Journal Pre-proof

Competitors as advisors: Peer assistance among small business entrepreneurs

Tera L. Galloway, Kristine M. Kuhn, Marueen William-Collins

PII: S0024-6301(18)30161-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101929
Reference: LRP 101929

To appear in: Long Range Planning

Received Date: 20 February 2018

Revised Date: 28 October 2019
Accepted Date: 29 October 2019

Please cite this article as: Galloway, T.L., Kuhn, K.M., William-Collins, M., Competitors as advisors:
Peer assistance among small business entrepreneurs, Long Range Planning (2019), doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101929.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Competitors as advisors: How cooperative environments impact the use of peer assistance
among small business entrepreneurs

Tera L. Galloway*
Department of Management and Quantitative Methods
College of Business
Illinois State University
P.O. Box 5580
Normal, IL 61790-5580
Tel: 309-438-2914
Fax: 309-438-8201
e-mail: tlgallo@ilstu.edu

Kristine M. Kuhn
Department of Management, Information Systems, & Entrepreneurship
Carson College of Business
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-4743
Tel: 509-335-1694
Fax: 509-335-3851
e-mail: kmkuhn@wsu.edu

Marueen William-Collins
Entrepreneurship Outreach Center
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0120
Tel: 319-215-2596
e-mail: maureen.collins-williams@uni.edu

*corresponding author
Competitors as advisors: Peer assistance among small business entrepreneurs

For small business owners, competitors present a potentially excellent source of advice but one

which many owners may view with skepticism. Drawing from the knowledge-based view and

peer support frameworks, this study explores coopetition among small business entrepreneurs by

examining owners’ use of advice and support from both their direct and indirect competitors.

Survey results from over six hundred small business owners indicate that their reliance on advice

from these two types of peer competitors depends on both their perceptions of advisors’ ability to

provide quality advice and whether they perceive their industry environment as more competitive

or more cooperative.

Keywords: Peer advice, advice networks, coopetition, soft support

1
... “It's kind of a feeling that they are giving you good advice and they are not trying to send you

down a winding path of badness.”

- Owner of a cake-decorating business

Introduction

The benefits to entrepreneurs of receiving informal advice and support from their peers

are increasingly recognized by both researchers and entrepreneurship development programs

(Babson College, 2014; Fischer & Reuber, 2003; Kuhn & Galloway 2015; Kuhn, Galloway &

Collins-Williams, 2016; Mathias, Huyghe, Frid, & Galloway, 2018). Unlike traditional advising

and mentoring relationships developed with paid professional or government agency business

advisors, peer-to-peer advising provides entrepreneurs with encouragement and fresh

perspectives from people who often have similar experiences and who face similar challenges.

Small business researchers have long been interested in local networks of owners (e.g., Ring,

Peredo, & Chrisman, 2010), and the internet now facilitates peer networking and advice seeking

among entrepreneurs who may never meet in person (Kuhn & Galloway, 2015; Kuhn et al,

2016). Many entrepreneurial support programs actively encourage peer advising (Kauffman

1MC, Goldman Sachs, etc.). For example, the Young Entrepreneur Council provides members-

only forums for peer-to-peer support that is available around the clock.

Unlike more commonly studied sources of business advice, however, peer advisors are

often competitors to those they advise. While nascent firms and start-ups are particularly

dependent on advice and support from external counsel, knowledge gaps can continue to

motivate the pursuit of this resource in later stages of development (Chrisman et al., 2005;

Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Hoang & Antoncic, 2003). To date, academic research and theory in

entrepreneurship has paid little attention to how informal peer advice seeking is shaped by

2
competition. The present study addresses this gap by exploring coopetition in the form of peer-

to-peer advice.

Sharing advice and seeking support from competitors are a form of coopetitive behavior

(Mathias et al., 2018). Coopetition refers to the concurrent presence of cooperation and

competition to create novel benefits (Bengtsson & Kock 2000; Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton,

2018) and the firm’s application of the knowledge and skills accessed through the coopetitive

relationship (Rai, 2016). Coopetition capitalizes on the benefits of both competition and

cooperation and can be used for organizational learning (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000), access to

new information (Spence, Coles & Harris, 2001), and to advance technological innovation

(Gnyawali & Park, 2009). While many explicit coopetitive actions, such as standardizing

common packing systems across competitors to facilitate supply management (Bengtsson &

Kock, 2000), have been shown to benefit firms, here we focus on a less tangible (and less

frequently studied) aspect of coopetition by examining factors that influence when entrepreneurs

seek the knowledge-based resources provided by competitors (Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton,

2018, Mathias et al., 2018).

One assumption made by many practitioners is that competition precludes the trust

required for a beneficial advisory relationship. Some structured peer advising programs explicitly

proscribe members who compete. As one example, the Alberta Women Entrepreneurs’ (2015)

structured peer mentorship program adopts the perspective that entrepreneurs benefit from

advice and support received from peers in other industries, but not their own:

We have found that as a business grows, regardless of the industry, owners are

facing many of the same pain points. Because of the similar pains, and the

3
 significant focus on the peer group, we do not admit businesses that operate

closely in the same industry or would be considered competitors.

Yet many entrepreneurs do in fact seek advice from those they compete with, and create

their networks based on resource needs (Kuhn & Galloway, 2015; Reddrop & Mapunda, 2015;

Sullivan & Ford, 2014). While direct competitors face the threat of competition within the same

product and consumer markets they are not the only competitive threat that firms face. Firms that

compete indirectly can engage in an indirect attack on resource scarcity, for example, as opposed

to imitation attacks from direct competitors. Indirect competition includes parallel firms such as

potential substitutes, as well as firms whose commonalities go beyond simple product type and

who could potentially vertically or horizontally integrate into the competitive space (Peteraf &

Bergen, 2003). Differences in between these two types of competitive threats could therefore

affect the likelihood, or nature, of coopetitive behaviors.

Although peers who sell the same type of product or service to the same target market are

in direct competition with one another, they can easily relate to one another’s challenges, as they

possess complementary, 'deep' knowledge within that industry and setting (Kuhn & Galloway,

2015; Mole, Hart, Roper & Saal, 2011). Because competition colors their relationship, these

peers may be unlikely to seek or provide advice absent trust (Lewis & Weigert, 1985).

Conversely, peer advisors who do not directly compete might be perceived as lacking that deep

knowledge; yet these advisors would presumably have less reason to act opportunistically or to

take advantage of the advisee. In order to trust advice, advisees must believe the advisor is both

capable of providing good advice (has relevant knowledge or expertise) and that she has good

intentions toward the advisee (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2010). Given the substitutive nature of indirect

competitors (Peteraf & Bergen, 2003), these advisors may provide more novel and innovative

4
solutions due to the greater distance among these competitors’ knowledge-bases (Xu, Wu &

Cavusgil, 2013). However, a critical determinant of whether advisees seek knowledge from

indirect competitors is based on their perception of how useful that knowledge will be; for

judgmental tasks (for which there is not a demonstrably correct answer), people tend to prefer

advisors they see as similar to themselves (Tuk, Verlegh, Smidts, & Wigboldus, 2019), and

entrepreneurs may view indirect competitors as less able to provide useful advice.

Here we define ‘peers’ as other business owners, and we distinguish between those who

directly compete with one another by offering the same type of product or service to the same

target market, and those who indirectly compete by either offering similar products/services to a

different target market, or by offering different products/services to the same target market. Both

types of peer advisors can possess relevant knowledge, but direct competitors are likely to have

more similar knowledge bases and experiences (Mole et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2013). Conversely,

while indirect competitors would have somewhat adjacent knowledge bases and experiences,

they may represent less of a competitive threat. Furthermore, how competitors perceive each

other’s knowledge and ability to provide value-creating advice will influence whether an advisee

uses the advice provided. Finally, we suggest that founders’ perceptions of the external

environment, specifically whether they see the industry context as either more competitive or

more supportive, will influence their willingness to engage in this form of coopetitive behavior.

While several studies have demonstrated that receiving advice from peers can benefit

businesses (c.f. Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Gnyawali & Park, 2011; Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton,

2018), to date we know little about the factors that underlie owners’ decisions to seek and rely on

peer advice. We address this gap by examining how owners’ perceptions of advisors’ abilities

and of their external environment influence coopetitive value creation. Drawing from

5
contingency theory and the knowledge-based view, we posit that an entrepreneur’s reliance on

peer advice is shaped by whether the peer is a direct or indirect competitor, the peer’s perceived

expertise, and whether the external industry environment is perceived as more competitive or

more cooperative. Because peer advice is especially relevant for small business owners, we

surveyed over 600 in the U.S. Midwest, answering the recent call by Welter and colleagues

(2016) for greater focus outside of the high-performance network of elite entrepreneurs.

Theory & Hypotheses

Advice serves as a source of new ideas, innovation, and change, and provides tacit knowledge

(Harmon et al., 1997). The knowledge-based view suggests that tacit resources are

heterogeneous to the firm and thus difficult to transfer or integrate into other firms or contexts,

yet they are an important source of competitive advantage (Dierickx & Cool, 1998; Grant, 1996).

For smaller businesses, filling these knowledge gaps may be particularly difficult since most

owners have less experience and knowledge, compared to larger firms, and they are often unable

to afford private consultants (Bennett, 2008; Chrisman, McMullen & Hall, 2005). As result,

small business owners often rely on informal networks when seeking advice and support to assist

with the wide variety of problems they face. Peer advice may fill in knowledge gaps to help

businesses function more efficiently. The importance of advice and support offered among peers

has only recently been recognized and explored; owner-managers of competing businesses

would be particularly credible as they have relevant expertise and context-specific knowledge

(Bengtsson & Kock 2000; Chell & Baines, 2000; Fischer & Reuber, 2003; Gnyawali & Ryan

Charleton, 2018; Mathias et al., 2018).

Peer advice as a form of coopetition

6
Advice is one form of coopetitive behavior, where coopetition is defined as simultaneous

cooperative and competitive relationships among competitors with the intent to generate value

(Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Gnyawali & Park, 2011). On one hand,

coopetitive behaviors can be characterized as formal relationships among firms such as legal,

contractual relationships or strategic alliances. On the other hand, coopetition can also include

informal relationships such as advice provision, counseling, and networking. In this paper, we

restrict our focus to informal relationships or soft support in the form of advice offered between

peer firms.

Soft support behaviors are especially critical for small firms (see Slotte-Kock & Coviello,

2010, for a review) where mutual benefit and trust are crucial (Morris, Koçak & Özer, 2007).

Here we propose that the perceived ability of the advisor to offer value to the advisee (rather than

mutual benefit) and trust are the most critical components of soft support peer advisory

relationships. While trust can positively influence risk-taking behavior, the amount of risk one is

willing to take is dependent on the level of trust between parties (Schoorman, Mayer & Davis,

2007). Thus, given the significant risk of opportunism in advice seeking among peers in

coopetition, we define trust as one's willingness to be vulnerable (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen,

1998; Schoorman et al., 2007). Further, when sharing advice and support, perceptions of the

advisor will greatly influence these interactions. Because soft support is not based on clearly

articulated outcomes and objectives, as is the case when contractual relationships and alliances

are created, perceptions of value play a critical role in the willingness to seek and incorporate

knowledge.

The entrepreneur’s perception of the environment

7
While much literature in coopetition has focused on the tangible and intangible benefits of

coopetitive behavior (Bengtsson & Kock 2000; Gnyawali & Park, 2009; Gnyawali & Ryan

Charleton, 2018) less research has focused on when to engage with different types of

competitors. As noted earlier, entrepreneurship support initiatives often presume that knowledge

should be protected from, not shared with, competitors. So, while competitors may be capable of

providing the best advice because of their similarity and relevant experience (Baum & Mezias,

1992; Kuhn & Galloway, 2015), concerns over opportunism may limit whether their advice is

sought or utilized.

Uncertainty exists when firms have difficulty predicting the future due to incomplete

knowledge and competitive environments can increase uncertainty (Beckman, Haunschild, &

Phillips, 2004). Behavioral theorists have called for research that considers “the impact of

situational context on decision making to account for a number of variables, including decision

framing” (Gavetti, Greve, Levinthal & Ocasio, 2012 p.532). While much research has focused on

cognitive processes, social influences, and structural conditions of networks, here we examine

the advisee’s perceptions of the competitive landscape (i.e., as more competitive or more

collaborative) as a specific form of uncertainty. Perceptions of the external environment

influence firms by framing and shaping organizational behavior (Collet & Phillippe, 2014).

While individuals’ perceptions of their environment are presumably shaped by its objective

characteristics, it is their subjective perceptions of the environment, which are the proximal

causes of their behavior. For example, Nishii, Lepak, and Schneider (2008) studied employees of

a single large organization and found that individual perceptions of the same organizational

policies differed substantially; employees’ subjective interpretations of the policies shaped their

firm-related attitudes, and thus their behaviors and performance outcomes. This paper further

8
discusses how small work units within the larger organization developed shared attributions; the

analogy would be that participating in a peer forum or mentoring group would help develop a

shared perception of the industry as cooperative (or competitive if it failed) which other firms in

the industry would not necessarily perceive.

Hostile intent and self-interested focus lead to suspiciousness and caution among

competitors (Chen & Miller 1994; Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton, 2018). However, coopetition is

promoted in situations where safeguarded resources are in place as relationships are supported by

stability, informal norms, and tacit safeguards (Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton, 2018). Perceptions

of these normative behaviors positively influence coopetition, as firms are more likely to offer

advice and support to competitors (Mathias et al., 2018). We suggest that coopetitive behavior

can be influenced by the perception of the industry environment as being more supportive as

compared to more competitive. In those environments where business owners perceive more

support, they will be more likely to pursue advice from individuals at competing firms.

Hypothesis 1a: When the environment is perceived as more supportive (less competitive)

entrepreneurs will rely on direct competitors for advice.

When seeking advice, advisees often perceive unique information as more important and

influential than shared or redundant information as this provides a new perspective to resolve

issues or make strategic plans (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). Since direct competitors often face

similar challenges and relate to similar stakeholders, the advice they provide should be similar to

what advisee knows. Indirect competitors may be more capable of providing novel solutions and

creative insights (Newbert. Tornkoski & Quigley, 2013).

Indirect competitive threats exist when commonalities, beyond the simple product type,

allow these firms to vertically or horizontally integrate into the competitive space (Peteraf &

9
Bergen, 2003). Advice from indirect competitors is advantageous as these sources of knowledge

can help to address structural holes and network diversity often connecting entrepreneurs to

complementary resources and knowledge. When knowledge gaps are reduced, firms gain faster

access to diverse information with the potential to yield new opportunities or competitive

advantages (Burt, 1992; Stam, Arzlanian & Elfring, 2014). Newbert and colleagues (2013) found

that greater heterogeneity within the network, such as diversity of ties, positively affected

nascent entrepreneurs. Further, the frequency and strength of the tie did not limit or specifically

enhance these benefits. Thus, we suggest that advice from indirect competitors can fill structural

holes to benefit small business owners.

However, further research is needed to reveal how different environmental contents can

impact the benefit of these structural holes (Stam et al., 2014). In the absence of competitive

pressures business owners may seek advice from indirect competitors, but they must still trust

that the advisor will not act opportunistically; if trust is lacking, the advice will not be readily

utilized. Supportive environments may provide a unique context where business owners are most

likely to seek peer advice, trust their advisors, and thus use the advice. While direct competitors

typically attack through imitation, indirect competition includes firms in parallel industries that

could attack the firm via substitutes or resource scarcity (Peteraf & Bergen, 2003). In situations

where business owners perceive greater threat, they are less likely to pursue advice from indirect

competitors. Due to the indirect nature of the competition between indirect peer advisors, these

advisors may be perceived as having less opportunistic motivations, and thus a safer source of

advice. However, indirect competitors can still mount attacks via substitutes or resource scarcity

(Peteraf & Bergen, 2003). Thus advisees are more likely to depend on advice from indirect

10
competitors when the external environment is perceived as more collaborative (as compared to

competitive).

Hypothesis 1b: When the environment is perceived as more supportive (less competitive),

entrepreneurs will rely on indirect competitors for advice.

The entrepreneur’s perception of the peer advisor’s ability

Entrepreneurs will be more likely to rely on advice from peers they believe possess

valuable knowledge applicable to their business. In general, beliefs about an advisor’s expertise

influence whether the advisor is trusted and whether the advice will be acted on (e.g. Constant,

Sproull & Kiesler, 1996; Harvey and Fischer, 1997; Sniezek, Schrah & Dalal, 2004).

Organizational leaders are more willing to use advice from those they perceive as subject matter

experts (Giffen, 1967; Mayer et al., 1995; Schaubroek, Peng, & Hannah, 2013). Experience and

expertise not only influence an advisee's reliance on advice; they can also contribute to the

usefulness of that advice and assist with problem solving (Constant et al., 1996). These factors

would suggest that advice from a knowledgeable source has a strong likelihood of positively

affecting the advisee's business.

Direct competitors have the potential to provide valuable, complementary knowledge and

advice that can be easily integrated since, by their very nature, they have 'deep' and context-

specific knowledge (Mole et al., 2011). Some research has examined the knowledge acquisition

from competitors through the lens of substitute versus complementary knowledge (Caloghirou,

Kastelli & Tsakanikas, 2004; Xu, Wu & Cavusgil, 2014). For example, in the context of strategic

alliances among competitors, when knowledge complements current routines and processes, such

as when firms acquire and integrate new information based on similar knowledge-bases, new

solutions are developed more efficiently (Grant, 1996; Xu et al., 2013). Overlapping knowledge

11
and routines makes it easier for firms combine capabilities and create synergy (Kogut & Zander,

1998). Firms that compete directly face similar pressures and have relevant resources.

Collaboration between direct competitors can assist firms in the creation and development of

new skills and as they have a relevant and germane knowledge base (Quintana-Garcia &

Benavides-Velasco, 2004). Because of the homogeneous nature of within-industry knowledge,

we expect that entrepreneurs will see direct competitors as capable of providing useful advice.

Further, we expect that entrepreneurs will be more likely to seek out advice from direct

competitors when they perceive advice from other sources (i.e. indirect competitors) as less

useful, which further encourages them to pursue advice from direct competitors, despite the risk

of opportunism.

When business owners seek recommendations or information regarding a decision or

course of action based on a perceived knowledge gap, the advice from direct competitors may

address specific needs and provide tacit knowledge unavailable from other external sources. As

direct competitors develop “overlapping dominant logics and deep understanding of each other’s

competitive behavior and priorities” (Gnyawali & Park, 2011; Gnyawali & Ryan Charleton,

2018), this “deep” industry knowledge allows direct competitors to easily relate to one another’s

challenges (Kuhn & Galloway, 2015; Mole et al., 2011). When direct competitors engage in

collaborative behavior and advising, they are well positioned to learn from each other since this

understanding of the core functions and operations can allow firms access to new skills and to

create new capabilities (Quintana-Garcia & Benavides-Velasco, 2004).

Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurs’ perceptions that

direct competitors are able to provide valuable advice and entrepreneurs’ reliance on

direct competitors for advice.

12
 Yet, advice that provides unique information (rather than shared or redundant

information) can be especially valued because it provides a new perspective to resolve issues or

make strategic plans (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). Since direct competitors often face similar

challenges and relate to similar stakeholders, the advice they provide may be similar to what

advisee already knows. Xu and colleagues (2013) found that while complementary knowledge

among allied competitors provides more incremental innovation among alliance partners, when

there is greater distance in the knowledge-base among competitors (i.e. when knowledge is more

novel to the firm) the knowledge gained can serve as a substitute leading towards the

development of radical innovation (as opposed to incremental innovation). Thus, indirect

competitors may be more capable of providing novel solutions and creative insights (Newbert et

al., 2013). Further, due to the indirect nature of the competition between indirect peer advisors,

they may be perceived as having less opportunistic motivations.

Advice from indirect competitors could be considered advantageous as these sources of

substitutive knowledge can help to address structural holes and network diversity often

connecting entrepreneurs to complementary resources and knowledge. When knowledge gaps

are reduced, firms gain faster access to diverse information with the potential to yield new

opportunities or competitive advantages (Burt, 1992; Stam et al., 2014). Newbert and colleagues

(2013) found that greater heterogeneity within the network, such as diversity of ties, positively

impacted nascent entrepreneurs. Further, the frequency and strength of the tie did not limit or

specifically enhance these benefits. Thus, we suggest that advice from indirect competitors can

fill structural holes to benefit small business owners. However, further research is needed to

reveal how different environmental contents can influence the benefit of these structural holes

(Stam et al., 2014).

13
 When seeking advice, advisees often perceive unique information as more important and

influential than shared or redundant information (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). Pursuing a multi-

disciplinary approach to knowledge sharing can improve the value and quality of that advice

(Dyer, 1994; Su & Dou, 2013). Given the role of knowledge heterogeneity in creating a

competitive advantage (Grant, 1996), we suggest that advisors from peripheral industries may

provide knowledge that is heterogeneous when applied to different industries, however, not all

knowledge is useful, as it can be difficult to transfer and integrate that knowledge into different

competitive contexts (Gilbert, McDougall and Audretsch, 2006; Grant, 1996). The ability of that

advisor to identify cross-sectional application is critical. While indirect peers may be perceived

as safer sources of advice, they may not be perceived as the best source of advice since they may

not have the depth of relevant knowledge as compared to direct peer advisors. This would

suggest that the perceived ability of the advisor is even more important when seeking advice

from indirect competitors since the implementation of a recommendation may not be as easy in a

different context. Thus, when indirect competitors are perceived to have a strong knowledge base

and can provide applicable advice that is related to the advisee's issue, these advisors may act as

a source of substitute knowledge and provide a unique perspective when problem solving.

Hypothesis 2b: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurs’ perceptions that

indirect competitors are able to provide valuable advice and entrepreneurs’ reliance on

indirect competitors for advice.

Interactions

As noted above, advisees must believe the advisor is both capable of providing good advice, in

that she has relevant knowledge and expertise, and that she has good intentions toward the

advisee (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2010) in order to trust the advice they receive. As such,

14
environments that are perceived both as supportive and where the advisor has particularly useful

advice will promote greater use of that advice and support.

We have suggested that entrepreneurs’ perceptions of the degree of competitiveness

among firms creates a contingency effect that frames and shapes their behavior (Collet &

Phillippe, 2014). In environments that are less hostile, advisees may be more willing to trust the

advice as trust alleviates the risk and uncertainty associated with collaboration (Constant, et al.,

1996; Welter, 2012). Given that coopetitive behavior can be influenced by the perception that the

environment is more supportive, we suggest that founders will be more likely to pursue advice

from owners of competing businesses when the environment is more supportive. Advisees may

be more willing to accept some vulnerability in these supportive environments, because they

perceive opportunistic behavior as less likely (Mayer, et al., 1995). Thus, given that advice from

direct peer advisors can pose significant risk of opportunistic behavior, we expect that more

supportive environments will promote greater reliance on advice from advisors with high ability

to provide germane advice.

Hypothesis 3: Entrepreneurs’ perceptions of the ability of direct competitors to provide

valuable advice, and their reliance on that advice is moderated by the collaborative (or

competitive) nature of the environment.

While we argue that reliance on advice from indirect competitors will increase in the

context of supportive environments, we also believe that a critical aspect of whether advisees

will pursue knowledge from these sources is contingent on whether that advice from this source

is relevant and apropos to the advisee’s situation. While the applicability of business advice from

direct competitors can usually be assumed, advice from indirect competitors may not be as

germane to the advisee's business needs. As previously noted, when firms acquire and integrate

15
complementary information (when firms have similar knowledge-bases) solutions are more

easily incorporated and developed more efficiently (Caloghirou et al., 2004; Grant, 1996; Xu et

al., 2013). However, when knowledge is more novel to the firm, the knowledge gained can serve

as a substitute leading towards the development of more novel processes and innovation (Xu et

al., 2013). Because of that novelty, the ability of an indirect-competitor peer advisor to

understand their advisee’s business is vital. We argue that the level of acumen the advisee

attributes to the advisor, namely their perceived ability to provide germane, valuable, and

applicable knowledge that relates to the entrepreneur’s business, is a critical determinant of

whether or not an advisee will elect to rely on that source of advice. This perception of the

advisor’s ability will influence whether the advisee seeks advice from that source, and

perceptions of the relevance of any advice received will determine whether the advice is

accepted and implemented. As such, an advisor’s level of expertise influences the degree of trust,

usefulness, and likelihood that the advisee will act on that advice (e.g. Constant et al., 1996;

Harvey & Fischer, 1997; Sniezek, et al., 2004). We believe situations characterized by

supportive environments coupled with perceptions that the novel information provided by

indirect competitors will be useful and applicable to the firm. Thus, we propose that supportive

industry environments, coupled with beliefs that indirect competitors have novel and applicable

knowledge, lead entrepreneurs to seek advice from indirect competitors.

Hypothesis 4: Entrepreneurs’ reliance on indirect competitors for advice in supportive

environments will be moderated by the perceived ability of indirect advisors.

Sample and Method

Key questions related to this study’s hypotheses were added to an annual statewide survey of

small business owners, conducted in 2012. Recruitment letters were emailed to 16,094 small and

16
micro business owners in a Midwestern U.S. state using information supplied by a university-

affiliated entrepreneurship center and by a marketing data firm. Over a two-week data collection

period, 850 potential respondents logged onto the survey website. Partially completed surveys,

respondents who opted out, businesses with over 50 employees, and those who did not have

currently operating businesses, former and future business owners were removed, leaving a

usable sample of 609 respondents for this study.

We developed new items specifically for this study as we sought to assess novel research

questions, but only a limited number of items could be added to the survey. To validate that our

measures reflected meaningful distinctions and relevant factors, we conducted 10 interviews with

entrepreneurs (not respondents), who were identified and contacted through a university

entrepreneurship center. Some of the key questions that interviewees were asked included:

“What characteristics are important to you when selecting a business mentor or advisor?”, “What

determines a business mentor’s ability to provide you good advice?” and “What factors influence

your willingness to trust a business mentor or advisor?” We also asked if “some industry

environments were more conducive to sharing advice.”

We also included an open-ended question on a survey the following year1 and established

that people discussed these factors without prompting. Specifically, we asked the question, “In

your opinion, what is the best way to connect to other small business owners that are useful

sources of advice and support?” If the survey participant indicated they did not use peer advisors,

we asked, “Why have you never sought advice and/or support from other small business

owners?” We analyzed these comments for additional validation of our assumptions and

measures.

1
This was a wholly new survey administered the following year, which targeted small business owners in the same
state but were not necessarily the same respondents. This survey did not ask any of the direct/indirect scale
questions. The main analysis from this survey is presented in a later paper.

17
Qualitative Analysis from Interviewees

In our one-to-one interviews, informants were asked about what factors were important to them

when selecting a mentor or advisor, and factors affecting their willingness to trust advisors. The

open-ended question that was included on the following year’s survey asked respondents to

elucidate “other small business owners that are useful sources of advice and support?” This

phasing was used as it did not direct respondents towards direct or indirect competitors but left it

open for them to explain whom they used for advice and support, and why. Excerpts from

subsequent this survey and our interviewees are included in Table 1.

------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
-------------------------------------

Participants most often cited relevant experience, as well as interpersonal skills such as

listening ability. Several reported that being in the same industry was a “contributing factor” to

choosing an advisor, because those within the industry have the ability to foresee potential

problems “because they’ve been there.” They also reported beliefs that some industry

environments or “specific industries may be more or less trustworthy” and thus would be more

conducive to advice sharing than others, but that “culture of the industry more than anything

else” could influence this behavior. For example, one respondent stated, “If the culture is one

that embraces a “we’re all in this together” attitude and/or is openly supportive of building

something greater than any one individual or company, I think the likelihood of pursuing help

and giving advice goes up.” These comments support our contention that providing advice (not

only receiving it) creates value for both parties in the exchange and thus illustrates the reciprocal

nature of advice.

18
 Participants referred to their direct competitors as others who were in their industry,

which influenced the development of our definition. Several participants and interviewees

comments suggested advice from direct competitors was complementary in nature, stating, “It’s

more helpful to connect with the same industry people” as those outside the industry “don’t

understand your frustrations and needs.” Other participants expressed skepticism toward

competitors, stating that it was uncommon to help direct competitors due to “trust issues.” One

survey participant noted, “I don't always know that you get the exact information with your

'local' merchants, [as they] often feel threatened with possible competition.” While interviewees

acknowledge the value of working with direct competitors they often noted that when they

sought advice from it was often done so with caution.

The measure of indirect competition was developed and validated via the comments from

interviewees and survey participants. For example, a respondent stated, “I connect with other

people who have the same scope of work but in different markets,” and noted that they have

“friends that are in the same type of industry but offer different services as well. They are

beauticians and I am a barber.” These sources were characterized as less threatening sources of

advice and support. One person noted,

You have to work with competitors outside your area, to help you with ideas,
suggestions, throw ideas out there… I wouldn't want to share ideas directly with my
direct competition. You have to work with them outside your competition area, yet in the
same kind of demographics, city population, income levels, etc.... (Survey)
Indirect competitors were often characterized by the words “related businesses,” “local

businesses that are similar in nearby areas that serve a different member base,” or “other people

who have the same scope of work but in different market areas.” For example, one survey

participant noted,

19
 I would like to compare notes from time to time with some other people who have a
similar business structure to mine… The structure of the business is a lot more
important than the precise industry. (Survey)

Further, indirect competitors were often noted as sources of unique advice that advisees

could not obtain from advisors within their industry. Supporting our arguments that indirect

competitors provided more substitute-like knowledge (i.e. novel knowledge which could lead to

more “radical” processes and innovation) (Caloghirou et al, 2004; Xu et al., 2013) respondents

noted that they sought indirect competitors for new ways of thinking and new perspectives to

approach problem solving; they expressed a desire for “out of the box” thinking and “cross

pollination” of ideas. To obtain this information, they sought advisors from “related businesses

whose owners/operators are generally helpful by nature and can provide valuable information.”

For example, two business owners stated the following:

I am a big fan of "cross pollination" where people are coming to the table from all
walks of life. It can take a little more translation, and it promotes looking at things with
a completely different lens. (Interview)

I get my industry and I am not necessarily wanting advice on how our competitors or
others in the industry are conducting business. I think I have a decent handle on that… I
need my blinders knocked off…. I want to be challenged on what I am doing and what I
am saying. (Interview)

These interviews and survey comments helped us to create and validate our definitions

of direct and indirect competition and also lend support to our arguments that direct

competitors act as complements while indirect competitors are substitutes. Direct

competitors were defined as those offering the same products/services to the same target

market, while indirect competitors were defined as businesses offering different

products/services to the same market, or businesses offering the same products/services to a

different target market.

20
 Some respondents did not seek advice and support from other small business owners,

reflected in comments such as “everyone is out for themselves and not to help others” and that

there is “no one I trust.” One individual specifically noted that “seeking advice and support from

others invites competition or exposure.” On the other hand, a few respondents mentioned that the

exchange of advice helped to build trust. These comments support our assertion that perceptions

of the competitive environment influence advice-seeking behavior.

The expertise of advisors is clearly important to advisees. One respondent wrote that his

“business is too different” for most potential advisors to be able to offer applicable advice, and

others commented on the lack of knowledgeable advisors. For example, a contractor noted the

following:

The problem with flipping houses is that there are very few people who do this
professionally. I received LOTS of advice from anyone who could grab my ear. At first I
listened and tried out their suggestions, but I quickly realized that I needed to ask the
questions: Who is this person? Where are they getting this information from? Is this
person an expert on this subject? Do they fix plumbing as a profession, or are they just
telling me what they think I should do. Most often, people who talked to me where not
experts and often never actually did the work they advise on. Although they meant well,
99% of the time the suggestions and advice was just plain wrong. (Survey)
These comments supported our argument that the distinction between direct and indirect

competitors is salient to owners when they evaluate advisors, as is their actual ability to provide

useful advice.

Survey Measures

A key distinction in this study is that between direct and indirect competitors. Direct competitors

were defined as “businesses offering essentially the same products/services to your target

market(s)” while indirect competitors were defined as “businesses offering different

products/services to the same or similar market(s) as yours, or businesses offering the same

products/services as yours but to a different target market than yours.” Business owners were

21
asked how much they relied on their direct competitors (i.e. “Traditionally, to what extent have

you relied upon advice and/or support from your direct competitors?) and on their indirect

competitors (“...advice and/or support from indirect competitors?”) using 5-point Likert scales.

Respondents were asked to rate “most businesses in your industry” on a 5-point scale

ranging from “cut-throat” to “supportive” to assess their perceptions of the business’

environment. Interview responses indicated that environments characterized as more

“supportive” would be perceived as having higher trust among peers and as more collaborative,

whereas owners perceived less trust and more opportunistic behavior in “cut-throat”

environments.

Respondents were asked to “rate the level of knowledge, related to my business needs,

possessed by” direct and by indirect competitors, and to rate the usefulness of any advice

provided by each of these two sources on Likert-type questions. The average of the two items for

each category formed the perceived ability of direct competitors and perceived ability of indirect

competitors measures.

Control variables included industry, firm size, and firm age, and the entrepreneur’s age,

education level, and gender. Business size was measured as the total number of employees in the

firm. Firm age, entrepreneur age, and education level were assessed categorically. For example,

for firm age, respondents could select one year, 1-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, or more than 10

years. Entrepreneur age was categorized in ten year increments from “less than 29” to “70 or

above”. We also included controls for the geographic availability of peer advisors. Respondents

were asked how many times they had sought advice from small business owners in their town or

region (“local”) and from small business owners outside of their town or region (“non-local”) the

previous year using a scale of 0 to 4 or more times. Location of the respondent’s business was

22
coded as to its level of ruralness using the US Department of Agriculture Economic Research

Service’s Rural-Urban Continuum. We include a dummy variable to control for the ease of

access to local advice by measuring if the business was located in an urban (0) or rural (1)

location.

Because firms that are experiencing difficulties may be more likely to seek external

advice, relevant control variables were also included (Robson & Bennett, 2000; Seo, Perry,

Tomczyk & Solomon, 2012). Respondents were asked to mark any of a variety of listed topics

(e.g., competition, taxes, finding qualified employees, etc.) that were 'pressing problems' for

them the previous year, and the total number of problems identified was included. They were

also asked to indicate the number of public support resources used, selected from a variety of

public initiatives and government programs. Respondents were asked to indicate whether their

business’ revenues had grown, remained the same, or decreased in the previous year. Firm

growth was categorized as 1 if revenues had grown and 0 if revenues stayed the same or

decreased.

Results

Sample. A slight majority of respondents (55%) were male, and over 90% had some post-

high school education, with 53% reporting a bachelor’s degree or higher. The median respondent

was between 40 and 49 years old and the average business size was five employees. One

industry, manufacturing, was significantly and negatively associated with reliance on advice

from direct competitors (but not significant for indirect competitors).

We use ordinary least-squares regression to test our hypotheses. We checked the

variance inflation factors (VIFs) to assess if multicollinearity is a problem and the results

indicated that multicollinearity does not pose a problem to our results. Table 2 provides the

23
descriptive statistics and correlations among the key variables. Further, because the dependent

and independent variables were collected at the same time with the same instrument, we applied

Harman's post hoc one-factor test (Harman 1967; Podsakoff & Organ 1986) and found that the

variables did not result in a strong first factor, which indicates that common method bias is not a

limitation of our data.

Table 3 and Table 4 provide the regression results for hypotheses 1-3, which examined

the reliance upon advice and support provided by direct and indirect competitors. In addition to

control variables in testing for the amount of advice and support relied by direct competitors, we

included advice relied on by indirect competitors, as well. We found overall support for H1

suggesting that founders’ perceptions of the environment positively influences their likelihood to

rely on advice competitors. As noted in Table 3, Model 2, supportive environments are

significant and positively related to advice from direct competitors (H1a). Table 4, Model 2 was

also significant as advice from indirect competitors was likely to be relied upon when

environments were more supportive (H1b).

-------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 2, 3 & 4 and Figure 1 about here
-------------------------------------------------------

Hypothesis 2 was also supported. As shown in Model 3 on Tables 3 and 4, advice from

direct competitors (H2a) and indirect peer competitors (H2b) was more likely to be utilized when

the advisor was perceived as having a high level of ability. However, the impact of the

environment lost significance for indirect advisors (Table 4) when perceived ability is included

in the model. We also find that when entrepreneurs rely on advice from the indirect competitors,

they rely less on advice from direct competitors as this sign is negative and significant in Model

3. However, reliance on direct competitors was positively related to relying on advice from

24
indirect competitors. This lends further support to our argument that peer advice from indirect

competitors may act as substitutes for peer advice from direct competitors; however, this was

only significant when indirect competitors’ ability to provide relevant knowledge was perceived

as high.

Model 4 in Table 3 show supportive environments positively influence the use of advice

by direct competitors when they were perceived as having high ability (H3), as the interaction

was significant. While Hypothesis 4 was not supported as the interaction between perceived

ability and environment was not related to reliance on advice from indirect competitors, upon

graphing the results, we did find that the results were in the hypothesized direction; see Model 4

in Table 4.

Post Hoc Analysis

In addition to testing our results separately for direct and indirect competitors, we created a

combined variable to examine total (direct and indirect) competitor advice reliance and total

competitor ability. We then tested Hypothesis 1 (the impact of environment on total advice

reliance) and Hypothesis 2 (the impact of advisor ability on total advice reliance) using these

variables. Both Hypotheses 1 and 2 remained positive and significant. However, while the

interaction between total ability and the influence of the external environment on total advice

reliance was positive, it was not significant. This also suggests that industry environment may be

crucial for determining reliance only for direct competitors (Hypothesis 3).

Exploratory analysis of peer advice and firm performance

Given that we examine a specific source of advice, direct and indirect peer advisors, we

expect there may be further nuance to how advice from these two different sources affects

performance; accordingly, we conducted a post-hoc exploratory analysis to examine how the use

25
of advice from direct and indirect competitors impacts firm outcomes. Given that the founder

will be aware of the overall profitability for the firm and also be able to consider other

nonfinancial measures, we examine growth as a dichotomous variable and conduct a binary logit

analysis. Perceived growth was defined in the survey as “new investments, new products, new

customer segments or new employees” and scored as a 1 if the owner characterized their

business as having expanded during the year or as 0 if they reported stability or downsizing.

------------------------------------------
Insert Table 5 and Figure 2 about here
--------------------------------------------

We found that perceived growth was positively related to the utilization of advice from

direct peers but not from indirect peers. This supports our arguments that substitute (novel)

knowledge is more difficult to incorporate successfully as compared to complementary

knowledge (those with similar knowledge base). Environments that were more supportive or

positive in nature were significantly and positively related to founders’ perceived growth. We

further examined and graphed the interactions between the environment and source of advice.

The characteristics of the environment and advice from direct competitors were positively related

to perceived growth. Supportive environments positively moderated reliance on advice from

direct competitors. The interaction between indirect competitors and environmental

characteristics was not significant. Thus, assistance from direct competitors, supportive

environments, and the combination of these two factors are positively associated with firm

performance.

We find that perceived ability is not only critical to the use of advice among competitors,

but, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, finding knowledgeable advisors who are also direct

competitors is positively associated with firm growth. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we find that

26
supportive environments encourage coopetitive behavior because founders are more willing to

solicit advice from competitors. This suggests that when environments are perceived as being

more supportive, uncertainty and concerns over opportunism can be assuaged as one’s

willingness to trust competitors increases.

Discussion

In this study, we explore the competitive and cooperative dynamics in advice seeking behavior to

identify when entrepreneurs are more likely to seek out advice from competitors and what factors

influence these decisions. We draw a clear distinction between direct and indirect competitors by

proposing that direct competitors have the potential to provide valuable knowledge and advice

that can be easily integrated, due to their 'deep' and context-specific knowledge (Mole et al.,

2011). In contrast, we suggest that indirect competitors may be able to provide more novel

solutions and creative insights due to their more distant knowledge base (Newbert et al., 2013;

Peteraf & Bergen, 2003; Xu, Wu & Cavusgil, 2013). We explore coopetitive relationships from

the perspective of complements and substitutes and find advice from direct competitors appears

more complementary in nature; it is easier to incorporate and utilize advice from those with

similar knowledge bases and routines. However, due to the competitive dynamics of these

relationships, trust plays a key factor as to whether this source of advice will be pursued. Further,

when the perceived ability of indirect competitors is low, entrepreneurs relied more heavily on

advice from direct competitors. This could imply that owners prefer their more complementary

knowledge when substitute knowledge is too novel or too far from the owner’s knowledge base.

In contrast, advice from indirect competitors may serve as a substitute that is used when

peer advice from direct competitors is not available. Even so, the ability of direct competitors

appears to not be in question (as these results were significant and positive) yet owners choose

27
not to use this resource. While advice from indirect competitors seems more difficult to

incorporate, this resource is used when these business owners are able to provide relative and

germane advice. Interestingly, the competitive/cooperative nature of the external environment

does not impact the decision whether or not to utilize substitutes but does impact the use of

complements.

Welter and colleagues (2016) suggest that scholars need to start championing the “other”

entrepreneurs, those heroes outside of Silicon Valley, in our own lives, families, and

communities. To answer this call, we explore how small businesses succeed and flourish in their

own environments by examining coopetitive behaviors among small businesses in the Midwest,

United States. By exploring these questions, we extend the literature on coopetition by focusing

on soft support in the form of peer advice offered between firms. While previous macro-level

research suggested that coopetitive behavior can be formally induced by institutional incentives

and constraints (Collet & Phillippe, 2014; Mariani, 2007), here we show that informal macro-

level conditions, including perceptions of these environments, can positively or negatively

influence coopetitive behavior. We extend the knowledge-based view to examine the

circumstances in which owners utilize and implement knowledge resources from competitors

and when these knowledge resources provide the most value to the firm. Our results suggest

owners will seek advice from peers when the advisor is seen as competent and when the industry

conditions are characterized as coopetitive, which confirms the work of Bonaccio and Dalal

(2010).

We find that when the business context is perceived as a supportive environment,

coopetitive behavior increases among direct and indirect competitors. As noted by an

interviewee, advice seeking “invites competition or exposure.” As such, the perception of

28
whether or not one will be taken advantage of is highly relevant. Even in situations where

competition is low, if one perceives a high competitive threat, they will be less likely to seek out

advice. This suggests that concerns over opportunism can be assuaged by the perception that

players in the competitive space “play nice.” In the post-hoc analysis, we find support suggesting

that supportive environments may have positive impact on performance (perceived growth). As

noted in Figure 2, we found that when business owners rely on direct competitors in

unsupportive environments, growth was negatively impacted. This suggests that excessive trust

in the context of opportunistic environments has potentially harmful implications for the firm,

despite the advantages of relevant and useful advice from direct competitors.

Entrepreneurs are more likely to seek out advice from direct competitors when they

perceive advice from other sources (i.e. indirect competitors) as less useful. Further, we find that

reliance on advice from direct competitors was positively related to perceived growth (Table 5).

These perceptions may also explain why some advisees sought advice from direct competitors,

despite the risk of opportunism.

Knowledge, or cognition-based trust is often considered trust "from the head" based on

competence and reliability (McAllister, 1995) and these knowledge gaps can drive the pursuit of

this resource in later stages as well (Chrisman et al., 2005; Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Hoang &

Antoncic, 2003). Interestingly, we found that the reliance on peer advice from competitors does

not diminish with the age of the firm or the age of the entrepreneur. For example, one

entrepreneur noted in an interview, “Since I have been in business for 40 years, I have developed

relationships with competitors…who are honest, hardworking, resourceful entrepreneurs. Many

of them will share their experiences and opinions with me.” Other entrepreneurs noted that over

time they became more collaborative with competitors as “the collaboration that occurs is worth

29
more than the risk of having an idea stolen. This adds to the literature in coopetition and may

suggest that organizational learning is a key component within coopetition despite the firm

lifecycle and age.

We find support confirming the work of Newbert and colleagues (2013) as respondents

noted that indirect competitors were sources capable of providing novel solutions and creative

insights. The advisee’s perception that an advisor has the ability to provide useful advice

influences whether an advisee will seek and ultimately take that advice. This is no surprise—one

is likely to seek the smartest people when looking for advice. What is interesting is when that

advice has greater value, when pursuing advice from indirect competitors. It is also not

surprising that the external environment has a moderating effect on advice reliance. The lower

the perceived threat, the higher the chances that the advice will be pursued from peer sources.

However, this effect only occurs when the advisor is a direct competitor. We suspect that this

stems from advisees’ perceptions that advisors in the same competitive space with higher ability

pose a greater threat. Advice from a strong direct competitor may be seen as both helpful and

dangerous. Advice from a strong indirect competitor may be seen as helpful and benign. Thus,

how one perceives the competiveness among firms has less impact when considering advice

from indirect competitors.

Contribution and Practical Application

This study sheds light on how informal support structures arise. We find that the nature of

competition in both the direct and indirect competitive space helps determine the willingness of

individual small business owners to seek and accept advice from their counterparts. This

knowledge may help formal support groups design better structures by taking into account how

owners view their peers. A practical implication of these results that merits future research is the

30
link between growth and reliance on direct competitors for advice. While owners tended to rely

more on indirect competitors than direct competitors for advice, reliance on indirect competitors

for advice was not significantly associated with firm growth, whereas entrepreneurs who relied

on direct competitors were more likely to report growth. If additional research supports that

direct competitors do in fact provide more beneficial advice, entrepreneurial support programs

and public policy initiatives may want to reconsider assumptions (discussed in the introduction)

that discourage mentoring or communication among direct competitors.

Limitations & Future Research

The strengths of this study include the large number of respondents and diversity of sectors

represented, but it has the standard limitations of cross-sectional surveys. We sought to address

some of these issues by incorporating qualitative data from a survey the following year. While

reverse causality could influence results, based on the judgment and decision-making literature

we argue that fundamentally, the assessment of advice precedes utilization (Harvey, Harries and

Fischer (2000). With this in mind, we argue that during this assessment period, the source of

advice, the content of the advice, and the proximal influence of the perceived environment are

incorporated, and these factors then influence the utilization of advice.

Due to participant fatigue and dropout concerns, we were limited in the number of

additional questions that could be added to an already lengthy survey. We were therefore unable

to collect detailed information about peer interactions or assess specific motivations for pursuing

advice from specific peers. The type of advice sought from different advisors and perceptions of

its utility are likely to vary. These would be important questions for future research.

Additionally, due to survey design restrictions, we used a dichotomous variable to

examine performance, namely the owner’s report of whether the business had grown or not. In

31
our exploratory analysis, we found that advice from direct competitors was positively associated

with business growth, but caution is warranted given the limited nature of the performance

measure. Self-report performance measures have some advantages, since studies that only

consider firms’ financial performance may undervalue the firm’s social capital (Stam et al.,

2014), but we acknowledge this limitation and suggest future research examine longitudinal

financial and non-financial outcomes to test causal effects of different sources of peer advice.

Because here we were interested in the effects of the environment on advice seeking, we

assessed environment solely via the perception of the business owner. This leaves open the

question of the degree to which objective characteristics of the environment interact with

individuals’ personalities, dispositions, and experiences to shape their perceptions. Additionally,

we were not able to observe or measure the actual implementation of the advice provided to

entrepreneurs. We encourage other researchers to tackle this issue.

The main novel contribution of this study is that the sources of advice (the advisors) may

be the advisees' competitors and that when complementary knowledge (direct competitors) is not

perceived to be available and/or trustworthy, entrepreneurs may seek substitutes for that

knowledge through the advice from indirect competitors. The phenomenon of coopetition, where

competitive businesses cooperate and assist each other, has been an area of burgeoning interest

in both strategic management and entrepreneurship. While we focused only on one aspect of

coopetition, the use of advice and support from competitors, we believe this study lends further

support to the coopetition literature. Future studies exploring the circumstances influencing when

firms offer advice and support to competitors and the resulting impact on growth would further

illuminate this important aspect of coopetition, particularly by examining the advisor’s

perspective. For example, future research could examine the conditions under which advisors are

32
more or less willing to help other firms, which specific kinds of knowledge they are more likely

to share, and whether advisors’ decisions are shaped by the larger environment. Recent literature

has also explored why business owners value some advisors more than others (Strike, 2013;

Kuhn, Galloway & Collins-Williams, 2017). Ring and colleagues (2010) argue that social capital

in rural communities could facilitate the formation and development of business networks. We

look forward to future studies that explore contingency factors such as the contexts of online

interactions and specific geographic regions in order to provide additional nuance in

understanding coopetitive behavior among small businesses.

References
Babson College. (2014). Stimulating small business growth: progress report on Goldman Sachs
10,000 small businesses, available at: www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/10000-
smallbusinesses/US/news-and-events/10ksb-impact-report-2014/program-report.pdf
(accessed May 9, 2019).
Baum, J.A.C. & Mezias, S.J. (1992). Localized competition and organizational failure in the
Manhattan hotel industry, 1898-1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 580- 604.
Beckman, C.M., Haunschild, P.R. & Phillips, D.J. (2004). Friends or strangers? Firm-specific
uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 15,
259–275.
Bennett, R.J. (2008). SME policy support in Britain since the 1990s: what have we learnt?
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 375-397.
Bengtsson, M. & Kock S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business Networks—to cooperate and compete
simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426.
Bonaccio, S. & Dalal, R.S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature
review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127-151.
Bonaccio, S. & Dalal R.S. (2010). Evaluating advisors: A policy-capturing study under conditions of
complete and missing information. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 227-249.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.
Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I. & Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge
sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1), 29-39.
Chell, E. & Baines, S. (2000), Networking, entrepreneurship, and microbusiness behavior,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(3), 195-215.Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (1994).
Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: an expectancy valence framework.
Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 85-102.

33
Chrisman, J.J. & McMullan, W.E. (2004). Outsider assistance as a knowledge resource for new
venture survival. Journal of Small Business Management, 42, 229-244.
Chrisman, J.J., McMullan, E. & Hall, J. (2005). The influence of guided preparation on the long-term
performance of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 769-791.
Constant, D., Sproull L. & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic
weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science 7(2), 119-135.
Collet, F. & Philippe, D. (2014). From Hot Cakes to Cold Feet: A Contingent Perspective on the
Relationship between Market Uncertainty and Status Homophily in the Formation of
Alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 406-432.
Davidsson, P. & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301-331.
Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
advantage. Management Science, 35(12): 1504-1511.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P. & Mullen, M.R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture
on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601-620.
Dyer, W.G. Jr. (1994). Potential contributions of organizational behavior to the study of family-
owned businesses. Family Business Review, 7, 109-131.Fischer, E. & Reuber, A.R. (2003),
Support for rapid growth firms: a comparison of the views of founders, government
policymakers, and private sector resource providers, Journal of Small Business Management,
41(4), 346-365.
Gavetti, G., Greve, H.R., Levinthal, D.A. & Ocasio, W. (2012). ‘The behavioral theory of the firm:
assessment and prospects.’ Academy of Management Annals, 6, 1–40.
Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in
the communication department. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 104-120.
Gilbert, B.A., McDougall, P.P. & Audretsch, D.B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and
extension. Journal of Management, 32(6), 926-950.
Gnyawali, D.R. & Park, B.J.R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors
for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663.
Gnyawali, D.R., & Park, B.J.R. (2009). Co opetition and technological innovation in small and
medium sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business
Management, 47(3), 308-330.
Gnyawali, D.R. & Ryan Charleton, T. (2018). Nuances in the Interplay of Competition and
Cooperation: Towards a Theory of Coopetition.
Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17, 109-122.
Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., Raghian, M. & Smith,
D. (1997) Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business
Venturing, 12, 423–434.
Harvey, N., Harries, C. & Fischer, I. (2000). Using advice and assessing its quality. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, 81(2), 252-273.
Harvey, N. & Fischer, I. (1997). Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing
responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 117-133.
Hoang, H. & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 165–187.
Kuhn, K.M. & Galloway, T.L. (2015), With a little help from my competitors: Peer networking
among artisan entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3):571-600.
Kuhn, K.M., Galloway, T.L. & Collins-Williams, M. (2016), Near, far, and online: small business
owners’ advice-seeking from peers, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
23(1), 189-206.

34
Kuhn, K.M., Galloway, T.L. & Collins-Williams, M. (2017), Simply the best – An exploration of
advice that small business owners value. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8:33-40.
Lewis, J. D. & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-59.
Mariani, M.M. (2007). Coopetition as an emergent strategy: Empirical evidence from an Italian
consortium of opera houses. International Studies of Management & Organization, 37(2):
97-126.
Mathias, B.D., Huyghe, A., Frid, C.J. & Galloway, T.L. (20178). An identity perspective on
coopetition in the craft beer industry. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3086-3115.
Mayer, R.C, Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.
Mole, K., Hart, M., Roper, S. & Saal, D. (2011) Broader or deeper? Exploring the most effective
intervention profile for public small business support. Environment and Planning, 43(1): 87–
105.
Morris, M.H., Koçak, A. & Özer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: implications
for performance. Journal of small business strategy, 18(1), 35.
Newbert, S.L., Tornikoski, E.T. & Quigley, N.R. (2013). Exploring the evolution of supporter
networks in the creation of new organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 281-
298.
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P. & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR
practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer
satisfaction. Personnel psychology, 61(3), 503-545.
Peteraf, M.A. & Bergen, M.E. (2003). Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: a market based
and resource based framework. Strategic management journal, 24(10), 1027-1041.
Rai, R. K. (2016). A co-opetition-based approach to value creation in interfirm alliances:
Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of
Management, 42(6), 1663-1699.
Reddrop, A. & Mapunda, G. (2015). Family businesses: seekers of advice. Journal of Family
Business Management, 5(1), 90-115.
Ring, J.K., Peredo, A.M. & Chrisman, J.J. (2010) Business networks and economic development in
rural communities in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34.1, 171-
195.
Robson, P.J.A. & Bennett, R.I. (2000). SME growth: The relationship with business advice and
external collaboration. Small Business Economics, 15(3), 193-208.
Quintana-Garcia, C. & Benavides-Velasco, C.A. (2004). Cooperation, competition, and innovative
capability: a panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms. Technovation, 24(12),
927-938.
Schaubroeck, J.M., Peng, A.C. & Hannah, S.T. (2013). Developing trust with peers and leaders:
Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(4), 1148-1168.
Schoorman D.F., Mayer R.C. & Davis, J.H. (2007). An Integrative model of organizational trust:
Past, present and future. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 344-354.
Seo J.H., Perry V.G., Tomczyk D. & Solomon G.T. (2014). Who benefits most? The effects of
managerial assistance on high-versus low-performing small businesses. Journal of Business
Research 67(1): 2845-2852.
Slotte Kock, S. & Coviello, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship research on network processes: A review
and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 31-57.

35
Sniezek, J.A., Schrah, G.E. & Dalal, R.S. (2004). Improving judgment with prepaid expert advice.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(3), 173-190.
Spence, L.J., Coles, A.M., & Harris, L. (2001). The forgotten stakeholder? Ethics and social
responsibility in relation to competitors. Business and Society Review, 106(4), 331-352.
Stam, W., Arzlanian, S. & Elfring, T. (2014). Social capital of entrepreneurs and small firm
performance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of
Business Venturing, 29(1), 152-173.
Strike, V.M. (2013). The most trusted advisor and the subtle advice process in family firms. Family
Business Review, 26(3), 293-313.
Su, E. & Dou, J. (2013). How does knowledge sharing among advisors from different disciplines
affect the quality of the services provided to the family business client? An investigation
from the family business advisor’s perspective. Family Business Review, 26(3), 256-270.
Sullivan, D.M. & Ford, C.M. (2014). How entrepreneurs use networks to address changing resource
requirements during early venture development. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 38(3),
551-574.
Tuk, M.A., Verlegh, P.W., Smidts, A. & Wigboldus, D. H. (2019). You and I have nothing in
common: The role of dissimilarity in interpersonal influence. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 151, 49-60.
Welter F. (2012). All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature.
International Small Business Journal, 30(3), 193-212.
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2016). Everyday Entrepreneurship—A
Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial Diversity. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, DOI: 10.1111/etap.12254.
Xu, S., Wu, F., & Cavusgil, E. (2013). Complements or substitutes? Internal technological strength,
competitor alliance participation, and innovation development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30(4), 750-762.

36
 Table 1
Quotes from qualitative inquiry
Direct Competitors
Quality • I think for the most part you have to connect
"like" groups - in similar business or they
don't understand your frustrations and needs.
The nail/beauty industry is very different
from many other small businesses and it’s
more helpful to connect with the same
industry people. (S)
• I learned a lot about pricing my service by
talking to others in my industry at tire trade
shows and conventions. (S)
• The business/industry I am interested in is
not very common so those involved in it are
usually separated by a substantial distance.
There are related businesses whose
owners/operators are generally helpful by
nature and can provide valuable information
with easier access. (S)
Trust/Risk • At one time, [some] of us had our own
private forum, and that worked well for about
two years, but then trust issues developed
and the group fell apart. We were/are direct
competitors. (S)
• [There is] no one I trust in my industry. (S)
• Since I have been in business for 40 years, I
have developed relationships with
competitors… who are honest, hardworking,
resourceful entrepreneurs. Many of them will
share their experiences and opinions with me.
(S)
• We have a current membership to an industry
group. We can find most of the resources that
we need. Other people in our industry don't
commonly help each other because of the
direct competition in a sparsely populated
area. (S)
**(I) denotes interview source, (S) denotes survey source
37
Indirect Competitors
• I would like to compare notes from time to time
with some other people who have a similar
business structure to mine. I have a lot more in
common with other partners in small, privately-
held family businesses than I do with the kind of
(pardon my candor here) self-important jackasses
who think they're out to create the next Facebook.
The structure of the business is a lot more
important than the precise industry. (S)
• I love "out of the box" thinking. I think there can be
a natural gravitation to a person who has crossed
your path from whatever industry that allows for
opportunities to communicate/discuss/ask
questions. (I)
• I get my industry and I am not necessarily wanting
advice on how our competitors or others in the
industry are conducting business…I need my
blinders knocked off…. I want to be challenged on
what I am doing and what I am saying. (I)
• I am a big fan of "cross pollination" where people
are coming to the table from all walks of life. It can
take a little more translation, [but] it promotes
looking at things with a completely different lens.
(I)
• You have to work with competitors outside your
area, to help you with ideas, suggestions, throw
ideas out there… I wouldn't want to share ideas
directly with my direct competition. You have to
work with them outside your competition area, yet
in the same kind of demographics, city population,
income levels, etc.... (S)
• I don't always know that you get the exact
information with your 'local' merchants, often
feeling threatened with possible competition. (S)
• I like local organizations with representatives from
several other competitors in other markets, so you
don't feel like you are giving away secrets. (S)
 Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Me
SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
an

1. D-Rely 0.98 1.15 1

2. I-Rely 2.09 1.32 .313** 1
3. Ind-Retail 0.32 0.47 .011 -.025 1
4. Ind-Mnfg 0.46 0.50 -.121** .018 -.185** 1

38
 5. Ind-WholeSale 0.07 0.25 -.018 -.066 -.115** -.046 1
6. Ind-Tech 0.08 0.27 -.073 -.016 -.198** -.080* -.050 1
7. Ind-Ag 0.07 0.22 -.088 .083* -.154** -.062 -.039 -.067 1
8. Ent Age 3.47 1.18 -.058 -.062 .107** -.162** -.001 -.031 .026 1
9. Gender 0.55 0.50 -.023 -.001 -.163** .118** -.026 .181** -.006 .052 1
10. Education 5.01 1.59 .009 .061 -.117** -.038 .004 .000 .019 -.036 -.084* 1
11. Firm Age 3.17 1.04 -.025 .009 -.008 -.165** .073 -.039 -.012 .358** .193** -.060 1
12. Firm Size 5.04 6.49 -.089** -.064 -.047 .126** -.040 -.040 -.026 .014 .069 .122** .173**
13. Problems 2.08 1.33 .045 .091* .003 .029 .019 -.060 -.041 -.019 .035 -.046 .080*
14. Public Support 2.02 3.39 .053 .152** .014 -.006 -.034 -.021 .001 -.210** -.108** .094* -.260**
15. Firm Growth 0.37 0.48 .078 .064 -.016 .006 .014 .028 -.002 -.163** -.100* .097* -.182**
16. Rural 0.69 0.47 .069 -.028 .088* -.025 .008 .002 .138** .110** .028 -.140** .070
17. Local Advisors 1.73 1.58 .173** .262** .010 -.004 -.073 -.041 -.011 -.118** -.072 -.104** -.099*
18. Non-Local Advisors 1.42 1.52 .241** .362** .014 -.042 -.002 -.039 .039 -.113** -.049 .093* .006
19. Environment 2.09 1.19 .272** .171** .047 .039 -.100* -.097* .125** .038 -.092* .084* -.054
20. Perceived ability of 4.57 2.23 .205** .616** .038 -.017 .002 -.044 .118** -.083* -.062 .047 -.063
Indirect competitors
21. Perceived ability of 3.37 2.36 .561** .192** .059 -.064 .055 -.080* .0.91* -.080* -.059 .065 -.050
Direct competitors
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

39
 Table 2 (cont.)
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

12. Firm Size 1

13. Problems .189** 1
14. Public Support .012 .082* 1
15. Growth .108** -.030 .146** 1
16. Rural -.071 -.099* -.090* -.101* 1
17. Local Advisors .070 .078 .241** .065 -.053 1
18. Non-Local Advisors .124** .100* .153** .111** .057 .467** 1
19. Environment -.098* -.212** -.013 .140** .028 .111** .057 1
20. Perceived ability of .018 -.020 .113** .063 -.011 .216** .258** .247** 1
Indirect competitors
21. Perceived ability of -.053 -.017 .006 .034 -.018 .167** .171** .132** .434** 1
Direct competitors
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 3
DV: Reliance on Advice from Direct Competitors

Ind. Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Industry Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ent. Age -.007 -.022 .010 .011
Gender -.007 -.014 -.007 -.010
Education -.013 -.027 -.046 -.043
Firm Age .010 .013 .013 .009
Firm Size -.116** -.093* -.069* -.061†
Problems .043 .083* .053 .051
Public Support -.019 -.008 .033 .036
Firm Growth .049 .023 .034 .031
Rural .068† .064† .081* .081
Local Advisors .060 .040 .002 .007
Non-Local Advisors .118** .125** .084* .073*
Reliance on indirect competitors .225*** .245*** .333*** .333***
Perceived ability of indirect competitors -.003 -.046 -.298*** -.292***

Environment .235*** .103** .103**

Perceived ability of Direct competitors .579*** .556***
Env x Perceived ability of Direct competitors .091**

R2 0.159 0.205 0.447 0.454

Adjusted R2 0.133 0.179 0.428 0.435
F-Statistic 6.182*** 7.980 *** 23.760 *** 23.286***
∆R2 0.159 0.046 0.242 0.008
F-Statistic ∆ 6.182*** 34.095 *** 257.556*** 8.077**
Two-tailed, N = 609, *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05, † p<.10

40
 Table 4
DV: Reliance on Advice from Indirect Competitors

Ind. Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Industry No No No No
Ent. Age -.011 -.018 -.003 -.003
Gender -.007 -.011 -.021 .020
Education .014 .009 .022 .022
Firm Age .041 .043 .045 .046
Firm Size -.015 -.022 -.009 .007
Problems .034 .054 .060† .061*
Public Support .086* .088* .038 .037
Firm Growth -.005 -.016 -.015 -.015
Rural -.053 -.054 -.045 -.045
Local Advisors .075† .067 .034 .033
Non-Local Advisors .252*** .254*** .150*** .153***
Reliance on direct competitors .008 -.014 -.274*** -.269***
Perceived ability of direct competitors .235*** .219*** .295*** .299***

Environment .106* .027 .026

Perceived ability of Indirect competitors .623*** .621***
Env x Perceived ability of Indirect competitors -.030

R2 0.215 0.224 0.510 0.510

Adjusted R2 0.191 0.199 0.493 0.493
F-Statistic 8.992*** 8.954*** 30.572*** 29.160***
∆R2 0.215 0.009 0.286 0.001
F-Statistic ∆ 8.992 *** 6.701** 342.643*** 0.967
Two-tailed, N = 609, *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05, † p<.10

41
 Table 5
Post hoc Analysis
DV: Perceived Growth

Ind. Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 4 Model 5

Constant -.315 -.064 -.048 -.033 -.033 -.090 -.076

Industry Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ent. Age -.236** -.212** -.213* -.213* -.225** -.239* -.223**
Gender -.332† -.334† -.335† -.335† .305 -.239 .309
Education .122 .099† .101† .101† .090 .090 .092
Firm Age -.182* -.194* -.194* -.196* -.188 -.186† -.181
Firm Size .630** .605** .648** .649** .620** .644*** .629**
Problems -.072 -.103 -.111 -.112 -.071 -.068 -.072
Public Support .024 .021 .021 .020 .024 .023 .023
Rural -.352† -.386* -.382* -.388* -.389* -.404*
Local Advisors -.061 -.072 -.073 -.087 -.088 -.095
Non-Local Advisors .170** .148* .142* .155* .148* .159*
Reliance on advice from
Direct competitors .158* .151† .094 .026 .088
Reliance on advice from
Indirect competitors .027 .004 .006 .004

Environment .217** .225** .210**

Env x Reliance on advice
from Direct competitors .156*
Env x Reliance on advice
from Indirect competitors .083

Chi-Square 53.882*** 62.906*** 66.787*** 66.914*** 73.710*** 78.988 *** 75.784***

-2 Log Likelihood 749.436 740.412 736.531 736.404 729.608 724.330 727.534
Cox & Snell R2 0.085 0.098 0.104 0.104 0.114 0.122 0.117
Nagelkerke R2 0.116 0.134 0.142 0.142 0.156 0.166 0.160
Two-tailed, N = 609, *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05, †
p<.10

42
 Figure 1
Perceptions of ability and environment on the reliance on advice from direct competitors
Reliance on Advice from
Direct Competitors

Cutthroat
Environment
Supportive
Low Ability High Ability Environment

Figure 2
Post hoc analysis
Perceptions of the environment and reliance on advice from direct competitors on growth
Perceived Growth

Cutthroat
Environment
Supportive
Low Reliance on Direct High Reliance on Direct Environment
Competitors Competitors

43
Tera Galloway is an assistant professor in the College of Business at Illinois State University. She
researches and teaches in the areas of Strategy and Entrepreneurship. Her research focuses on
coopetition, legitimacy, strategic alliances and governance. Much of her research has examined the
influence of firm governance on knowledge transfer within alliance networks, and the positive and
negative network effects of legitimacy spillover. She is also interested in founders’ advice networks and
coopetitive networks among new ventures. She has published in several journals including: Strategic
Management Journal, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Research, and Journal
of Small Business and Economic Development. She is a reviewer for a number of quality journals and
conferences, including the Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference. She has received
several college and university-level awards for both her teaching and research. She received her Ph.D. in
strategy and entrepreneurship from Washington State University.

Kristine Kuhn is an associate professor in the Department of Management, Information Systems, and
Entrepreneurship, where she teaches human resource management and organizational behavior and also
chairs the College Undergraduate Programs and Policies Committee. Dr. Kuhn's research focuses on
judgment and decision making, background checks in personnel selection, entrepreneurs' advice-seeking,
freelancing, and public policy issues in employment. She has published articles in leading journals such
as Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Human Resource Management,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, International Journal of Human Resource Management, and
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Dr. Kuhn has earned the Outstanding Faculty
Research/Scholarship Award and multiple Dean's Excellence awards from the Carson College of
Business, and the AIRRIA Research Grant award from the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology Foundation. She has also served as principal investigator and co-principal investigator on
National Science Foundation grants for research on the information technology workforce.

Maureen Collins-Williams is a speaker, trainer and community consultant with expertise in technology
innovation, women-owned ventures and entrepreneurship research, policy and practice. She trains
throughout North America on behalf of professional associations and places of higher education and
offers programs and seminars serving women entrepreneurs at MoCollins.com. Collins served in
progressive, senior-level roles at the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) between 1997 and 2014. She
managed the Small Business Development Center, launched two business incubators and was later was
tapped to serve as UNI’s first director of Technology Transfer. She raised more than $1M annually to
support a wide array of entrepreneur support programs and launched multiple technology innovations
serving small business. Many of these innovations have been scaled and licensed outside of Iowa, earning
awards from the International Economic Development Council (2014), the University Economic
Development Association (2010, 2014), and the Midwest Economic Development Council (2013).
Collins received the 2010 Technology Association of Iowa Women of Innovation Award and was twice
awarded the Iowa ASBDC State Star award. She conducted the UNI Iowa statewide survey of
entrepreneurs and small business between 2011-2014. She has co-authored a number of papers associated
with women, technology and networking. She currently trains for the International Economic
Development Council (IEDC), the Economic Development institute (EDI) and a number of universities
through the United States and Canada.