
Entrepreneurs who start on their own more likely to succeed: researchers - respinal
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/solo-founders-entrepreneurs-success-nyu-wharton-research.html
======
dredmorbius
The topic suggests numerous variants of confounded study design and bias.

\- Solo founders may face a steeper selection curve, therefor more bad ideas
are weeded out.

\- Conversely: multiple founders might get an easier pass.

\- Investors might jam together multiple founders who are poorly suited.

\- Solo start-ups face lower costs, and have a lower minimum altitude.

\- Coordination problems. With only one person, you've got fewer disagreements
over what to do / how to do it.

That's based on reading the article, but not the research itself.

(Thanks to dang for the title rewrite, the article's headline is torture.)

~~~
dredmorbius
Self-reply.

The paper:
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107898](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3107898)

On methodology: "A stratified sample of 65,326 Kickstarter project creators
was surveyed via email. Of those projects, 10,493 completed part of the survey
(16%) and 7,788 (12%) completed the entire survey.'

That's already several forms of sampling bias: Kickstarter vs. conventional
start-ups, and a < 1:6 self-selected response rate.

Sampling can make or break a study. This one is off to a poor start.

"Response rates varied by amount pledged with larger projects responding at a
higher rate."

The discussion fails to not most of the confounding factors I've listed,
though it notes "this research is descriptive in nature owing to the fact that
founders have agency in choosing with whom to found a business".

