – at least those who have the capacity for it. In relation, a member
wished for more opportunities to get to know the other members more in-depth on both a personal and
professional level, something that the individual found hard to do at the regular scheduled meetings.

of 80
Time equals quality – those respondents that were most positive about their group pointed out that
many members of that particular group had been members for a long time, and over time they had
grown closer. That closeness contributed to creating a better mood, as well as a more friendly and
unrestrained atmosphere during the meetings, which they believed allowed people to be able to be
themselves and ask for help, since they do not feel nervous about sharing their plans, problems or other
sensitive subjects.
Getting closer to leads, assignments and jobs are without a doubt one of the most important aspects
when companies initiate their prospect period - where they have a chance to see if BN is something
they would like to invest in. Getting leads was top of mind for those members that stated that they were
relatively new in their BN experience.
Not many members had specific goals in terms of financial improvement. However, it was more like a
general expectation to reap the benefits from their networking efforts, that people were concerned
about. One respondent wrote that he/she expected 25% of future customers to come via networking.
However, as the comment stood alone with no explanation, it seemed like it was a random number, not
a prediction that had any initiatives or thoughts invested.
5.2. Expected Gains From Networking
The previous section made it clear that quite a bit of the respondents had not put much thought into
want they expected or wanted to gain from networking in general, and more specifically from their BN
membership.
So, even though that 62% of the members stated that they had clearly defined exactly what it is they
want from their BN membership, and networking in general (appendix B), most of these members just
answered that it was about getting more business for the company they represent, when asked directly
(appendix C). Numerous members did not elaborate at all or had fairly unambitious and generic goals
such as increasing turnover by at least the cost of the BN membership. Others had postponed creating a
goal or accepted lacking a focused effort, because they were trial members still evaluating whether or
not BN was worth their time – this can be attributed to Exchange Theory.
“Exchange Theory is based on the notion that people review and weigh their relationships in terms of
costs and rewards. Costs are those elements in the relationship that have negative value to a person.

of 80
Rewards are those elements in the relationship that have positive value to a person” (Ho & Christian,
2006).
However, it became evident through other answers in the questionnaire that most members actually had
some idea about why they had joined BN, but was not able to put it into an articulate statement, it was
more like a general idea or approach. For example, one member wrote that:
“We do not have a stated networking goal, but we strive to get leads, relations and improve care of
current customers”.
Even though it is not necessarily a bad goal to engage in networking for the sake of increasing business
and turnover, it lacks ambition and a thorough thought process, because of course networking - as any
company initiative - is ultimately about generating business and turnover, making the stated goal of
increased turnover more or less redundant. A good example is a company that did not describe their
goals specifically, but made it clear that they believed that engaging in networking was a necessity,
because they expected to be dependent on network and sales through relations in the future. Another
respondent highlighted that creation of trust and bridge building are crucial elements. They were
supplemented by someone who stated that trust is paramount in his/her line of business, and that active
networking could provide a shortcut. However, trust is important regardless of the company being a
carpenter or a major corporation, because trust is the foundation, if any kind of relationship or
endorsement is to take place in a future scenario. This idea is underlined by the following quotes:
”Memory reaches far back, loyalty and fair play are very crucial elements in future cooperation” Lars
Ryholl, divisional CEO in Ib Andreasen Industries. (Stadil & Waldstrøm, 2009: 71).
“If honesty cannot be taken for granted, the cost of surveillance and enforcement is high. In other
words it is in the parties’ best interest to trust one another” (Young & Wilkinson, 1989).
Most of the members that represented themselves as sole proprietorship businesses, emphasized that
personal development, for example learning how to communicate effectively with different types of
people that require different approaches, as well as expanding their social network, was crucial factors
for them joining BN. On the other hand, personal development was also mentioned by members that
represented companies with more employees. An example being a respondent that said:

of 80
”I have joined because I want to evolve as a leader – and create contacts, and perhaps sales”
(appendix C).
During the interview with Jon Kristiansen (appendix A), he talked about his experiences with how
people came out of their shell after taking in the atmosphere of BN - changing from introvert to
extrovert - which is a good example of personal development.
Some of those that answered that they had no current goal with their membership, related it to them
being new members and that they were just now learning the ropes and absorbing the experience. But
that is not an excuse for not having a stated goal, because every new initiative should have a goal,
whether it being networking or social media presence. Any initiative launched just because everyone
else is doing it, is more likely than not, going to fail.
Another reason for the absence of goals was attributed to lack of resources - so one company felt that
just joining BN would be a decent start, and that an increased level of engagement would follow
eventually, at least if the membership proved to be of value to them. Another respondent that named
lack of resources as a reason for limited networking, wrote that he/she chose to become a member of
BN and fully dedicate himself/herself there. That way he/she could put in a 100% focused effort to
strengthen relations, instead of dividing the resources to more business networks, and having a variety
of halfhearted memberships.
As mentioned earlier, attendance at the meetings could be a lot better, but on the other hand there are
some that really put a lot of pride into being a good and useful member. Different members mentions
that elements like attending every meeting, preparing beforehand, being visible and contributing
actively to the group are very important elements to them. What you give affects what you get - the
more you give, the more you get - is also pointed out as a networking philosophy. Some members even
underlined that they took an altruistic approach, because one of their goals, was to share their network
and contacts, which would likely allow them access to other members network, and that just amplifies
the significance of the above-mentioned.
While having a stated goal is important, the crucial element is to get through the process of discussing
what the company expects, both in order to maximize potential gains but also to know how to approach

Exploring the Notion of Business Networking

Exploring the Notion of Business Networking

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Exploring the Notion of Business Networking

Similar to Exploring the Notion of Business Networking (20)

Exploring the Notion of Business Networking