Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:40:24.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growing Pains: The Transformative Journey from a Nascent to a Formal Not-For-Profit Venture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Avery C. Edenfield  and
Fredrik O. Andersson
Avery C. Edenfield*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Utah State University, 3200 Old Main Hall, Logan, UT 84322-3200, USA
Fredrik O. Andersson*
Affiliation:
School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 801 W. Michigan Street BS 4066, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
*
avery.edenfield@usu.edu; http://techcomm.usu.edu/
fanders@iu.edu; http://www.spea.iupui.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how a social venture transitions from nascent to formal status and argues that the transformation of the organization set in motion by establishing formal boundaries is a deeply profound one. Drawing from the nonprofit and social entrepreneurship literature on what prompts and energizes individuals to initiate new not-for-profit ventures, and linking it to a notion of revolutionary crisis as organizations emerge and develop, we seek to illuminate and explore the tension, and its consequences, between nonprofit entrepreneurs and the organization they create as the new venture transitions from nascent to formal. We do this by presenting the results from an in-depth case study examining the gestation and boundary-forming phases of Robert’s Place Cooperative, a plucky start-up cooperative in a midsize Midwestern city.

Keywords

Nonprofit entrepreneursNascent ventureFormal ventureTransition

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 29 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 1033 - 1043
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

Alcadipani, R., & Hassard, J. (2010). Actor-network theory, organizations and critique: Towards a politics of organizing. Organization, 17(4), 419–435. doi: 10.1177/1350508410364441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. A. (2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41–56. doi: 10.1177/104225870102500404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, F. O. (2017). A new focus on nonprofit entrepreneurship research: Highlighting the need and relevance of nascent stage inquiry. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(2), 249–258. doi: 10.1002/nml.21271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, F. O., & Edenfield, A. C. (2015). Nonprofit governance and the power of things. Nonprofit Quarterly, Summer, 2015, 52–59.Google Scholar
Bess, G. (1998). A first stage organization life cycle study of six emerging nonprofit organizations in Los Angeles. Administration in Social Work, 22(4), 35–52. doi: 10.1300/J147v22n04_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brothers, J., & Sherman, A. (2011). Building nonprofit capacity: A guide to managing change through organizational lifecycles. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bryant, P. T. (2014). Imprinting by design: The microfoundations of entrepreneurial adaptation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1081–1102. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00529.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, P. (2006). Navigating the organizational lifecycle: A capacity-building guide for nonprofit leaders. Washington, DC: Boardsource.Google Scholar
Durepos, G., & Mills, A. J. (2012). Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization, 19(6), 703–721. doi: 10.1177/1350508411420196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242. doi: 10.1080/03637758409390197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farías, I., & Bender, T. (Eds.). (2012). Urban assemblages: How actor-network theory changes urban studies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, T. J. (2010). (un) Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 117–133. doi: 10.1080/02680930903314277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (Eds.). (2012). Researching education through actor-network theory. New York: Wiley.10.1002/9781118275825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, T., & Stones, R. (2010). Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Social Science and Medicine, 70(9), 1285–1294. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greiner, L. E. (1972/1998). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Hasenfeld, Y., & Schmid, H. (1989). The life cycle of human service organizations: An administrative perspective. Administration in Social Work, 13(3–4), 243–269. doi: 10.1300/J147v13n03_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, H. (2007). Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 161–182. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00168.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justesen, L., & Mouritsen, J. (2011). Effects of actor-network theory in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(2), 161–193. doi: 10.1108/09513571111100672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, A., & Starr, J. A. (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 5–16.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In Law, J. (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination. London: Rutledge.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Bijke, W. E., & Law, J. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379–393. doi: 10.1007/BF01059830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippitt, G. L., & Schmidt, W. H. (1967). Crises in a developing organization. Harvard Business Review, 45, 102–112.Google Scholar
Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–441. doi: 10.5465/amr.1988.4306967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, W. M., & Lundberg, C. O. (2008). The essential guide to rhetoric. Martins, New York: Bedford/St.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167. doi: 10.1080/00335638409383686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organisation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Potts, L. (2010). Using actor network theory to trace and improve multimodal communication design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18, 281–301. doi: 10.1080/10572250902941812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renko, M. (2013). Early challenges of nascent social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1045–1069. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00522.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert's Place. (2011). “[Redacted] cooperative bylaws”. Ratified March 2011.Google Scholar
Schryer, C. (1994). The lab vs. the clinic: Sites of competing genres. In Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor.Google Scholar
Simon, J. S. (2001). Five life stages of nonprofit organizations: Where you are, where you’re going, and what to expect when you get there. Saint Paul, MN: Fieldstone Alliance.Google Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. (2007). Who killed Rex? Tracing a message through three kinds of network. In Zachry, M., & Thrall, C. (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations. Amityville: Baywood Press.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technologies, and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In Law, J. (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination. London: Rutledge.Google Scholar
Steier, L. P., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2004). Entrepreneurial management and governance in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 295–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00046.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. K. (2008). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for nonprofit capacity (2nd ed.). Long Lake, Minnesota: Stagewise Enterprises.Google Scholar
Winsor, D. A. (2003). Writing power: Communication in an engineering Center. Albany: SUNY UP.Google Scholar
Winsor, D. A. (2007). Using texts to manage continuity and change in an activity center. In Zachry, M., & Thrall, C. (Eds.), Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations. Amityville: Baywood Press.Google Scholar

Interviews

“Levi”. (2014, November). Face to face interview.Google Scholar
“Lucy”. (2014, July). Face to face interview.Google Scholar
“Patty”. (2014, July). Face to face interview.Google Scholar
“Robert”. (2014, September). Face to face interview.Google Scholar
“Steve”. (2014, June). Face to face interview.Google Scholar