Is it possible that high-status partners influence positively or significantly enhance startup strategic growth, while also examining the limitations of superficial affiliations?
This post represents a series of articles related to a research and dissertation called “Are corporate accelerators springboards for startups: a performance analysis of the Microsoft’s and Google’s accelerated.
Introduction
The role of high-status partners in startup success is a key factor in the development of entrepreneurship journeys and one of the underlying motivations behind startup participation in accelerators. These partners can open access for resources, enhance legitimacy, and provide a boost in reputation, namely:
- investors
- corporate clients
- strategic allies
- and institutional collaborators.
In the context of accelerator programs, especially corporate ones such as Google for Startups and Microsoft for Startups, the association with a globally recognised brand (big players in the technology market for both consumers and businesses) could drastically change how a startup is perceived in the eyes of the market. Let's think it as a “approval badge” with recognition.
This section delves into the role of high-status partners which presumably increases startup success rate, evaluating how accelerator participation facilitates, or fails to facilitate at all, the formation of these economic relationships, and how they influence both short-term and long-term performance indicators.
The Strategic Importance of High-Status Partners
High-status partners function as gateways for newcomers in competitive ecosystems. For startups, the benefits of partnering or being funded by a high-status entity are not just material (e.g., funding or distribution) but symbolic. This symbolic capital provides status spillover, meaning the startup borrows prestige and reputation, increasing its chances of visibility and trust from investors, clients, or collaborators (Hallen et al., 2022).
Assenova and Amit (2024) argue that startups backed by high-status investors are more likely to be acquired, scale up internationally, and secure subsequent funding rounds. In many cases, the mere mention of association with a top-tier accelerator or investor transforms how a startup is treated by stakeholders.
Accelerator Programs as Status Brokers
Accelerators act as intermediaries that help startups connect with high-status players they would not easily reach otherwise. Y Combinator and Techstars were pioneers in positioning themselves as such brokers, building credibility for their cohorts by cultivating relationships with venture capitalist firms, business angels, and large tech companies. More recently, corporate accelerators like Google’s and Microsoft’s have extended that brokerage role by using their brand power to promote startups they back up.
Fehder (2023) argues that startups emerging from lesser-known ecosystems benefit disproportionately from this dynamic. Being accepted into a corporate accelerator acts as a filter, signalling that the startup has passed a selective process and is now part of a reputable network. This perceived legitimacy can influence everything from how a startup is evaluated in funding rounds to its ability to close deals.
Comparative Impact: With vs. Without High-Status Partners
The presence (or absence) of high-status partners leads to measurable differences in startup trajectories. Below is a comparative table based on findings in the literature:
| Dimension | With High-Status Partners | Without High-Status Partners |
|---|---|---|
| Investor Perception | Seen as approved and lower-risk; better funding terms | Viewed as higher risk or unproven; harder funding terms |
| Customer Acquisition | Easier to sign clients, especially in B2B; leverages reputation of partner brands | Requires more time to build trust and secure contracts |
| Talent Attraction | High-quality talent is more likely to join due to perceived credibility | Struggles to recruit experienced team members |
| Strategic Deals | More likely to secure alliances, partnerships and contacts, or acquisition deals | Fewer opportunities for strategic growth |
| Market Expansion | Easier to enter new markets through partner introductions | Slower internationalization or expansion |
As Sarto et al. (2022) noted, participation in accelerators can play a catalytic role in making these partnerships happen, but only if the accelerator offers access to meaningful, long-term networks.
Long-Term Influence and Reputation Persistence
While high-status partnerships can generate immediate gains, their reputation tends to persist over time (like a historic record), especially when the relationship continues post-acceleration. Seitz et al. (2023) find that startups that retain ties with their corporate accelerator post-graduation (through pilot projects, joint ventures, or product integrations, etc), it enjoys a form of sustained legitimacy that improves survival rates and above all, long-term competitiveness.
However, Chowdhury and Audretsch (2023) warn that not all relationships forged in accelerators lead to tangible benefits. In some cases, the relationship remains superficial, or the high-status partner does not actively support the startup beyond branding (in other words, as a reputation advertisement campaign) because the depth and continuity of the relationship is not actively maintained nor developed. This results leads startups to have over-dimensioned or inflated expectations once the real market pressures begin.
Conclusion
High-status partners serve as powerful action taker for startup success, especially when accessed through structured programs like accelerators. Whether the benefit comes through investor confidence, customer trust, or partner networking, their influence is higher. Corporate accelerators like those operated by Google and Microsoft amplify this effect through their global brand presence and access to elite networks. Yet, the literature also cautions against overestimating the power of mere association; what truly matters is how that relationship is leveraged and whether it survives beyond the accelerator’s period.
References
- Assenova, V., & Amit, R. (2024). The impact of accelerator participation on startup performance: An empirical assessment. Entrepreneurship Development Program.
- Chowdhury, F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2023). Paradoxes of accelerator programs and new venture performance: Do varieties of experiences make a difference? Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00778-y
- Fehder, D. C. (2023). Coming from a good pond: The influence of a new venture’s founding ecosystem on accelerator performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231204839
- Hallen, B. L., Cohen, S. L., & Park, S. H. (2022). Are seed accelerators status springboards for startups? Or sand traps? Strategic Management Journal, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3484
- Sarto, N. D., Cruz Cazares, C., & Di Minin, A. (2022). Startup accelerators as an open environment: The impact on startups’ innovative performance. Technovation, 113, 102425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102425
- Seitz, N., Krieger, B., Mauer, R., & Brettel, M. (2023). Corporate accelerators: Design and startup performance. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00732-y
