All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feat... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Proverbial wisdom states that “birds of a feather flock together.”  Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together.  Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team.  Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds.  

Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people.  When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds.  Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory.  Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration.  Even though it is very appealing to opt for the “comfortable” and “easy” decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems.  Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups.  Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.
From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?
  • a)
    Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.
  • b)
    Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.
  • c)
    Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.
  • d)
    Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.
  • e)
    Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studi...
Understanding Homogeneous Teams
Homogeneous teams, defined by similarity in background and skills, offer several distinct benefits, but they also present limitations. Among the options presented, only option 'A' cannot be inferred as a benefit of such teams.
Key Benefits of Homogeneous Teams
- Effective Communication: Team members share a common language and understanding, facilitating smoother interactions.
- Quick Decision-Making: Similar backgrounds allow for faster consensus, reducing the time needed to make key decisions.
- Reduced Interpersonal Conflict: With shared experiences and perspectives, teams often experience less friction during discussions and decision processes.
- Streamlined Task Execution: Familiarity with each other’s strengths enables efficient division of tasks and clear delegation.
Why 'A' is Not a Benefit
- Lack of Diverse Skills: The need for a suitable PR and advertising expert highlights a critical shortcoming of homogeneous teams. While they excel in collaboration and communication, they typically lack a breadth of expertise, which can hinder their ability to fill skill gaps.
- Redundant Strengths: Homogeneity often leads to overlapping skills, meaning that if a team requires specific capabilities (like PR), they may struggle to find them internally, necessitating external hiring.
Conclusion
In summary, while homogeneous teams offer advantages like effective communication and reduced conflict, they also risk missing essential skills. Therefore, option 'A' stands out as a point that does not align with the benefits of a homogeneous team.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.Which of the following can be inferred about start-ups that comprise of homogenous teams?

Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to

On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How Theyre Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really communities, rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingolds definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingolds definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and peoples behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingolds position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreichs view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.According to Simpson and Armstrong, virtual communities

On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How Theyre Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really communities, rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingolds definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingolds definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and peoples behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingolds position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreichs view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q. The primary purpose of the passage is to

On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How Theyre Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really communities, rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingolds definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingolds definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and peoples behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingolds position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreichs view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPT

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feather flock together. Studies have shown that people of similar geographical and educational backgrounds and functional experience are extremely likely to found companies together. Not considering spousal teams in the dataset, it has been found that a founding team is five times more likely to be all-male or all-female team. Also, it is more likely to find founding teams that are remarkably homogenous with regard to skills and functional backgrounds. Homogeneity has important benefits. For the founder struggling to meet the challenges of a growing startup, selecting cofounders from among the people with whom he or she probably has important things in common is often the quickest and easiest solution. Not only does it generally take less time to find such people, but it also generally takes less time to develop effective working relationships with such similar people. When founders share a background, they share a common language that facilitates communication, ensuring that the team begins the work relationship with a mutual understanding and hence can skip over part of the learning curve that would absorb the energies of people with very different backgrounds. Increasing homogeneity may therefore be a particularly alluring- and, in some ways, a particularly sensible - approach for novice founders heading into unfamiliar territory. Certainly, studies have found that the greater the heterogeneity among executive team members, the greater the risk of interpersonal conflict and the lower the group-level integration. Even though it is very appealing to opt for the comfortable and easy decision to found with similar cofounders, by doing so founders may be causing long-term problems. Teams with a wide range of pertinent functional skills may be able to build more valuable and enduring startups. Conversely, homogenous teams tend to have overlapping human capital, making it more likely that the team will have redundant strengths and be missing critical skills.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?a)Finding a suitable PR and advertising person to add skills that the founders lack.b)Using Six Sigma tools that the founders are familiar with to exchange information.c)Evolving from concept to product quickly due to flawless execution.d)Quickly dividing a complex task into sub tasks and assigning them to different teams for execution.e)Reduce interpersonal conflict while making key decisions.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup