US public companies have increasingly shorter lifespans, research says

April 11, 2018, Indiana University
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

At a time when more Americans are living longer, the companies where many people spend their working lives have increasingly shorter lifespans, according to research from Indiana University's Kelley School of Business.

A paper by two Kelley professors, forthcoming in the Academy of Management Annals, found that the odds of a surviving more than five years has declined dramatically since the 1960s and that this trend also holds for lasting 10, 15 and 20 years.

Companies emerging as publicly listed firms in the 1960s had a 50-50 shot of making it to their 20-year anniversary. By the 1990s, that percentage fell to 20 percent. Similarly, such companies used to have an 80 percent chance of being around after 10 years, but those odds were down to 50 percent for firms established after 2000.

These findings are based on an empirical analysis of nearly 32,000 U.S. publicly listed companies between 1960 and 2015 by Rene Bakker, assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship, and Matthew Josefy, assistant professor of strategy and entrepreneurship.

The researchers believe that long-held views about the age of companies have changed as organizations have become increasingly temporary in nature. Research on firm age dates back to the mid-1960s, but little has been done since the early 1990s. Bakker and Josefy question whether firm age today is anything more than a number and suggest that it may no longer predict organizational success.

"We believe this trend reflects an important shift in our understanding of the very DNA of what constitutes an organization," the researchers wrote. "Short-lived, temporary organizations that rapidly accomplish a complex task and disband on its accomplishment are increasingly common across a broad range of industries."

In the previous century, many businesses were run with the expectation that they'd be taken over by the next generation of a family.

"The history of American businesses was centered around these family enterprises," Josefy said. "The whole reason of incorporating was so the organization would live longer than the founder, giving them a sense of immortality. Here's the irony: These large corporations aren't even going to live as long as the founder, much less get passed down to the next generation of owners."

Classic management theory suggests that firm age is positively associated with learning, reliability and legitimacy. But today it may have more negative connotations in certain contexts, such as the tech sector, which rewards novelty and youthfulness.

In their paper, Bakker and Josefy raise the question of whether the American corporation is becoming more disposable, reflecting the temporary nature of other aspects of our society. They suspect that the diminishing lifespan of U.S. companies is partly due to more active merger and acquisition activity in recent years. But they also attribute it to a culture that encourages start-ups.

"We live in an environment where starting and liquidating a is quite easy," Bakker said. "Many young firms today seem destined to become 'organizational supernovas,' which burn brighter but die quicker."

Once a start-up reaches its desired objectives, it may be acquired or morph into another entity with new goals.

"While society is often concerned to see businesses fail, sometimes it may be better for a company to die to free up resources and allow people to go on and do something else, rather than persist with uncertainty and stagnation," Josefy said. "Apparent failure of one entity may actually be the precursor to success of another."

Explore further: Study: Retaining talent is paramount for successful firm acquisitions

More information: "More Than Just a Number? The Conceptualization and Measurement of Firm Age in an Era of Temporary Organizations" Academy of Management Annals, 2018.

Related Stories

Study: family-controlled companies more socially responsible

November 14, 2011

Do family-controlled public companies behave differently than other publicly owned businesses? A new BYU Marriott School of Management study shows more socially responsible initiatives in public companies where the founder, ...

Study explores why 'family' CEOs think differently

December 10, 2015

Founder-CEOs and CEOs related to the founder see the world differently than CEOs of non-family firms, and they pursue different strategies, according to new research from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University ...

Family firms better than other businesses

June 21, 2006

A Texas A&M University study has become one of the first to examine the competitiveness and stability of family businesses and finds both factors good.

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2018
It seems the model has become: 1) start a company, keep overhead low and sell products at close to cost to drive the competition out of business; 2) begin to limit variety and quality while maximizing profits; and then 3) go bankrupt and abscond with the profits before entitlements and physical plant replacements and retooling eat them up.

This seems to be the case with retail chains and I suspect also with other sectors as well.

Which is why for employees the best strategy is to move around if you want to move up.
3 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2018
1a. exploit resources as much as possible
1b. externalize as many costs as possible
1c. hire lobbyists/spread FUD to avoid any inconvenient regulation

3a. avoid paying for any consequences of the above.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.