🙏 Thank you to everyone who participated in our crowdfunded business model poll. We presented a scenario where 20 people (strangers) each contribute $5,000 to start a company with total capital of $100,000, and asked whether this kind of crowdfunded business model would work in Zimbabwe. The results reveal significant skepticism about collective business ownership among strangers.
Poll Question: 20 people (strangers) contribute $5 000 each to start a company with a total capital of US$100 000.
Do you think this kind of crowdfunded business model would work in Zimbabwe?
Total votes: 282
Poll Results:
No — too many people, it would collapse due to disagreements → 162 votes (57.4%)
Yes — that is real collective power, it can work with proper management → 88 votes (31.2%)
No – it will end in tears → 32 votes (11.3%)
Key Findings:
Majority Skepticism: With 57.4% believing the model would collapse due to disagreements among too many people, there is substantial doubt about collective business ownership working in Zimbabwe.
Significant Support Exists: Despite the skepticism, 31.2% believe the model represents real collective power and can work with proper management, showing some faith in structured crowdfunding approaches.
Outright Pessimism: 11.3% believe it will simply end in tears, reflecting experiences or observations of failed collective ventures.
Combined Opposition: A decisive 68.7% are skeptical or negative about the model, indicating that only about one in three Zimbabweans believe this crowdfunding approach could succeed.
Understanding the Skepticism (57.4%):
Why People Believe Too Many Partners Will Cause Collapse:
Decision-Making Paralysis: With 20 equal partners, every major decision requires extensive consultation and consensus, making quick business decisions nearly impossible.
Conflicting Visions: Twenty different people likely have twenty different ideas about business strategy, operations, and direction, creating constant conflict and compromise.
Free Rider Problem: Some partners may contribute capital but not effort, expecting others to do the work while they collect profits, breeding resentment.
Accountability Challenges: With so many owners, it becomes difficult to hold anyone specifically accountable for failures or poor performance.
Exit Complications: When partners want to leave or withdraw their investment, determining fair valuation and finding replacement investors becomes extremely complex.
Trust Issues Among Strangers: Unlike family or close friends, strangers lack the relationship foundation to weather business challenges together, making conflicts more likely to escalate.
Historical Experience: Many respondents likely witnessed or experienced failed collective business ventures, informing their skepticism.
Understanding the Optimists (31.2%):
Why Some Believe It Can Work:
Pooled Resources: $100,000 provides substantial capital that individual entrepreneurs could never raise alone, enabling larger-scale business opportunities.
Diverse Skills: Twenty partners potentially bring diverse skills, networks, and expertise that strengthen the business beyond what any single entrepreneur could provide.
Risk Distribution: Each person risks only $5,000 rather than $100,000, making entrepreneurship accessible to more people while spreading financial risk.
Proper Management Structure: With clear governance, defined roles, professional management, and formal agreements, many partnership challenges can be mitigated.
Successful Examples Exist: Some cooperatives, investment clubs, and collective ventures do succeed globally, proving the model can work under the right conditions.
The Pessimists (11.3%):
This group believes the model will definitively fail, likely based on:
– Personal experience with failed partnerships
– Understanding of human nature and conflict
– Observation of similar ventures ending badly
– Belief that partnership disputes are inevitable and irreconcilable
Critical Success Factors for Crowdfunded Business Models:
Clear Legal Structure: Formal partnership agreements, shareholder agreements, and legal entity structure defining rights, responsibilities, and dispute resolution.
Professional Management: Hire professional managers rather than having 20 people trying to run the business, separating ownership from operations.
Defined Decision-Making: Clear governance structure specifying what decisions require unanimous consent, majority vote, or can be made by management alone.
Exit Mechanisms: Pre-agreed processes for partners to sell shares, withdraw investment, or handle death, bankruptcy, or other life changes.
Alignment on Vision: Extensive upfront discussion ensuring all partners share the same business vision, goals, and risk tolerance.
Active vs. Passive Partners: Distinguish between active partners involved in operations and passive investors who contribute capital but not time.
Regular Communication: Scheduled meetings, transparent reporting, and open communication channels to prevent misunderstandings.
Conflict Resolution: Pre-agreed mediation and arbitration processes for resolving disputes before they destroy the business.
What This Means:
The 57.4% majority skepticism reflects realistic understanding of partnership challenges in Zimbabwe’s business environment. The concern about disagreements among 20 strangers is well-founded – even partnerships between two friends or family members often fail due to conflicts, so 20 strangers face exponentially higher risk.
However, the 31.2% who believe it can work with proper management are not naive. They recognize that while challenging, structured collective business ownership has worked in other contexts through strong governance, professional management, and clear legal frameworks.
Key Takeaway:
The crowdfunded business model with 20 strangers faces substantial skepticism in Zimbabwe, with 68.7% doubting its viability. The primary concern is that too many partners create inevitable disagreements that will collapse the venture, a concern rooted in realistic understanding of partnership dynamics.
For entrepreneurs considering this model, the message is clear: collective ownership among many strangers is extremely challenging and requires exceptional governance structures to overcome natural tendencies toward conflict and disagreement. Without professional management, clear legal agreements, defined decision-making processes, and aligned vision among all partners, the 57.4% majority who predict collapse will likely be proven correct.
The model is not impossible – the 31.2% are right that it represents real collective power. But success demands far more than just pooling money. It requires sophisticated legal structures, professional management separated from ownership, transparent governance, and realistic expectations about the challenges of collective decision-making among strangers with equal stakes.
For most entrepreneurs, smaller partnerships with people you know and trust, or seeking investment from passive investors rather than active partners, may offer better odds of success than trying to manage a 20-person collective ownership structure.
ZimLedger
ZimLedger is the all in one business and finance platform for Zimbabwe. It generates quotes, invoices, payslips and financial statements, manages business ledgers, tracks income and expenses, and builds shopping lists. ZimLedger offers a simple yet powerful solution tailored to local needs. Whether you are budgeting in ZiG or USD, managing business accounts, converting Ecocash statements, or tracking household expenses, ZimLedger empowers you to stay organised, make informed financial decisions, and grow your wealth—right from your phone or computer.
