New venture teams (NVT) often comprise idea–conceiving founders and equity–based investors. These subgroups represent a faultline whose magnitude influences the quality of business opportunities. We propose that the faultline strength formed between founders and investors is influenced by structural factors (ownership equity, membership change, preexisting tie strength) and cognitive factor (mental models of the venture). Finally, we address how the faultline strength impacts interaction processes (relationship conflict, task conflict, knowledge exchange) and their subsequent impact on the quality of entrepreneurial opportunities. Our theoretical model provides insight into how informational resources inherent in new venture teams can be more effectively leveraged.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmasonA.C., ShraderR.C., & TompsonG.H. (2006). Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 125–148.
2.
ArthursJ. & BusenitzL.W. (2003). The boundaries and limitations of agency theory and stewardship theory in the venture capitalist / entrepreneur relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 145–162.
3.
BarneyJ.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.
4.
BaronR. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–119.
5.
BaronR. & EnsleyM.D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52(9), 1331–1344.
6.
BeckmanC.M., BurtonM.D., & O'RiellyC. (2007). Early teams: The impact of team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 147–173.
7.
BezrukovaK., JehnK., ZanuttoE., & ThatcherS.M.B. (2009). Do workgroup faultlines help or hurt? A moderated model of faultlines, team identification, and group performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 35–50.
8.
BoekerW. & WiltbankR. (2005). New venture evolution and managerial capabilities. Organization Science, 16, 123–133.
9.
BooneC. & HendriksW. (2009). Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functional–background and locus–of–control diversity. Management Science, 55(2), 165–180.
10.
BrutonG., FriedV., & HisrichR.D. (1997). Venture capitalist and CEO dismissal. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(3), 41–54.
11.
BrutonG., FriedV., & HisrichR.D. (2000). CEO dismissal in venture capital–backed firms, further evidence from an agency perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(4), 69–77.
12.
BryneD.E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
13.
BusenitzL.W., FietJ.O., & MoeselD.D. (2004). Reconsidering the venture capitalists’ “value added” proposition: An interorganizational learning perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 787–807.
14.
BusenitzL.W., MoeselD.D., FietJ.O., & BarneyJ.B. (1997). The framing of perceptions of fairness in the relationship between venture capitalists and new venture teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(3), 5–21.
15.
Cannon–BowersJ.A., SalasE., & ConverseS.A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In CastellanN.J. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
16.
ChandlerG.N., HonigB., & WiklundJ. (2005). Antecedents, moderators and performance consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 705–725.
17.
ChoiH.–S. & ThompsonL. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121–132.
18.
ChoiJ.N. & SyT. (2010). Group–level organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of demographic faultlines and group conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior,31(7), 1032–1054.
19.
ClarysseB. & MorayN. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research–based spin–off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79.
20.
CroninM.A. & WeingartL.R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773.
21.
DahlinK.B., WeingartL.R., & HindsP.J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1107–1123.
22.
De ClercqD. & SapienzaH.J. (2006). Effects of relational capital and commitment on venture capitalists’ perception of portfolio company performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 326–347.
23.
De DreuC.K.W. & WeingartL.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance and team member satisfaction: A meta–analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–774.
24.
EdmondsonA.C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group–level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128–146.
25.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
26.
EnsleyM.D., PearsonA.W., & AmasonA.C. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top team management: Cohesion, conflict, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(4), 365–384.
27.
FerraryM. (2010). Syndication of venture capital investment: The art of resource pooling. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 885–908.
28.
ForbesD.P., BorchertP.S., Zellmer–BruhnM.E., & SapienzaH.J. (2006). Entrepreneurial team formation: An exploration of new member addition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 225–248.
29.
FriedV.H. & HisrichR.D. (1995). The venture capitalist: A relationship investor. California Management Review, 37, 101–113.
30.
GartnerW.B., ShaverK.G., GatewoodE., & KatzJ.A. (1994). Finding the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 5–9.
31.
GeringerJ.M. & WoodcockP. (1989). Ownership and control of Canadian joint ventures. Business Quarterly, 54(1), 97–101.
32.
GibsonC. & VermeulenF. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239.
33.
GoncaloJ.A. & StawB.A. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96–109.
34.
GranovetterM.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
35.
GreinerL.E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 37–46.
36.
HellmannT. (1998). The allocation of control rights in venture capital contracts. RAND Journal of Economics, 29(1), 57–76.
37.
HeraC.M.A.D.L. & RodriguezF.G. (1999). The effects of member change and continuity on the productive efficiency of work teams. Psychology in Spain, 3(1), 88–97.
38.
HigashideH. & BirleyS. (2002). The consequences of conflict between the venture capitalist and the entrepreneurial team in the United Kingdom from the perspective of the venture capitalist. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(1), 59–81.
39.
HiteJ.M. (2005). Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 113–144.
40.
JehnK.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
41.
JehnK.A., NorthcraftG.B., & NealeM.A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.
42.
KahnW.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
43.
KellermannsF.W. & BarnettT. (2008). What were they thinking? The role of family firm mental models on threat recognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 999–1006.
44.
LatimerR.L. (1998). The case for diversity in global business, and the impact of diversity on team performance. Competitiveness Review, 8(2), 3–17.
45.
LauD.C. & MurnighanJ.K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.
46.
LauD.C. & MurnighanJ.K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The dynamic effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645–660.
47.
LiJ. & HambrickD.C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813.
48.
LimB.C. & KleinK.J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 403–418.
49.
LockettA., UcbasaranD., & ButlerJ. (2006). Opening up the investor–investee dyad: Syndicates, teams, and networks. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 117–130.
50.
MacMillanI.C., KulowD.M., & KhoylianR. (1989). Venture capitalists’ involvement in their investments: Extent and performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 27–47.
51.
ManigartS., LockettA., MeulemanM., WrightM., LandstromH., BruiningH., et al. (2006). Venture capitalists’ decision to syndicate. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 131–153.
52.
MillerC.C., BurkeL.M., & GlickW.H. (1998). Cognitive diversity among upper–echelon executives: Implications for strategic decision process. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 39–58.
53.
MitchellR.K., BusenitzL., BirdB., GaglioC.M., McMullenJ.S., MorseE.A., et al. (2007). The distinctive and inclusive domain of entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1–27.
54.
MohammedS. & DumvilleB.C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measure across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89–106.
55.
NijstadB.A., StroebeW., & LodewijkxH.F.M. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 535–544.
56.
ReagansR. & McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
57.
SapienzaH.J. (1992). When do venture capitalists add value?Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 9–27.
58.
ShahP.P., DirksK.T., & ChervanyN. (2006). The multiple pathways of high performing groups: The interaction of social networks and group processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 299–317.
59.
ShahP.P. & JehnK.A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict and task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 149–165.
60.
ShaneS. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.
61.
ShaneS. & CableD. (2002). Network ties, reputation and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364–381.
62.
ShaneS. & StuartT. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start–ups. Management Science, 48, 154–170.
63.
ShepherdD.A., EttensonR., & CrouchA. (2000). New venture strategy and profitability: A venture capitalist's assessment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 449–467.
64.
SteensmaH.K. & LylesM.L. (2000). Explaining IJV survival in a transitional economy through social exchange and knowledge–based perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 831–851.
65.
SteierL. & GreenwoodR. (1995). Venture capitalist relationship in the deal structuring and post–investment stages of new firm creation. Journal of Management Studies, 32(3), 337–357.
66.
TegardenD.P., TegardenL.F., & SheetzS.D. (2007). Cognitive factions in a top management team: Surfacing and analyzing cognitive diversity using causal maps. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(6), 537–566.
67.
ThatcherS.M.B. & PatelP.C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969–1009.
68.
TuggleC.S., SchnatterlyK., & JohnsonR. (2010). Attention patterns in the boardroom: How board composition and processes affect discussion of entrepreneurial issues. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 550–571.
69.
TurnerJ. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A social categorization theory. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
70.
UcbasaranD., LockettA., WrightM., & WestheadP. (2003). Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 107–128.
71.
WestG.P. (2007). Collective cognition: When entrepreneurial teams, not individuals, make decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 77–102.
72.
WrightM. & LockettA. (2003). The structure and management of alliances: Syndication in the venture capital industry. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 2067–2096.
73.
ZahraS.A. (2006). New venture strategies: Transforming caterpillars into butterflies. In ParkerS. (Ed.), The life cycle of entrepreneurial ventures (pp. 39–76). New York: Springer.
