One of the most consequential, yet not fully appreciated, decisions when the Constitution was formed was the choice of a single-headed rather than plural executive branch. This was an issue much discussed at the time. Putting the power in one person’s hands raised risks, but creating a multi-headed executive branch was thought riskier, because it was too likely to lead to a diffusion of responsibility and indecisive leadership.

Perhaps this new study from the business world is an amusing source of confirmation of the decision to have a single-headed executive branch. From the WSJ:

Company co-founders often split ownership of their startup evenly. It seems fair and simple.

But starting off equal may hurt the company’s chances of getting off the ground.

New research finds that early-stage companies formed with an equal ownership split—such as 50% each for two partners or 25% each for four—were less likely to have measurable revenue or employees one year later, says Dave Noack, an assistant professor of entrepreneurship in the Goddard School of Business and Economics at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah….

Today, roughly three out of four startups decide to divide the business equally when getting started, he says. The problem, though, is that when shares are split evenly, no one founder feels they have ownership of the company and the responsibility for running it. And that often means that nobody takes charge, and the startup stalls. So, an uneven split—even if it is 51% ownership for one of two partners—offers one founder a feeling of individual ownership, and that helps them to push ahead.

“The key takeaway is that there needs to be someone on the team who ultimately takes charge,” says Dr. Noack, whose research was published in the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development last year….

Dr. Noack hopes the research will result in more purposeful thinking around the ownership split. Companies often want equal ownership to increase harmony and cohesion within an emerging venture but don’t account for the drawbacks, he says. “It comes down to decision making and who is ultimately going to feel the pressure on their backs to persevere,” he says.

One might be tempted to say this shows the insights that looking at “politics as markets” can sometimes provide.