Overview

In the U.S. death-shock study, losing an active founding-team member did more than remove one worker. Employment, revenue, and labor productivity fell immediately, and the gaps remained through five years; revenue declined more than employment, while survival was more than ten percentage points lower than in matched controls. The sample’s inverse-hyperbolic-sine measures capture both firms that exit and survivors that continue below the comparison path. The paper’s vacancy calculation and persistent survivor effects make a one-empty-position explanation inadequate, although the exact lost relationships or routines are not directly observed. These results describe an abrupt forced separation in young U.S. employer firms, not a forecast for planned replacement or every kind of turnover.

Learning outcomes

After the shock, revenue fell more than employment, indicating less output per retained worker rather than only a smaller payroll.
Five years later, treated firms had lower survival, and firms that remained active still showed lower revenue, employment, and productivity.
The study’s calculation suggests exit accounts for less than half of the reported inverse-hyperbolic-sine effects, so damage also occurred among survivors.

Keywords

Founding teamsRevenueProductivitySurvivalIntensive marginExtensive margin

When One Person Leaves, the Firm Changes

This chapter follows what happens after the forced separation used in the U.S. founding-team study. The focus is not simply whether one fewer person appears on the payroll, but whether a young venture moves onto a different path in employment, revenue, productivity, and survival. The results matter because they distinguish a short vacancy from a loss of organizational capacity. They also show why “more over time” is a claim about persistent trajectories, not just an immediate shock.

The first break is larger than a vacancy

The event-study results show an immediate decline in the treated firms’ outcomes when a founding-team member dies. Employment, revenue, and labor productivity all fall in the shock year. The decline in revenue is larger than the decline in employment, which is the first indication that the event is not just a matter of removing one name from a staff list. The firm is producing less business relative to the number of people it retains, not merely counting fewer workers.

The paper reports the five-year pattern in two related ways. In the introduction, it summarizes employment, revenue, and productivity as about 16, 32, and 17 log points lower five years after the event than their pre-event levels. In the event-study discussion, the inverse-hyperbolic-sine measure of revenue falls by about 0.6 in the first year, while the corresponding employment measure falls by about 0.25. Revenue remains about 0.4 lower and employment about 0.2 lower in years two through five. The productivity index—the difference between the revenue and employment transformations—falls about 0.4 in the first year and about 0.2 afterward. These measures are not interchangeable percentages, but together they describe a sharp and durable separation from the matched comparison path.

Why might a single departure produce a gap of that size? The study’s organizational-capital model supplies one explanation. The departing person may have carried customer knowledge, a supplier relationship, a decision routine, or a complement to another member’s work. The remaining team may need to spend time reconstructing that context while also serving customers and making operational decisions. The cost is then a reduction in the organization’s effective capacity, not a simple subtraction of labor hours.

The paper tests the simpler explanation directly. The average firm in the death-shock sample has about 15.5 employees at the time of the event. If the initial employment decline were only the mechanical result of removing one worker until a vacancy was filled, the implied reduction in the inverse-hyperbolic-sine employment measure would be about 0.07. The actual period-one reduction is about 0.25—more than twice as large—and a vacancy effect should fade as hiring occurs. The observed gap persists for years. That does not identify exactly which relationship or routine was lost, but it makes “one empty position” an inadequate account of the result.

The sequence is also inconsistent with a purely temporary interruption. Revenue recovers somewhat after the first year, but it remains lower through the fifth year. Employment shows a similar pattern. The event therefore looks less like a brief pause before the original trajectory resumes and more like a change in the trajectory itself.

Published by DeepMox

FAQ

Why is the revenue decline important after a founding-team loss?

Because revenue fell more than employment, so the firm generated less business per retained worker rather than simply operating with one fewer employee.

What is the intensive margin in the founding-team study?

It is the change in employment, revenue, and productivity among firms that remain active after the shock.

How long did the post-shock effects last?

Revenue and employment gaps appeared in the shock year and remained through years two to five; survival was still more than ten percentage points lower after five years.

Previous9 minCausal Evidence on Founding-Team Loss

Next8 minWhen Founding-Team Stability Matters Most

Founding-Team Loss Beyond a Vacancy

When One Person Leaves, the Firm Changes

The first break is larger than a vacancy

FAQ