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:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Proverbial wisdom states that birds of a feat...

Join 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.

The author’s main purpose of writing the passage is to:

a)
evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.
b)
disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.
c)
describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.
d)
list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.
e)
submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular task

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: Reading Comprehension- 3

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

View all answers Start learning for free

< 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.From the passage, which of the following cannot be inferred as a benefit of homogenous teams?

View answer

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?

View answer

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

View answer

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

View answer

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

View answer

Top Courses for GMATView all

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2024

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

100 RCs for GMAT

Top Courses for GMAT

View all

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:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect 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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect 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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect 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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect 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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect 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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect 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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect 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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect 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.The authors main purpose of writing the passage is to:a)evaluate the benefits and downsides of startups with a particular buildup of founding teams.b)disprove an accepted notion regarding the success of startups comprising of homogenous teams.c)describe a thesis by presenting its upsides and downsides.d)list the scenarios under which a particular buildup of founding teams may be successful.e)submit contrasting benefits of various team structures in achieving a particular taskCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.

Explore Courses for GMAT exam