Birds of a feather get lost together: new venture team composition and performance

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between new venture team composition and new venture persistence and performance over time. We examine the team characteristics of a 5-year panel study of 202 new venture teams and new venture performance. Our study makes two contributions. First, we extend earlier research concerning homophily theories of the prevalence of homogeneous teams. Using structural event analysis we demonstrate that team members’ start-up experience is important in this context. Second, we attempt to reconcile conflicting evidence concerning the influence of team homogeneity on performance by considering the element of time. We hypothesize that higher team homogeneity is positively related to short term outcomes, but is less effective in the longer term. Our results confirm a difference over time. We find that more homogeneous teams are less likely to be higher performing in the long term. However, we find no relationship between team homogeneity and short-term performance outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    By sex, we refer to biological sex.

References

  1. Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aldrich, H. E., Carter, N. M., & Ruef, M. (2004). Teams. In W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, N. M. Carter, & P. D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation (pp. 299–310). Thousand Oakes: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4), 495–516.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amason, A. S., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(2), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beckman, C. M., & Burton, M. D. (2008). Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bird, B. (1989). Entrepreneurial behavior. Lenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brush, C. G., & Vanderwerf, P. A. (1992). A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carter, N., Gartner, W., & Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carton, R. B., & Hofer, C. W. (2006). Measuring organizational performance: Metrics for entrepreneurship and strategic management research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cooper, A. C., & Gimeno-Gascon, F. J. (1992). Entrepreneurs, processes of founding and new firm performance. In D. Sexton & J. Kasarda (Eds.), The state of the art in entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: PWS Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. R. (1990). Positive effects of conflict: A field assessment. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1(1), 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Davidsson, P. (2006). Developments in the study of nascent entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Davidsson, P., & Gordon, S. (2009). Nascent entrepreneurship research: A review. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4), 81–99.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2006). Does experience matter? The effect of founding team experience on the survival and sales of newly founded ventures. Strategic Organization, 4(3), 215–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Amaosn, A. S. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(4), 365–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gersick, C. J. G., Bartunek, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Learning from academia: The importance of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1026–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organizations as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity in work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huber, V. L., Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1987). Judgment by heuristics: The effects of performance standards and rater characteristics on performance-related judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jackson, S., Brett, J., Sessa, V., Cooper, D., Julin, J., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kamm, J. B., Shuman, J. C., Seeger, J. A., & Nurick, A. J. (1990). Entrepreneurial teams in new venture creation: A research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(4), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kim, P., & Aldrich, H. (2005). Social capital and entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 55–104.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Klyver, K., & Terjesen, S. (2007). Gender differences in entrepreneurial networking: A process perspective. Women in Management Review, 22(8):682–688.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lester, R. H., Certo, S. T., Dalton, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2006). Initial public offering investor valuations: An examination of top management team prestige and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (1992). More like each other than anyone else? A cross-cultural study of entrepreneurial perception. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 417–429.

    Google Scholar 

  37. McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1986). Sex segregation in voluntary associations. American Sociological Review, 51, 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meakin, V., & Snaith, B. (1997). Putting together a goal-scoring team. In S. Birley & D. F. Muzyka (Eds.), Mastering enterprise. London: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 441–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Murray, A. I. (1989). Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pelled, L. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., & Autio, E. (2004a). Global Entrepreneruship Monitor 2003 Global Report. London: London Business School and Babson College.

  44. Reynolds, P. D., Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Greene, P. G. (2004b). The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics. Small Business Economics, 23(4), 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (vol. 19, pp. 131–173). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ruef, M. (2002a). Strong ties, weak ties and islands: Structural and cultural predictors of organizational innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ruef, M. (2002b). A structural event approach to the analysis of group composition. Social Networks, 24, 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of organizational founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Schrum, W., & Creek, J. N. A. (1987). Social structure during the school years: Onset of the degrouping process. American Sociological Review, 52, 218–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shane, S., & Delmar, F. (2004). Planning for the market: Business planning before marketing and the continuation of organizing efforts. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 767–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Jr., et al. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Talaulicar, T., Grundei, J., & von Werder, A. (2005). Strategic decision making in start-ups: The effect of top management team organization and processes on speed and comprehensiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4), 519–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Terjesen, S., & Singh, V. (2008). Female presence on corporate boards: A multi-country study of environmental context. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1):55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Timmons, J. A. (1990). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship in the 1990s. Boston: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2006). Habitual entrepreneurs. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. Shaw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 1). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Verbrugge, L. M. (1977). The structure of adult friendship choices. Social Forces, 56, 576–597.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Vesper, K. (1990). New venture strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27(2), 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (1998). Novice, portfolio and serial founders: Are they different? Evidence from new production firm registrations 1980–1988. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(3), 173–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1995). Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1995). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 996–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. I. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 20, pp. 182–203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Steffens.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 73 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Steffens, P., Terjesen, S. & Davidsson, P. Birds of a feather get lost together: new venture team composition and performance. Small Bus Econ 39, 727–743 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9358-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • New venture teams
  • Homophily
  • Team homogeneity
  • Team heterogeneity
  • Team diversity
  • New venture performance

JEL Classifications

  • L26
  • M12