Strategic entrepreneurial choice between competing crowdfunding platforms

This paper investigates strategic entrepreneurial choice between the UK Big 3 platforms–Crowdcube, Seedrs and SyndicateRoom–that exemplify the three main equity crowdfunding (ECF) shareholder structures identified in the literature. ECF has become a strategic choice for both entrepreneurs and angel and venture capital funds as it offers mutually beneficial advantages to both, especially under the co-investment ECF model where these funds co-invest alongside the crowd. The multinomial probit results show that large founder teams are more likely to choose the co-investment model (SyndicateRoom) but are less likely to opt for the nominee ownership structure (Seedrs). Although less heterogeneous teams are more likely to choose the Seedrs and Crowdcube ownership structures, our results suggest that the probability of choosing the co-investment model (SyndicateRoom) monotonically increases as teams become more heterogeneous. The conclusion is that larger and heterogeneous teams are more likely to raise ECF funds from campaigns explicitly involving professional investors.

“The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes, everything else is pure theory”

We model a soccer match between two heterogeneous teams as a two-stage contest where each team chooses its attacking and defending effort for each half of the match. We characterize the optimal teams’ efforts as well as the optimal effort allocation between offense and defense. In contrast to the theoretical literature on soccer we show, for example, that the leading team may preempt its competitor in the first half. Our analysis also sheds new light on empirical studies that investigate the change in winning points on the number of ties by showing that this effect depends crucially on teams’ heterogeneity.

Mix It Up? The Influence of Team Composition on Employee Perceptions of Stressors in a Post-Merger Environment

Organizational restructuring that follows mergers can be stressful for employees. Heterogeneous team structures may intensify merger-related stressors, as legacy company serves as a faultline, which can create conflict and disunity. However, findings from diversity studies suggest that team heterogeneity has some advantages. We addressed a major shortcoming in the team stressor research, which has insufficiently considered the roles of team heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) in perceptions of stressors. We explored how team composition (based on legacy company) shapes perceptions of merger-related stressors. Qualitative analysis of employee comments post-merger revealed that stressors varied across team compositions. Heterogeneous teams were not unequivocally stressful and results differed by employee legacy company. Homogeneous acquired teams were most disadvantaged. Homogeneous acquiring teams were least stressed. Accordingly, we created labels that describe each team’s unique context, which can advance team stressor research and help leaders properly support employees in a post-merger environment based on their teams’ composition.

“One Size Does Not Fit All”: Revisiting Team Feedback Theories From a Cultural Dimensions Perspective

Feedback is a critical component of teamwork regulation. Research underscores the importance of feedback processes for its effectiveness in teams and further notes how individual differences can affect these processes. Nonetheless, few have theorized on the cultural dimensions associated with feedback to specify how these can attenuate such processes. We contend that research can be advanced by specifying how cultural dimensions may shape individual perception and processing of feedback and team processing of feedback in homogeneous and heterogeneous teams with respect to cultural dimensions. To address this foundational question, we review and integrate the literature on feedback in teams and culture in teams by (a) incorporating the role of culture in team feedback models, (b) discussing how cultural dimensions could influence the perception and processing of feedback, and (c) highlighting important directions for future inquiries at the intersection of feedback and cultural theories. We discuss the links between cultural dimensions derived from the field of intercultural communication and feedback behaviors and processes and provide propositions concerning culturally informed differences in specific feedback responses at individual and team levels.