The Kleiner Perkins Lawsuit, and Rethinking the Confidence-Driven Workplace
nytimes.comStarting to perhaps understand how VC investment results over time have been so mediocre compared to other asset classes. If 'Confidence Driven Workplace' ie. being loud, interrupting -- shuts down a mellow minded person whose contribution is lost (Pao for example) -- it could be a mistake to get behind that kind of culture. A study might show why VC returns are so mediocre.
The non-risk-adjusted RoR through mid-2013 for VCs was 7.8%; the S&P (the market) was up 7.3%. The VC investment was far more risky (obviously).
The LPs (limited partners) have to cough up two and twenty of their investment (MPs take 2% of AUM as a fee and 20% of profits over some threshold return like, say, 6%). So they're not even seeing that highly-volatile, high-risk 7.8% anyway.
It would be an interesting research project over time to see if a culture of decent, respectful relations and manners led to the same or better VC investment returns.
'Confidence-driven' is a misnomer, if you're a loud b.s. artist with money, BAM you're 'owning the room' ?, shutting down introverts with potentially great ideas.
Pao has great academic credentials but comes from an easy-going, somewhat passive culture, shutting down such people with a crappy 'confidence driven' workplace may be a detriment to the LPs who overpay VCs to make investments based on loudmouths and interrupters. Sheesh what a dumb environment.
Most of us doubt that the only good investment ideas come from big mouths who are skilled at shutting (shouting?) down others.
> It would be an interesting research project over time to see if a culture of decent, respectful relations and manners led to the same or better VC investment returns.
What has to happen is there has to be near unanimous backlash against loud b.s. talking assholes. Silence and pause often is interpreted as agreement.
In other words unless the environment of respect and normal discussion is not defended it will end up being dominated by a few assholes. I've seen in this meetings most often, you've seen it too.
They dynamic is often interesting to observe. Get enough people in a meeting and you'll see it. Normal meeting agenda devolves into bikesheeding and the tempers get hotter over which color the buttons should be. Those in charge will always say something. Because if they don't they often can't justify their leadership position. There is a little part of the their brain says "How can I just sit here. I am paid 3x these people, I am supposed to lead, I better say something forceful and impactful". -- "No, no, the button is the wrong shade of green".
It is also interesting how there are "body languages how to own the room and project confidence" tips. Stuff like "Lean forward, extend the fingers if your hands, touch the tips of fingers of one hand with corresponding fingers on the other hand". I saw someone try those tips ones. They were just going through a list of those things, because they've probably read them in book. It looked very artificial and forced, and instead of projecting confidence it projected, well... the opposite.
Aren't you both arguing for a culture of science? Of discussions dominated by experimental results and data driven decisions?
You can be as loud an asshat as you like, but if your opinions disagree with experimental results, tough.
Of course you can still be a loud asshat and right but that's a different class of problem.
The problem is that loud, wrong assholes tend to be be highly skilled at manipulative strategies e.g. Gish Gallop, etc. In fact, it's selected for. And you can't always counter disingenuous debate with honest debate - you just have to kick that person out of the room.
> What has to happen is there has to be near unanimous backlash against loud b.s. talking assholes.
This is basically every VC out there who maintains a social media presence. They just shout and scream how great the teams/products they just invested in. As if yelling and screaming will force these ventures to success.
This article had an implicit promise in its title but totally under delivered in its content. If only things worked differently and we could figure a way to punish clickbait titles, unfortunately, as gigaom attests to, honesty in journalism is currently a liability.
Thre was no substance to any rethink besides an example of disallowing interruption at a writers' meeting. I'd like to see the results of a study focused on the promotional outcome of women and less assertive men in an environment which stresses actual ability over politics.
On the other hand, when competing against outside companies your firm will likely want to have the advantage of perceived ability (type a personalities) when the decision makers make decisions based on these expectations in the dealmaking processes.
I've come to feel that real self-confidence is the confidence to let other people speak as long as they want, and to quietly listen to what they have to say, before responding. It takes confidence to let the center of attention go elsewhere, and trust that it can come back if it needs to.
I don't understand what about a VC workplace would require such aggressive, combative meetings. What does that accomplish that a more thoughtful meeting could not? Why can't meetings just slow down a bit and make sure everyone has the time and opportunity to say what they think?
And if they don't care what a particular person thinks, why did they invite that person to the meeting in the first place?
Personally, I think it's ego. Most meetings I've been in are just showcases of dick length. The best idea rarely, unfortunatley, wins the day. And it's getting worse. Venture Captial is a hits/deal driven endeavor. The more hits one gets the bigger asshole they usually become. And when youre in a room of 'hit'-makers, well there's very little room for different ideas. Its nothing new, history is full of examples. Not everyone is like this of course, but a lot are, and more are becoming. Just part of the natural cycle.
On a somewhat related not, it helps to remeber the 'con' in 'con man' refers to the word 'confidence'. Confidence is not necessarily a good personal value.
I think the VC environment cultivates a [D]ominant personality type in the DiSC chart. As a VC you are constantly being pitched, getting hundreds of emails a day, you try to allocate time but it's too much and then after awhile you turn into the guy who says: "Just get to the fucking point" and focus on the transaction rather than the ovararching social interaction (which is difficult in that environment). Maybe men are more prone to adopting that personality. Maybe if Mrs Pao had stuck around be for a few more years she would have adopted that. And maybe an organization would be better off if they just hired high achieving women as they may collectively take a company to higher heights that a bunch of self-promoters looking out for number one. This is an interesting story that touches on deep differences between men and women (whether genetic or environmental) and how do we address those consequences so far down stream.
One weird thing I notice is that most articles in mainstream media seem anti Ellen Pao. Not this one, it is sort of neutral but most are. I wonder why this is. I figure in trials like this coverage should be more neutral - it isn't like she is a murderer or something else that people usually prejudge negatively.
Well, it would make sense that if there were widespread cultural biases against women drawing attention to sexist behavior or challenging it; that those would be reflected in media coverage. But it would be rude to suggest that that might be the case.
I have personally met Dan Rosen.... CEO of Chegg and he did seem like a jerk using foul language in front of so many audience in wharton summit. and he has been running a company in losses. He had so much negativity around him!
From the way people are talking here, you wouldn't think KPCB has 14 female partners on their team...