Drawing upon research on team diversity, we propose that assembling a team with deep-level diversity (e.g., goal diversity, personality differences) undermines initial venture viability more than surface-level diversity (e.g., ethnicity, gender, age). Further, we propose that whereas the effects of surface-level diversity are contingent on knowledge diversity, the effects of deep-level diversity are contingent upon team familiarity. We test our theory utilizing data from an incubator program and find that deep-level diversity is more negatively related to initial venture viability than surface-level diversity. We also find that the effects of deep-level diversity become more pronounced in highly familiar teams, whereas the effects of surface-level diversity become more pronounced in teams with a high degree of knowledge diversity. Our study contributes to our understanding of new venture teams by highlighting the unique effects of surface-level versus deep-level diversity as well as the distinct conditions under which each form of diversity are most problematic.
AldrichH. E.KimP. H. (2007). Small worlds, infinite possibilities? How social networks affect entrepreneurial team formation and search. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1‐2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.8
2.
AmasonA. C.ShraderR. C.TompsonG. H. (2006). Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(1), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.008
3.
AmitR.MacCrimmonK. R.ZietsmaC.OeschJ. M. (2000). Does money matter? Wealth attainment as the motive for initiating growth-oriented technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 119–143.
4.
BantelK. A.JacksonS. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100709
5.
BarańczukU. (2019). The five factor model of personality and social support: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.002
6.
BarkemaH. G.ShvyrkovO. (2007). Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion?Strategic Management Journal, 28(7), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.604
7.
BarsadeS. G.WardA. J.TurnerJ. F. D.SonnenfeldJ. A. (2000). To your heart’s content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 802–836. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667020
8.
BeckmanC. M.BurtonM. D. (2008). Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0311
9.
BeckmanC. M.BurtonM. D.O'ReillyC. (2007). Early teams: The impact of team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.02.001
10.
BellS. T.VilladoA. J.LukasikM. A.BelauL.BriggsA. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001
11.
BermissY. S.MurmannJ. P. (2015). Who matters more? The impact of functional background and top executive mobility on firm survival. Strategic Management Journal, 36(11), 1697–1716. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2320
12.
BirdB. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.2307/258091
13.
BirleyS.WestheadP. (1994). A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90024-8
14.
BlattR. (2009). Tough love: How communal schemas and contracting practices build relational capital in entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40633298
15.
BlauP. M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
16.
BonoJ. E.BolesT. L.JudgeT. A.LauverK. J. (2002). The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of personality, 70(3), 311–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05007
17.
BundersonJ. S.BartonM. A. (2011). Status cues and expertise assessment in groups: How group members size one another up... and why it matters. In Status in management and organizations (pp. 215–237). Cambridge University Press.
18.
BundersonJ. S.Van der VegtG. S. (2018). Diversity and inequality in management teams: A review and integration of research on vertical and horizontal member differences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104500
19.
CarlsonK. D.WuJ. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111428817
ChenG.HsuP. H.LeeY. T.MackD. Z. (2024). How deep‐level and surface‐level board diversity, formal and informal social structures affect innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 62(1), 65–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13040
22.
ChowdhuryS. (2005). Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: Is it important?Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 727–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.07.001
23.
EdwardsJ. R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel psychology, 46(3), 641–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00889.x
24.
EisenhardtK. M.SchoonhovenC. B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 504–529. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393315
25.
EnsleyM. D.CarlandJ. C.CarlandJ. W. (1998). Assessing founder status in entrepreneurship: A definitional perspective. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 37.
26.
EnsleyM. D.HmieleskiK. M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34(7), 1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.008
27.
FauchartE.GruberM. (2011). Darwinians, communitarians, and missionaries: The role of founder identity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935–957. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0211
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00119.x
29.
FrancisD. H.SandbergW. R. (2000). Friendship within entrepreneurial teams and its association with team and venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(2), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870002500201
30.
GelmanA.SternH. (2006). The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician, 60(4), 328–331. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313006x152649
31.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.Swann JrW. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
32.
GrossettiM. (2005). Where do social relations come from? A study of personal networks in the toulouse area of France. Social Networks, 27(4), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.004
33.
GuillaumeY. R. F.DawsonJ. F.Otaye-EbedeL.WoodsS. A.WestM. A. (2017). Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of workplace diversity?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 27–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2040
34.
GullyS. M.DevineD. J.WhitneyD. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496495264003
35.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667032
36.
HarrisonD. A.KleinK. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
37.
HarrisonD. A.PriceK. H.BellM. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/256901
38.
HarrisonD. A.PriceK. H.GavinJ. H.FloreyA. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069328
39.
HerronL. (1990). The effects of characteristics of the entrepreneur on new venture performance. In Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.
40.
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
41.
HmieleskiK. M.EnsleyM. D. (2007). A contextual examination of new venture performance: Entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 865–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.479
42.
JacksonS. E.MayK. E.WhitneyK.GuzzoR. A.SalasE. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). Wiley.
43.
JacksonS. E.StoneV. K.AlvarezE. B. (1993). Socialization amidst diversity: Impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 45–109.
44.
KichukS. L.WiesnerW. H. (1997). The big five personality factors and team performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology management, 14(3–4), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(97)00010-6
45.
KleingeldA.van MierloH.ArendsL. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289–1304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024315
46.
KlotzA. C.HmieleskiK. M.BradleyB. H.BusenitzL. W. (2014). New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313493325
47.
KnightA. P.GreerL. L.De JongB. (2020). Start-up teams: A multidimensional conceptualization, integrative review of past research, and future research agenda. The Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 231–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0061
KraigerK.FordJ. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.70.1.56
51.
LazarM.Miron-SpektorE.AgarwalR.ErezM.GoldfarbB.ChenG. (2020). Entrepreneurial team formation. The Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 29–59. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0131
52.
LazarM.Miron-SpektorE.ChenG.GoldfarbB.ErezM.AgarwalR. (2022). Forming entrepreneurial teams: Mixing business and friendship to create transactive memory systems for enhanced success. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1110–1138. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.0393
53.
LazarsfeldP. F.MertonR. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom and Control in Modern Society, 18(1), 18–66.
54.
LeeM.HuangL. (2018). Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organization Science, 29(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1172
55.
LevesqueL. L.WilsonJ. M.WholeyD. R. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.87
56.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.387
57.
LomiA.LusherD.PattisonP. E.RobinsG. (2014). The focused organization of advice relations: A study in boundary crossing. Organization Science, 25(2), 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0850
58.
LuksyteA.AveryD. R.ParkerS. K.WangY.JohnsonL. U.CrepeauL. (2022). Age diversity in teams: Examining the impact of the least agreeable member. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(3), 546–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2570
59.
MarksM. A.ZaccaroS. J.MathieuJ. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 971–986. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.971
60.
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
61.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
62.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, 273–274.
63.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
64.
MillikenF. J.MartinsL. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/258667
65.
MohammedS.FerzandiL.HamiltonK. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309356804
66.
Molleman. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities, and personality traits: Do faultlines affect team functioning?Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(3), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-6490-7
67.
NifadkarS. S.WuW.GuQ. (2019). Supervisors’ work‐related and nonwork information sharing: Integrating research on information sharing, information seeking, and trust using self‐disclosure theory. Personnel Psychology, 72(2), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12305
O’Leary-KellyA. M.MartocchioJ. J.FrinkD. D. (1994). A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1285–1301. https://doi.org/10.2307/256673
70.
O'ReillyI. I. I. C. A.CaldwellD. F.BarnettW. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 21–37.
71.
PearsallM. J.VenkataramaniV. (2015). Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: the interactive roles of team learning orientation and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 735. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038315
72.
PhillipsK. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202238367
73.
PhillipsK. W.NorthcraftG. B.NealeM. A. (2006). Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help?Group processes & intergroup relations, 9(4), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206067557
74.
PulakosE. D.WhiteL. A.OpplerS. H.BormanW. C. (1989). Examination of race and sex effects on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 770–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.770
75.
RuefM. (2005). Origins of organizations: The entrepreneurial process. In Entrepreneurship (pp. 63–100). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
76.
RuefM. (2010). The entrepreneurial group: Social identities, relations, and collective action. Princeton University Press.
77.
RuefM.AldrichH. E.CarterN. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800202
78.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications, Inc.
SchneidM.IsidorR.LiC.KabstR. (2015). The influence of cultural context on the relationship between gender diversity and team performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 733–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.957712
81.
SchneidM.IsidorR.SteinmetzH.KabstR. (2016). Age diversity and team outcomes: A quantitative review. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-07-2012-0228
82.
ShahS. K.AgarwalR.EchambadiR. (2019). Jewels in The Crown: Exploring the motivations and team building processes of employee entrepreneurs. Strategic Management Journal, 40(9), 1417–1452. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3027
83.
SmithK. G.SmithK. A.OlianJ. D.Sims JrH. P.O'BannonD. P.ScullyJ. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393297
84.
StaatsB. R. (2012). Unpacking team familiarity: The effects of geographic location and hierarchical role. Production and Operations Management, 21(3), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2011.01254.x
85.
TanikawaT.KimS.JungY. (2017). Top management team diversity and firm performance: Exploring a function of age. Team Performance Management: International Journal, 23(3/4), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-06-2016-0027
TerborgJ. R.CastoreC.DeNinnoJ. A. (1976). A longitudinal field investigation of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 782–790. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.34.5.782
88.
TimmermanT. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100505
89.
TrianaM. D. C.KimK.ByunS. Y.DelgadoD. M.ArthurJ. , W. (2021). The relationship between team deep‐level diversity and team performance: A meta‐analysis of the main effect, moderators, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management Studies, 58(8), 2137–2179. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12670
90.
TsuiA. S.EganT. D.O'ReillyI. I. I. C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549–579. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393472
91.
TsuiA. S.O'ReillyC. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.2307/256368
92.
TurbanD. B.JonesA. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.228
93.
UcbasaranD.LockettA.WrightM.WestheadP. (2003). Entrepreneurial founder teams: Factors associated with member entry and exit. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-6520.2003.00034.x
94.
VanaelstI.ClarysseB.WrightM.LockettA.MorayN.S'JegersR. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00120.x
95.
Van KnippenbergD.De DreuC. K.HomanA. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
96.
Van KnippenbergD.MellJ. N. (2016). Past, present, and potential future of team diversity research: From compositional diversity to emergent diversity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.007
Von HippelE. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429
99.
WassermanN. (2012). The founder’s dilemmas: Anticipating and avoiding the pitfalls that can sink a startup. Princeton University Press.
100.
WeaverB.WuenschK. L. (2013). SPSS and SAS programs for comparing pearson correlations and OLS regression coefficients. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 880–895. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0289-7
WuX.KonradA. M. (2023). Does age diversity benefit team outcomes, if so, when and how? A moderated mediation model. Current Psychology, 42(27), 23874–23890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03527-8
103.
YangY.TianT. Y.WoodruffT. K.JonesB. F.UzziB. (2022). Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(36), Article e2200841119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200841119
104.
ZalesnyM. D.KirschM. P. (1989). The effect of similarity on performance ratings and interrater agreement. Human Relations, 42(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678904200105
105.
Zellmer-BruhnM. E.MaloneyM. M.BhappuA. D.SalvadorR. B. (2008). When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.004
106.
ZhengY. (2012). Unlocking founding team prior shared experience: A transactive memory system perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(5), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.001
