The heavy cost of kumbaya–understanding the survival implications of nascent venture ownership structure

Abstract

PurposeThis paper brings in relevant entrepreneurial behavior theory to understand the ownership decisions founders make during the nascent stage of new venture creation, and how such decisions impact the viability of the firm.Design/methodology/approachThe authors examine the behavior and decision making of 137 lead founders during the nascent stage of new venture creation. Psychological ownership and environmental uncertainty are measured of lead founders when dividing up firm ownership among the founding team. Using a longitudinal approach, these nascent-stage decisions are then analyzed to understand the impact on the new venture one year later.FindingsCounter to prior research suggesting teams are better off with identical wages and ownership, the authors find such harmony (i.e. “kumbaya”) pursuit to be a detriment to new venture emergence. Specifically, this study finds that nascent ventures are better off with an unequal ownership split among the founding team members. These findings suggest that nascent firms with an unequal split are more likely to move beyond the nascent stage and launch a functional business.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the results of this study offer a valuable contribution to lead founders and new businesses, the study looked at each startup independent of another and is therefore not able to draw any conclusions related to competitiveness.Practical implicationsLead founders and founding teams frequently divide ownership evenly among the founders. This paper shows that, while convenient, the decision to divide ownership equally can hamper a nascent firm as it moves toward the launch phase of the startup process. These results should motivate founders to think deeply regarding the ownership structure decision and, at the very least, consider the possible negative costs associated with the pursuit of founding team unity.Originality/valueWhile scholars have brought attention to the nascent stage, few have identified and analyzed the decisions that take place during this critical time of the new venture development process. Furthermore, even is less is known of the impact nascent decisions have on startup launch. This study sheds light on these areas.

What Affects Startup Acquisition in Emerging Economy? Evidence from India

“…Both social media and publicly available textual/non-textual information are emerging as data generation techniques (Antretter et al, 2019; Banerji & Reimer, 2019; Cohen et al, 2019; Kaiser & Kuhn, 2020; Kalyanasundaram et al, 2021; Nahata, 2019; Noack et al, 2021; Ross et al, 2021). Following this trend, data employed in this article are sourced from multiple sites.…”

“…On the contrary, diverse teams may lose unity of purpose which may increase the risk of liquidation especially when the cofounders have a similar ownership split among the founding members. Evidence in this front suggests that an unequal ownership split among cofounders is good for the new venture’s progress (Noack et al, 2021). However, founders usually differ in terms of expertise and capability and hence every cofounder is not likely to get maximum benefits from their skills and expertise by continuing their association with the new venture.…”

A systematic literature review of startup survival and future research agenda

“…Moderators strengthen the relationship between the predictor and the outcome variable. The most used moderators in the startup survival literature are the human capital dimensions such as ownership in the family business (Li and Johansen, 2021), ownership of which each team member owns (Hechavarría et al , 2016), pre-entry knowledge and management experience (Dencker et al , 2009; Blank, 2021) lead founder’s perception of environmental uncertainty (Noack et al , 2021), marketing capabilities (Ahmadi and O'Cass 2016) and owner’s education and dynamic capabilities (Acheampong et al , 2017), followed by environmental factors such as competitive intensity, market and technological turbulence (Wong and Ellis, 2007; Kumar et al , 2011) with seven and two studies, respectively.…”