Published Online:

How do founding team members allocate task positions when launching new ventures? Answering this question is important because prior work shows both that founding team members often have correlated expertise, thus making task position allocation problematic; and initial occupants of task positions exert a lingering effect on venture outcomes. We draw on status characteristics theory to derive predictions on how co-founders’ specific expertise cues and diffuse status cues drive initial task position allocation. We also examine the performance consequences of mismatches between the task position and position occupant. Qualitative fieldwork, combined with a quasi-experimental simulation game and an experiment, provides causal tests of the conceptual framework. We find that co-founders whose diffuse status cues of gender (male), ethnicity (white), or achievement (occupational prestige or academic honors) indicated general ability were typical occupants of higher-ranked positions, such as chief executive officer role, within the founding team. In addition, specific expertise cues that indicated relevant ability predicted task position allocation. Founding teams created more financially valuable ventures when task position occupants’ diffuse status cues were typical for the position; nonetheless position occupants with high diffuse status cues also appropriated more of the created value. Our results inform both entrepreneurship and status characteristics literature.


  • Aldrich H. E., Ruef M. 2006. Organizations evolving (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
  • Amason A. C., Shrader R. C., Tompson G. H. 2006. Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21: 125–148. Google Scholar
  • Barley S. P. 1990. The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 61–103. Google Scholar
  • Beckman C. M. 2006. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 741–758.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 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: 3–24. Google Scholar
  • Beckman C. M., Burton M. D., O’Reilly C. A. I. I. I. 2007. Early teams: The impact of team demography on VC financing and going public. Journal of Business Venturing, 22: 147–173. Google Scholar
  • Bendersky C., Hays N. A. 2012. Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23: 323–334. Google Scholar
  • Bendersky C., Shah N. 2013. The downfall of extraverts and rise of neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 387–406.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Berger J., Rosenholtz S. J., Zelditch M. 1980. Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6: 479–508. Google Scholar
  • Berger J., Zelditch M. 1998. Status, power, and legitimacy: Strategies and theories. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Google Scholar
  • Berger J. M., Fisek H., Norman R. Z., Zelditch M. 1977. Status characteristics and social interaction. New York, NY: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  • Berger J. M., Ridgeway C., Rosenholtz S. J. 1986. Status cues, expectations, and behavior. In Lawler E. (Ed.), Advances in group processes, vol. 3: 1–22. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
  • Blatt R. 2009. Tough love: How communal schemas and contracting practices build relational capital in entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Review, 34: 533–551.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Blau P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York, NY: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Bunderson J. S. 2003. Recognising and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 557–591. Google Scholar
  • Bunderson J. S., Reagans R. E. 2011. Power, status and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22: 1182–1194. Google Scholar
  • Bunderson J. S., Sutcliffe K. M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 875–893.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Burton M. D., Beckman C. M. 2007. Leaving a legacy: Position imprints and successor turnover in young firms. American Sociological Review, 72: 239–266. Google Scholar
  • Callero P. L. 1992. The meaning of self-in-role: A modified measure of role-identity. Social Forces, 71: 485–501. Google Scholar
  • CB Insights, 2010. Venture capital human capital report, Jan–June 2010. Google Scholar
  • Chen E. R., Katila R., Mcdonald R., Eisenhardt K. M. 2010. Life in the fast lane: Origins of competitive interaction in new vs. established markets. Strategic Management Journal, 3: 1527–1547. Google Scholar
  • Chen Y.-R., Peterson R., Phillips D., Podolny J., Ridgeway C. 2012. Bringing “status” to the table: Attaining, maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets. Organization Science, 23: 299–307. Google Scholar
  • Correll S. J., Ridgeway C. L. 2003. Expectation states theory. In Delamater J. (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology: 29–51. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Press. Google Scholar
  • Edelman L. 1990. Legal environments and organizational governance: The expansion of due process in the American workplace. American Journal of Sociology, 95: 1401–1440. Google Scholar
  • Foschi M. 1989. Status characteristics, standards and attributions. In Berger J.Zelditch M.Anderson B. (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress: 58–72. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Greene W. 1993. Econometric Analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  • Greene W. 2010. Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Economics Letters, 107: 291–296. Google Scholar
  • Hambrick D., Mason P. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hannan M. T., Freeman J. 1984. Structural inertial and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49: 149–164. Google Scholar
  • Hollingshead A. B. 2001. Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 1080–1089. Google Scholar
  • Jehn K. A., Mannix E. A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 238–251.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Klein K., Lim B. C., Saltz J. L., Mayer D. M. 2004. How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of network centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 925–963. Google Scholar
  • Klotz A. C., Hmieleski K. M., Bradley K. M., Busenitz L. W. 2014. New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40: 226–255. Google Scholar
  • Kotha R., George G. 2012. Friends, family, or fools: Entrepreneur experience and its implications for equity distribution and resource mobilization. Journal of Business Venturing, 27: 525–543. Google Scholar
  • Lewis K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 587–604. Google Scholar
  • Lord R. G., Maher K. J. 1991. Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions to performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Google Scholar
  • Miner A. S. 1987. Idiosyncratic jobs in formalized organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 327–351. Google Scholar
  • Moreland R. L. 1999. Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In Thompson L. L.Levine J. M.Messick D. M. (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge: 3–31. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  • Pfeffer J., Salancik G. 1978. The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  • Pugh D. S., Hickson D. J., Hinings C. R., Turner C. 1968. Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13: 65–105. Google Scholar
  • Reagans R., Zuckerman E., McEvily B. 2004. How to make the team? Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 101–133. Google Scholar
  • Ridgeway C. 1991. The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70: 367–386. Google Scholar
  • Ridgeway C. 2001. Inequality, status, and the construction of status beliefs. In Turner J. (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory: 323–342. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Google Scholar
  • Ridgeway C., Correll S. J. 2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on cultural beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18: 510–531. Google Scholar
  • Roure J. B., Keeley R. H. 1990. Predictors of success in new technology based ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 5: 201–220. Google Scholar
  • Ruef M. 2010. The entrepreneurial group: Social identities, relations, and collective action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  • Ruef M., Aldrich H. E., Carter N. M. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68: 195–222. Google Scholar
  • Scott R. W. 2001. Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
  • Sine H. M., Mitsuhashi H., Kirsch D. A. 2006. Revisiting burns and stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging market sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 121–132.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tajfel H., Billig M., Bundy R., Flament C. 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1: 149–177. Google Scholar
  • Thomas-Hunt M. C., Phillips K. W. 2004. When what you know is not enough: The effects of gender on expert’s influence within work groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30: 1585–1598. Google Scholar
  • Tolbert P. S., Zucker L. G. 1983. Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 22–39. Google Scholar
  • Vissa B., Chacar A. S. 2009. Leveraging ties: The contingent value of entrepreneurial teams’ external advice networks on Indian software venture performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 1179–1191. Google Scholar
  • Wagner D. G., Berger J. 1993. Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program. In Berger J.Zelditch M. (Eds.), Theoretical research programs: 23–63. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Winship C., Mandel M. 1983. Roles and positions: A critique and extension of the blockmodeling approach. Sociological Methodology, 14: 314–344. Google Scholar
  • Wittenbaum G. M., Stasser G. 1996. Management of information in small groups. In Nye J. L.Brower A. M. (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups: 3–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
  Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900