Entrepreneurial Echo Chambers: The Harmony and Hazards of Like-Minded Teams
Written by Ariel de Fauconberg
In the fast-paced world of entrepreneurship, the make-up of startup teams can build or break a venture. While most attention is typically paid to the skills and experience that founding members bring to their team, a less visible but equally critical factor is also at play: ‘value homophily’. This concept, derived from social psychology and sociological research, refers to individuals’ tendency to associate and bond with others who share similar identities and judgements of what is important in life. (An example of this would be a biotech company founded by researchers who share an unwavering commitment to ethical scientific practices, and who prioritise transparency in their internal processes and engagement with external investors as a method to achieve this.) In the context of early-stage ventures, value homophily can serve as a powerful force to shape leadership and team dynamics, decision-making processes, and ultimately, the trajectory of the start-up itself.
The psycho-social foundations of value homophily are deeply rooted in the process of how humans socialise and build their communities. Proposed during the 1970s by Tajfel and Turner, social identity theory suggests that we derive our sense of self from the groups we belong to, with shared values among group members forming a cornerstone of this group identity. More recent research has explored the nuanced interplay between personal and social identities further: we now understand better how individuals shape group norms (and vice-versa), as well as both seek to belong to social groups yet feel a need to remain a distinctive person. Relatedly, Byrne and colleagues’ 1971 work on similarity-attraction theory suggests that humans are inherently drawn to those who hold “important attitudes” like our own. In startup teams, the founders’ gravitation towards other like-minded individuals can create a strong sense of trust, cohesion, and purpose – all important elements during the turbulent early stages of building a venture.
Value homophily, however, does not merely have a universally positive impact on startup teams. While shared values among team members do create advantages by more easily fostering trust, facilitating communication, and aligning founders’ goals, it can also lead to obstacles that have the potential to de-rail a venture’s trajectory. One such disruption is when excessive similarity in values and viewpoints leads to groupthink, where the desire for inter-group harmony overrides critical thinking among team members and the realistic evaluation of decisions. Here, the downfall of Theranos is often used as a cautionary tale of when shared values turned into a homogenised culture of secrecy; a collective ethos of “fake it ‘til you make it” ultimately led their venture to fraud. The early days of Uber similarly saw a team united by an unwavering focus on aggressive growth and disruption which, while driving initial fundraising success, also led to documented ethical missteps and a toxic corporate culture as dramatised in Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber (2022).
The balance needed between the benefits of psycho-social value alignment on one hand and diverse perspective on the other has emerged as one of the core themes I have explored in my PhD research on climate technology entrepreneurs, and specifically the role of value homophily in entrepreneurial success. For early-stage startups and team leaders, the science (and art) of obtaining the benefits of value homophily while mitigating its downsides lies in skillfully combining value alignment with cognitive and experiential diversity. Shared values are critical in forming a strong foundation for ventures, especially in contexts prone to values misalignment. To remain strategically competitive, however, teams also need to maintain a variety of diverse perspectives to drive innovation, avoid stagnation, and support their venture’s pursuit of optimal distinctiveness within their market.
Achieving this balance is not an easy task – but it is easier than one might think. After identifying candidates with the appropriate skills and experience needed for their role, effective early-stage founders can engage in values-based screenings to recognise candidates aligned with their venture’s emerging core values while also bringing unique viewpoints and experiences to the startup team itself. This can include engaging candidates in scenario-based assessments, value-ranking exercises, or even reflections to evaluate a candidate’s cultural contributions to the team’s culture rather than just existing “culture fit”. While there is a chance that candidates may attempt to misrepresent what their personally held values are, my research has shown that these deceptions frequently come to light early-on in the venture development process.
Following team formation, maintaining the balance between value alignment and members’ cognitive diversity requires ongoing effort. Practices such as team reflection exercises can help ensure that shared values remain a unifying force without stifling diversity. Similarly, encouraging constructive dissent through structured debate sessions or designating a "devil's advocate" role in meetings can help combat disruptions like groupthink. To be effective, these measures require transparency in expectations and communication between team members. Other useful practices I have seen in action include seeking external perspectives through advisory boards, customer feedback sessions, and collaborations with academics, all of which can offer fresh perspectives that help teams reflect on how their values are translating into action.
Beyond startup contexts, the impact of value homophily extends into more dimensions of our lives than most may realise. In academic research teams, for instance, establishing shared community values around scientific integrity and excellence in the use of robust research methodologies can foster stronger collaborations across groups, departments, and even disciplines. Outside of academia, non-profit and hybrid organisations often rely on strong values alignment among members to drive social impact, especially when working in cross-cultural or bipartisan contexts. Even in sectors such as healthcare, the ability for teams to balance diverse functional expertise with shared patient-centric values has been shown to lead to breakthrough innovations that improve lives.
As we look to the future, our understanding of value homophily and its role in team dynamics will undoubtedly evolve. Changing societal values – particularly around businesses’ environmental sustainability and social responsibilities – are reshaping not only what we think of as “good” teams, but also expectations for how organisations of all types operate. Value homophily emerges as a powerful force, both nuanced and often overlooked. By grasping its psycho-social underpinnings, harnessing its benefits, and skillfully navigating its potential obstacles, leaders can build robust, competitive, and forward-thinking teams capable of tackling complex challenges. As we continue to push the boundaries of entrepreneurship and organisational innovation, the ability to balance shared values with diverse perspectives and experiences remains a critical skill. Whether building a team or joining one, consider not only the visible skills and experiences needed, but also the hidden strengths that arise from aligned values. In the end, it’s this intangible alignment that often separates good teams from great ones.
References
Bilton, N. (2016, September). Exclusive: How Elizabeth Holmes’s House of Cards Came Tumbling Down. Vanity Fair. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive.
Byrne, D., Gouaux, C., Griffitt, W., Lamberth, J., Murakawa, N., Prasad, M., Prasad, A., & Ramirez, M. (1971). The Ubiquitous Relationship: Attitude Similarity and Attraction: A Cross-Cultural Study. Human Relations, 24(3), 201-207.
Hewlett, S.A., Marshall, M., & Sherbin, L. (2013, December). How Diversity Can Drive Innovation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation
Hornsey, M.J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222.
Jin, L., Madison, K., Kraiczy, N. D., Kellermanns, F. W., Crook, T. R., & Xi, J. (2017). Entrepreneurial Team Composition Characteristics and New Venture Performance: A Meta–Analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 743-771.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 415-444.
Mccauley, C. (1989). The Nature of Social Influence in Groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 250-260.
Tajfel, T. and Turner, J. (2004). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In M.J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds), Organizational Identity: A Reader (pp. 56-65). Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Ariel de Fauconberg
Ariel is a PhD candidate in Management at Cambridge’s Judge Business School, where her research focuses on the barriers incumbents, ventures, and investors face as they pursue net zero-aligned energy innovations. A Gates Cambridge Scholar, Ari holds an MBA from Bentley University and an MPhil from the University of Oxford’s School of Geography and the Environment. Ari’s work bridges academic research with the practical implications in climate technology and sustainable entrepreneurship, and has been recognised through awards including the 2022 FT/McKinsey Bracken Bower Prize for a book proposal based on her ethnographic fieldwork.